SBORNÍK 66 SVOČ 2016

obligations. 77 The BIT in Sempra v Argentina contained such provision, but it only lead the tribunal to apply the standard from customary international law. The respective provision read: ‘This Treaty shall not preclude the application by either Party of measures necessary for the maintenance of public order, the fulfillment of its obligations with respect to the maintenance or restoration of international peace or security, or the protection of its own essential security interests.‘ 78 The tribunal ruled that the treaty did not define the term ‘essential security interest’ and interpreted it in the light of the definition of state of necessity from customary international law as stated in Art 25 of the ILC Draft Articles. 79 Reasons why human rights arguments in SAUR v Argentina failed are less clear. In this case the tribunal acknowledged that human rights should be taken into account; 80 however, they should be balanced against BIT rights. 81 Without mentioning human rights again, the tribunal ultimately found a breach of the BIT and awarded damages. 82 A rather special situation emerged in Biwater v Tanzania . The issue of human rights was raised by amici curiae (see section III.B). Tanzania was found guilty of breach of the BIT, 83 meaning that the obligation to observe human rights did not prevent the state from finding itself in a breach of a contract. However, as discussed in section V.C, the investor was not awarded any damages in this case. If the above described cases are any indicator of the overall situation, it is extremely difficult for a state to use human rights arguments and plea the state of necessity. The standard from customary international is very difficult to achieve and the BIT provisions do not soften it. As proposed in section III.B, the fact that states are aware that if they use certain measures to secure the protection of human rights, they might face law suit from investors, threatens the level of protection of human rights. C. Successful Use of Human Rights Arguments The outcome of the remaining cases that were examined, Al-Warraq v Indonesia and parallel cases of Veteran Petroleum Limited v Russia , Yukos Universal Limited v Russia , and Hulley Enterprises Limited v Russia , should be briefly mentioned. In Al-Warraq v Indonesia , the breach of investors human rights in the form of denial of justice amounted to the breach of fair and equitable treatment provision 77 Vivendi v Argentina (n 39) [270], cf [267]. 78 Sempra v Argentina (n 38) [365]. 79 Sempra v Argentina (n 38) [375], [376]. 80 SAUR International SA v Argentine Republic (Decisión Sobre Jurisdicción y Sobre Responsabilidad of 6 June 2012) ICSID Case No ARB/04/4 [330]. 81 ibid [331]. 82 ibid page 140. 83 ibid [519], [605].

154