Newsletter

Signup

Sign up for the monthly ARC newsletter and stay up-to-date with all the new ARC news.

Email address

Sign up
We use cookies on our site. Cookies are small text files that are placed on your device when you visit our site. Our cookies do not contain any personal information that we can identify you by. This information is aggregated in order to see how visitors use our site as a whole. By continuing to use this website you are agreeing to cookies being used. close

Case Summary: Pac Rim Cayman LLC v El Salvador

Tags: ISDS ICS TTIP Investment protection Investment TRADE ICSID

Our next case summary is Pac Rim Cayman LLC v. El Salvador.

The summary is prepared based on the award rendered in October 2016.

The claim was brought based on the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and El Salvadoran Investment Law.

The investor held an exploration permit for a largely-underground gold mining site in Eldorado and further applied for an exploitation permit. The dispute arose from the government’s refusal to grant exploitation license, which, according to the investor, amounted to several breaches of El Salvadoran Investment Law.

Meanwhile, the state based its refusal on the failure of the investor to obtain either ownership rights to all of the surface land in the concession area, or authorisations from all relevant landowners, as required under the Mining Law.

The tribunal decided to hear the claims under El Salvadoran law, which was allowed under the ICSID Convention, after it ruled that it did not have jurisdiction under the CAFTA.

The tribunal sided with the state and disagreed with the investor’s interpretation of the Mining Law which would not require authorisations from surface-level landowners if the activity does not involve surface-level land. According to the tribunal, the mining might pose environmental risks to surface landowners. Therefore, the investor’s interpretation was disproportionate to the risks.

In conclusion, the tribunal found that the investor did not comply with the requirement under the Mining Law to be granted an exploitation permit and therefore the government did not have any obligation to grant such permit to the investor.

The investor was also ordered to pay the majority of the state’s costs in the proceedings.

See other case summaries involving the mining industry here.

 

“The original version of this article was posted on the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce’s ISDS Blog on 15 November 2016."

Please note that the views of our guest bloggers do not necessarily reflect the views or position of the Alliance for Responsible Commerce and ARC.trade.

Hi and welcome to the Alliance for Responsible Commerce's website

We are currently not updating our website with new content, but feel free to browse around by clicking on the x at the top right corner.