Originally from: Annulment of ICSID Awards

Preview Page

I. Annulment in the ICSID System

In the framework of ICSID arbitration, annulment was designed as an extraordinary remedy for unusual and important cases. It is not a routine step to be taken by a party that has lost a case. Successive ad hoc committees have emphasized that annulment is different from appeal.[1] But their approach towards their task has not been uniform and has not been subject to some change over time. 

The history of annulment under the ICSID Convention can be described in terms of three generations. The first two ICSID annulment cases, Klockner I[2] and Amco I[3] aroused much concern. 

They were criticized for reexamining the merits of the two cases and for improperly crossing the line between annulment and appeal.[4]

These concerns were alleviated by the second generation of decisions in MINE[5] as well as in Klockner II and Amco II. Unfortunately the decisions in Klockner II and Amco II have remained unpublished.

The third generation of ICSID annulment cases consist of the two decisions on annulment rendered in 2002 in Wena[6] and in Vivendi.[7] They demonstrate that the ICSID annulment process has found its proper balance. In particular, the two decisions of 2002 show that ad hoc committees will only intervene in serious and important cases.