1) In SPP v Egypt, the dispute arose out of Egypt’s termination of a tourism development project in which SPP, a Hong Kong company, was engaged. In 1974, SPP entered into agreements with Egypt to establish a joint venture (ETDC) to develop an international tourist complex at the Pyramids Oasis in Egypt. In 1978, as a result of parliamentary opposition, the government effectively cancelled the project placing ETDC in judicial trusteeship.
2) In 1978, SPP and SPP (ME) started an ICC arbitration against Egypt government, and obtained an award of USD12.5 millions for remedy. However, the award was later annulled by French courts on jurisdictional grounds.
3) In 1984, SPP and SPP (ME) brought the same case before an ICSID Tribunal for deciding the matter, and in 1992, award based on Egyptian and international law, the tribunal held in favor of the claimants and held that Egypt’s action constituted a lawful expropriation of the Claimants investment, and so that Egypt was requested to pay “equitable compensation” for the value of the expropriated investment. In the final award, the tribunal awarded the Claimant USD27.6 millions.
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
4) ICSID is one of the five organizations of the World Bank Group. It was established in 1965 and its aim is to…show more content… The respondent (Egypt) argued that there was an implicit agreement between the parties which the first sentence of Art 42(1) of the ICSID Convention to apply the law of Egypt. The Respondent’s view is that there was no need that the applicable law be expressed and the parties through their reference in the preamble of the “Heads of Agreement” to Egyptian laws has expressed the choice of law to be Egyptian law. The Claimant disagree with Respondent’s position, and