Investment Treaty Arbitration: Argentina

Issue

Distinguishing features in relation to the definition of “investor”

Nationality and residency (physical persons)

Physical persons qualify as a foreign investor under most Argentinean BITs if that person is a national of the counterparty to the BIT invoked. To qualify as a foreign investor, a person cannot at the same time be a national or a resident of Argentina, with the exception of some BITs (eg, Thailand, Switzerland and Sweden), which provide that residency by a foreign investor in Argentina for a limited period of time (two years) prior to making the investment does not result in loss of the investor qualification.

Incorporation and seat of the investor (legal entities)

Most Argentinean BITs qualify a legal entity as a foreign investor if it is duly constituted under the applicable laws and regulations of the relevant counterparty to the BIT. Additionally, the legal entity must have its seat in the territory of that counterparty.

Some BITs (eg, Australia, Guatemala, Netherlands) allow entities created and domiciled in Argentina to qualify as a foreign investor if they are controlled by a qualifying foreign investor.

Control of legal entity by a non-national

Most treaties do not directly address control by non-nationals. Some BITs (eg, Japan, UAE, Qatar and the US) contain a denial of benefits clause whereby either contracting party may deny an entity of the other contracting party the BIT benefits if the entity is owned or controlled by an investor of a non-contracting party.

Issue

Distinguishing features of the fair and equitable treatment standard

Relationship with customary international law

In BITs that provide for fair and equitable treatment, recent generation BITs equate or refer the FET standard to customary international law. Customary international law is considered the “minimum standard of treatment of aliens” (eg, UAE).

Illustrations of the FET standard

Recent generation BITs (eg, Japan, UAE) provide some illustrations of what constitutes unfair or inequitable treatment, eg, a denial of justice in “criminal, civil or administrative adjudicatory proceedings in accordance with the principle of due process” is a breach of the FET standard.

Issue

Distinguishing features of the “expropriation” standard

Conditions for expropriation

Most Argentinean BITs prohibit nationalisation or expropriation of an investment unless: (i) the expropriation is for a public purpose; (ii) in a non-discriminatory manner; (iii) upon payment of prompt, adequate and effective compensation; and (iv) in accordance with due process of law.

Direct and indirect expropriation

Argentinean BITs require compensation for both direct and indirect expropriation. Some BITs (eg, Qatar, Japan, UAE) describe indirect expropriation as an action or series of measures that are tantamount to direct expropriation without formal transfer of ownership or seizure. The UAE BIT states that the tribunal “will” determine the existence of indirect expropriation based on certain “facts”.

Compensation

The basis for compensation varies across treaties: market value (eg, Thailand, New Zealand); market rate (eg, Qatar); fair market value (eg, Japan, UAE or United States); or genuine value (eg, Canada) of the investment. The time to define that value is typically immediately before the expropriation, or when the expropriation was publicly announced, or when the expropriation occurred, whichever is earlier.  

Right to arbitration exclusively for expropriation claims

In at least one BIT, disputes involving the amount of compensation for expropriation may be submitted to arbitration without the mutual agreement of the parties to the dispute. Any other matter submitted to international arbitration requires the agreement of all the parties to the dispute.

Issue

Distinguishing features of the “national treatment” and/or “most favoured nation” standard

Scope of the MFN and NT standard

Argentine BITs require the host state to provide treatment no less favourable than that granted to either nationals of third states, or nationals of the host party. The protection is generally granted to investments or investors. Some BITs contain separate provisions dealing with the protection of investors and investments (eg, Armenia, Canada and Germany).

International law

In most treaties, a general provision regarding MFN or NT coexists with specific provisions. For instance, under the Belgium–Luxemburg BIT the MFN treatment is equated or referred to international law. In other treaties, including the Russia BIT, the MFN/NT protection is only available with respect to a standard of treatment due by the host state, such as the fair and equitable treatment accorded under the treaty.

Exceptions to the MFN/NT standard

Most Argentinean BITs provide that an MFN/NT clause shall not impose an obligation on a contracting party to grant investors and their investments any benefits arising from: (i) free trade areas; (ii) customs unions; (iii) common markets; (iv) economic unions; or (v) other similar integration agreements, tax agreements or free zones.

Issue

Distinguishing features of the “protection and security” standard

Extent of obligations

With the exception of some BITs (eg, Armenia, Bulgaria, Finland, Italy and New Zealand), most Argentinean BITs include a reference to the protection and security standard using varying language. The standard can be found as: “security and protection’, “full security and protection”, “full legal protection” or “protection”.

Relationship with customary international law

Newer BITs equate or refer the FPS standard to customary international law. The protection and security required has to be “the level of police protection required under customary international law” (eg, Japan, UAE), and “the adequate physical protection pursuant to customary international law” (eg, Qatar).

Issue

Distinguishing features of any “umbrella clause”

Scope

Some BITs state that “each [contracting] party shall observe any obligation it may have entered into with regard to investments”. The language varies in other treaties. At least one BIT requires a contracting party to observe any obligation “in accordance with its laws”. At least one BIT limits the umbrella clause to contractual obligations.

Issue

Other substantive protections

Free transfer of payments

In varying degrees of detail, all BITs prescribe that the host state shall permit free transfers with respect to the investments made by qualifying investors. Some BITs extend this protection to cover nationals of a contracting state who are not investors but rather obtain a remuneration in connection with an investment (eg, France, Tunisia, BLEU). Other BITs provide this protection but only to the investor, who is entitled to perform transfers of remuneration to co-nationals that worked on the investment (eg, Algeria, Bolivia, Russia and Thailand).

These provisions typically include language establishing that transfers should be made within a reasonable period or without undue delay, with some BITs prescribing a maximum time of two months for a transfer (eg, Costa Rica, Denmark, Portugal and Sweden).

Armed conflict or civil unrest

Argentinean BITs generally contain a provision establishing that investors whose investments were affected by war or armed conflict, revolution, state of national emergency, insurrection or civil disturbance in the host country shall be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to its own nationals or nationals of a third country, as regards any measures the host country adopts in relation to such losses.

Measures that are discriminatory or unjustified, arbitrary or unreasonable

Many Argentinean BITs provide that neither contracting party shall in any way impair by “unreasonable” or “discriminatory” measures the management, maintenance, use, enjoyment, sale and disposal of investments in its territory by investors of the other contracting party.

Issue

Other substantive protections

Denial of benefits

Recent generation Argentinean BITs contain denial of benefits clauses for: (i) investors controlled by non-nationals; (ii) absence of substantial activities in the territory of the host state; and (iii) investments or investors restructured with the purpose of gaining access to the dispute settlement mechanism provided for in the treaty.

Subject-matter exclusions (public order, international peace and security, protection of its own essential security interests)

Recent generation BITs include measures to safeguard essential security interests or those necessary for the international peace and security (eg, Japan and Qatar). Subject-matter exclusions for those measures related to the protection of human, animal and plant life, the preservation of the environment, and the protection of national treasures are found in the UAE BIT.

Issue

Procedural rights

18-month local litigation prerequisite

If 18 months have passed from the submission to a domestic court in the territory where the investment was made, and the domestic court has not given its final decision within the said period, some BITs provide that a dispute between an investor and a contracting party may be submitted to arbitration (eg, Austria, BLEU, Canada, Germany, Italy, Korea, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland and the UK).

Fork-in-the-road

Most Argentinean BITs require investors to choose whether to pursue their claims through local courts or international arbitration. A choice of one precludes recourse to the other. BITs describe the choice as “definitive”, “final” or “irrevocable”.

ICSID or ad-hoc arbitration

The choice of international arbitration forum lies with the investor, with some treaties specifying that the investor’s choice prevails (eg, The Netherlands, Sweden and Turkey). Generally, a dispute may be referred to ICSID or (an ad hoc arbitration under the UNCITRAL rules. Some BITs allow the parties to submit the dispute under any other arbitration institution or arbitration rules if both parties agree (eg, Japan).

Subject-matter restriction

In at least one BIT, disputes involving the amount of compensation for expropriation may be submitted to arbitration without the mutual agreement of the parties to the dispute. Any other matter submitted to international arbitration requires the agreement of all the parties to the dispute.

Government entity to which claim notices are sent

The notice of arbitration should be sent to the Attorney General’s Office.

Government department that manages investment treaty arbitrations

Investment arbitrations are handled by the Attorney General’s Office within the National Treasury. The Attorney General’s Office is assisted by the National Directorate of International Affairs and Disputes and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Internal/external counsel

Argentina generally uses internal counsel in its investment treaty arbitrations, with external counsel assisting in some cases. Selection of external counsel goes through procurement process, with bid invitations and requirements posted on the website of the Attorney General’s Office.

Washington Convention implementing legislation

Law No. 24,353 of 28 July 1994 (promulgated 22 August 1994). Argentina deposited its ratification instrument on 19 October 1994 (entry into force for Argentina on 18 November 1994).

New York Convention implementing legislation

The Argentinean legislation implementing the New York Convention is Law No. 23,619 dated 28 September 1988 (promulgated 21 October 1988). Argentina deposited its ratification instrument on 14 March 1989. The New York Convention entered into force in Argentina on 12 June 1989.

Upon ratifying the New York Convention, Argentina made both reservations authorised under article I(3) of the Convention.

Legislation governing non-ICSID arbitrations

Compliance with adverse awards

Of the 19 damages awards rendered against Argentina, 14 have been satisfied. No information is available for the rest. In some of the damages awards against Argentina, the state exhausted the post-award remedies afforded to it.

Attitude of government towards investment treaty arbitration

Argentina’s attitude is continuously evolving. The current administration and those of the recent past have been tolerant of ISDS and now more adequately prepared to defend the state. Given the considerable novelty of ISDS in the 2000s, earlier administrations were understandably more critical of the system, especially so that the disputes initiated against Argentina arose out of government’s measures to address the 2001 financial crisis. Earlier administrations successfully negotiated many of these contractual and investment disputes, save for some that led to the deluge of cases against Argentina. In disputes where the investors prevailed, Argentina has generally complied with the awards.

Attitude of local courts towards investment treaty arbitration

In cases where investors sought enforcement against another state in Argentina, local courts enforced the awards in accordance with the ICSID Convention. It remains to be seen how local courts would rule in enforcement proceedings instituted against Argentina within its territory.  

National

legislation

Substantive protections

Procedural rights

FET

Expropriation

Other

Local courts

Arbitration

National Constitution

No

Yes

No extraordinary compulsory taxes

Yes

No

Foreign Investment Law (Law No. 21,382 and its modifications)

No

No

Investments can be made in any economic activity, equal rights and obligations as national investors, right to remit profits abroad and repatriate investment

Implicitly (through equal treatment)

No

Relevant guarantee scheme

Qualifying criteria, substantive protections provided and practical considerations

Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA)

Argentina is a party to the Convention establishing the MIGA (adhesion approved by Decree 1863/1990 of 17 September 1990). Within the framework of this treaty, Argentine nationals and corporations are eligible to acquire political risk insurance from MIGA in respect of investments made in certain developing countries, provided that certain conditions are met. To be eligible, the investment must be medium to long term, financially viable, support the host country’s development goals, and comply with MIGA’s policy on social and environmental sustainability as well as the standards on anti-corruption and fraud.

Awards

Convial Callao S.A. and CCI – Compañia de Concesiones de Infraestructura S.A. v Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No. ARB/10/2), Award of 21 May 2013. BIT Peru–Argentina 1994

Impregilo S.p.A. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/17), Award of 21 June 2011, Decision on Annulment of 24 January 2014. BIT Italy–Argentina 1990

ICS Inspection and Control Services Limited v Argentine Republic (PCA Case No. 2010-9) (UNCITRAL), Award on Jurisdiction of 10 February 2012. BIT Argentina–United Kingdom 1990

AWG Group Ltd. v Argentine Republic (UNCITRAL), Decision on Liability of 30 July 2010. BIT Argentina–United Kingdom 1990

TSA Spectrum de Argentina, S.A. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/5), Award of 19 December 2008. BIT Netherlands–Argentina 1992

Daimler Financial Services AG v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/1), Award of 22 August 2012, Decision on Annulment of 7 January 2015. BIT German–Argentina 1991

Wintershall Aktiengesellschaft v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/04/14), Award of 8 December 2008. BIT Germany–Argentina 1991

National Grid P.L.C. v Argentine Republic (UNCITRAL), Award of 3 November 2008. BIT Argentina–United Kingdom 1990

Talsud, S.A. v United Mexican States (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/04/4), Award of 16 June 2010. BIT Mexico– Argentina 1996

EDF International S.A., SAUR International S.A. and León Participaciones Argentinas S.A. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/23), Award of 11 June 2012, annulment proceeding pending. BIT Argentina–Belgium-Luxemburg 1990, BIT France–Argentina 1991

El Paso Energy International Company v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15), Award of 31 October 2011, Decision on Annulment of 22 September 2014. BIT United States–Argentina 1991

Continental Casualty Company v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/9), Award of 5 September 2008, Decision on Rectification of 23 February 2009, Decision on Annulment of 16 September 2001. BIT United States –Argentina 1991

Metalpar S.A. and Buen Aire S.A. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/5), Award of 6 June 2008. BIT Chile–Argentina 1991

BG Group Plc. v Argentine Republic (UNCITRAL), Final Award of 24 December 2007. BIT Argentina–United Kingdom 1990

Azurix Corp. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12), Award of 14 July 2006, Decision on Annulment of 1 September 2009. BIT United States–Argentina 1991

CMS Gas Transmission Company v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8), Award of 12 May 2005, Decision on Annulment of 25 September 2007. BIT United States – Argentina 1991

Houston Industries Energy, Inc. and others v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/98/1), Award of 24 August 2001. BIT United States–Argentina 1991

Compañia de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3), Award 21 November 2000, Decision on Annulment 3 July 2002, Decision on Supplementation and Rectification of the Decision on Annulment 28 May 2003, Award 20 August 2007, Decision on Annulment 10 August 2010. BIT France–Argentina 1991

SAUR International v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/04/4), Award of 22 May 2014, annulment proceeding pending. BIT France–Argentina 1991

Total S.A. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/04/1), Award of 27 November 2013, annulment proceeding pending. BIT France–Argentina 1991

Emilio Agustín Maffezini v Kingdom of Spain (ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7), Award of 13 November 2000, Rectification of 31 January 2001. BIT Spain–Argentina 1991

Teinver S.A., Transportes de Cercanías S.A. and Autobuses Urbanos del Sur S.A. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/09/1), Award of 21 July 2017, Decision on Annulment of 29 May 2019

Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26), Award of 8 December 2016.

Mobil Exploration and Development Argentina Inc. Suc. Argentina and Mobil Argentina S.A. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/04/16), Award of 25 February 2016, Annulment decision of 8 May 2019.

Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19), Decision on Annulment of 5 May 2017.

Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and Interagua Servicios Integrales de Agua S.A. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/17), Decision on Annulment of 14 December 2018.

Pending proceedings

Orazul International España Holdings S.L. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/19/25).

Nationale-Nederlanden Holdinvest B.V. and others v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/19/11).

MetLife, Inc. and MetLife Servicios S.A. v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/17/17).

Webuild S.p.A. (formerly Salini Impregilo S.p.A.) v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/39).

Casinos Austria International GmbH and Casinos Austria Aktiengesellschaft v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/14/32).

AES Corporation v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/17).

Carlos Sastre and others v United Mexican States (ICSID Case No. UNCT/20/2), BIT Argentina–México.

Sociedad Aeroportuaria Kuntur Wasi S.A. and Corporación América S.A. v Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No. ARB/18/27), BIT Argentina-Perú.

Discontinued

Repsol, S.A. and Repsol Butano, S.A. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/38), BIT Spain–Argentina 1991

Impregilo S.p.A v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/08/14), BIT Argentina–Italy 1990

Ambiente Ufficio S.p.A. and others v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/08/9), BIT Argentina–Italy 1990

Giovanni Alemanni and others v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/8), BIT Argentina–Italy 1990

Abaclat and others v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5), BIT Argentina–Italy 1990

Asset Recovery Trust S.A. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/11), BIT United States–Argentina 1991

Compañia General de Electricidad S.A. and CGE Argentina S.A. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/2), BIT Chile–Argentina 1991

RGA Reinsurance Company v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/04/20), BIT United States–Argentina 1991

France Telecom S.A. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/04/18), BIT France–Argentina 1991

BP America Production Company and others v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/04/8), BIT United States – Argentina 1991

CIT Group Inc. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/04/9), BIT United States–Argentina 1991

Azurix Corp. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/30), BIT United States–Argentina 1991

Telefónica S.A. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/20), BIT Spain–Argentina 1991

Aguas Cordobesas S.A., Suez, and Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/18), BIT France – Argentina 1991, BIT Spain – Argentina 1991

Pan American Energy LLC and BP Argentina Exploration Company v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/13), BIT United States–Argentina 1991

Pioneer Natural Resources Company, Pioneer Natural Resources (Argentina) S.A. and Pioneer Natural Resources (Tierra del Fuego) S.A. v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/12), BIT United States–Argentina 1991

Camuzzi International S.A. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/7), BIT Argentina–Belgium-Luxemburg 1990, BIT United States–Argentina 1991

Sempra Energy International v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16), BIT United States–Argentina 1991

Siemens A.G. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8), BIT Germany–Argentina 1991

LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp. and LG&E International Inc. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1), BIT United States–Argentina 1991

Empresa Nacional de Electricidad S.A. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/99/4), BIT Chile–Argentina 1991

Mobil Argentina S.A. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/99/1), BIT United States–Argentina 1991

Lanco International, Inc. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/97/6), BIT United States–Argentina 1991

Abertis Infraestructuras, S.A. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/48), BIT Spain-Argentina 1991

HOCHTIEF Aktiengesellschaft v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/31), BIT Germany-Argentina

Electricidad Argentina S.A. and EDF International S.A. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/22), BIT France–Argentina

Enersis S.A. and others v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/21), BIT Chile-Argentina

Gas Natural SDG, S.A. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/10), BIT Argentina–Spain, BIT Argentina–United States of America

Enron Creditors Recovery Corporation (formerly Enron Corporation) and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3), BIT Argentina–United States of America

Article/book

Ignacio Torterola and Diego Brian Gosis, ‘Argentina’ in Jonathan C. Hamilton, Omar E. Garcia Bolivar, et al. (eds), Latin American Investment Protections: Comparative Perspectives on Laws, Treaties, and Disputes for Investors, States and Counsel (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2012) 5-52

Ignacio Torterola, Diego Brian Gosis and Quinn Smith, Investment Arbitration in Latin America in International Arbitration 2021, International Comparative Legal Guides (2021), 295-304

Ignacio Torterola, Diego Brian Gosis and Quinn Smith, Investment Treaty Arbitration (2018), Latin Lawyer, available at https://latinlawyer.com/guide/the-guide-infrastructure-and-energy-investment/third-edition/article/investment-treaty-arbitration

Emmanuel Gaillard and Ilija Mitrev Penushliski, State Compliance with Investment Awards, ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal, Volume 35, Issue 3, autumn2020, 540–594

Fabricio Fortese, Arbitration in Argentina (Kluwer Law International 2020), Part III: Investor-State Arbitration 451–710

Marilda Rosado de Sá Ribeiro and Orlanda José Guterres Costa Júnior, ‘Global Governance and Investment Treaty Arbitration: The Importance of the Argentine Crisis for Future Disputes’ (2015) 14:3 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals: A Practitioners’ Journal 417 – 437

Antoine Martin, ‘Investment Disputes after Argentina’s Economic Crisis: Interpreting BIT Non-precluded Measures and the Doctrine of Necessity under Customary International Law’ (2012) 29:1 Journal of International Arbitration 49–70

William W. Burke-White, ‘Part IV, Chapter 17: The Argentine Financial Crisis: State Liability under BITs and the Legitimacy of the ICSID System’, in Michael Waibel, Asha Kaushal, et al. (eds), The Backlash against Investment Arbitration (Kluwer Law International 2010) 407–432

Paolo Di Rosa, ‘The Recent Wave of Arbitrations against Argentina under Bilateral Investment Treaties: Background and Principal Legal Issues’ (2004) 36:1 The University of Miami Inter-American Law Review (Symposium Edition: International Arbitration) 41–71

Leonardo E. Stanley, Acuerdos bilaterales de inversión y demandas ante Tribunales Internacionales: la experiencia argentina reciente (Serie Desarrollo Productivo No.158, CEPAL 2004), available at www.cepal.org/es/publicaciones/acuerdos-bilaterales-de-inversion-y-demandas-ante-tribunales-internacionales-la

Horacio D. Rosatti, ‘Los Tratados Bilaterales de Inversión, El Arbitraje Internacional Obligatorio y el Sistema Jurídico Argentino’ (2003/2004) available at www.cepal.org/drni/noticias/noticias/7/13167/12.pdf

Kathryn Khamsi, ‘Part II Chapter 8: Compensation for Non-expropriatory Investment Treaty Breaches in the Argentine Gas Sector Cases: Issues and Implications’ in Michael Waibel, Asha Kaushal, et al. (eds), The Backlash against Investment Arbitration (Kluwer Law International 2010) 165 – 185

José E. Alvarez and Kathryn Khamsi, ‘The Argentine Crisis and Foreign Investors: A Glimpse into the Heart of the Investment Regime’ (2009) Yearbook on International Investment Law and Policy 2008–2009 379 – 478

Esteban M. Ymaz Videla, ‘Los Tratados Bilaterales de Inversiones, el CIADI y Cuestiones del Arbitraje Inversor Extranjero – Estado Receptor, con Base en la Experiencia Argentina’ (2005) II:8 Revista Brasileira de Arbitragem 101 – 127

Ricardo Beltramino, La promoción de inversiones en los acuerdos de inversiones firmados por argentina (Documento de trabajo No. 49, FLACSO 2010), available at http://rrii.flacso.org.ar/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/FLA_Doc49.pdf

Leonardo Stanley and Michael Mortimore, "La Argentina y los Tratados Bilaterales de Inversión: El Costo de los Compromisos Internacionales", Desarrollo Económico Vol. 46, No. 182, 189-214

Mariana Herz, Régimen Argentino De Promoción Y Protección De Inversiones En Los Albores

Del Nuevo Milenio: De Los Tratados Bilaterales, MERCOSUR Mediante, al ALCA y la OMC, Séptima Revista Electrónica de Estudios Internacionales (2003), available at https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/792219.pdf

Veronica Hynes, Bilateral Investment Treaty-based Investment Arbitration against Argentina following the Argentina Economic Crisis, TDM 3 (2004), available at

www.transnational-dispute-management.com/article.asp?key=204\