Continental Casualty Co. v. Argentine Republic
Tribunal of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
I.C.S.I.D. Case No. ARB/03/9 (Sept. 5, 2008)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
Continental Casualty Company (Continental) (plaintiff), a U.S. company, owned an Argentine insurance company named CNA Aseguradora de Riesgos del Trabajo S.A. (CNA ART). CNA ART in turn owned various dollar-based assets in Argentina (defendant). Continental brought suit against Argentina, claiming that CNA ART’s assets were severely harmed as a result of recently passed Argentine laws that: (1) required the conversion of U.S.-dollar deposits into pesos and (2) restricted investment transfers out of Argentina in violation of Argentina’s obligation under the U.S.-Argentine Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) to treat foreign investors fairly and equitably. Argentina contended that the implemented measures were necessary to relieve Argentina’s failing social and economic conditions and that any breaches of the standard should be excused based on Article XI of the BIT, which provides that a nation may implement measures necessary for the maintenance of public order or the protection of significant national interests. Continental argued that the necessity defense was unavailable under both Article XI and customary international law because Argentina had other means available to protect its economy that should have been implemented first, regardless of the potentially burdensome cost or inconvenience of the measures.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.