- 20 - except for Aminoil’s contention relying on the “stabilization clauses” of the concession agreement (the stabilization clauses). Introducing the tribunal’s analysis of the stabilization clauses, section five states: Nevertheless, Aminoil’s concessionary contract contained specific provisions in the light of which it may be queried whether the nationalisation was in truth lawful. The stabilization clauses are set forth in section five as follows: The period of this Agreement shall be sixty (60) years from the date of signature. * * * * * The Sheikh shall not by general or special legislation or by administrative measures or by any other act whatever annul this Agreement except as provided in Article 11. No alteration shall be made in the terms of this agreement by either the Sheikh or the Company except in the event the Sheikh or the Company jointly agreeing that it is desirable in the interest of both parties to make certain alterations, deletions or additions to this agreement. * * * * * [Article 11(b)] Save as aforesaid this Agreement shall not be terminated before the expiration of the period specified in Article 1 thereof except by surrender as provided in Article 12 or if the Company shall be in default under the arbitration provisions of Article 18. Section five continues: “A straightforward and direct reading of them [the stabilization clauses] can lead to the conclusion that they prohibit any nationalisation.” Nevertheless, the tribunal concluded that the expropriation was valid, based on the following grounds: (1) The stabilization clauses do not prohibit nationalization in so many words, (2) a stabilization clausePage: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011