- 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 clause
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011