- 52 -
agreement], and (3) “interest”. As a matter of interpretation,
therefore, the tribunal’s provision in the award of the compound
10-percent per annum “level of inflation” must fall within one or
another of those categories or be outside of the tribunal’s scope
of authority. We have no reason to believe that the tribunal
acted outside of the scope of its authority, and we reject that
possibility. Moreover, language in paragraph 178 of the award
(“Amounts due to Aminoil”) indicates that the disputed item is
not within the category of interest. In subparagraph (5) of
paragraph 178, the tribunal expressly differentiates between “a
reasonable rate of interest, which could be put at 7.5%,” and “a
level of inflation which the Tribunal fixes at an overall rate of
10%,” which suggests that (1) the tribunal considered “interest”
and “the level of inflation” to be separate items and (2) the
latter, therefore, must be either “compensation” or “damages”.
The tribunal’s reasoning is, thus, ambiguous as to how it
came to measure the amount of compensation owing to Aminoil and
whether the tribunal might have taken into account any value
measured by the potential of the concession to generate profits.
Petitioner’s argument that the tribunal’s compensation did
include an element of compensation measured by loss of future
profit in a disguised way--specifically, through the “level of
inflation”--is plausible. In contrast, respondent failed to
persuade us that the award is clear on its face or that the
Page: Previous 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011