- 55 -
whatsoever in international law”, is regarded as compensation to
Aminoil for expropriation of the concession, “which otherwise
would have extended for 30 years into the future.” He bases that
latter conclusion on three assumptions: (1) the tribunal did not
exceed its authority; (2) because the tribunal held the
expropriation to be lawful, international law required
compensation for the “value of the undertaking”, which includes
both a value for the fixed and non-fixed assets taken and a value
for the concession rights; and, (3) the nominal compensation
recited by the tribunal represents only the sum of the
depreciated replacement value of the fixed assets and the
accepted value of the non-fixed assets. Mr. Brower’s reasoning
leading to his third assumption is the same as our reasoning
leading to our conclusion that there is an “unresolved tension”
between the tribunal’s numbers and its representations concerning
compensation for Aminoil’s “legitimate expectations”. See supra
sec. III.B.4. Mr. Brower concludes: “Thus, the Tribunal could
not within the range of $206,041,000 have granted both the
undisputed value of the expropriated assets and have awarded
anything in respect of the concession. Only the ‘level of
inflation’ could have done that.”
Mr. Brower is also of the opinion that the tribunal’s
“studied opacity” with respect to any element of the awards being
measured by loss of profits is consistent with relevant practices
Page: Previous 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011