Introduction
The creation of documents on this or that case is a significant and responsible business, which requires a lot of attention and experience. One of the essential components of such agreements is a specialist who will help to create them, providing all the details and opportunities of the agreement between the parties. Thus, it is crucial to consider the factor of care, not only in the creation of the deal but at the same time in the prescription of the rules for its correct judgment, so that through judicial intervention, there are as few questions and claims against the parties. Thus, it should be considered that in addition to the creation of the contract, it is necessary to consider the possibility of its contestation, which means the creation of a set of rules for the future potential of the rescission of the contract. One such case is the case of the TSA spectrum vs. the government of Argentina on December 19, 2008, because it has some peculiarities which make it different from other similar cases.
The Main Information
First of all, it is necessary to delve into not only the information of the parties but, at the same time, the historical information which is attached to the materials. Judging by the document, it is necessary to establish the wording of a foreign citizen and a resident of the country, as they differ significantly from each other. This document clearly demonstrates and describes the difference between the concepts, as well as provides information that will be helpful in the course of the case. One of them is to give additional examples, which are considered as opposition to the case and how it differs from similar circumstances. First of all, it relates to the article at issue in the proceedings, namely Article 2(a)(b) (International Centre For Settlement Of Investment Disputes, 2015). From its description, it provides for complete obedience to the sentence and compliance with the rules set by the court without the possibility of appeal. It was applied accordingly to this case because, after the judgment, the Argentine party refused to perform its obligations under the contract, even after the law was established with respect to the stipulated agreement towards its performance.
Adherence to the treaty is non-assignable and binding even upon the demand for its severance by both parties. Judging from the text of Article 25, as the work is being written, other concepts may become the analysis and interpretation of the information obtained, such as the definition of a legal person in accordance with international law and how this affects the process of hearing the case itself.
The Case Details
It is worth taking into account small details that influenced the process of adjudication of the case. A lot was tied to the citizenship of one of the parties, which influenced the trial and confused the hearers on it. A future study of the case will show the importance of the information in the documents and how it plays a vital role in the whole process of the claim. In addition, it is essential to consider the examples given in the analysis. In many points, they diverge from the TSA lawsuit against Argentina because even minor points are essential in the drafting of a contract. Thus, in the two cases of Tokios Tokelés v. Ukraine and Rompetrol Group N.V. v. Romania, the tribunals adopted the strict constructionist interpretation in spite of the control of foreign companies by nationals of the host States (International Centre For Settlement Of Investment Disputes, 2015). These examples are considered because the preliminary evidence is broadly similar, but they do not fit Article 2(a)(ab) because they do not calculate foreign nationality to the extent considered in the suit in question. Speaking of the details of the case itself, the elements that caused the litigation to begin must be considered too. The main problem was the nationality of the CEO of TSA because the contract was drawn up, taking into account the fact that the company is based in Holland. Despite the fact that the company itself is based in that country, Mr. d’Ancezune is a French citizen and owns more than 1 percent of the company.
Conclusion
Thus a disagreement arose as to the country of origin, which is substantially different from the contractual condition. The accused party insisted that the r=contract stated the country of origin of the company and not the owner. Therefore, it was difficult to see how each side was right and whose side was more truthful. Article 2(a)(b) is considered rare to use because, in most cases, contracts are written in such a way that one can refer to it in case of problems with minor details, but in this case, such a clause was not listed, which made the issue much more difficult to review. According to this article, the companies were obliged to continue to cooperate and adhere to the terms of the contract for the reasons already mentioned when writing this research. Situations like this prove the necessity to specify details in the contract.
Reference
International Centre For Settlement Of Investment Disputes. (2015). TSA Spectrum de Argentina S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/5 | italaw. Italaw.com.