Teleological interpretation of international investment agreements: From preamble to preamble

Abstract

This article tackles the general issue of the general rule on treaty interpretation envisaged in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties as applied in investment treaty arbitration. Against the background of three notable cases (Siemens v Argentina, Tokios Tokeles v Ukraine, and Malaysian Historical Salvors v Malaysia) the author explores the ramifications of the method of teleological interpretation that was embraced by these three arbitral tribunals. The author argues that in all three cases the general rule on interpretation, which requires all elements (text, context, object and purpose) be treated equally, gave way to the teleological method which in turn disturbed the equilibrium of both the treaties under examination and the general rule of interpretation. This is further evidenced by the proinvestor result in all three cases. Therefore, it is arguable that preference of teleological method over the general and integrative approach will likely lead to proinvestor awards.

Keywords

• Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
• investment treaty arbitration
• treaty interpretation
• teleological interpretation
• Siemens v Argentina
• Tokios Tokeles v Ukraine
• Malaysian Historical Salvors v Malaysia