151 / 610
149
given the social and economic conditions of Argentina.”
37
The need to comply with
human rights in general was invoked in
Sempra v Argentina
38
as well.
The largest group of cases consists of instances where the defence was based
inter
alia
on the human right to water.
Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A.
and Vivendi Universal S.A. v Argentina
39
(“
Vivendi v Argentina
”), and
Suez, Sociedad
General de Aguas de Barcelona SA, and InterAgua Servicios Integrales del Agua SA v
Argentina
40
(“
InterAgua v Argentina
”) concerned the same subject matter and they
were decided by the same tribunal.
41
Argentina argued that it adopted the measures
so as to safeguard the human right to water of the country’s population.
42
It claimed
that the tribunal had to take account of the context in which Argentina acted when
deciding whether the state breached its investment obligations; the human right to
water was part of that context.
43
The right to water was also raised in
Biwater v Tanzania
;
44
in this case not by the
state, but by
amici curiae
. They submitted that:
“the Government, carrying the duty to provide access to water to its citizens, had to
take action under its obligations under human rights law to ensure access to water for
its citizens. In this light, [Government’s measures] cannot be found to be a breach of a
contract whose very purpose was to promote and enhance the achievement of human
right“.
45
In
SAUR v Argentina
,
46
the state claimed that its international investment obligations
must be interpreted in harmony with the provisions that protect human rights to
37
ibid [75].
38
Sempra Energy International v the Argentine Republic
(Award of 28 September 2007) ICSID Case No
ARB/2/16 (
Sempra v Argentina
) [332].
39
Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona SA and Vivendi Universal SA v the Argentine Republic
(Decision on Liability of 30 July 2010) ICSID Case No ARB/03/19 (
Vivendi v Argentina
). This case
was originally registered by ICSID as
Aguas Argentinas SA, Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona
SA and Vivendi Universal SA v the Argentine Republic
ICSID Case No ARB/03/19, cf Fabrizio Marrella,
‘On the Changing Structure of International Investment Law: The Human Right to Water and ICSID
Arbitration’ (2010) 12 International Community Law Review 335 (Marella) footnote 44.
40
Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona SA, and InterAgua Servicios Integrales del Agua SA v the
Argentine Republic
(Decision on Liability of 30 July 2010) ICSID Case No ARB/03/17 (
InterAgua v
Argentina
).
41
ibid [footnote 1]; cf Reiner and Schreuer (n 16) 93.
42
InterAgua v Argentina
(n 40) [232];
Vivendi v Argentina
(n 39) [252].
43
ibid.
44
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd v United Republic of Tanzania (Award of 24 July 2008)
ICSID Case No
ARB/05/22 (
Biwater v Tanzania
).
45
ibid [387].
46
SAUR International SA v Argentine Republic
(Decisión Sobre Jurisdicción y Sobre Responsabilidad of 6
June 2012) ICSID Case No ARB/04/4.