Search

The note explores the lessons of a number of recent arbitral awards rendered against Argentina with regard to the rules and methods applicable to determine compensation according to the different factual situations under review. The author reaches four preliminary conclusions: (i) Three levels must be distinguished (standards of reparation, standards of compensation and valuation methods), from legal rules well-grounded in international investment law to mere valuation methods not required by any specific norm; (ii) unless otherwise provided in a treaty, the applicability of alternative standards of compensation does not seem to be based on the standard of treatment that has been breached but on the locus of damage; (iii) in order to circumscribe such locus, at least three main elements must be taken into account, namely the specific relief requested by the parties, the requirements of causality and the type of State interference; (iv) in light of these three elements, the "actual loss" standard seems better adapted to claims for specific profits, while the "fair market value" standard appears more suitable for assessing compensation for deprivation of a going concern. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]