Analysis of Award and Its Supplementation and Rectification Procedure in ICSID Convention - Exploring Applicability of Annulment Requirements -

Articles 48 and 49 of the Convention on Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (hereinafter, ICSID Convention or the Convention) deal with one of the backbones of ICSID proceedings, "the Award". Aside from a few particulars, the rules concerning the form and rendering of ICSID awards do not deviate substantially from those contained in most other international arbitration rules. Article 48 deals with numerous issues concerning the duties and powers of the tribunal in rendering an award and the publication of the Award. However, some issues such as the definition and scope of an award, differences between an award and other decisions, scope of questions, majority voting rules, modes and formalities of the award, exhaustiveness of the award, criteria for reasoned statement, the possibility of individual opinions and restrictions on the awards's publication, etc are far from clarity and demand considerable analysis for full understanding of them. The ICSID Convention also provides for post-award remedies and procedures. These are supplementation and rectification (Art. 49(2)), interpretation (Art. 50), revision (Art. 51) and annulment (Art. 52). Article 49(2) provides a remedy for omissions and errors in the award. Supplementation and rectification can only be made by the tribunal that rendered the award. Although inadvertent omissions to deal with every question or clerical errors in Article 48(3) can be supplemented or rectified only by Article 49, the question still remains unsolved if the omissions are intentional or substantial. In addition, ICSID Convention does not address the situation if the Tribunal under Article 49 again fails to fully address the omissions or rectifications according to Article 49. This Paper is also exploring the applicability of annulment requirements to the repeatedly unaddressed omissions and errors in Articles 48 and 49. Especially, This Paper suggests an applicability of "a violation of serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure as well as a failure to state reasons for a possible solution.