The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes provides a very useful mechanism for settling disputes, which would not be easily replaced in a satisfactory manner with the permanent multilateral investment courts which are so much being discussed.

Like any other human thing, its rules are open to improvement and ICSID itself is working very seriously on that.

One of the matters which may be considered in this respect is the present annulment through the Ad Hoc Committee.

Victor Pey Casado is not the first time that the proceedings have gone through four steps (First Award, First Annulment Decision, Second Award, Second Annulment Decision).

Klockner (Industrie Anlagen GmbH et al v. United Republic of Cameroun et al, ICSID Tribunal, Arb. 9814, 5 February 2002, 41 ILM 933) and Amco v. Indonesia (Amco Asia Corp. et al v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Tribunal, 9 December 1983, 24, ILM, 1985, 365) have gone too through these four steps, what has taken respectively 9 and 11 years.

Furthermore, the annulment mechanism might allow to continue the two steps mechanism again and again even if the parts of the previous award, which have not been annulled, becomes res judicata. It may then be legitimate to wonder whether granting to the Ad Hoc Committee the authority not just to annul, but to review the merits by a full de novo rehearing that might allow an easier and a quicker result. An option which is in fact being considered by Uncitral’s Working Group no. III.