SPP v Egypt (the Pyramids case)
ICSID · Investment (ICSID and treaty) · Egypt · 20 May 1992
Why it matters
Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, an investment-treaty arbitration administered by ICSID (case no. ARB/84/3), in which a foreign investor brought claims against a state under an investment treaty. In the outcome, Award rendered on May 20, 1992; attached to the Award is a Dissenting Opinion by one of the arbitrators. For a student, it is a worked example of investor-state dispute settlement: how an ICSID tribunal weighs a state's right to regulate against the treaty protections owed to foreign investors.
Summary
Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt: an ICSID award (ARB/84/3). In the outcome, Award rendered on May 20, 1992; attached to the Award is a Dissenting Opinion by one of the arbitrators. The tribunal's full reasoning is set out in the original.
The detail
Parties: Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt
Case number: ICSID Case No. ARB/84/3
Outcome: Egypt liable to compensate the investor after cancelling a tourist development beside the Giza pyramids; around US$27.6m awarded.
Quantum: US$27.6m plus interest
Applicable law: Egypt's Investment Law No. 43 of 1974 (the basis of ICSID consent); Egyptian law; international law including the UNESCO World Heritage Convention.
Issues in play: Three collisions at once: can a state's own investment statute amount to standing consent to ICSID arbitration; protecting world heritage against protecting investors; and how to value a project cancelled before it really began.
Read the full decision at italaw ↗
Locus Standi links to the source decision and publishes its own plain-language summary. It does not reproduce the text of the award.