Texaco Overseas Petroleum Company v.

The Government of the Libyan Arab Republic,

I. Facts

The arbitration originates from fourteen Deeds of Concession concluded between 1955 and
1968 between Libya and two United States companies, Texaco Overseas Petroleum Company
and California Asiatic Oil Company (hereafter called the Companies). The majority of the
Deeds of Concession were modified by consent of all parties in 1963, 1966, 1970 and 1971.
The purpose of the modifications was to bring the Concessions into line with the amended
Libyan Petroleum Laws (originally 1955, amended by Royal
178Decrees in 1961, 1963 and 1965; in 1966 a consolidated version of the previous texts was
made: Petroleum Law of August 1, 1966). The Concessions were a reproduction of a model
contract which was provided in an annex to the text of the Petroleum Law 1955.
The Royal Decree of November 9, 1961, modifying some of the provisions of the Petroleum
Law of 1955, gave a more precise wording to clause 16 of the model contract which reads:
'1. The Libyan Government, the (Petroleum) Commission and the competent authorities in the
Provinces shall take all the steps that are necessary to ensure that the Company enjoys all the
rights conferred upon it by this concession, and the contractual rights expressly provided for
in this concession may not be infringed except by agreement of both parties.
2. This concession shall be interpreted during the period of its effectiveness in accordance
with the provisions of the Petroleum Law and the Regulations issued thereunder at the time of
the grant of the concession, and any amendments to or cancellations of these Regulations
shall not apply to the contractual rights of the Company except with its consent'.
Clause 28 of the Deeds of Concession contained an extensive arbitral clause, the relevant
parts of which will be referred to below.
In 1973, 51% of the properties, rights and assets relating to the Deeds of Concession of the
Companies, as well as of seven other oil companies was nationalized by a Decree. In the
following year, on September 1, 1974, a Decree was issued, directed only to the Companies.
By this Decree the entirety of all the properties, rights and assets relating to the fourteen
Deeds of Concession, of which the Companies were holders, was nationalized. Under both
Decrees the Companies concerned were at the same time declared solely responsible and
liable for all the liabilities and debts or obligations arising from their activities. Both Decrees
also provided for a committee to be appointed to determine the amount of compensation to be
paid. It did not appear from any document submitted to the arbitration that this committee had
functioned or that its members had been nominated.
By the Decree of 1973, Amoseas, a company governed by foreign law, which was formed
jointly by the Companies to be their operating entity in Libya, was to continue to carry out its
activities for the account of the Companies to the extent of 49%, and for the account of the
Libyan National Oil Company (N.O.C.), to the extent of 51%. The Decree of 1974 effected a
fundamental change in Amoseas: it was converted into a non-profit company, the assets of
which were completely owned by N.O.C. Amoseas lost its name and was renamed the 'Om el
Jawabi Company'.
The Companies thereupon notified the Libyan Government that recourse would be taken to
arbitration by virtue of clause 28 of the Deeds of Concession. In accordance with clause 28
they designated their arbitrator. When the Libyan government abstained from designating its
arbitrator, the Companies requested, as provided for in this situation by the same clause, the
President of the International Court of Justice to designate a sole arbitrator. On December 18,
1974, the President of the I.C.J. appointed the French Law Professor René-Jean Dupuy as sole
arbitrator.
The arbitrator fixed Geneva as the place of the arbitral tribunal (where the award also was
signed). Although the arbitrator had repeatedly notified the Libyan Government, and allowed
extension of time to submit an answering memorial to the claims of the Companies, the
Libyan Government did not participate in the arbitral proceedings. It should be noted that the
arbitrator kept the Libyan Government informed of all stages of the proceedings, and each
time transmitted to it all relevant documents. Moreover, throughout the preliminary award
and the award on the merits, the arbitrator paid due attention to a Memorandum of the Libyan
Government which was submitted to the President of the I.C.J. on July 26, 1974, setting forth
the reasons for which, in its opinion, no arbitration should take place in the present case.

C. Meaning and scope of internationalization of the contracts

The arbitrator made it clear that international law governing contractual relations between a
State and a foreign private party means neither that the latter is assimilated to a State nor that
the contract is assimilated to a treaty. It only means that 'for the purposes of interpretation and
performance of the contract, it should be recognized that a private contracting party has
specific international capacities'.
Furthermore, considering that some contracts may be governed both by municipal law and by
international law, the arbitrator held that the choice of law clause referred to the principles of
Libyan law rather than to the rules of Libyan law. In this connection the arbitrator said:
'The application of the principles of Libyan law does not have the effect of ruling out the
application of the principles of international law, but quite the contrary: it simply requires us
to combine the two in verifying the conformity of the first with the second'.
Applying the principles stated above, the arbitrator declared that he would refer on the one
hand to the principle of the binding force of contracts recognized by Libyan law, and on the
other to the principle of pacta sunt servanda which is a general principle of law constituting
an essential foundation of international law. The arbitrator found therefore on this point that
the principles of Libyan law were in conformity with international law and concluded that the
Deeds of Concession in dispute had a binding force.

2. BREACH OF OBLIGATIONS BY LIBYA?

The second main question was whether the Libyan Government, in adopting the
nationalization measures of 1973 and 1974, breached its obligations under the contracts. This
question was examined under three types of reasons which could be envisaged in order to
justify the behaviour of the Libyan Government. These reasons are summarized below under
A, B and C.
[...]
183

B. Concept of Sovereignty and Nature of Nationalization

At the outset the arbitrator stated here that 'the right of a State to nationalize is unquestionable
today. It results from international customary law, established as the result of general
practices considered by the international community as being the law'.
 The arbitrator questioned, however, whether the act of sovereignty which constitutes the
nationalization authorizes a State to disregard its international commitments assumed by it
within the framew ork of its sovereignty. In this respect the arbitrator drew a distinction
between a nationalization concerning nationals of a State or a foreign party in respect of
whom the State had made no particular commitment to guarantee and maintain their position,
and a nationalization concerning an international contract. The former type is completely
governed by the domestic law. But in the case of an internationalized contract the State has
placed itself under international law. In the instant case the arbitrator investigated therefore
whether Libya had undertaken international obligations which prevented it from taking
nationalizing measures, and whether the disregard of such obligations is justified by the
sovereign nature of such nationalization measures.
(a) The arbitrator found first that both under Libyan law and international law the State has
the power to make international commitments, including those with foreign private parties.
Such a commitment cannot be regarded as a negation of its sovereignty, but, quite to the
contrary, is a manifestation of such sovereignty. As a result a State cannot invoke its
sovereignty to disregard commitments freely undertaken through the exercise of this same
sovereignty.
The arbitrator considered that Libya had undertaken specific commitments which could not
be disregarded by the nationalization measures. The arbitrator referred here to the fact that
Libya had granted a concession of a minimum duration of 50 years, and to the stabilization
clause (clause 16, see under I Facts above). This provision does not, in principle, impair the
sovereignty of the Libyan State to legislate in the field of petroleum activities in respect of
other persons. Clause 16 only makes such acts invalid as far as the Companies are concerned
for a certain period of time. The arbitrator observed that:
'The recognition by international law of the right to nationalize is not sufficient ground to
empower a State to disregard its commitments, because the same law also recognizes the
power of a State to commit itself internationally, especially by accepting the inclusion of
stabilization clauses in a contract entered into with a foreign private party'.
[...]

*The case has been settled in the meantime. The parties have agreed that Libya shall provide
the companies with US $ 152 million of Libyan crude oil over the next 15 months, and that
the companies shall terminate the arbitration proceedings (New York Times and Wall Street
Journal of September 26, 1977). (Source: Introductory Note in 17 International Legal
Materials p. 2 (1978)).

exaco Overseas Petroleum Co. v. Libya

Citation. Int’l Arbitral Award, 104 J. Droit Int’l 350 (1977), translated in 17 I.L.M. 1 (1978)

Brief Fact Summary. A decree which attempted to nationalize all of Texaco’s (P) rights,
interest and property in Libya was promulgated by Libya (D).

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Whenever reference is been made to general principles of law in the
international arbitration context, it is always held to be a sufficient criterion for the
internationalization of a contract.
Facts. A decree to nationalize all Texaco’s (P) rights, interest and property in Libya was
promulgated by Libya (D). This action of the Libyan Government led Texaco (P) to request for
arbitration, but it was refused by Libya (D). A sole arbitrator was however appointed by the
International Court of Justice on Texaco’s request, and Libya (D) was found to have breached its
obligations under the Deeds of Concessions and was also legally bound to perform in
accordance with their terms.

Issue. Whenever reference is being made to general principles of law in the International

Held. Yes. Whenever reference is been made to general principles of law in the international
arbitration context, it is always held to be a sufficient criterion for the internationalization of a
contract. The lack of adequate law in the state considered and the need to protect the private
contracting party against unilateral and abrupt modifications of law in the contracting state is a
justification to the recourse to general principles. Though international law involves subjects of a
diversified nature, legal international capacity is not solely attributable to a state. A private
contracting party, unlike a state, has only a limited capacity and is limited to invoke only those
rights that he derives from his contract.

Discussion. Applying Libyan law or international law in the arbitration proceedings was a