Construction defects can pose significant risks to international construction projects, leading to financial losses, delays, and safety concerns. When construction defects lead to legal disputes, foreign investors may seek redress through investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms and hold the Host Government accountable. ISDS (Primer on International Investment Treaties and Investor-State Dispute Settlement | Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment) allows foreign investors to bring claims against host governments for breaches of investment obligations under applicable treaties or agreements. In this article, we’ll explore the relationship between construction defects and ISDS, and we’ll elaborate on the reasoning of the tribunals in three ISDS cases related to construction defects.
What is Construction Defects
A construction defect is any flaw or deficiency in the design, materials, or construction of a building that affects its usability, safety, or value. Construction defects can range from minor cosmetic issues to significant structural deficiencies that compromise the safety of the building’s occupants. Common types of construction defects include foundation problems, roofing and waterproofing issues, electrical and plumbing deficiencies, and HVAC malfunctions.
The Risks of Construction Defects in International Projects
International construction projects carry inherent risks, including political instability, cultural differences, and unfamiliar legal systems. However, construction defects can be one of the most significant risks associated with these projects. For example, inadequate design, poor-quality materials, or substandard construction practices can lead to safety hazards, delays, and cost overruns. In some cases, construction defects can also lead to legal disputes between the project owner, contractors, and governmental entities.
ISDS and Construction Defects: Do Foreign Governments Have To Ensure Adequate Protection of International Construction Projects?
When a construction defect leads to a legal dispute, foreign investors may seek redress through ISDS mechanisms. Here are three ICSID cases related to construction defects, along with an elaboration on the reasoning of the tribunals:
Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A., and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. The Argentine Republic
In this case, foreign investors entered into concession agreements with the Argentine government to operate water and sanitation services in the province of Buenos Aires. The investors alleged that the government’s failure to maintain and upgrade the infrastructure led to a deterioration in service quality, including sewage backups and water contamination. The investors brought a claim under ISDS, arguing that the government had breached its obligations under the applicable treaty. The ISDS tribunal found in favor of the investors and concluded that the Argentine government had failed to ensure the proper maintenance and upgrade of the water and sanitation infrastructure, which constituted a breach of the government’s obligations under the concession agreements and the applicable treaty. See EDF International S.A.S. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/23
Saluka Investments B.V. v. Czech Republic
In this case, a foreign investor entered into a joint venture with a Czech company to develop a shopping center. The investor alleged that the Czech government’s delay in granting necessary permits and authorizations led to additional costs and lost profits. The investor brought a claim under ISDS, arguing that the government had breached its obligations under the applicable treaty. The ISDS tribunal found in favor of the investor. The tribunal reasoned that the Czech government had failed to ensure timely and efficient processing of the necessary permits and authorizations, which constituted a breach of the government’s obligations under the applicable treaty. See Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4
Hochtief AG v. Argentina
In this case, a German construction company entered into a contract with the Argentine government to build a highway. The company alleged that the government’s failure to provide necessary permits and approvals, as well as delays in payments, led to additional costs and delays in completing the project. The company brought a claim under ISDS, arguing that the government had breached its obligations under the applicable treaty. The ISDS tribunal found in favor of the company and stated that the Argentine government had failed to provide necessary permits and approvals in a timely manner, which constituted a breach of the government’s obligations under the contract and the applicable treaty. See Hochtief AG v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/31
Tribunals ruled against Claimant in National Grid Plc v. Argentine Republic
However, In the case of National Grid Plc v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22, the claimant, National Grid, alleged that the Argentine government had breached its obligations under the UK-Argentina Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) by failing to compensate National Grid for losses incurred due to construction defects in its gas distribution network in Argentina. The claimant argued that the government had failed to provide adequate regulatory oversight and that this led to defects and financial losses. See National Grid Plc v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22
However, the tribunal rejected the claimant’s arguments and found in favor of the Argentine government. The tribunal held that the construction defects were caused by the claimant’s own failures and negligence, rather than the actions or omissions of the government. The tribunal noted that the claimant had failed to undertake proper due diligence prior to investing in the Argentine gas distribution market and that the defects were a result of poor investment decisions and inadequate management practices.
The tribunal’s reasoning highlighted the importance of demonstrating a clear causal link between the government’s actions and the alleged construction defects. The tribunal noted that investors have a responsibility to undertake proper due diligence and management practices in order to mitigate risks and minimize losses. The tribunal also emphasized the need for claimants to provide sufficient evidence of causation in order to succeed in an ISDS claim. See National Grid Plc v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22
Elaboration on Tribunal Reasoning
In these cases, ICSID tribunals found that the host government had breached its obligations under the applicable treaty or contract so long the investor was not contributorily negligent in the actual investment or the actual harm. The reasoning of the tribunals varied depending on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, but some common themes emerged.
First, the tribunals emphasized the importance of government obligations to provide a stable and predictable legal and regulatory environment for foreign investors. The tribunals noted that foreign investors rely on the government to provide necessary permits, approvals, and regulatory compliance and that any failure to do so can lead to significant financial losses.
Second, the tribunals recognized that construction defects could have serious consequences for the safety and usability of buildings, as well as for the financial viability of construction projects. The tribunals noted that governments have a responsibility to ensure that construction projects are properly designed, constructed, and maintained to prevent defects and ensure safety.
Finally, the tribunals stressed the need for transparency and due process in government decision-making related to construction projects. The tribunals noted that foreign investors have a right to expect fair and efficient processing of necessary permits and approvals and that any unreasonable delays or arbitrary decision-making can be detrimental to the success of a construction project.
Construction defects can pose significant risks to international construction projects, leading to financial losses, delays, and safety concerns. When these defects lead to legal disputes, foreign investors may seek redress through ISDS mechanisms. Recent cases have demonstrated that ISDS tribunals are willing to hold host governments accountable for breaches of their obligations related to construction projects. The tribunals have emphasized the importance of providing a stable and predictable legal and regulatory environment, ensuring safety and transparency, and providing fair and efficient processing of necessary permits and approvals.
Our team is well verse into the process outlined in this article Contact Our Office – Transnational Matters if you have issues in construction defect in a foreign country.