Revisiting the Necessity Defense

Yearbook on International Investment Law and Policy, 2010-2011

NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 11-09

Posted: 16 Feb 2011 Last revised: 20 Feb 2011

Date Written: February 1, 2011


In several cases that arose out of Argentina’s economic crisis 2001-2002 tribunals have provided divergent interpretations of the relationship between the ‘essential security’ exception contained in Article XI of the US-Argentina bilateral investment treaty and the customary international law defence of necessity. The tribunal in Continental Casualty v Argentina provided a new understanding that is guided by the WTO’s approach under GATT Article XX. This chapter considers the justification advanced by the tribunal for this approach and the legal and systemic issues it raises. It finds the turn to WTO law for purposes of interpreting the ‘essential security’ clause to be deeply flawed for textual, teleological, and systemic reasons. Alternative legal methodologies that the arbitrators should have considered instead are suggested.

Suggested Citation

Alvarez, José Enrique and Brink, Tegan, Revisiting the Necessity Defense (February 1, 2011). Yearbook on International Investment Law and Policy, 2010-2011; NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 11-09. Available at SSRN:

José Enrique Alvarez (Contact Author)

New York University School of Law ( email )

40 Washington Square South
New York, NY 10012-1099
United States

Tegan Brink

ACWL ( email )

Avenue Guiseppe-Motta 31-33
Geneva, GE 1211
+41229192114 (Phone)
+41229192122 (Fax)


Register to save articles to
your library


Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics