Case Study: Metalclad Corp. v. United Mexican States

Metalclad v. Mexico remains a cornerstone case in investment arbitration, balancing investor protections against host states’ regulatory autonomy. It highlights the complexities of expropriation claims and the evolving standards of fair and equitable treatment under international law. The case continues to inform investment treaty interpretation and arbitral decision-making, particularly in disputes involving regulatory measures and indirect expropriation claims.

Citation: Metalclad Corp. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1

Date of Decision: 2^nd May, 2001

Institution: International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)

Panel: Prof. Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, QC, CBE (president), Mr. Benjamin Civiletti, Mr. Jose Luis Siqueiros (Arbitrators)

Facts

• The dispute in Metalclad Corp. v. United Mexican States arose when Metalclad, a U.S. corporation, faced governmental obstruction in operating a hazardous waste disposal facility in La Pedrera, San Luis Potosi, Mexico. Two primary government actions led to the conflict: regulatory denials that prevented the issuance of necessary permits and an Ecological Decree that designated the land as a protected area, effectively stripping Metalclad of its investment use.
• In 1990, the Mexican federal government granted COTERIN, a Mexican company, a permit to establish a hazardous waste transfer station in La Pedrera. By January 1993, the permit was extended to cover a hazardous waste landfill. Metalclad entered into a purchase agreement for COTERIN in April 1993, contingent upon securing full regulatory approval. Although the state government issued a land use permit in May 1993, it did not grant construction or operational clearance.
• Believing it had garnered government support following a meeting with the state governor in June 1993, Metalclad finalized the acquisition of COTERIN in September 1993. However, soon after, the governor, initiated opposition against the project. Despite initial confidence in state backing, construction was halted in October 1994 due to the absence of a municipal construction permit. Federal officials reassured Metalclad that the permit was procedural and would be granted, prompting Metalclad to resume construction in November 1994. A final federal permit was issued in January 1995, and an environmental impact assessment was approved the following month with required mitigation measures.
• By March 1995, construction was completed, but the facility never became operational due to protests allegedly supported by state officials and law enforcement. In November 1995, Metalclad reached an agreement with federal authorities on additional environmental measures, but the state government refused to recognize the accord. In December 1995, the municipality formally denied the construction permit, citing earlier permit rejections issued to COTERIN in 1991 and 1992. The municipality further pursued legal action to challenge the federal authorization in January 1996. Faced with these obstacles, Metalclad initiated arbitration proceedings in January 1997.
• In September 1997, the governor of San Luis Potosi issued an Ecological Decree, designating the land as a protected area for rare cacti. This measure nullified Metalclad’s ability to operate its facility, rendering its investment useless.

Metalclad filed claims under NAFTA, alleging violations of:

1. Article 1105 (Minimum Standard of Treatment)[1] – Mexico’s actions violated fair and equitable treatment standards.
2. Article 1110 (Expropriation)[2] – The denial of the construction permit and the Ecological Decree amounted to indirect expropriation.
3. Article 1110 (Expropriation via the Ecological Decree)[3] – The decree independently constituted an expropriation.

Decision

The Tribunal ruled in favor of Metalclad on all three claims and awarded $16.5 million in damages. Mexico sought judicial review in Canada, where the arbitration was legally seated. The Supreme Court of British Columbia partially annulled the decision, striking down the findings on Articles 1105 and the first expropriation claim under Article 1110, but upholding the ruling on the Ecological Decree as expropriation.

Key legal issues discussed

1. Did Mexico violate NAFTA’s minimum standard of treatment under Article 1105?

Yes 

The Tribunal found that Mexico had violated Article 1105 by failing to provide a transparent and predictable regulatory framework. It held that the lack of clarity in the permit approval process, along with inconsistent actions by different levels of government, resulted in legal uncertainty for Metalclad. Investors, the Tribunal emphasized, should be able to rely on clear and predictable governmental procedures when making investment decisions. However, on judicial review, the Canadian court annulled this finding. It determined that the Tribunal had overstepped its jurisdiction by incorporating transparency obligations that were not explicitly stated within Article 1105, but rather inferred from other NAFTA provisions.

2. Did the denial of the construction permit amount to expropriation?

Yes, initially 

The Tribunal ruled that Mexico’s refusal to issue the construction permit amounted to an indirect expropriation of Metalclad’s investment. Metalclad had met federal regulatory requirements and had received assurances from government officials, leading it to believe it had all necessary approvals. However, the refusal to grant the final municipal construction permit effectively prevented Metalclad from using its investment. Despite this initial finding, the Canadian court annulled the ruling, reasoning that the Tribunal had adopted an overly broad interpretation of NAFTA’s expropriation provisions. The court concluded that the mere denial of a permit, even if arbitrary, did not necessarily constitute an expropriation under international law.

3. Did the Ecological Decree constitute an expropriation?

Yes 

The Tribunal held that the Ecological Decree, which designated Metalclad’s investment site as a protected area, effectively deprived the company of its property’s economic use. Under NAFTA, expropriation encompasses any measure that significantly interferes with an investor’s ability to benefit from its investment, regardless of the government's intent. Since the decree prevented Metalclad from operating its hazardous waste facility, it was deemed an expropriation. The Canadian court upheld this finding, agreeing that although the Tribunal had applied a broad definition of expropriation, its conclusion was not “patently unreasonable.”

Conclusion

The Tribunal’s broad reading of Article 1105 regarding fair and equitable treatment proved controversial, leading to its annulment on judicial review. In terms of expropriation, the Tribunal applied an expansive economic impact test, raising concerns about the balance between investor protection and the regulatory authority of host states. The judicial review process in Canada reinforced limits on arbitral tribunals’ ability to extend treaty obligations beyond customary international law. Ultimately, this case remains a landmark decision in investment arbitration, shaping future interpretations of expropriation and fair treatment under international law.

[1] Article 1105 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). 

[2] Article 1110 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

[3] Ibid.

Download