La Asamblea General,

Teniendo en cuenta la necesidad de estimular a los países insuficientemente desarrollados en el debido aprovechamiento y explotación de sus riquezas y recursos naturales,
Considerando que el desarrollo económico de los países insuficientemente desarrollados constituye uno de los requisitos fundamentales para el fortalecimiento de la paz universal,
Teniendo presente que el derecho de los pueblos a disponer y explotar libremente sus riquezas y recursos naturales es inherente a su soberanía y conforme a los Propósitos y Principios de la Carta de las Naciones
Unidas,

l. Recomienda a todos los Estados Miembros que,  siempre que consideren conveniente para su progreso y su desarrollo económico ejercer el derecho a disponer libremente de sus riquezas y recursos naturales y a explotarlos, tengan debidamente en cuenta, en forma compatible con su soberanía, la necesidad de mantener tanto la afluencia de capital en condiciones de seguridad, como la confianza mutua y la cooperación económica entre las naciones;
2. Recomienda asimismo a todos los Estados Miembros que se abstengan de adoptar medidas directas o indirectas para impedir que cualquier Estado ejerza su soberanía sobre sus recursos naturales.

411a. sesión plenaria,
21 de diciembre de 1952.

Principios

La Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Medio Humano expresa la convicción común de que:

[...]
Principio 21 .- De conformidad con la Carta de las Naciones Unidas y con los principios del Derecho internacional, los Estados tienen el derecho soberano de explotar sus propios recursos en aplicación de su propia política ambiental y la obligación de asegurar que las actividades que se lleven a cabo dentro de su jurisdicción o bajo su control no perjudiquen al medio de otros Estados o zonas situadas fuera de toda jurisdicción nacional.

[...]

21.a Sesión Plenaria

Estocolmo, Suecia - 16 de junio de 1972

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 Decrees 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.

[...]

III. Awards of the Merits

[...]

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.

[...]

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'.

[...]

PRINCIPIO 1 
Los seres humanos constituyen el centro de las preocupaciones relacionadas con el desarrollo sostenible. Tienen derecho a una vida saludable y productiva en armonía con la naturaleza. 
 

PRINCIPIO 2 
De conformidad con la Carta de las Naciones Unidas y los principios del derecho internacional, los Estados tienen el derecho soberano de aprovechar sus propios recursos según sus propias políticas ambientales y de desarrollo, y la responsabilidad de velar por que las actividades realizadas dentro de su jurisdicción o bajo su control no causen daños al medio ambiente de otros Estados o de zonas que estén fuera de los límites de la jurisdicción nacional. 

PRINCIPIO 3
El derecho al desarrollo debe ejercerse en forma tal que responda equitativamente a las necesidades de desarrollo y ambientales de las generaciones presentes y futuras. 

PRINCIPIO 4 
A fin de alcanzar el desarrollo sostenible, la protección del medio ambiente deberá constituir parte integrante del proceso de desarrollo y no podrá considerarse en forma aislada. 

PRINCIPIO 5 
Todos los Estados y todas las personas deberán cooperar en la tarea esencial de erradicar la pobreza como requisito indispensable del desarrollo sostenible, a fin de reducir las disparidades en los niveles de vida y responder mejor a las necesidades de la mayoría de los pueblos del mundo. 

...

 [...]

The Tribunal, therefore, finds that the above decisions, taken as a whole, constitute an adequate basis for its conclusions, namely, that, under the principles of international law, as well as of the law of the United States, no State has the right to use or permit the use of its territory in such a manner as to cause injury by fumes in or to the territory of another or the properties or persons therein, when the case is of serious consequence and the injury is established by clear and convincing evidence.

[...]

...

PRINCIPIO 15 Con el fin de proteger el medio  ambiente, los Estados deberán aplicar ampliamente el  criterio  de  precaución conforme a sus capacidades. Cuando haya peligro de daño grave o irreversible, la falta  de certeza científica absoluta no deberá utilizarse como razón para postergar la adopción de medidas  eficaces en función de los costos para impedir la degradación del medio ambiente.

...

Principios

La Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Medio Humano expresa la convicción común de que:

[...]
Principio 21 .- De conformidad con la Carta de las Naciones Unidas y con los principios del Derecho internacional, los Estados tienen el derecho soberano de explotar sus propios recursos en aplicación de su propia política ambiental y la obligación de asegurar que las actividades que se lleven a cabo dentro de su jurisdicción o bajo su control no perjudiquen al medio de otros Estados o zonas situadas fuera de toda jurisdicción nacional.

29 “La Corte reconoce que el medio ambiente está sujeto a amenazas cotidianas y que el empleo de armas nucleares podría constituir una catástrofe para el medio ambiente. La Corte reconoce también, que el medio ambiente no es un concepto abstracto, sino que representa el espacio viviente, la calidad de la vida y la salud misma de los seres humanos, en particular de las generaciones venideras”