INTERPRETATION

The idea underlying Art. 72 was reflected in the Preliminary Draft and all subsequent drafts to the Convention (History, Vol. I, p. 302). During the debates it was made clear that rights and obligations arising from existing consent to jurisdiction would be preserved (at pp. 536/7, 656). Mr. Broches explained that the intention of the article was to make it clear that if a State had consented to arbitration, the subsequent denunciation of the Convention by that State would not relieve it from its obligation to go to arbitration if a dispute arose. An arbitration clause in an agreement with the investor would remain valid for the duration of the agreement. With respect to a general declaration containing submission of claims to the Centre, Mr. Broches stated that it would not be binding until it had been accepted by an investor. If the State were to withdraw its unilateral statement by denouncing the Convention before it has been accepted by any investor, no investor could later bring a claim before the Centre. If, however, the unilateral offer of the State has been accepted before the denunciation of the Convention, disputes arising between the State and the investor after the date of denunciation would still be within the jurisdiction of the Centre (History, Vol. II, pp. 1009–1010).