the res judicata

res judicata

Primary tabs.

Res judicata  translates to "a matter judged." 

Generally,  res judicata is the principle that a cause of action  may not be relitigated once it has been judged on the merits. "Finality" is the term which refers to when a court renders a final judgment on the merits.

Res judicata  is also frequently referred to as "claim preclusion," and the two are used interchangeably throughout this article. 

Breaking Down the Concept

Claim preclusion can be best understood by breaking it down into two sub-categories:

• example: Plaintiff P sues Defendant D on Cause of Action C, but P loses. P may not try for better luck by initiating a new lawsuit against D on C.
• example: Plaintiff P successfully sues Defendant D on Cause of Action C. P may not again sue D on C to try to recover more  damages .

As illustrated in the merger example, a claim can have finality, even when the judge does not award damages. Thus even if a winning party believes he deserves more in damages than he received (or if he received no damages, he believes he deserves some damages), he is not able to sue on the same cause of action. 

Policies of Preclusion 

There is a litany of cases dealing with  res judicata . Courts, often uphold the doctrine, and typically justify res judicata  based on several polices:

• promoting efficiency
• promoting fairness
• avoiding inconsistent adjudication

Does Claim Preclusion Apply for Adjudication Not "On The Merits?" 

" On the merits " refers to a judgment, decision, or ruling that a court will make based on the law, after hearing all of the relevant facts and evidence presented in court. Claim preclusion historically only referred to cases decided on the merits. However, the modern view taken by most jurisdictions is that a dismissal based on a failure to state a claim is also claim preclusive. Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure deals with a dismissal based on a failure to state a claim. 

According, however, to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the following are not claim preclusive and are not considered an adjudication "on the merits":

• a lack of jurisdiction
• improper venue
• failure to join a party when required to do so under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19  (aka " Mandatory Joinder ")
• voluntary dismissals
• if the dismissal order does not state otherwise (i.e. a decision made "without prejudice " would not be claim preclusive")

Many jurisdictions also find that  res judicata  applies to a "dismissal for a failure to prosecute." This phrase refers to an involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff' s claims when the plaintiff fails to comply with the court's orders in some ways. These dismissals, however, are highly reviewable by appellate courts to ensure that the trial court was not abusing its discretion. 

Counterclaims

Generally, claim preclusion applies to counterclaims . Rule 13  of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs counterclaims. 

The rules regarding unasserted counterclaims, however, have some nuance. While an unasserted  permissive counterclaim is not precluded, an unasserted  compulsory counterclaim , is precluded. There are 2 exceptions to this rule:

• The defendant 's compulsory counterclaim may not be precluded if he was not aware that he could bring the compulsory counterclaim ( Dindo v. Whitney   1971)
• If the defendant wins an affirmative defense , then the defendant can counterclaim on the same facts 

Some jurisdictions also follow the "Common Law Compulsory Counterclaim Rule." This rule states that if "Party A" fails to assert an available counterclaim during "Trial A," then "Party A" is precluded from suing in "Trial B" if if granting relief of that action would nullify the judgment from "Trial A."

Alternative Techniques to Preclude Another Party’s Actions 

In addition to bar and merger, there are two other techniques that courts look to which have the same effect on a cause of action as claim preclusion:

• "Party A" cannot litigate a position when that position is inconsistent with "Party A's" earlier conduct which "Party B" has detrimentally relied upon
• "Party A" cannot unfairly take factual positions in litigation that are inconsistent with previous positions that Party A had taken in prior judicial proceedings

Claim Preclusion and Adverse Parties 

In judicial proceedings, claim preclusion only applies to adverse parties , it does not apply to co-parties (ex: a party that has been joined via Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 ). Contrast this rule with collateral estoppel  (also known as "issue preclusion"), which applies to both co-parties and adverse parties. 

Exceptions to res judicata

• collateral order doctrine
• interlocutory appeal
• THE LEGAL PROCESS
• civil procedure
• courts and procedure
• Preclusion Principles
• claim preclusion
• Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
• final decision
• ISSUE PRECLUSION

• Global directory Global directory
• Product logins Product logins
• Contact us Contact us

Our Privacy Statement & Cookie Policy

All Thomson Reuters websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.

• Privacy Statement
• Cookie Policy

What is res judicata?

November 11, 2022 · 5 minute read

In order to prevent needless waste of judicial time and energy, it is critical to ensure litigants do not overburden courts with redundant and duplicative proceedings. There are several legal doctrines aimed at that important preservation, most notably, “res judicata.”

The doctrine, which derives from the Latin of “a matter judged,” is designed to prohibit parties from relitigating a claim or a defense of something that has already been decided. The idea is meant to ensure the finality of judgments and conserve judicial resources . Additionally, the repeated litigation of an already adjudicated matter is generally not in the public’s best interest .

Conventional wisdom says one judicial contest should be enough for litigants to make their claims or mount a defense. This is critical as the amount of judicial work has increased in recent years.

What are the three elements of res judicata?

Res judicata has three general elements: re-litigation, same cause of action, and same or closely related parties.

Re-litigation

Res judicata prevents a party from bringing a claim once that particular claim has been subjected to a final judgment in some previous lawsuit. Re-litigation applies to a new lawsuit brought in any court, not just the one responsible for earlier judgment. This piece of res judicata is considered the most straightforward of the doctrine.

Same cause of action

Similarly, res judicata prevents a party from bringing the same claim or cause of action against the defendant once a final judgment has been made. The term ‘claim’ is the legal demand for compensation, while ’cause of action’ is the set of elements that allow for legal remedy .

Same or closely related parties

If the parties to a lawsuit are individuals, it is inherently easier to identify if a new lawsuit does, in fact, involve those individuals. However, the principle of res judicata can also prohibit litigation brought by parties or entities “in privity” to the party involved with the original lawsuit. This can include anyone “acting as an agent” on behalf of the original plaintiff, or any subsidiary of, for example, a corporate plaintiff. And the same principle applies for defendants.

Res judicata vs. collateral estoppel

The broader doctrine can be further divvied into two separate, major components : the first is res judicata, or “claim preclusion,” and the second is “collateral estoppel,” which is also known as issue preclusion.

Res judicata prohibits a second action on previously litigated matters as a whole and cause of actions/claims spawning from similar subject matter.

Alternatively, collateral estoppel prevents additional litigation of “particular issues” within previously resolved in prior cases. In practice, collateral estoppel is the principal concept behind double jeopardy protections for criminal defendants. As established in Benton v. Maryland , this protection is binding in both state and federal courts by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In order to invoke the collateral estoppel, parties must establish several elements:

• First, the facts in question were fairly and fully litigated.
• The facts were essential to the first action’s judgment.
• The parties were deemed adversarial with respect to that action.

What is an example of res judicata?

Res judicata has broad practical applications. Recently, its use was tested in the 2018 patent lawsuit, Sowinski v. California Air Resources Board , which affirmed res judicata applied not only to cases resolved on the merits —the facts and evidence of a case—but also ones adjudicated on procedural grounds.

The first lawsuit occurred in 2015, when Richard Sowinski, inventor of an electronic method for claiming pollution tax credits, sued the California Air Resources Board (CARB) over their alleged use of his patent in one of their programs. The court dismissed the complaint because Sowinski failed to respond to motions before the deadline.

Sowinski filed a lawsuit again in 2018, this time seeking infringement damages from the 2015 case decision. He argued that res judicata should not apply since a prior suit was, in fact, resolved on procedural grounds, rather than the merits of the purported infringement. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court ruling applying res judicata anyway, since the cases were essentially the same.

What attorneys need to know about res judicata in court

Generally, the value of res judicata lies in its preservation of time and resources. It is also, logically, a very intuitive piece of law. The burdens to the court are obvious when you remove important protections against waste and frivolity.

“If at first you don’t succeed, try again” is a fine concept for little leaguers and struggling artists; however, it doesn’t work quite so well with respect to attorneys, judges, plaintiffs, and defendants. For these reasons, we see great application of the doctrine in our judicial system.

For more information about how to apply (and counteract) relevant, emerging legal doctrines like res judicata, see our coverage of the increasingly applied “ Reptile Theory .”

• Legal Topics

Join our community

Sign up for industry-leading insights, updates, and all things AI @ Thomson Reuters.

Related posts

How to specify cause of action and elements using on-point cases

9 signs it’s time to upgrade your legal research software

Make confident decisions faster with Westlaw Precision for courts

More answers.

Quid pro quo social engineering [infographic and explanation]

Legal research demystified: Find accurate answers in less time

Legal AI tools: Essential for attorneys

• Search results
• Publications
• Save to folder
• Copy the reference
• Give us feedback

Find out all Jus Mundi tutorial videos in : https://tutorial.jusmundi.com ​

In less than 3 minutes you'll find everything you need to know about Jus Mundi and how to take full advantage of our search engine.​

Res Judicata

Gambarini Camilla

Senior Associate, International Arbitration - Withers LLP

Pika Maximilian

• Anti-Suit Injunctions
• Trigger Letter / Notice of Intent
• Consolidation
• Contract Interpretation
• Mass Claims
• Annulment Tribunal
• Enforcement
• Seat of Arbitration
• Cooling-off Period
• Amicus Curiae
• Closing of the Proceedings
• Discontinuance of the Proceedings
• Abuse of Process
• Bifurcation
• Admissibility
• Withdrawal from Arbitral Proceedings
• Transparency
• Summary Procedure
• Stay of Proceedings
• Provisional Measures
• Proof / Evidence
• Parallel Proceedings
• Language of the Proceedings
• Jurisdiction
• Joinder / Intervention
• Document Production
• Counterclaims
• Conflicts of Interests
• Confidentiality
• Claim Manifestly without Legal Merits
• Applicable Law

I. Definition

Ii. rationale and context, iii. sources, iv. applicable law, v. requirements under international law, a. first requirement: final decision, b. second requirement: same subject-matter, 1. general principles, 2. the particular issue of ‘issue estoppel’, ‘issue preclusion’ or ‘collateral estoppel’, c. third requirement: same parties, d. considerations on the identity of legal order: res judicata of national decisions before treaty tribunals, vi. functionally-related preclusion doctrines, bibliography.

The doctrine of res judicata safeguards the final and binding effect of decisions in three ways.

• The doctrine precludes re-litigation of the same subject-matter within the same proceeding, e.g. after a partial decision (such as on jurisdiction) 1 or after the partial annulment of an award. 2
• The doctrine   precludes re-litigation of the same subject-matter between the same parties in follow-up proceedings in that duplicative claims are inadmissible ( ne bis in idem ). 3
• If the subject-matter of the prior decision becomes an incidental matter in follow-up proceedings, the prior decision will be conclusive and contrary pleadings will be precluded. 4

Amco Asia Corporation and others v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Decision on Jurisdiction in Resubmitted Proceeding, 10 May 1988, para. 48 ; Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. (formerly Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija, S.A. and Compagnie Générale des Eaux) v. Argentine Republic (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 November 2005, paras. 78, 89, 107 ; Mobil Cerro Negro Holding, Ltd., Mobil Cerro Negro, Ltd., Mobil Corporation and others v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/27, Award (Resubmission Proceeding), 10 July 2023, para. 60 .

Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment - Preliminary objections, 17 March 2016, para. 48 ;  Waste Management, Inc. v. United Mexican States (I), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/98/2, Dissenting Opinion of Keith Highet (Arbitral Award), para. 51 .

Company General of the Orinoco Case, Opinion of Umpire, 31 July 1905, page. 276 ; Rachel S. Grynberg, Stephen M. Grynberg, Miriam Z. Grynberg and RSM Production Corporation v. Grenada, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/6, Award, 10 December 2010, para. 7.1.3 ; Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1, Award, 25 August 2014, para. 7.54 ; Ampal-American Israel Corp., EGI-Fund (08-10) Investors LLC, EGI-Series Investments LLC, BSS-EMG Investors LLC and David Fischer v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11, Decision on Liability and Heads of Loss, 21 February 2017, paras. 255-256, 258-259 ;  Waste Management v. United Mexican States (II), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/3, Decision of the Tribunal on Mexico's Preliminary Objection concerning the Previous Proceedings, 26 June 2002, para. 45 .

Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, 26 February 2007, paras. 120, 140 ;  Landesbank Baden-Württemberg, HSH Nordbank AG, Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale and Norddeutsche Landesbank-Girozentrale v. Kingdom of Spain , ICSID Case No. ARB/15/45, Decision on the Respondent's Application for Reconsideration of the Tribunal's Decision of 25 February 2019 Regarding the "Intra-EU" Jurisdictional Objection, 11 November 2021, para. 27-29 ; Landesbank Baden-Württemberg, HSH Nordbank AG, Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale and Norddeutsche Landesbank-Girozentrale v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/45, Decision on the Respondent's Application for Reconsideration of the Tribunal's Decision of 11 November 2021 Regarding the "Intra-EU" Jurisdictional Objection, 22 February 2023, para. 36 .

Res judicata is therefore said to have a negative effect ( ne bis in idem ) and a positive effect (conclusive effect in a subsequent proceeding). 5

Marco Gavazzi and Stefano Gavazzi v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/25, Dissenting opinion by arbitrator Mauro Rubino-Sammartano, para. 10 ; GPF GP S.à.r.l v. Poland, SCC Case No. 2014/168, Final Award, 29 April 2020, para. 284 ; Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18, Dissenting Opinion of Arbitrator Dr. Jürgen Voss (Award), para. 489 .

Res judicata preclusive and conclusive effects prevent inconsistent decisions. Thereby, it serves both public and private interests in justice, consistency, legal certainty, prevention of abuses and efficiency. 6  At the same time, the doctrine affects the adjudicatory power of the tribunal applying it and the precluded party’s right to be heard. 7

Res judicata is only one out of several means for achieving forum coordination. Others balance comparable interests, e.g. consolidation , lis pendens or irreconcilability as a ground for non-enforcement. The principles may thus affect res judicata issues. (See further Parallel proceedings )

Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, 26 February 2007, para. 116 ; Mobil Investments Canada Inc. v. Canada (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/15/6, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 13 July 2018, para. 189 ;  Eskosol S.p.A. in liquidazione v. Italian Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/50, Decision on Respondent's Application under Rule 41(5), 20 March 2017, para. 134 .

TECO Guatemala Holdings, LLC v. Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/23, Award (Resubmission Proceeding), 13 May 2020, para. 79 .

A general principle of international law, 8   res judicata is not codified. Notwithstanding phrases stating that decisions are “final and binding between the Parties” ( e.g. Articles 59, 60 ICJ Statute 9 ,   Article 53(1) of the ICSID Convention 10 ), most of res judicata ’s specifics come down to jurisprudence. An exception is the specific issue of revising arbitral awards after new facts came to light which is governed by Article 51 ICSID Convention . Many discussions on the other specifics under international law exist due to significant divergences between national doctrines. 11

Recognition under e.g. the New York Convention is a pre-requisite, not a synonym for cross-jurisdictional res judicata . 12

Cheng, B., General Principles of Law as Applied by International Court and Tribunals , 1953, p. 336:

“little, if indeed any question as to res judicata being a general principle of law or as to its applicability in international judicial proceedings.”

Interpretation of Judgments Nos. 7 and 8 (Factory at Chorzów), PCIJ Series A. No 13, Dissenting Opinion by M. Anzilotti, page. 23 ; Trail smelter case (United States of America, Canada), Award, 11 March 1941, page. 1950 ; Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Separate Opinion of Judge Greenwood, 17 March 2016, para. 2 ; Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 11 June 1998 in the Case concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Preliminary Objections (Nigeria v. Cameroon), Judgment, 25 March 1999, para. 12 ; Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, 26 February 2007, para. 116 ; Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment - Preliminary objections, 17 March 2016, para. 58 ;  Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1, Award, 25 August 2014, para. 7.11 ; Mobil Investments Canada Inc. v. Canada (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/15/6, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 13 July 2018, para. 187 ; Amco Asia Corporation and others v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Decision on Jurisdiction in Resubmitted Proceeding, 10 May 1988, para. 26 ; Elsamex, S.A. v. Republic of Honduras, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/4, Award, 16 November 2012, para. 212 ; Industria Nacional de Alimentos, S.A. and Indalsa Perú, S.A. (formerly Empresas Lucchetti, S.A. and Lucchetti Perú, S.A.) v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/4, Decision on Annulment, 5 September 2007, para. 86 ; Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11, Decision on Annulment of the Award, 2 November 2015, para. 394 ; Novenergia II - Energy & Environment (SCA) (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), SICAR v. The Kingdom of Spain, SCC Case No. 2015/063, Procedural Order No. 17 (Request for Rectification, Clarification and Complement of the Final Award), 9 April 2018, para. 2 ; Petrobart Limited v. The Kyrgyz Republic (II), SCC Case No. 126/2003, Award, 29 March 2005, para. 351 ;  Landesbank Baden-Württemberg, HSH Nordbank AG, Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale and Norddeutsche Landesbank-Girozentrale v. Kingdom of Spain , ICSID Case No. ARB/15/45, Decision on the Respondent's Application for Reconsideration of the Tribunal's Decision of 25 February 2019 Regarding the "Intra-EU" Jurisdictional Objection, 11 November 2021, para. 26 .

Interpretation of Judgments Nos. 7 and 8 (Factory at Chorzów), PCIJ Series A. No 13, Dissenting Opinion by M. Anzilotti, page. 23 ; Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment - Preliminary objections, 17 March 2016, para. 55 ; Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1, Award, 25 August 2014, para. 7.61 .

De Ly, F. and Sheppard, A., ILA Interim Report on Res Judicata and Arbitration , Arbitration International, 2009, p. 35.

Zeuner, A. and Koch, H., Effects of Judgments (Res Judicata) , International Encyclopaedia of Comparative Law, 2014, Chapter 9.

Pika, M., Third-Party Effects of Arbitral Awards, 2019, Chapters 2 and 4.

Berger, B. and Kellerhals, F., International and Domestic Arbitration in Switzerland , 3 rd ed., 2015, para. 2111.

Gaillard, E. and Savage, J., Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration , 1999, para. 1667.

Poudret, J-F. and Besson, S., Comparative Law of International Arbitration, 2007, para. 850.

Restatement (Third) U.S. Law of Int’l Comm. Arb. TD No. 2 2012, paras. 4-9.

Born, G., International Commercial Arbitration , 2 nd ed., 2014, p. 3741 et seq.

Poncet, C., and Mockler, L., Res Judicata: A Contribution to the Debate on Claim Preclusion in International Arbitration , in Liber Amicorum en l’Honneur de William Laurence Craig, 2016, p. 317 ;  Ascom Group S.A., Anatolie Stati, Gabriel Stati and Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd. v. Republic of Kazakhstan (I), SCC Case No. 116/2010, Judgment of the Brussels Court of Appeal, 16 November 2021, paras. [8], [11] .

ConocoPhillips Petrozuata B.V., ConocoPhillips Hamaca B.V. and ConocoPhillips Gulf of Paria B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/30, Decision on the Applicant's Request to Continue the Stay of Enforcement of the Award, 2 November 2020, para. 32 .

Treaty tribunals apply international law to res judicata . 13  For arbitral tribunals with their seat in a national jurisdiction, the potential conflict-of-laws approaches to res judicata are plentiful and rarely settled by appellate jurisprudence. 14  For this reason, several arbitral tribunals, 15  the ILA 16  and academic authors 17  favoured the creation of transnational principles.

But also see Iberdola v. Guatemala , Final Award.

Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1, Award, 25 August 2014, para. 7.11 ; Ampal-American Israel Corp., EGI-Fund (08-10) Investors LLC, EGI-Series Investments LLC, BSS-EMG Investors LLC and David Fischer v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11, Decision on Liability and Heads of Loss, 21 February 2017, para. 257 ; Malicorp Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/18 , Award, 7 February 2011, para. 103 ;  Iberdrola Energía, S.A. v. The Republic of Guatemala, PCA Case No. 2017-41, Final Award, 24 August 2020, paras. 234, 242 ; Lao Holdings N.V. v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic (I), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/6, Decision on the Merits of Claimants' Second Material Breach Application, 15 December 2017, para. 105 .

Pika, M., Third-Party Effects of Arbitral Awards, 2019, 6.01.

ICC Case 3267, Final Award, (1987) XII Y.C.A. 87.

ICC Case 4126, Partial Award, (1974-1985) I ICC Collection 511, 513-514.

ICC Case 5835, 1992, cited by Hascher in Travaux du comité francais DIP 19.

ICC Case 6233, 1992, (1991-1995) III ICC Collection 332.

ICC Case 6363, Arbitral Award, 1991, (1992) XVII Y.C.A. 185.

ICC Case 9800, 2000, (2001-2007) V ICC Collection 659.

ICC Case 12226, Award, 2004, unpublished, cited by the commentator to ICC Case 9800, 667.

ICC Case 13133, Final Award, (2010) XXXV Y.C.A. 129, [36-39].

ICC Case 13509, Arbitral Award, (2008-2011) VI ICC Collection 739.

De Ly, F. and Sheppard, A., ILA Final Report on Res Judicata and Arbitration , Arbitration International, Vol. 25, Issue 1, 2009, p. 67.

Born, G., International Commercial Arbitration , 2 nd ed., Kluwer, 2014, p. 3776.

Hanotiau, B., Complex Arbitrations, Kluwer, 2006, pp. 239-256.

Mayer, P., Litispendence, connexité et chose jugée dans l’arbitrage international , in Liber Amicorum Reymond, p. 187.

Schaffstein, S., The Doctrine of Res Judicata before International Commercial Arbitral Tribunals, Oxford University Press, 2016, para. 6.214.

Bermann, G., Arbitration and Private International Law, General Course on Private International Law , Rec. des cours, Vol. 381, 2015, para. 535 ; Hascher, D., L’autorit é de chose jug é e des sentences arbitrales , in Travaux du comité francais de droit international privé, DIP 25-26 ;  Mayer, P., L’autorité de chose jugée des sentences entre les parties , Rev. Arb., 2016/1, p. 101 ;  Radicati di Brozolo, L.G., Res Judicata and International Arbitral Awards , Post Award Issues , ASA Special Series No. 38, 2011, pp. 127-140 ;  Seraglini, C., Le droit applicable à l’autorité de la chose jugée dans l’arbitrage , Rev. Arb., 2016/1, pp. 66-75 ; Yaffe, N., Transnational Arbitral Res Judicata , J. Int’l Arb., Vol. 34, Issue 5, 2017, p. 824 .

Res judicata can be based upon partial decisions and non-annulled parts of arbitral awards, 18  but not on interim decision (i.e. provisional measures and procedural orders) which are temporary in nature. 19 One tribunal noted that its own injunctive relief granted in an award but limited in time, may constitute res judicata . 20

But also see  Cavalum v. Spain :

Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, 26 February 2007, paras. 120, 140 ; ConocoPhillips Petrozuata B.V., ConocoPhillips Hamaca B.V. and ConocoPhillips Gulf of Paria B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/30, Decision on Respondent's Request for Reconsideration, 10 March 2014, para. 21 ; Perenco Ecuador Limited v. Republic of Ecuador (Petroecuador), ICSID Case No. ARB/08/6, Decision on Ecuador's Reconsideration Motion, 10 April 2015, para. 97 ; Quiborax S.A., Non-Metallic Minerals S.A. v. Plurinational State of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/2, Award, 16 September 2015, para. 130 ; ConocoPhillips Petrozuata B.V., ConocoPhillips Hamaca B.V. and ConocoPhillips Gulf of Paria B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/30, Decision on Respondent's Request for Reconsideration, 9 February 2016, para. 38 ; Amco Asia Corporation and others v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Decision on Jurisdiction in Resubmitted Proceeding, 10 May 1988, para. 48 ; Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. (formerly Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija, S.A. and Compagnie Générale des Eaux) v. Argentine Republic (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 November 2005, paras. 78, 89, 97, 107 ;  Víctor Pey Casado and President Allende Foundation v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/2, Award, 13 September 2016, paras. 173-178, 217-218, 240 ; Perenco Ecuador Limited v. Republic of Ecuador (Petroecuador), ICSID Case No. ARB/08/6, Decision on Claimant’s Application for Dismissal of Ecuador's Counter-claims, 18 August 2017, paras. 48-50 ; Amco Asia Corporation and others v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Decision on Jurisdiction in Resubmitted Proceeding, 10 May 1988, para. 21 ; Víctor Pey Casado and President Allende Foundation v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/2, Decision on Annulment, 8 January 2020, para. 655 ; Murphy Exploration & Production Company – International v. The Republic of Ecuador (II), PCA Case No. 2012-16, Final Award, 10 February 2017, para. 32 ;  Abed El Jaouni and Imperial Holding SAL v. Lebanese Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/3, Award, 14 January 2021, paras. 100, 103, 105 ; Cavalum SGPS, S.A. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/34, Decision on the Kingdom of Spain's Request for Reconsideration, 10 January 2022, paras. 62-63, 65 ;  Mobil Cerro Negro Holding, Ltd., Mobil Cerro Negro, Ltd., Mobil Corporation and others v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela , ICSID Case No. ARB/07/27, Award (Resubmission Proceeding), 10 July 2023, para. 60 .

Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited v. Tanzania Electric Supply Company Limited, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/20, Decision on Annulment, 22 August 2018, paras. 150-151 ; Víctor Pey Casado and President Allende Foundation v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/2, Decision on Provisional Measures, 25 September 2001, para. 14 ; Millicom International Operations B.V. and Sentel GSM SA v. The Republic of Senegal, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/20, Decision on the Application for Provisional Measures, 9 December 2009, para. 38 ; Nova Group Investments, B.V. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/19, Procedural Order No. 8 Concerning Respondent’s Request for Reconsideration of Procedural Order No. 7, 18 April 2017, para. 31 ; RWE Innogy GmbH and RWE Innogy Aersa S.A.U. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/34, Award, 18 December 2020, paras. 89-91 ; Burlington Resources, Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5, Decision on Reconsideration and Award, 7 February 2017, para. 86 ; Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited v. Tanzania Electric Supply Company Limited, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/20, Award, 12 September 2016, paras. 310-311, 318 ; Vedanta Resources PLC v. Republic of India, PCA Case No. 2016-05, Judgment of the High Court of Singapore, 8 October 2020, paras. 43-47 ; Vedanta Resources PLC v. Republic of India, PCA Case No. 2016-05, Judgment of the High Court of Singapore, 8 October 2020, para. 99 ; Cairn Energy PLC and Cairn UK Holdings Limited v. The Republic of India, PCA Case No. 2016-07, Judgment of the High Court of Singapore, 8 October 2020, para. 99 ; Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula and others v. Romania (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, Final Award, 11 December 2013, para. 1313 ;  Rand, Kathleen Elizabeth Rand, Allison Ruth Rand, Robert Harry Leander Rand and Sembi Investment Limited v. Republic of Serbia, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/8, Procedural Order No. 9 (New Evidence, Assistance and Provisional Measures), 12 March 2021, para. 88 ;  Cavalum SGPS, S.A. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/34, Decision on the Kingdom of Spain's Request for Reconsideration, 10 January 2022, para. 71 .

Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula and others v. Romania (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, Final Award, 11 December 2013, para. 1313 .

Moreover, a final award can lose its res judicata effect to the extent it was annulled. 21

MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7, Decision on Annulment, 21 March 2007, para. 54 ; CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Decision of the Ad hoc Committee on Argentina's Application for Annulment, 25 September 2007, para. 44 ; Azurix Corp. v. The Argentine Republic (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12, Decision on the Application for Annulment of the Argentine Republic, 1 September 2009, para. 42 ; Sempra Energy International v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Decision on the Argentine Republic's Application for Annulment of the Award, 29 June 2010, paras. 73, 78 ; Enron Creditors Recovery Corporation (formerly Enron Corporation) and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Decision on the Application for Annulment of the Argentine Republic, 30 July 2010, para. 64 ; Continental Casualty Company v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/9, Decision on the Application for Partial Annulment, and the Application for Partial Annulment, 16 September 2011, para. 82 .

Settlements need to be confirmed in a consent award for res judicata to apply. 22

Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18, Dissenting Opinion of Arbitrator Dr. Jürgen Voss (Award), paras. 34-35 ; Lao Holdings N.V. v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic (I), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/6, Decision on the Merits of Claimants' Second Material Breach Application, 15 December 2017, para. 109 .

Regarding res judicata of decisions on jurisdiction in particular, numerous tribunals affirmed this effect, 23 some of them without formally mentioning the principle. 24 When it comes to the practically-decisive question whether tribunals have the power to re-visit their own jurisdictional decisions, however, many tribunals  affirmed this power, especially for the event that new facts came to light. 25  

Electrabel S.A. v. The Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Decision on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law and Liability, 30 November 2012, para. 10.1 ; ConocoPhillips Petrozuata B.V., ConocoPhillips Hamaca B.V. and ConocoPhillips Gulf of Paria B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/30, Decision on Respondent's Request for Reconsideration, 10 March 2014, para. 21 ; Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13, Award, 6 November 2008, para. 130 ; Jan Oostergetel and Theodora Laurentius v. The Slovak Republic, Final Award, 23 April 2012, para. 135 ; GPF GP S.à.r.l v. Poland, SCC Case No. 2014/168, Final Award, 29 April 2020, paras. 285-286 ; Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. (formerly Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija, S.A. and Compagnie Générale des Eaux) v. Argentine Republic (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, Decision on the Argentine Republic's Request for Annulment of the Award rendered on 20 August 2007, 10 August 2010, para. 263 ; Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11, Decision on Annulment of the Award, 2 November 2015, para. 394 ; Sistem Mühendislik Inşaat Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. v. Kyrgyz Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/06/1, Decision on Jurisdiction, 13 September 2007, para. 132 ; Supervision y Control S.A. v. Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/4, Award, 18 January 2017, para. 270 ;  Landesbank Baden-Württemberg et al. v. Kingdom of Spain , ICSID Case No. ARB/15/45, Decision on Reconsideration of Intra-EU Objection, 11 November 2021, paras. 26-44 ;  Landesbank Baden-Württemberg, HSH Nordbank AG, Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale and Norddeutsche Landesbank-Girozentrale v. Kingdom of Spain , ICSID Case No. ARB/15/45, Decision on the Respondent's Application for Reconsideration of the Tribunal's Decision of 11 November 2021 Regarding the "Intra-EU" Jurisdictional Objection, 22 February 2023, para. 36 ; JSC Tashkent Mechanical Plant, JSCB Asaka, JSCB Uzbek Industrial and Construction Bank, and National Bank for Foreign Economic Activity of the Republic of Uzbekistan v. Kyrgyz Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/16/4, Award, 17 May 2023, paras. 437-439 .

AES Solar and others (PV Investors) v. Spain, PCA Case No. 2012-14, Final Award, 28 February 2020, paras. 544-545 ; CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Award, 12 May 2005, para. 126 ; Quiborax S.A., Non-Metallic Minerals S.A. v. Plurinational State of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/2, Award, 16 September 2015, para. 541 .

Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited v. Tanzania Electric Supply Company Limited, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/20, Decision on Annulment, 22 August 2018, para. 169 ; Tokios Tokelés v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, Award, 26 July 2007, para. 98 ; Pac Rim Cayman LLC v. The Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/12, Award, 14 October 2016, para. 5.38 ; Antoine Biloune and Marine Drive Complex Ltd. v. Ghana Investments Centre and the Government of Ghana, Award on Damages and Costs, 30 July 1990, paras. 67-68 ; Iberdrola Energía, S.A. v. The Republic of Guatemala, PCA Case No. 2017-41, Final Award, 24 August 2020, paras. 262, 266-267 ; Elsamex, S.A. v. Republic of Honduras, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/4, Award, 16 November 2012, para. 212 ; Caratube International Oil Company LLP and Devincci Salah Hourani v. Republic of Kazakhstan (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/13/13, Award, 27 September 2017, para. 467 ;  Mathias Kruck, Frank Schumm, Joachim Kruck, Jürgen Reiss and others v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/23, Decision Dismissing the Respondent's Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal's Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 6 December 2021, paras. 24-31 ;  Cavalum SGPS, S.A. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/34, Decision on the Kingdom of Spain's Request for Reconsideration, 10 January 2022, paras. 74-77 ;  Mathias Kruck et al. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/23, Decision Dismissing the Respondent's Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal's Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 6 December 2021, para. 29 ; Landesbank Baden-Württemberg et al. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/45, Decision on Reconsideration of Intra-EU Objection, 11 November 2021, paras. 45-48 ; Landesbank Baden-Württemberg, HSH Nordbank AG, Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale and Norddeutsche Landesbank-Girozentrale v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/45, Decision on the Respondent's Application for Reconsideration of the Tribunal's Decision of 11 November 2021 Regarding the "Intra-EU" Jurisdictional Objection, 22 February 2023, paras. 34-35 .

Several other preliminary requirements known from national laws have not yet been addressed in detail by international jurisprudence, such as:

• whether res judicata can be considered upon a tribunal’s own motion; 26
• whether an ICSID award is res judicata during an ongoing annulment procedure ; 27 or
• whether the prior tribunal’s jurisdiction can/must/must not be reviewed as a pre-requisite for res judicata of the prior tribunal’s decision. 28

Malicorp Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/18, Award, 7 February 2011, para. 103 .

Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula and others v. Romania (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, Judgment of the English Court of Appeal, 27 July 2018, para. 66 .

Rachel S. Grynberg, Stephen M. Grynberg, Miriam Z. Grynberg and RSM Production Corporation v. Grenada, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/6, Award, 10 December 2010, para. 7.1.9 ; Malicorp Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/18, Award, 7 February 2011, para. 103 .

The triple identity test (i.e. identity of petitum , causa petendi, persona ) is often implicitly or explicitly mentioned by tribunals to determine the res judicata effect of a final decision. 29  However, the identiy of petitum (claim) 30 and cause petendi (cause of action 31 ) are addressed together regularly (herein as “subject-matter”). 32

Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1, Award, 25 August 2014, para. 7.13 ; EDF International S.A., SAUR International S.A. and León Participaciones Argentinas S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/23, Award, 11 June 2012, para. 1132 ; Marco Gavazzi and Stefano Gavazzi v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/25, Decision on Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Liability, 21 April 2015, para. 166 ; Marco Gavazzi and Stefano Gavazzi v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/25, Dissenting opinion by arbitrator Mauro Rubino-Sammartano, para. 14 ; GPF GP S.à.r.l v. Poland, SCC Case No. 2014/168, Final Award, 29 April 2020, para. 287 ; TECO Guatemala Holdings, LLC v. Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/23, Award (Resubmission Proceeding), 13 May 2020, para. 71 ; Iberdrola Energía, S.A. v. The Republic of Guatemala, PCA Case No. 2017-41, Final Award, 24 August 2020, para. 275 ; Mobil Investments Canada Inc. v. Canada (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/15/6, Procedural Order No. 9 (Scope of Damages Phase), 11 December 2018, para. 37 ; JSC Tashkent Mechanical Plant, JSCB Asaka, JSCB Uzbek Industrial and Construction Bank, and National Bank for Foreign Economic Activity of the Republic of Uzbekistan v. Kyrgyz Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/16/4, Award, 17 May 2023, para. 436 .

Inceysa Vallisoletana S.L. v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26, Award, 2 August 2006, paras. 214-217 ; Spółdzielnia Pracy Muszynianka v. Slovak Republic, PCA Case No. 2017-08, Award, 7 October 2020, para. 245 .

TECO Guatemala Holdings, LLC v. Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/23, Award (Resubmission Proceeding), 13 May 2020, para. 71 ; Iberdrola Energía, S.A. v. The Republic of Guatemala, PCA Case No. 2017-41, Final Award, 24 August 2020, para. 283 ; Deutsche Telekom v. India, PCA Case No. 2014-10, Interim Award, 13 December 2017, para. 114 .

Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1, Award, 25 August 2014, para. 7.15-7.16 ; Waste Management v. United Mexican States (II), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, 26 June 2002, para. 39 ; Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. (formerly Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija, S.A. and Compagnie Générale des Eaux) v. Argentine Republic (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 November 2005, para. 72 ; Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1, Award, 25 August 2014, paras. 7.15-7.16 ; Caratube International Oil Company LLP and Devincci Salah Hourani v. Republic of Kazakhstan (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/13/13, Award, 27 September 2017, para. 491 ; Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula and others v. Romania (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/14/29, Award, 5 March 2020, para. 351 .

In order to assess whether the prior decision had the same subject-matter as the pending arbitration, the prior decision must be assessed on the basis of its dispositif (operative part) and the reasoning – particularly with regard to the matters that the parties brought before the prior tribunal for adjudication. 33

Interpretation of Judgments Nos. 7 and 8 (Factory at Chorzów), PCIJ Series A. No 13, Dissenting Opinion by M. Anzilotti, page. 24 ; Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment - Preliminary objections, 17 March 2016, para. 75 ; Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1, Award, 25 August 2014, para. 7.30 .

The resulting principles are:

• The material facts brought before the prior and the subsequent tribunal must be identical. 34  As with jurisdictional decisions (see  above), ICSID tribunals mentioned that they could re-open their own prior decisions when new facts came to light as it is  e.g. provided for in the ICSID Convention ( see  above). 35
• The underlying legal grounds must be identical, 36  for which functional identity suffices also in treaty matters according to several authorities. 37
• Res judicata cannot go further than what the prior tribunal actually adjudicated. 38  In particular, the ICJ held that a dismissal for lack of evidence was not res judicata on the underlying legal grounds. 39  Moreover, jurisdictional or admissibility decisions settle only these matters. 40

Waste Management v. United Mexican States (II), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, 26 June 2002, para. 39 ; Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. (formerly Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija, S.A. and Compagnie Générale des Eaux) v. Argentine Republic (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 November 2005, para. 72 ; Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1, Award, 25 August 2014, paras. 7.15-7.16 ; Caratube International Oil Company LLP and Devincci Salah Hourani v. Republic of Kazakhstan (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/13/13, Award, 27 September 2017, para. 491 ; Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula and others v. Romania (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/14/29, Award, 5 March 2020, para. 351 .

Burlington Resources, Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5, Decision on Reconsideration and Award, 7 February 2017, paras. 86, 90, 104-105 ;  Petrobart Limited v. The Kyrgyz Republic (II), SCC Case No. 126/2003, Award, 29 March 2005, para. 351 ; Landesbank Baden-Württemberg, HSH Nordbank AG, Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale and Norddeutsche Landesbank-Girozentrale v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/45, Decision on the Respondent's Application for Reconsideration of the Tribunal's Decision of 11 November 2021 Regarding the "Intra-EU" Jurisdictional Objection, 22 February 2023, para. 35

CME Czech Republic B.V. v. The Czech Republic, Final Award, 14 March 2003, para. 433 ; Caratube International Oil Company LLP and Devincci Salah Hourani v. Republic of Kazakhstan (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/13/13, Award, 27 September 2017, paras. 494-495 ;  TECO Guatemala Holdings, LLC v. Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/23, Award, 19 December 2013, paras. 516-518 .

McLachlan, C., Shore, L. and Weiniger, M., International Investment Arbitration: Substantive Principles , 2nd ed., 2017, paras. 4.197-4.198.

Wehland, H., The Coordination of Multiple Proceedings in Investment Treaty Arbitration , 2013, para. 6.87.

Southern Bluefin Tuna Case between Australia and Japan and between New Zealand and Japan, Decision, 4 August 2000, para. 41(h); The MOX Plant Case (Ireland v. United Kingdom), Provisional Measures, ITLOS Case No. 10, Order - Provisional measures, 3 December 2001, para. 50 ; MOX Plant Case (Ireland v. United Kingdom), PCA Case No. 2002-01, Order on Suspension of Proceedings on Jurisdiction and Merits, and Request for Further Provisional Measures, 24 June 2003, para. 28 .

Mobil Investments Canada Inc. v. Canada (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/15/6, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 13 July 2018, para. 191 ; TECO Guatemala Holdings, LLC v. Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/23, Award (Resubmission Proceeding), 13 May 2020, para. 83 .

Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment - Preliminary objections, 17 March 2016, para. 85 .

Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, 26 February 2007, para. 127 ; Waste Management v. United Mexican States (II), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, 26 June 2002, para. 43 .

The problem whether res judicata only applies to the adjudication of the prior petitum (request) as in civil-law doctrine 41 or to the entire reasoning as at common law, is a classic of international res judicata . 42 The doctrine of ‘issue preclusion’, ‘issue estoppel’ or ‘collateral estoppel’ (the terms are used interchangeably in international law), derived from Common Law, precludes a party from re-litigating a point of law or fact that was decided by a previous tribunal and formed an essential element in deciding the dispute. 43 Whether under international law, issue preclusion is a distinct doctrine or only a broad application of res judicata ’s same-subject-matter requirement may be an academic question. 44

ICC Case 7061, unpublished, cited by Hanotiau, Complex Arbitrations (Kluwer, 2006), para. 551.

Mayer, P., Litispendance, connexité et chose jugée dans l’arbitrage international , in Liber Amicorum Claude Reymond – Autour de l’arbitrage, 2004, pp. 198-200.

Bermann, G., Arbitration and Private International Law, General Course on Private International Law, Rec. des cours, Vol. 381, 2015, paras. 539-549 ;  Gaillard, E., Coordination or Chaos – Do the Principles of Comity, Lis Pendens and Res Judicata Apply to International Arbitration?, American Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 29, 2018, pp. 205, 227 ;  Mayer, P., L’autorité de chose jugée des sentences entre les parties, Rev. Arb., 2016/1, p. 105 .

De Ly, F. and Sheppard, A., ILA Final Report on Res Judicata and Arbitration , Arbitration International, Vol. 25, Issue 1, 2009, p. 67, para. 56.

Born, G., International Commercial Arbitration , 2nd ed., 2014, p. 3776.

Schaffstein, S., The Doctrine of Res Judicata before International Commercial Arbitral Tribunals , 2016, para. 6.236.

Rachel S. Grynberg, Stephen M. Grynberg, Miriam Z. Grynberg and RSM Production Corporation v. Grenada, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/6, Award, 10 December 2010, para. 7.1.1 .

Griffith, G. and Seif, I., Chapter 8: Work in Progress: Res Judicata and Issue Estoppel in Investment Arbitration , in Kaplan, N. and Moser, M. J. (eds.), Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Choice of Law in International Arbitration: Liber Amicorum Michael Pryles, (© Gavan Griffith & Isabella Seif; Kluwer Law International 2018) p. 122:

“Investment tribunals also have applied mixed and confusing nomenclature within these contexts, to reach, in most matters, objectively ‘correct’ results to vindicate the underlying public policy for there to be finality. Some use the term res judicata without particularising that they are applying issue estoppel. Some do not apparently recognize concepts of issue estoppel as a separate exclusionary principle. Others treat res judicata and issue estoppel as entirely distinct doctrines.”

Adel A Hamadi Al Tamimi v. Sultanate of Oman, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/33, Award, 3 November 2015, para. 131 ; Tokios Tokelés v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, Award, 26 July 2007, para. 98 ; Marco Gavazzi and Stefano Gavazzi v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/25, Decision on Jurisdiction, Admissibility and Liability, 21 April 2015, paras. 164-166 ; British Caribbean Bank Limited & Belize Bank Limited v. Government of Belize, LCIA Case No. 81116, Final Award, 15 January 2013, para. 77 .

On substance, investment treaty tribunals tend to favour issue preclusion. 45

Rachel S. Grynberg, Stephen M. Grynberg, Miriam Z. Grynberg and RSM Production Corporation v. Grenada, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/6, Award, 10 December 2010, para. 7.1.2 ; Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1, Award, 25 August 2014, paras. 7.18, 7.23, 7.59 ; Ampal-American Israel Corp., EGI-Fund (08-10) Investors LLC, EGI-Series Investments LLC, BSS-EMG Investors LLC and David Fischer v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11, Decision on Liability and Heads of Loss, 21 February 2017, paras. 272, 281-282 ; Caratube International Oil Company LLP and Devincci Salah Hourani v. Republic of Kazakhstan (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/13/13, Award, 27 September 2017, para. 460 ; RREEF Infrastructure (G.P.) Limited and RREEF Pan-European Infrastructure Two Lux S.à r.l. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/30, Decision on Responsibility and on the Principles of Quantum, 30 November 2018, para. 209 ; TECO Guatemala Holdings, LLC v. Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/23, Award (Resubmission Proceeding), 13 May 2020, para. 80 ; Víctor Pey Casado and President Allende Foundation v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/2, Decision on Annulment, 8 January 2020, paras. 643-644 ; Marco Gavazzi and Stefano Gavazzi v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/25, Dissenting opinion by arbitrator Mauro Rubino-Sammartano, para. 15 .

In one case, an objection of ‘collateral estoppel’ was raised unsuccessfully with regard to a separate, yet related issue, i.e. whether arguments that were not but should have been raised in earlier proceedings are also precluded (see also Abuse of Process ). 46

Petrobart Limited v. The Kyrgyz Republic (II), SCC Case No. 126/2003, Award, 29 March 2005, para. 364 .

All parties of the subsequent proceedings must either be parties to the prior decision, successors, or “privies”. “Privity” requires a certain proximity. 47  Subsidiaries and majority shareholders are “privies” according to several authorities, 48  whereas the CME and Eskosol tribunals held otherwise due to the succinct facts. 49  Privity under international law between the State and State-owned companies was mentioned in an obiter dictum . 50

Pika, M., Third-Party Effects of Arbitral Awards , 2019, Chapters 3, 4 and 8.

McLachlan, C., Shore, L. and Weiniger, M., International Investment Arbitration: Substantive Principles , 2nd ed., 2017, para. 4.188.

Rachel S. Grynberg, Stephen M. Grynberg, Miriam Z. Grynberg and RSM Production Corporation v. Grenada, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/6, Award, 10 December 2010, para. 7.1.5 ; Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/1, Award, 25 August 2014, para. 7.40 ; Ampal-American Israel Corp., EGI-Fund (08-10) Investors LLC, EGI-Series Investments LLC, BSS-EMG Investors LLC and David Fischer v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11, Decision on Liability and Heads of Loss, 21 February 2017, paras. 260-268 ; Ampal-American Israel Corp., EGI-Fund (08-10) Investors LLC, EGI-Series Investments LLC, BSS-EMG Investors LLC and David Fischer v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11, Decision on Jurisdiction, 1 February 2016, paras. 330-331, 333, 339 ; Orascom TMT Investments S.à r.l. v. People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/35, Award, 31 May 2017, paras. 546-547 ; Unión Fenosa Gas, S.A. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/4, Award, 31 August 2018, para. 11.32 .

CME Czech Republic B.V. v. The Czech Republic, Final Award, 14 March 2003, paras. 426, 431, 436 ; Eskosol S.p.A. in liquidazione v. Italian Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/50, Decision on Respondent's Application under Rule 41(5), 20 March 2017, paras. 167-168 .

Helnan International Hotels A/S v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/19, Award, 3 July 2008, paras. 127-128 .

National judgments on treaty/customary international law are not binding on international tribunals. 51 This rule serves the rationale enshrined in Article 27 VCLT .

Selwyn Case, Opinion of Plumley, Umpire, 1 January 1903, page. 380 ; GAMI Investments, Inc. v. United Mexican States, Final Award, 15 November 2004, paras. 38-41 ; Hesham Talaat M. Al-Warraq v. The Republic of Indonesia, Final Award, 15 December 2014, para. 488 ; Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/03/25, Award, 16 August 2007, para. 391 ; Inceysa Vallisoletana S.L. v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26, Award, 2 August 2006, paras. 209-217 ; Landesbank Baden-Württemberg, HSH Nordbank AG, Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale and Norddeutsche Landesbank-Girozentrale v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/45, Decision on the Respondent's Application for Reconsideration of the Tribunal's Decision of 11 November 2021 Regarding the "Intra-EU" Jurisdictional Objection, 22 February 2023, para. 46 .

By contrast, generally, if the national judgment, adjudicated on a contract or national law and the international tribunal deal with a treaty claim, res judicata will fail for difference in subject-matter. 52 The national judgment can only be a fact 53 on e. g. national law’s content 54 or a measure. The fate of subsequent claims under umbrella clauses depends on whether the latter does or does not create independent treaty rights.

Desert Line Projects LLC v. Republic of Yemen, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/17, Award, 6 February 2008, para. 136 ; TECO Guatemala Holdings, LLC v. Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/23, Award, 19 December 2013, para. 260 ; Helnan International Hotels A/S v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/19, Award, 3 July 2008, paras. 123-124, 131 ; Repsol YPF Ecuador S.A. v. Empresa Estatal Petróleos del Ecuador (Petroecuador), ICSID Case No. ARB/01/10, Decision on Jurisdiction, 23 January 2003, paras. 46-47 .

Industria Nacional de Alimentos, S.A. and Indalsa Perú, S.A. (formerly Empresas Lucchetti, S.A. and Lucchetti Perú, S.A.) v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/4, Decision on Annulment, 5 September 2007, paras. 87-88 ; Adel A Hamadi Al Tamimi v. Sultanate of Oman, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/33, Award, 3 November 2015, para. 358 .

Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/03/25, Dissenting Opinion of Mr. Bernardo M. Cremades (Award), paras. 26 .

If a non -treaty based arbitral tribunal deals with a claim on the same subject-matter as a prior judgment, res judicata can generally apply. 55  

HOCHTIEF Aktiengesellschaft v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/31, Separate and Dissenting Opinion of J. Christopher Thomas, Q.C. (Decision on Jurisdiction), para. 9 ; Marco Gavazzi and Stefano Gavazzi v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/25, Dissenting opinion by arbitrator Mauro Rubino-Sammartano, paras. 9-11 .

When res judicata is inapplicable due to the requirements set out above, preclusion might apply under the doctrine of abuse of process or due to a factual effect of the prior decision erga omnes . 56

Pika, M., Third-Party Effects of Arbitral Awards, Kluwer, 2019, Chapter 7.

Cheng, B., General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals , 1953, Chapter 17.

Gaillard, E., Coordination or Chaos – Do the Principles of Comity, Lis Pendens and Res Judicata Apply to International Arbitration? , American Journal of International Arbitration, 2018, pp. 205-242 .

Mayer, P., Litispendance, connexité et chose jugée dans l’arbitrage international , in Liber Amicorum Claude Reymond – Autour de l’arbitrage, 2004, pp. 185-203.

McLachlan, C., Shore, L. and Weininger, M., International Investment Arbitration: Substantive Principles , 2 nd ed. 2017, paras. 4.169-4.199.

Radicati di Brozolo, L.G., Res Judicata and International Arbitral Awards , Post Award Issues , ASA Special Series No. 38 , 2011, pp. 127-140 .

Shaw, M. (ed.), Rosenne’s Law and Practice of the International Court: 1920-2015, 5th ed., 2017, Vol. III, Chapter 27, para. 391.

Access to the PDF of this document is reserved upon request to subscribers of Jus Mundi - Legal Practice offer. The HTML version of this document remains fully available on our website.

Request the PDF

This Wiki Note has not been submitted yet. We continuously identify new themes to add to the existing Wiki Notes as well as Contributors to author new Notes. Become a Contributor, submit your candidacy to author this Wiki Note.

Oops! You have reached the maximum limit for alerts (10 max. for arbitrators)

Delete an existing alert to create a new one

Oops! You have reached the maximum limit for alerts (10 max. for cases)

This feature requires a subscription.

Get access to the most extensive & reliable source of information in arbitration

Already registered ? Sign in

An error just occurred, please try again

You need Premium access to be able to use this feature.

• More from M-W
• To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

res judicata

Definition of res judicata

Example sentences.

These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'res judicata.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.

Word History

Latin, judged matter

1693, in the meaning defined above

Dictionary Entries Near res judicata

Cite this entry.

“Res judicata.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/res%20judicata. Accessed 29 Aug. 2023.

Legal Definition

Legal definition of res judicata.

called also claim preclusion

More from Merriam-Webster on res judicata

Britannica.com: Encyclopedia article about res judicata

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

The doctrine of res judicata

Published by a lexisnexis dispute resolution expert, what is a res judicata .

A res judicata is a decision given by a judge or tribunal with jurisdiction over the cause of action and the parties, which disposes, with finality, of a matter decided so that it cannot be re-litigated by those bound by the judgment, except on appeal.

Final judgments by default or consent are included within this definition, but not decisions on procedural grounds and decisions which are not final in any sense.

The purpose of the doctrine is to provide finality to litigation and to protect parties from being vexed by the same matter twice.

A judgment:

in personam—binds the parties and their privies

in rem—binds anyone, privy or otherwise (ie it is a judgment which binds 'the whole world')

A party may wish to set up a res judicata :

as an estoppel against their opponent’s claim or defence; and/or

as the foundation of their own claim or defence

For guidance on the key requirements

Access this content for free with a 7 day trial of LexisNexis and benefit from:

• Instant clarification on points of law
• Smart search
• Workflow tools
• 36 practice areas

** Trials are provided to all LexisNexis content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisNexis services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK and selected UK overseas territories and Caribbean countries. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.

Get your quote today and take step closer to being able to benefit from:

Get a lexisnexis quote.

* denotes a required field

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Existing user? Sign-in CONTINUE READING CONTINUE READING GET A QUOTE

Key definition:

Res judicata definition, what does res judicata mean.

A res judicata is a decision by a judge or tribunal with jurisdiction over the cause of action and the parties, which disposes, with finality, of a matter decided so that it cannot be re-litigated by those bound by the judgment, except on appeal.

Popular documents

Unfair prejudice—Court of Appeal consideration of application to strike out parts of a petition (Zedra

Dispute Resolution analysis: A petitioner claiming unfair prejudice is entitled to rely on breaches by the directors of their fiduciary and statutory duties to the company as conduct of the affairs of the company which was unfairly prejudicial to the petitioner. In this case, Zedra (the petitioner)

Permission to bring a derivative claim (Saatchi v Gajjar)

Dispute Resolution analysis: Chief Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Briggs examined the law as to when it is right to permit a shareholder to bring a derivative action on behalf of a company against the company’s director for alleged misappropriation of assets. This was a classic two shareholder

Tort—the different types of tort

Tort—the different types of tortThis Practice Note identifies the main torts (bar negligence and nuisance, which are covered elsewhere in our related content) and their key characteristics. Specifically:•trespass to land•trespass to the person•privacy/defamation•liability for animals•employers'

Negligence—when does a duty of care arise?

Negligence—when does a duty of care arise?This Practice Note considers the first question to ask when faced with a prospective claim in negligence—whether or not a duty of care exists between the claimant and the defendant such that, if the defendant has breached that duty, liability may arise.For

0330 161 1234

• International Sales(Includes Middle East)
• Latin America and the Caribbean
• Netherlands
• New Zealand
• Philippines
• South Africa
• Switzerland
• United States
• Research & Reports
• LexTalk Forum

Popular Links

• Supplier Payment Terms
• Partner Alliance Programme

HELP & SUPPORT

• Legal Help and Support
• Tolley Tax Help and Support
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Settings
• Terms & Conditions
• Data Protection Inquiry
• Protecting Human Rights: Our Modern Slavery Agreement