No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 November 2021
Jurisdiction — Foreign investor — ICSID Convention, Article 25(2)(b) — Foreign nationality — Ownership or control — Investment — Economic contribution — Whether the scope of protection under the BIT for companies under foreign control fell within the outer limit of ICSID jurisdiction — Whether the national of another contracting State had made an investment — Whether establishing foreign ownership under the BIT was sufficient in light of the requirement for foreign control in the ICSID Convention
Jurisdiction — Investment — Interpretation — “Every kind of investment” — Economic contribution — Origin of capital — Whether the definition of investment required an economic contribution by a foreign national — Whether origin of capital was relevant to the existence of an investment
Jurisdiction — Investment — Interpretation — ICSID Convention, Article 25(1) — Whether the inherent meaning of investment under ICSID jurisprudence was relevant in determining ownership or control by a foreign national — Whether there was an economic arrangement requiring a contribution to make a profit and some degree of risk
Jurisdiction — Investment — Foreign nationality — Ownership or control — Evidence — Burden of proof — Adverse inferences — Whether the burden of proof can shift from the claimant to the State due to seizure of document — Whether adverse inferences may be drawn from the failure to produce documents
Annulment — Failure to state reasons — Manifest excess of powers — Serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1) — Foreign nationality — Applicable law — Obiter dictum — Translation — Whether a tribunal’s misapplication of or failure to apply the applicable law justified annulment if its interpretation was reasonable or tenable — Whether reliance on an incorrect translation warranted annulment if the reasoning was incidental to the operative part of the award — Whether obiter dictum issued without hearing warranted annulment