Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T22:33:47.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

HOW TO IDENTIFY INSIDERS AND INTRUDERS DISGUISING AS INVESTORS IN THE ASSIGNMENT OF INVESTMENTS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2022

Raphael Ren Open the ORCID record for Raphael Ren [Opens in a new window]  and
Soh Lip Shan
Raphael Ren
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law, University of Malaya, raphael.kcr@gmail.com.
Soh Lip Shan
Affiliation:
Christopher & Lee Ong, lipshan96@gmail.com.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The constant exchange of investment assets poses a risk of ‘commoditisation’ of investment treaty claims. Nevertheless, both traditional and modern investment treaties contain sufficient safeguards against attempts by host State ‘insiders’ and third State ‘intruders’ to create artificial access to arbitration. First, the definition of ‘investment’ can filter genuine investments from bare acquisition of assets (ratione materiae). Second, the textual linkage between ‘investor’ and ‘investment’ strongly implies that ‘active contribution’ in the investment is required from assignees to qualify for protection (ratione personae). Third, the doctrine of abuse of rights prevents treaty shopping and internationalisation of domestic disputes (ratione temporis).

Keywords

private international lawforeign investmentabuse of processtreaty shoppingratione materiaeratione personaeratione temporistreaty interpretationjurisdictioncommoditisation of claim
Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 71 , Issue 2 , April 2022 , pp. 357 - 388
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press for the British Institute of International and Comparative Law

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Banro American Resources, Inc v Democratic Republic of the Congo, ICSID Case No ARB/98/7, Award (excerpts) (1 September 2000) (Weil, Geach, Diagne) para 14.

2 ICSID, CIRDI, CIADI, History of the ICSID Convention, vol II (ICSID 2009) 273.

3 Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v Spain) (Second Phase) [1970] ICJ Rep 3, 245–6 (Separate Opinion of Judge Nervo).

4 ibid 164, para 10 (Separate Opinion of Judge Jessup).

5 Westmoreland Coal Company v Government of Canada, ICSID Case No UNCT/20/3, Canada's Reply Memorial on Jurisdiction (9 April 2021) para 134 fn 266.

6 Westmoreland Coal Company v Government of Canada, ICSID Case No UNCT/20/3, Final Award (31 January 2022) (Blanch, Hosking, Douglas) paras 85–92. This article had been written, peer-reviewed, revised and approved for publication before the final award was made publicly available sometime in February 2022. Accordingly, our analysis is primarily focused on parties’ submissions rather than the findings of the tribunal.

7 In Re UAL Corp, 635 F. 3d 312 (7th Cir 2011) 316.

8 Guest, AG, Guest on the Law of Assignment (Sweet & Maxwell 2012) 4–22Google Scholar; Smith, M and Leslie, N, The Law of Assignment (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2013) 53–61Google Scholar.

9 German Civil Code, Division 5 <https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bgb/englisch_bgb.pdf>.

10 Swiss Civil Code (Part Five: The Code of Obligations) art 164 <https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/27/317_321_377/en>.

11 Goh, N, ‘The Assignment of Investment Treaty Claims: Mapping the Principles’ (2019) 10 JIDS 23Google Scholar.

12 Wehland, H, ‘The Transfer of Investments and Rights of Investors – Some Unresolved Issues’ (2014) 30(3) ArbIntl 565Google Scholar.

13 Plama Consortium Limited v Republic of Bulgaria, ICSID Case No ARB/03/24, Decision on Jurisdiction (8 February 2005) (Salans, Veeder, van den Berg) para 198.

14 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (adopted 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980) 1155 UNTS 331 (VCLT).

15 Plama (n 13) paras 147, 158, 188; Tokios Tokeles v Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/02/18, Decision on Jurisdiction (29 April 2004) (Weil (dissenting), Bernardini, Price) para 27; Alapli Elektrik BV v Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No ARB/08/13, Award (16 July 2012) (Park, Stern, Lalonde (dissenting)) para 333; Phoenix Action Ltd v The Czech Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/06/5, Award (15 April 2009) (Stern, Fernández-Armesto, Bucher) paras 75–76; Daimler Financial Services AG v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/05/1 Award (22 August 2012) (Dupuy, Brower (dissenting), Janeiro) para 46; Saluka Investments BV (The Netherlands) v The Czech Republic, PCA Case No 2001-04, Partial Award (17 March 2006) (Watts, Behrens, Fortier) paras 296–300; Mondev International Ltd v United States of America, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/99/2, Award (11 October 2002) (Stephen, Crawford, Schwebel) para 43; Emilio Agustín Maffezini v The Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No ARB/97/7, Decision on Jurisdiction (25 January 2000) (Vicuña, Buergenthal, Wolf) para 27.

16 Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v The Russian Federation, PCA Case No 2005-04/AA227, Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (30 November 2009) (Fortier, Schwebel, Poncet) para 415.

17 Barcelona Traction (n 3) paras 36, 90.

18 Elettronica Sicula SPA (ELSI) (United States of America v Italy) (Merits) [1989] ICJ Rep 15.

19 Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v Democratic Republic of the Congo) (Preliminary Objections) [2007] ICJ Rep 582, paras 89–90.

20 KT Asia Investment Group BV v Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No ARB/09/8, Award (17 October 2013) (Kaufmann-Kohler, Glick, Thomas) para 129 (‘the wide consensus that emerges from case law according to which rules of customary international law applicable in the context of diplomatic protection do not apply where they have been varied by the lex specialis of an investment treaty’); AES Corporation v The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/02/17, Decision on Jurisdiction (26 April 2005) (Dupuy, Böckstiegel, Janeiro) para 23(b)–(c) (‘the rule according to which “specialia generalibus derogant”, from which it derives that treaty obligations prevail over rules of customary international law under the condition that the latter are not of a peremptory character’); CMS Gas Transmission Company v The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/18, Decision on Jurisdiction (17 July 2003) (Vicuña, Lalonde, Rezek) para 48.

21 Paulsson, J, ‘Arbitration Without Privity’ (1995) 10(2) ICSID Rev 232, 241CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Casinos Austria International v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/14/32, Decision on Jurisdiction (29 June 2018) (van Houtte, Schill, Bernárdez (dissenting)) paras 273–275.

23 Interhandel (Switzerland v United States of America) [1959] ICJ Rep 6, 27; ELSI (n 18) paras 49–50.

24 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (adopted 18 March 1965, entered into force 14 October 1966) 575 UNTS 159.

25 Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v Guatemala) (Second Phase) [1955] ICJ Rep 4, 22.

26 The Rompetrol Group NV v Romania, ICSID Case No ARB/06/3, Decision on Respondent's Preliminary Objections on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (18 April 2008) (Berman, Donovan, Lalonde) paras 92–93; KT Asia (n 20) paras 126–129.

27 Ioan Micula v Romania (I), ICSID Case No ARB/05/20, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (24 September 2008) (Lévy, Ehlermann, Alexandrov) para 64 (‘when an objection relates to a requirement contained in the text on which consent is based, it remains a jurisdictional objection’); Hochtief AG v The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/31, Decision on Jurisdiction (24 October 2011) (Lowe, Brower, Thomas) para 90.

28 VCLT (n 14) art 31(1).

29 ibid art 31(2)–(3).

30 ibid art 32(a)–(b).

31 Plama (n 13) para 198.

32 ibid para 193; Hrvatska Elektroprivreda DD v the Republic of Slovenia, ICSID Case No ARB/05/24, Decision on the Treaty Interpretation Issue (12 June 2009) (Brower, Paulsson (dissenting), Williams) para 159; RSM Production Corporation v Grenada, ICSID Case No ARB/05/14, Award (13 March 2009) (Veeder, Audit, Berry) paras 388–390; Tsa Yap Shum v Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No ARB/07/06, Decision on Jurisdiction and Competence (19 June 2009) (Fernandez-Armesto, Otero, Kessler) paras 181–182.

33 ICS Inspection and Control Services Limited v the Argentine Republic, PCA Case No 2010-9, Award on Jurisdiction (10 February 2012) (Dupuy, Bernárdez, Lalonde) paras 266–267; RosInvestCo UK Ltd v The Russian Federation, SCC Case No V079/2005, Award on Jurisdiction (1 October 2007) (Böckstiegel, Steyn, Berman) para 42; B-Mex, LLC v United Mexican States, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/16/3, Partial Award (19 July 2019) (Born, Vinuesa (partially dissenting), Verhoosel) para 123; Renta 4 SVSA v The Russian Federation, SCC No 24/2007, Award on Preliminary Objections (20 March 2009) (Paulsson, Brower, Landau) para 93; Tsa Yap Shum (n 32) paras 175–177.

34 AS PNB Banka v Republic of Latvia, ICSID Case No ARB/17/47, Decision on the Intra-EU Objection (14 July 2021) (Spigelman, Tomka, Townsend) paras 500, 505, 526, 595; Silver Ridge Power BV v Italian Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/15/37, Award (26 February 2021) (Simma, Johnson (dissenting), Cremades) para 222; Eco Oro Minerals Corp v the Republic of Colombia, ICSID Case No ARB/16/41, Decision on Jurisdiction, Liability and Directions on Quantum (9 September 2021) (Blanch, Naón (partially dissenting), Sands (partially dissenting)) para 371.

35 Renta (n 33) para 55; Casinos Austria (n 22) para 181; RosInvest (n 33) para 44; cf SGS Société Générale de Surveillance SA v Republic of the Philippines, ICSID Case No ARB/02/6, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction (29 January 2004) (El-Kosheri, Crawford, Crivellaro) para 116.

36 Plama (n 13) para 195; Standard Chartered Bank v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No ARB/10/12, Award (2 November 2012) (Park, Legum, Pryles) paras 233–235 (SCB). However, reference to such external aids of interpretation must be exercised with caution as ‘each BIT has its own identity’ and ‘striking similarities in the wording of many BITs often dissimulate real differences in the definition of some key concepts’ (AES Corporation (n 20) paras 24–25).

37 Goh (n 11) 28.

38 Daimler (n 15) para 144.

39 Mihaly International Corporation v Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No ARB/00/2, Award (15 March 2002) (Sucharitkul, Rogers, Suratgar) para 24.

40 The assignment in Daimler occurred after the commencement of arbitration, whilst the assignment in Mihaly occurred before arbitration commenced. The materiality of such distinction is explained in Section III(C).

41 The Energy Charter Treaty (adopted 17 December 1994, entered into force 16 April 1998) 2080 UNTS 95.

42 Plama (n 13) para 121.

43 Paulsson (n 21) para 248.

44 North American Free Trade Agreement (adopted 17 December 1992, entered into force 1 January 1994) (1993) 32 ILM 289.

45 UNCTAD, ‘Recent Trends in IIAs and ISDS’ (UNCTAD IIA Issues Note, 19 February 2015) 7 <https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/webdiaepcb2015d1_en.pdf>.

46 UNCTAD, ‘Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Review of Developments in 2015’ (UNCTAD IIA Issues Note, 8 June 2016) 5 <https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/webdiaepcb2016d4_en.pdf>; UNCTAD, ‘Special Update on Investor–State Dispute Settlement: Facts and Figures’ (UNCTAD IIA Issues Note, 7 November 2017) 3 <https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/diaepcb2017d7_en.pdf>; UNCTAD, ‘Investor–State Dispute Settlement: Review of Developments in 2017’ (UNCTAD IIA Issues Note, 1 June 2018) 3 <https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/diaepcbinf2018d2_en.pdf>; UNCTAD, ‘Fact Sheet on Investor–State Dispute Settlement Cases in 2018’ (UNCTAD IIA Issues Note, 29 May 2019) 3 <https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/diaepcbinf2019d4_en.pdf>; UNCTAD, ‘Investor–State Dispute Settlement Cases Pass the 1,000 Mark: Cases and Outcomes in 2019’ (UNCTAD IIA Issues Note, 7 July 2020) 4 <https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/diaepcbinf2020d6.pdf>; UNCTAD, ‘Investor–State Dispute Settlement Cases: Facts and Figures 2020’ (UNCTAD IIA Issues Note, 2 September 2021) 3 <https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/diaepcbinf2021d7_en.pdf>.

47 Energy Charter Secretariat, ‘Decision of the Energy Charter Conference on the Modernisation of the Energy Charter Treaty’ (Brussels, 28 November 2017) CCDEC 2017 23 STR.

48 Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v Honduras) (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) [1988] ICJ Rep 69, para 34; Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro) (Preliminary Objections) [1996] ICJ Rep 595, paras 23, 26–27, 34.

49 Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v Belgium) (Preliminary Objections) [2004] ICJ Rep 279, paras 28–29; Aerial Incident of 10 August 1999 (Pakistan v India) (Jurisdiction of the Court) [2000] ICJ Rep 12, para 40; Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v Canada) (Jurisdiction of the Court) [1998] ICJ Rep 432, para 84.

50 Transglobal Green Energy, LLC v Republic of Panama, ICSID Case No ARB/13/28, Award (2 June 2016) (Sureda, Paulsson, Schreuer) para 100.

51 Legality of Use of Force (n 49) para 46; Certain Norwegian Loans (France v Norway) [1957] ICJ Rep 9, 25; Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v Turkey) (Jurisdiction of the Court) [1978] ICJ Rep 3, para 40; Aerial Incident (n 49) para 26.

52 Philip Morris Brands SARL v Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No ARB/10/7, Decision on Jurisdiction (2 July 2013) (Bernardini, Born, Crawford) para 193; Ambiente Ufficio SPA v the Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/08/9, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (8 February 2013) (Simma, Böckstiegel, Bernárdez (dissenting)) para 433.

53 Blue Bank International & Trust (Barbados) Ltd v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No ARB/12/20, Award (26 April 2017) (Malintoppi, Bermann, Söderlund) paras 152–153; KT Asia (n 20) paras 135–136.

54 Compañiá de Aguas del Aconquija SA v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/97/3, Decision on Jurisdiction (14 November 2005) (Kaufmann-Kohler, Bernal, Rowley) para 60.

55 Rules Governing the Additional Facility for the Administration of Proceedings by the Secretariat of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (adopted 10 April 2006).

56 Agreement between Japan and the Kingdom of Morocco for the Promotion and Protection of Investment (adopted 8 January 2020) art 1(a); Investment Protection Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam of the other part (adopted 30 June 2019) art 12(h) (EU–Vietnam BIT); Agreement between Australia and the Oriental Republic of Uruguay on the Promotion and Protection of Investments (2019) (adopted 5 April 2019) art 1(1)(a); Agreement between Ukraine and Japan for the Promotion and Protection of Investment (adopted 5 February 2015) art 1(1); Treaty between United States of America and the Argentine Republic Concerning the Reciprocal Encouragement and Protection of Investment (adopted 14 November 1991) art 1(1)(a).

57 Saluka (n 15) para 203; Yukos (n 16) para 430.

58 ECT (n 41) art 1(6)(c).

59 Petrobart Limited v The Kyrgyz Republic (II), SCC Arbitration No 126/2003, Award (29 March 2005) (Danelius, Smets, Bring) 71–2.

60 Fedax NV v The Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No ARB/96/3, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction (11 July 1997) (Vicuña, Owen, Heth) paras 37–40. The definition of ‘investment’ under the Netherlands–Venezuela BIT includes ‘titles to money’.

61 African Holding Company of America, Inc v Congo, ICSID Case No ARB/05/21, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (29 July 2008) (Vicuña, Wijnen, Grisay) paras 75–84 (citing Fedax (n 60) with approval at para 77).

62 ibid para 73.

63 ibid para 70 (unofficial translation). The assignment of an ‘investment’ between two co-claimants was also validated in MNSS BV v Montenegro, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/12/8, Award (4 May 2016) (Sureda, Stern, Gaillard) para 203 (‘The First Loan did not change its condition as an investment because of the assignment. The change of creditor changes the investor but not the substance of the investment.’).

64 Limited Liability Company Amto v Ukraine, SCC Arbitration No 080/2005, Final Award (26 March 2008) (Cremades, Söderlund, Runeland) para 42.

65 ibid para 42.

66 State Enterprise Energorynok v the Republic of Moldova, SCC Case No 2012/175, Final Award (29 January 2015) (Turck, Knieper, Tirado).

67 ibid paras 15–19.

68 ibid para 22.

69 ibid para 5.

70 ibid para 26.

71 ibid paras 26–30.

72 ibid paras 81–82.

73 ibid paras 80, 89.

74 ibid paras 86–87.

75 ibid paras 91–92.

76 ibid paras 90, 95.

77 ibid paras 101, 103.

78 Energoalians LLC v Republic of Moldova, UNCITRAL ad hoc arbitration, Award (23 October 2013) (Pellew, Volcinski, Savranski). This case has a long chequered history. Moldova applied to set aside the award at Paris, the arbitral seat, on the ground that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction ratione materiae. In 2016, the award was set aside by the Paris Court of Appeal. In 2018, the French Court of Cassation overturned the decision and remitted the matter back to the Paris Court of Appeal, which then referred the jurisdictional question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). On 2 September 2021, the CJEU decided in favour of Moldova (Case C-741/19 Republic of Moldova v Komstroy LLC EU:C:2021:655).

79 Energoalians LLC v Republic of Moldova (n 78) paras 69–80.

80 ibid paras 70–71.

81 ibid paras 72–74. The buyer settled all payments due to the claimant supplier.

82 ibid paras 77–79.

83 ibid paras 80, 250–251, 262.

84 ibid paras 80, 268–272.

85 ibid paras 285–289.

86 ibid paras 282, 289.

87 Agreement between the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (adopted 29 August 1995) art 1 (emphasis added). The material difference between this additional qualifying term and the proviso in Article 1(6) of the ECT is that the latter lacks direct reference to the territory of the host State.

88 Energoalians (n 78) para 285.

89 ibid paras 71, 286–287. Both contracts were based on DAF terms (delivered at frontier). Incidentally, this singular fact was pivotal to the CJEU's reasoning that the contract did not constitute an ‘investment’ under Article 1(6) of the ECT (see Komstroy (n 78) paras 76–84).

90 ibid paras 89–118, 288.

91 Salini Costruttori SpA v Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No ARB/00/4, Decision on Jurisdiction (23 July 2001) (Briner, Fadlallah, Cremades Sanz-Pastor) para 52.

92 Romak SA v The Republic of Uzbekistan, PCA Case No AA280, Award (26 November 2009) (Mantilla-Serrano, Molfessis, Rubins) para 188; Joy Mining Machinery Limited v Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/03/11, Award on Jurisdiction (6 August 2004) (Vicuña, Weeramantry, Craig) para 53; Jan de Nul NV v Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/04/13, Decision on Jurisdiction (16 June 2006) (Kaufmann-Kohler, Stern, Mayer) para 91; Helnan International Hotels A/S v Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/05/19, Decision of the Tribunal on Objection to Jurisdiction (17 October 2006) (Derains, Dolzer, Lee) para 77; Christian Doutremepuich v Republic of Mauritius, PCA Case No 2018-37, Award on Jurisdiction (23 August 2019) (Scherer, Paulsson, Caprasse) para 117; Isolux Infrastructure Netherlands BV v Kingdom of Spain, SCC Case No V2013/153, Award (12 July 2016) (Derains, Tawil (dissenting), von Wobeser) paras 683–686.

93 Flemingo DutyFree Shop Private Limited v Republic of Poland, PCA Case No 2014-11, Award (12 August 2016) (Houtte, Townsend, Kühn) para 298; White Industries Australia Limited v The Republic of India, UNCITRAL ad hoc arbitration, Final Award (30 November 2011) (Rowley, Brower, Lau) para 7.3.8; A11Y Ltd. v Czech Republic, ICSID Case No UNCT/15/1, Award (29 June 2018) (Fortier, Joubin-Bret, Alexandrov) para 138; Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka, as v The Slovak Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/97/4, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction (24 May 1999) (Buergenthal, Bernardini, Bucher) paras 78, 90 (CSOB); Fedax (n 60) para 25; African Holding (n 61) para 75; Energoalians (n 78) paras 237, 241.

94 Grabowski, A, ‘The Definition of Investment under the ICSID Convention: A Defense of Salini’ (2014) 15(1) Chicago Journal of International Law 287, 293Google Scholar; Dupont, P-E, ‘The Notion of ICSID Investment: Ongoing “Confusion” or “Emerging Synthesis”?’ (2011) 12(2) The Journal of World Investment & Trade 245, 246Google Scholar.

95 Phoenix Action (n 15) paras 83–85; Mr. Franz Sedelmayer v The Russian Federation, SCC ad hoc arbitration, Arbitration Award (7 July 1998) (Magnusson, Zykin (dissenting), Wachler) para 224; LESI SpA v People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, ICSID Case No ARB/05/3, Decision on Jurisdiction (12 July 2006) (Tercier, Gaillard, Faurès) paras 72–73; Mr. Saba Fakes v Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No ARB/07/20, Award (14 July 2010) (van Houtte, Lévy, Gaillard) paras 110–111; Krederi Ltd v Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/14/17, Award (excerpts) (2 July 2018) (Reinisch, Wirth, Griffith) para 237; Quiborax SA, Non Metallic Minerals SA v Plurinational State of Bolivia, ICSID Case No ARB/06/2, Decision on Jurisdiction (27 September 2012) (Kaufmann-Kohler, Lalonde, Stern) paras 220–225; Isolux (n 92) para 685.

96 See Section IV.

97 ECT (n 41) art 17.

98 ibid art 26(2)–(5).

99 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (adopted 10 June 1958, entered into force 7 June 1959) 330 UNTS 3, art II(1)–(2).

100 Tokios (n 15) para 30; Plama (n 13) para 124; Saluka (n 15) para 240; Yukos (n 16) para 416.

101 Nottebohm (n 25) 22–3.

102 Saluka (n 15) para 240.

103 Agreement on Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic (adopted 29 April 1991).

104 Saluka (n 15) para 241.

105 Tokios (n 15) paras 31–32.

106 ibid paras 33–36 (‘We regard the absence of such a provision as a deliberate choice of the Contracting Parties.’).

107 Treaty between Ukraine and the United States of America Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments (adopted 4 March 1994) art 1(2) (‘[E]ach Party reserves the right to deny to any company the advantages of this treaty if nationals of any third country control such company and, in the case of a company of the other Party, that company has no substantial business activities in the territory of the other Party … .’).

108 Plama (n 13) paras 146–151. Part III of the ECT contains the majority of the substantive provisions on investment protection (ie MFN, FET and expropriation). Dispute settlement (vide Article 26) is found in Part V.

109 ibid paras 153–165.

110 This is subject to considerations of ratione temporis in Section III(C).

111 C Schreuer et al., The ICSID Convention: A Commentary (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2009) 177–90.

112 Crawford, J and Brownlie, I, Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law (8th edn, Oxford University Press 2012) 704CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

113 Barcelona Traction (n 3) 189, para 48 (Separate Opinion of Judge Jessup).

114 Roberts, A, ‘Clash of Paradigms: Actors and Analogies Shaping the Investment Treaty System’ (2013) 107(1) AJIL 45, 45–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

115 Douglas, Z, The International Law of Investment Claims (Cambridge University Press 2012) 161–84Google Scholar.

116 Waste Management, Inc v United Mexican States (II), ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/00/3, Award (30 April 2004) (Crawford, Civiletti, Gómez) para 85.

117 Amto (n 64) para 45.

118 ibid para 46.

119 ibid.

120 Schreuer, C, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary (Cambridge University Press 2001) 218Google Scholar; Amersinghe, CF, ‘The Jurisdiction of the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes’ (1979) 19 Indian Journal of International Law 166, 224Google Scholar.

121 SGS (n 35) para 31; Tokios (n 15) para 98.

122 The domestic law of some States may require registration of foreign investments (see Beijing Urban Construction Group Co Ltd v Republic of Yemen, ICSID Case No ARB/14/30, Decision on Jurisdiction (31 May 2017) (Binnie, Douglas, Townsend) paras 45–47).

123 Vannessa Ventures Ltd v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/04/6, Award (16 January 2013) (Lowe, Stern, Brower).

124 ibid paras 56–61.

125 ibid para 65.

126 ibid paras 84–85.

127 ibid paras 93, 98.

128 ibid paras 138–140.

129 ibid para 154.

130 The converse is also true—the validity of an IIA is unaffected by any change of political regime of a host State: Sanum Investments Limited v Lao People's Democratic Republic, PCA Case No 2013-13, Award on Jurisdiction (13 December 2013) (Hanotiau, Stern, Sureda) para 246 (‘it would be excessive to say that all bilateral treaties are so personal, so related to intuitu personae questions that they cannot survive a State's succession’ (emphasis in original text)).

131 Plama (n 13) para 156.

132 ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services (adopted 15 December 1995, entered into force 30 December 1998) art V.

133 Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (entered into force 1 March 2006).

134 Pac Rim Cayman LLC v The Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No ARB/09/12, Decision on the Respondent's Jurisdictional Objection (1 June 2012) (Tawil, Stern, Veeder) paras 4.1–4.4.

135 Luxtona Limited v The Russian Federation, PCA Case No 2014-09, Interim Award on Respondent's Objections to the Jurisdiction of the Tribunal (22 March 2017) (Oreamuno, Radicati, Crook) paras 279–281.

136 Gran Colombia Gold Corp v Republic of Colombia, ICSID Case No ARB/18/23, Decision on the Bifurcated Jurisdictional Issue (23 November 2020) (Kalicki, Hanotiau, Stern) para 141.

137 ibid paras 137–138; Amto (n 64) para 69; Masdar Solar & Wind Cooperatief UA v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No ARB/14/1, Award (16 May 2018) (Beechey, Born, Stern) para 253; Littop Enterprises Limited, Bridgemont Ventures Limited v Ukraine, SCC Case No V 2015/092, Final Award (4 February 2021) (Lew, Fortier, Oreamuno) paras 616, 624.

138 Ho, J, ‘Passive Investments’ (2020) 35(3) ICSID Rev 523, 529Google Scholar.

139 SCB (n 36).

140 ibid paras 196, 252.

141 ibid para 196.

142 ibid paras 23–29, 55–58.

143 Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (adopted 7 January 1994, entered into force 2 August 1994) UKTS 90 (1996), Cm 3453, art 8(1) (‘any legal dispute arising between that Contracting Party and a national or company of the other Contracting Party concerning an investment of the latter in the territory of the former’).

144 SCB (n 36) paras 205, 208.

145 ibid para 219.

146 ibid para 213.

147 ibid paras 216–217.

148 ibid paras 218–219.

149 ibid para 220.

150 ibid paras 221–222.

151 ibid paras 226–229.

152 ibid paras 241–244.

153 ibid paras 245–256.

154 ibid paras 257–266.

155 ibid paras 230–232.

156 Alapli (n 15) paras 355–361. Turkey's jurisdictional objection was allowed by majority vote (Lalonde dissenting). However, both majority arbitrators gave separate concurring opinions on their preferred grounds (Park relied on ratione personae, whilst Stern on ratione temporis). Incidentally, Park also sat in the panel of SCB (n 36).

157 ibid paras 358, 360.

158 ibid para 350. Park referred to the dictionary meaning of ‘investor’ in the Oxford English Dictionary (‘one who invests money or makes an investment’) and Webster's (‘one that invests; one that seeks to commit funds for long-term profit with a minimum of risk’).

159 Casinos Austria (n 22) para 181; RosInvest (n 33) para 44.

160 Phoenix Action (n 15) para 79.

161 RSM Production (n 32) para 390.

162 VCLT (n 14) art 28.

163 MCI Power Group, LC v Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No ARB/03/6, Award (31 July 2007) (Vinuesa, Irarrázabal, Greenberg) para 61; Generation Ukraine, Inc v Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/00/9, Award (16 September 2003) (Paulsson, Salpius, Voss) para 11.2; ATA Construction, Industrial and Trading Company v Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, ICSID Case No ARB/08/2, Award (18 May 2010) (Fortier, Reisman, El-Kosheri) para 98; Astrida Benita Carrizosa v Republic of Colombia, ICSID Case No ARB/18/5, Award (19 April 2021) (Kaufmann-Kohler, Fernández Arroyo, Söderlund) para 124.

164 Phoenix Action (n 15) para 68; Mesa Power Group, LLC v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No 2012-17, Award (25 March 2016) (Kauffman-Kohler, Brower (concurring and dissenting), Landau) paras 325–326, 332–333; Vito G Gallo v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No 55798, Award (redacted) (15 September 2011) (Fernández-Armesto, Castel, Levy) paras 325–326; Renée Rose Levy v Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No ARB/11/17, Award (9 January 2015) (Kauffman-Kohler, Zuleta, Vinuesa) para 182.

165 The Panevezys-Saldutiskis Railway Case (Estonia v Lithuania) (Merits) [1939] PCIJ Rep Series A/B No 76, 16–17; Barcelona Traction (n 3) 202–4, paras 73–77 (Separate Opinion of Judge Jessup); 99–102, paras 61–63 (Separate Opinion of Judge Fitzmaurice). There is some uncertainty whether the rule of continuity also requires the nationality to remain unchanged until the claim is made.

166 Transglobal (n 50) para 50; Phoenix Action (n 15) paras 136–138.

167 Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (Greece v United Kingdom) (Objection to the Jurisdiction of the Court) [1924] PCIJ Rep Series A No 2, 34; Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of Congo v Belgium) [2002] ICJ Rep 3, para 26; Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v Russian Federation) (Preliminary Objections) [2011] ICJ Rep 70, para 162; Legality of Use of Force (n 49) paras 79, 91; CSOB (n 93) para 31; Daimler (n 15) para 141.

168 African Holding (n 61) paras 109, 114–116, 120–122 (the tribunal lacked jurisdiction ratione temporis under the United States–Congo BIT because the claimant was acquired by American owners from a Belgian company after the dispute arose). Arbitral tribunals typically address the doctrine of abuse of rights as a distinct issue separate from ratione temporis (see Phoenix Action (n 15) paras 68–71 and 135–144; Levy (n 164) para 182; Pac Rim (n 134) paras 2.101–2.104; Philip Morris Asia Limited v The Commonwealth of Australia, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No 2012-12, Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (17 December 2015) (Böckstiegel, Kaufmann-Kohler, McRae) para 527).

169 See Section III(A) and (B). It is plausible for State X and State Y to have only intended for their IIA to protect fresh capital flowing between their territories. If so, such intention would have been made expressly clear by narrowing the definition of ‘investment’ to only encompass ‘establishing new Investments’ (in contrast with Article 1(8) of the ECT which defines ‘Making of Investments’ as including both ‘establishing new Investments’ and ‘acquiring all or part of existing Investments’).

170 Aguas del Tunari SA v Republic of Bolivia, ICSID Case No ARB/02/3, Decision on Jurisdiction (21 October 2005) (Caron, Alberro-Semerena (dissenting), Alvarez) para 330.

171 Phoenix Action (n 15) para 94; Levy (n 164) para 184; Pac Rim (n 134) para 2.51; Mobil Corporation v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No ARB/07/27, Decision on Jurisdiction (10 June 2010) (Guillaume, Kaufmann-Kohler, El-Kosheri) para 204.

172 Phoenix Action (n 15) para 144.

173 ibid para 95; Levy (n 164) para 185; Pac Rim (n 134) para 2.51; Mobil (n 171) para 205.

174 Westmoreland Coal Company v Government of Canada, ICSID Case No UNCT/20/3, Legal Opinion of Jan Paulsson relating to the Issue of Jurisdiction Ratione Temporis (26 February 2021) paras 17–18.

175 Pac Rim (n 134) para 2.99.

176 Levy (n 164) paras 188–195; Gallo (n 164) paras 331–336; Philip Morris (n 168) paras 585–588; Cementownia ‘Nowa Huta’ SA v Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/06/2, Award (17 September 2009) (Tercier, Lalonde, Thomas) paras 116–117, 136, 146–147, 156–159.

177 Phoenix Action (n 15) paras 136–137.

178 ibid para 142.

179 Transglobal (n 50) para 50.

180 ibid paras 51–52.

181 ibid paras 54–58.

182 ibid paras 63–64, 108–109.

183 ibid paras 117–118.

184 Alapli (n 15) para 315.

185 ibid para 311.

186 ibid para 311.

187 ibid paras 339–341, 390.

188 ibid para 403.

189 ibid para 393.

190 Mihaly (n 39) para 11.

191 ibid para 23.

192 ibid para 24. The tribunal considered this point under jurisdiction ratione personae.

193 ibid.

194 ibid.

195 Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v United Kingdom) (Preliminary Objections) [1993] ICJ Rep 9, para 38; Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v India) (Preliminary Objections) [1957] ICJ Rep 125, 142; Arrest Warrant (n 167) para 26; Aguas (n 54) paras 60–63. According to a more nuanced view, subsequent events may be admissible in a ‘subordinate capacity’ to ‘corroborate and explain’ events occurring preceding the critical date (LFE Goldie, ‘The Critical Date’ (1953) 12(4) ICLQ 1251, 1254).

196 Mondev (n 15) para 91.

197 CSOB (n 93) para 31.

198 El Paso Energy International Company v The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/03/15, Decision on Jurisdiction (27 April 2006) (Caflisch, Stern, Bernardini) para 135.

199 Daimler (n 15) para 154; EnCana Corporation v Republic of Ecuador, LCIA Case No UN3481, Award (3 February 2006) (Crawford, Naón, Thomas) para 131.

200 Daimler (n 15) para 144.

201 ibid para 145 (emphasis in original text).

202 See Section III(B)(1).

203 Casinos Austria (n 22) paras 272–273. The doctrine of separability, however, may be relevant to draw a distinction between substantive standards on investor protection and procedural rules on dispute settlement in the context of invocation of ‘most-favoured-nation’ clauses to import provisions from third State IIAs (see Plama (n 13) para 212).

204 Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38, para 41 (Lord Hamblen and Lord Leggatt) (Lord Kerr concurring).

205 ibid paras 61–62 (Lord Hamblen and Lord Leggatt) (Lord Kerr concurring). This view was unanimously shared by Lord Burrows and Lord Sales in their dissent (at paras 232–233).

206 See Section III(B)(1).

207 Douglas, Z et al. , The Foundations of International Investment Law – Bringing Theory Into Practice (Oxford University Press 2014) 17, 18Google Scholar; UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2020 – International Production Beyond the Pandemic (UN Publications 2020) 106.

208 Agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada (adopted 30 November 2018).

209 Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union (adopted 30 October 2016).

210 European Commission, ‘Fifth Negotiation Round to Modernise Energy Charter Treaty’ (EC Trade, 4 June 2021) <https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=2273>.

211 European Commission, ‘EU Text Proposal for the Modernisation of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT)’ (EU ECT Modernisation Proposal) <https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2020/may/tradoc_158754.pdf>.

212 CETA (n 209) art 8.1; USMCA (n 208) art 14.1; Investment Protection Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Singapore of the other part (adopted 19 October 2018) art 1.2(2) (EU–Singapore BIT); Agreement on Investment among the Governments of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and the Member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (adopted 12 November 2017) art 1(e) (HK–ASEAN BIT); Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Turkey and the Government of the Republic of Burundi concerning the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments (adopted 14 June 2017) art 1(1) (Turkey–Burundi BIT); EU–Vietnam BIT (n 56) art 1.2(h).

213 See also USMCA (n 208) art 14.1; Agreement between Japan and Georgia for the Liberalisation, Promotion and Protection of Investment (adopted 29 January 2021) art 1(a); Brazil–India Investment Cooperation and Facilitation Agreement (adopted 25 January 2020) art. 2.4.1; EU–Vietnam BIT (n 56) art 1.2(h)(v); Agreement between the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the United Arab Emirates for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments (adopted 16 June 2019) art 1(d); Cooperation and Facilitation Investment Agreement between the Federative Republic of Brazil and the Co-operative Republic of Guyana (adopted 13 December 2018) art 1.3; Treaty between the Republic of Belarus and the Republic of India on Investments (adopted 24 September 2018) art 1.4 (Belarus–India BIT); Agreement between the Belgium–Luxembourg Economic Union, on the One Hand and … on the Other Hand, on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments (adopted 28 March 2019) art 2(3) (Model BIT); Agreement on Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments between … and the Kingdom of the Netherlands (adopted 22 March 2019) art 1(a) (Model BIT); EU ECT Modernisation Proposal (n 211) 2, art 1(6).

214 See Section III(A)(2).

215 CETA (n 209) art 8.1; USMCA (n 208) art 14.1; NAFTA (n 44) art 1139. Some treaties are worded more restrictively to only cover an investor ‘who has made an investment’ (see EU–Singapore BIT (n 212) art 1.2(3); EU–Vietnam BIT (n 56) art 1.2(i); Hong Kong–ASEAN BIT (n 212) art 1(f)).

216 See Section III(B)(2).

217 CETA (n 209) art 8.1; See also Brazil–India Investment Cooperation and Facilitation Agreement (adopted 25 January 2020) art 2.5; Turkey–Burundi BIT (n 212) art 2(b); EU–Singapore BIT (n 212) art 1.2(6); Agreement between the Republic of Rwanda and the United Arab Emirates on the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments (adopted 1 November 2017) art 1(1); Investment Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (2019) (adopted 26 March 2019) art 1; Belarus–India BIT (n 213) art 1.6; EU ECT Modernisation Proposal (n 211) 3, art 1(7).

218 USMCA (n 208) art 14.14.

219 See Section III(C)(2).

220 EU ECT Modernisation Proposal (n 211) 16–17.

221 Westmoreland Coal Company v Government of Canada, ICSID Case No UNCT/20/3, Canada's Memorial on Jurisdiction (18 December 2020) paras 47, 55.

222 Westmoreland Coal Company v Government of Canada, ICSID Case No UNCT/20/3, Claimant's Counter-Memorial on Jurisdiction (26 February 2021) para 41; Alapli (n 15) para 351 (Park).

223 Westmoreland (Legal Opinion of Jan Paulsson) (n 174) para 49.

224 ibid para 50.

225 Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad) [1994] ICJ Rep 6, para 41; Legality of Use of Force (n 49) para 100; RSM Production (n 32) para 390.

226 Alapli (n 15) para 334.

227 ECT (n 41) art 10(1); Agreement between Japan and the Kingdom of Morocco for the Promotion and Protection of Investment (adopted 8 January 2020) Preamble; Agreement Between the Republic of San Marino and Bosnia and Herzegovina on the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments (adopted 2 August 2011) art 2(1); Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Malta and the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Albania for the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments (adopted 27 January 2011) art 2(1); Agreement on Investment between the Republic of Korea and the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein and the Swiss Confederation (adopted 15 December 2005) art 3(1); Agreement between Serbia and Montenegro and the Republic of Cyprus on Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments (adopted 21 July 2005) art 2(1).

228 See Section III(B)(2) and III(C)(2).

229 See Section III(A)(2).

230 Phoenix Action (n 15) paras 67–71 (‘[T]he Tribunal has no jurisdiction ratione temporis to consider Phoenix's claims arising prior to … the date of Phoenix's alleged investment, because the BIT did not become applicable to Phoenix for acts committed by the Czech Republic until Phoenix “invested” in the Czech Republic.’). To backdate the critical date of investment to the time when electricity was supplied by the original investor would wrongly conflate the original investment with the actual investment made by the claimants.

231 Interpretation of Peace Treaties (Second Phase) (Advisory Opinion) [1950] ICJ Rep 221, 229; Acquisition of Polish Nationality (Advisory Opinion) [1923] PCIJ Rep Series B No 7, 20.

232 Alapli (n 15) paras 352–353.

233 See Westmoreland (n 6) paras 209–215. However, the tribunal unanimously dismissed the claim because ‘only the party which owned the investment at the time of the alleged treaty breach has jurisdiction ratione temporis to bring a claim’ based on the textual construction of arts 1101(1), 1116(1) and 1117(1) of NAFTA. The tribunal was particularly swayed by the latter two provisions requiring that the investor (or enterprise that an investor owns or controls directly or indirectly) ‘has incurred loss or damage by reason of, or arising out of, that breach’ as a precondition for an investor to submit a claim to arbitration.

234 African Holding (n 61) para 70; Koch Minerals Sàrl v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No ARB/11/19, Award (30 October 2017) (Veeder, Lalonde, Douglas) paras 6.30, 6.70 (the tribunal implicitly accepted the claimant's contention that international investment law permits assignment between related companies ‘so long as there is an unbroken continuum of nationality’).

235 Alapli (n 15) para 353.