The legitimacy crisis confronting the international investment regime has called for reforms to eliminate the asymmetric and troubled nature of investment treaties. These instruments grant extensive investor protections without offering reciprocal safeguards for host States wishing to preserve regulatory space. This article argues that any reform designed to redress imbalances in the existing regime should first aim at narrowing the personal jurisdiction of investment tribunals. Problematically, access to most investment treaties depends on broad nationality requirements, which have enabled investors to use corporations or passports of convenience to obtain treaty protection. This practice exacerbates the unbalanced relationship between host States and investors. It increases host States’ exposure to investment treaty claims and allows investors to circumvent newer, more State-oriented investment treaties. Using as an example the novel anti-nationality planning approach embraced in the 2019 Dutch Model BIT, this article suggests effective treaty mechanisms that States can adopt to restrict the range of investors that are entitled to claim.

The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal's recent decision in Sabet and The Islamic Republic of Iran sheds new light on difficult issues concerning the dual nationality of minors. In particular, the case was the first in which the Tribunal determined minor dual national claimants to have a dominant and effective nationality different from that of either of their parents. Further, the Tribunal broke new ground in its analysis of ‘the caveat,’ an equitable doctrine that can bar the claims of dual nationals. This article applauds the Tribunal's advances in its caveat jurisprudence and develops a new approach that would further those advances.

The issue of whether an international judicial forum may entertain the claim of a dual national against a state to which he owes allegiance, is an old one. What is new, however, is the challenge by the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal of the traditionally held view that, in the absence of a clear mandate and where customary international law is exclusively invoked, the forum may not do so. Such a claim is admissible, says the Tribunal, provided the claimant is able to demonstrate: (a) that at all relevant times his “dominant and effective” nationality was the one on which he now relies; and (b) that the rights in question, those for the asserted breach of which he seeks redress, were not secured because of his other, non-dominant, nationality. Leaving for another day the questionability of the challenge, the present article offers to examine some of the more important aspects of the second test, as expounded and applied by the Tribunal.

Dual nationality — Voluntary resumption by Israel national of former German nationality — Taking out of licence to practise as advocate in Israel and in Germany — Offences against German fiscal laws — Public policy.

Diplomatic and consular intercourse — Miscellaneous — Meaning of “diplomatic or consular representative of a foreign State” — Status of Israel Purchasing Mission in Cologne — Whether appropriate organ for transmission of request for judicial assistance in absence of diplomatic or consular relations — The law of Israel.

Recognition — Of States — Implied recognition — Effect of conclusion of bilateral agreement on reparation — Whether constituting mutual recognition — Agreement between Israel and Federal Republic of Germany concerning Reparation, 1952 — The law of Israel.

Dual Nationality — Allegiance — Treason — Loss of Nationality — The Law of the United States of America.

Loss of Nationality — Dual Nationality — Voting in Political Elections in a Country of the Other Nationality.

Dual Nationality — Voting in Political Election by Person under Age of 21 — Voluntary Expatriation — Whether Voting in Election Held in Country of One Nationality Entails Loss of Nationality in the Other — The Law of the United States of America.

Dual Nationality — Loss of Nationality — Married Women — The Law of Switzerland.

Nationality — Loss of — By Marriage — Dual Nationality — The Law of Switzerland.

Dual Nationality — Liquidation of Enemy Property for Repara 5 tion Purposes after the War — Enemy Character — Legal Effects of Dual Nationality.

International Law — Relation to Municipal Law — Treatment of Aliens.

Naturalization — Aliens Declaring their Intention to Become Naturalized — Liability to Military Service.

Dual Nationality — Liability to Military Service — Aliens Declaring their Intention to Become Naturalized.

Aliens — Position of — Liability to Military Service — Persons of Double Nationality — Aliens who have declared their Intention to Become Naturalized — International Law and Municipal Law.

Acquisition of Nationality — Resumption of Nationality of Origin — The Law of the United States.

Naturalization — Of Parents — The Children’s Right of Election — The Law of the United States.

Loss of Nationality — Effect upon Children — The Law of the United States.

Dual Nationality — Loss of Nationality — Effect upon Children — Resumption of Nationality of Origin — Effect upon Nationality of Children — Naturalization of Parents and the Children’s Right of Election — The Law of the United States.

Naturalisation — Naturalisation of Parents — Effect on Nationality of Minor — Dual Nationality.

Dual Nationality — Naturalisation of Parents — Effect on Nationality of Minor.

Nationality — Loss of — Effect of Naturalisation of Parent upon Minor — Dual Nationality — Option at Attainment of Majority.