United Nations [UN]; World Bank; International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes [ICSID]
Jurisdiction — Investment ‘in accordance with host state law’ — Control — Concession agreements — Waiting period
Whether, and if so to what extent, it was necessary to pierce a company’s corporate veil to determine whether an individual or entity ‘controls’ another company for the purposes of the second part of Article 25(2)(b) of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States (ߢICSID Conventionߣ) and Article 1(b)(iii) of the Agreement on Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Argentine Republic (Netherlands/Argentina BIT) and the Protocol to the Netherlands/Argentina BIT. — How the term ‘foreign control’ should be interpreted in Article 25(2)(b) of the ICSID Convention. — Whether jurisdiction existed to hear claims brought by TSA, an Argentine corporate entity wholly owned by a Dutch incorporated company, under the Netherlands/Argentina BIT given that the ultimate shareholder and controller at the critical date was a German-Argentine national. — Whether a Tribunal should decline jurisdiction when International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes proceedings were initiated prematurely based on the wording of Article 10 of the Netherlands/Argentina BIT. — Whether the allegation that an investment was procured by bribery and therefore not in accordance with host state law should be an issue joined to the merits of a case.