United Nations [UN]; World Bank; International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes [ICSID]
Subject(s)
ae5a317e-6d71-1014-90bf-c1927c3ed365 — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties — Authority of previous decisions (precedents) — Object & purpose (treaty interpretation and) — Official interpretations by the parties — Rules of treaty interpretation
Core Issue(s)
Whether Article 22 of the Venezuelan Law on the Promotion and Protection of Investments contained Venezuela’s consent to ICSID arbitration. — What effect the decisions of investment arbitration tribunals had on other tribunals. — Which rules of interpretation applied to a national law that had effect on the international plane: rules of interpretation of international law or the state’s national rules of interpretation. — Whether a state's interpretation of its unilateral consent to jurisdiction was binding on an investment arbitration tribunal. — Whether interpretations of national legislation by national courts were binding on an investment arbitration tribunal.
Burden of proof (and jurisdiction) — Consent to jurisdiction through treaties — Relevant date (and jurisdiction) — Definition of investment — Nationality of investor — Abuse of process — Abuse of rights — Bifurcation — Concurring, dissenting, separate, joint or individual opinions
Core Issue(s)
How the burden of proof regarding the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction should be allocated. — Whether the diplomatic conciliation procedure as provided for in Article 10 of the Belgium-Luxembourg—Cameroon BIT was a mandatory pre-arbitration requirement. — Whether the claimant had Luxembourg nationality, which was necessary to invoke the standards of treatment of the Belgium-Luxembourg—Cameroon BIT. — Whether the claimant’s registered seat should be considered artificial resulting in the claimant committing an abuse of rights. — Whether the claimant had made an investment under the Belgium-Luxembourg—Cameroon BIT or under the ICSID Convention.
United Nations [UN]; World Bank; International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes [ICSID]
Subject(s)
Burden of proof (and jurisdiction) — Investment ‘in accordance with host state law’ — Control — Corporate veil, piercing — Ownership — Abuse of rights — Good faith — Authority of previous decisions (precedents) — Nationality of the claimant (and admissibility) — Waiver of claims (and admissibility) — Arbitral rules
Core Issue(s)
Whether a company should have been regarded as a foreign investor under Article 25(2)(b) of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States (‘ICSID Convention’) under Article VI(8) of the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Republic of Kazakhstan Concerning the Reciprocal Encouragement and Protection of Investment (‘Kazakhstan-United States BIT’). — Whether the company had made an investment for the purpose of being regarded as a foreign investor under Article 25(2)(b) of the ICSID Convention under Article VI(8) of the Kazakhstan-United States BIT.
United Nations [UN]; World Bank; International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes [ICSID]
Subject(s)
Conduct of proceedings — Annulment — Failure to state reasons — Manifest excess of power — Serious departure from fundamental rule of procedure
Core Issue(s)
Whether an award could be annulled where the Annulment Committee differed from the Tribunal’s legal interpretation, so long as such interpretation was reasonable. — Whether the scale of contribution and risk assumption undertaken by the aggrieved investor was an inherent element of an ‘investment’. — Whether ownership of a controlling stake in the investment vehicle was sufficient to constitute an investment.
United Nations [UN]; World Bank; International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes [ICSID]
Subject(s)
Consent to jurisdiction — Consent to jurisdiction through treaties — International investment law — Most-favoured-nation treatment (MFN) — Admissibility — Concurring, dissenting, separate, joint or individual opinions — Waiting period
United Nations [UN]; World Bank; International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes [ICSID]
Subject(s)
Annulment — Failure to state reasons — Manifest excess of power — Serious departure from fundamental rule of procedure
Core Issue(s)
Whether the arbitral Tribunal decided to deny jurisdiction within the limits of its powers and in accordance with fundamental rules of procedure. — Whether the arbitral Tribunal gave reasons for its decision.
United Nations [UN]; World Bank; International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes [ICSID]
Subject(s)
Burden of proof (and jurisdiction) — Consent to jurisdiction through legislation — International criminal law, evidence — International investment law — Concurring, dissenting, separate, joint or individual opinions — Evidence — Production of documents
