From the First Bondholders’ Claim Held to be Outside the Jurisdiction of ICSID to the Legality Requirement for Lawful Expropriations and Various Elements of Fair and Equitable Treatment—ICSID Arbitration in 2015
In 2015, the jurisprudence of International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) tribunals and ad hoc committees largely followed established lines. However, the awards on jurisdiction in the Poštová banka and the Ping An cases evidenced very restrictive approaches to what is required in order to uphold jurisdiction over ICSID claims. On the substance of claims, the tribunals in Tidewater and in Quiborax reaffirmed the legality requirements of expropriations, a string of cases clarified the contours of the fair and equitable treatment standard, while the ad hoc committees in the Daimler and the Kılıç cases continued to diverge on the scope of most-favoured nation (MFN) clauses.
Keywords: fair and equitable treatment, “in accordance with host state law”-clauses, jurisdiction ratione materiae, legality requirements of expropriations, MFN clauses, notion of investment, ratione personae, and ratione temporis
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.