The investor’s nationality is relevant for jurisdictional purposes (see further jurisdiction ratione personae and jurisdiction ratione materiae)1 as well as for the question of standing (Standing, Section III. g.). Most investment treaties require investors to be a national of a Contracting State in order to establish the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal, and forbid the investors to have the nationality of the host State.2
Regardless of the applicable criteria to ascertain the nationality of the investor, the relevant date to determine the investor’s nationality is an important issue, since it could change over time and have an impact on the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal.
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (2018), Art. 9.1; Agreement between the People’s Republic of China and the Kingdom of Spain on the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, adopted on 14 November 2005, entered into force on 1 July 2008, Art. 1(2), 9(1); Bilateral Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investments between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Republic of Colombia, adopted on 17 March 2010, entered into force on 10 October 2014, Art. 1(1), 9(1); Netherlands Model Investment Agreement, Article 1(b)(i), 16; Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of Moldova for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, adopted on 12 June 2018, entered into force on 23 August 2019, Arts.1 and 20.
Société Générale in respect of DR Energy Holdings Limited and Empresa Distribuidora de Electricidad del Este, S.A. v. Dominican Republic, LCIA Case No. UN 7927, Preliminary Objections to Jurisdiction, 19 September 2008, para. 105; Waguih Elie George Siag and Clorinda Vecchi v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/15, Decision on Jurisdiction, 11 April 2007, para. 206.
The ICSID Convention expressly specifies the relevant date at which the nationality of the investor needs to be determined. The ICSID Convention states that nationality needs to be analysed at the date on which the parties consented to submit the dispute to the Centre’s jurisdiction and, also, on the date the Centre registered the request for arbitration.3 Some ICSID tribunals have also looked at the nationality of the investor at the date at which the dispute arose.4
But also see Mihaly v. Sri Lanka.
ICSID Convention (1965), Article 25; Renée Rose Levy and Gremcitel S.A. v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/17, Award, 9 January 2015, para. 140: United Utilities (Tallinn) B.V. and Aktsiaselts Tallinna Vesi v. Republic of Estonia, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/24, Award, 21 June 2019, paras. 351-355; Hussein Nauman Soufraki v. United Arab Emirates, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/7, Award, 7 July 2004, paras. 53, 84; Ambiente Ufficio S.p.A. and others (formerly Giordano Alpi and others) v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/9, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 8 February 2013, paras. 302-303; Serafín García Armas and Karina García Gruber v. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, PCA Case No. 2013-03, Decision on Jurisdiction, 15 December 2014, paras. 217-218; Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. (formerly Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija, S.A. and Compagnie Générale des Eaux) v. Argentine Republic (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 November 2005, paras. 60-61; Eskosol S.p.A. in liquidazione v. Italian Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/50, Decision on Termination Request and Intra-EU Objection, 7 May 2019, paras. 201-202; Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula and others v. Romania (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 24 September 2008, para. 111; Ambiente Ufficio S.p.A. and others (formerly Giordano Alpi and others) v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/9, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 8 February 2013, para. 304; TSA Spectrum de Argentina S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/5, Award, 19 December 2008, para. 160; Mihaly International Corporation v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/2, Award, 15 March 2002, para. 20.
Highbury International AVV and Ramstein Trading Inc. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/1, Award, 26 September 2013, para. 155; ABCI Investments Limited v. Republic of Tunisia, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/12, Decision on Jurisdiction, 18 February 2011, para. 190; Vladislav Kim and others v. Republic of Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/6, Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 March 2017, paras. 190-191.
The consequences of a change in the investor’s nationality after the date of consent have been debated.5 Most tribunals have ruled that jurisdiction, once established, could not be withdrawn.6 (See further Continuous Nationality Rule). However, the solution appears less clear where jurisdiction is established through foreign control.7
Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. (formerly Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija, S.A. and Compagnie Générale des Eaux) v. Argentine Republic (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 November 2005, paras. 62-64; Enron Creditors Recovery Corporation (formerly Enron Corporation) and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Award, 22 May 2007, paras. 197-198.
In case of succession of States, the relevant date to establish jurisdiction ratione personae regarding predecessors and successors is the institution of the proceedings.8
In investments disputes, the consent to arbitrate the dispute is typically perfected when the investor submits the request for arbitration, accepting the unilateral offer made by the host State, commonly in a BIT.
Victor Pey Casado and President Allende Foundation v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/2, Award, 8 May 2008, paras. 214, 238; Domingo Garcia Armas, Manuel García Armas, Pedro Garcia Armas and othersv. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, PCA Case No. 2016-08, Award on Jurisdiction, 13 December 2019, paras. 657-658; Serafín García Armas and Karina García Gruber v. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, PCA Case No. 2013-3, Decision on Jurisdiction, 15 December 2014, para. 214-215; Serafín García Armas and Karina García Gruber v. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, PCA Case No. 2013-3, Judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal, 3 June 2020, para. 51; Nations Energy, Inc. and others v. Republic of Panama, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/19, Award, 24 November 2010, paras. 376-377; Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula and others v. Romania (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 24 September 2008, para. 111; CEAC Holdings Limited v. Montenegro, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/8, Award, 26 July 2016, para. 146; Eskosol S.p.A. in liquidazione v. Italian Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/50, Decision on Respondent’s Application Under Rule 41(5), 20 March 2017, para. 95; Michael Ballantine and Lisa Ballantine v. The Dominican Republic, PCA Case No. 2016-17, Final Award, 3 September 2019, para. 527; Michael Ballantine and Lisa Ballantine v. The Dominican Republic, PCA Case No. 2016-17, Partial Dissent of Ms. Cheek on Jurisdiction, para. 15; Sergei Viktorovich Pugachev v. The Russian Federation, Dissenting Opinion of Professor Thomas Clay, para. 4-6, 85-88; Alberto Carrizosa Gelzis, Enrique Carrizosa Gelzis, Felipe Carrizosa Gelzis v. Republic of Colombia, PCA Case No. 2018-56, Award, 7 May 2021, para. 176.
This view was also supported by the arbitrator Rodrigo Oreamuno in his dissenting opinion in the following case:
Serafín García Armas and Karina García Gruber v. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, PCA Case No. 2013-03, Dissenting Opinion of the arbitrator R. Oreamuno Blanco on one aspect of the basis for the decision (Decision on Jurisdiction), 15 December 2014, para. 9-10; Serafín García Armas and Karina García Gruber v. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, PCA Case No. 2013-03, Judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal, 3 June 2020, para. 51; Cem Cengiz Uzan v. Republic of Turkey, SCC Case No. V 2014/023, Award, 20 April 2016, para. 152; Sergei Viktorovich Pugachev v. The Russian Federation, PCA Case, Award, 18 June 2020, para. 419-420, 437; Carlos Sastre and others v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. UNCT/20/2, Award on Jurisdiction, 21 November 2022, para. 157.
Already registered ?