The concept of investment (See Ownership of investment, Pre-investment expenditure) typically determines the range of economic operations to which a number of heterogeneous instruments apply.1 These include foreign investment laws, investment protection treaties and such diverse multilateral treaties as the ICSID Convention,2 the MIGA Convention3 and the TRIMS.4
The concept of investment, most debated in practice, serves to circumscribe the scope of protection accorded under investment treaties and the jurisdiction of investment arbitration tribunals.5 Different instruments and arbitral practice recognize a large variety of operations to constitute an investment.6 However, there is no generally accepted definition of investment.7
Reed, L., Scanlon, Z. and Atanasova, D., Protected Investment, in Ruiz-Fabri, H. (ed.), EiPro Max Planck Encyclopaedia of International Procedural Law, 2019.
Yannaca-Small, K. and Katsikis, D., The Meaning of 'Investment' in Investment Treaty Arbitration, in Yannaca-Small, K. (ed.), Arbitration under International Investment Agreements – A Guide to the Key Issues, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2018, pp. 266-301.
Schreuer, C.H., Investments, International Protection, in Wolfrum, R. (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Public International Law, 2013.
Matringe, J., La notion d’investissement, in Leben, C. (ed.), Droit international des investissements et de l’arbitrage transnational, Pedone, 2015, pp. 135-160.
Bischoff, J.A. and Happ, R., Ratione Materiae, in Bungenberg, M., Griebel, J., Hope, S. and Reinisch, A. (eds.), International Investment Law, A Handbook, 2015, pp. 1-149; Gilles, A., La definition de l’investissement international, Larcier, 2012; Matringe, J., La notion d’investissement, in Leben, C. (ed.), Droit international des investissements et de l’arbitrage transnational, Pedone, 2015, pp. 135-160; Gaillard, E., Identify or Define? Reflections on the Evolution of the Concept of Investment in ICSID Practice, in Binder, C. et al. (eds.), International Investment Law for the 21st Century, 2009, pp. 403-416.
Mondev International Ltd. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/2, Award, 11 October 2002, para. 80; Nova Scotia Power Incorporated v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (II), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/11/1, Award, 30 April 2014, paras. 77-81; Mr. Franz Sedelmayer v. The Russian Federation, Arbitration Award, 7 July 1998, para. 242; PSEG Global Inc. and Konya Ilgin Elektrik Üretim ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/5, Decision on Jurisdiction, 4 June 2004, para. 189; M.C.I. Power Group, L.C. and New Turbine, Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/6, Award, 31 July 2007, paras. 164-165; Limited Liability Company Amto v. Ukraine, SCC Case No. 080/2005, Final Award, 26 March 2008, para. 36; OAO “Tatneft” v. Ukraine, PCA Case No. 2008-8, Partial Award on Jurisdiction, 28 September 2010, para. 161; Mathias Kruck, Frank Schumm, Joachim Kruck, Jürgen Reiss and others v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/23, Decision on Jurisdiction, Liability and Principles of Quantum, 14 September 2022, para. 83; Addiko Bank AG v. Montenegro, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/35, Award (Excerpts), 24 November 2021, para. 310 .
Continental Casualty Company v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/9, Decision on Jurisdiction, 22 February 2006, para. 81; Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Company v. The Republic of Ecuador (I), PCA Case No. 2007-02/AA277, Interim Award, 1 December 2008, para. 193; Vincent J. Ryan, Schooner Capital LLC, and Atlantic Investment Partners LLC v. Republic of Poland, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/11/3, Award, 24 November 2015, para. 255; Gas Natural SDG, S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/10, Decision of the Tribunal on Preliminary Questions on Jurisdiction, 17 June 2005, para. 34; Werner Schneider, acting in his capacity as insolvency administrator of Walter Bau Ag v. The Kingdom of Thailand (formerly Walter Bau AG (in liquidation) v. The Kingdom of Thailand), Award, 1 July 2009, para. 12.32; Luigiterzo Bosca v. Republic of Lithuania, PCA Case No. 2011-05, Award, 17 May 2013, para. 166; Millicom International Operations B.V. and Sentel GSM S.A. v. Republic of Senegal, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/20, Decision on Jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal, 16 July 2010, para. 79; RosInvestCo UK Ltd. v. The Russian Federation, SCC Case No. 079/2005, Final Award, 12 September 2010, para. 382; Mabco Constructions SA v. Republic of Kosovo, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/25, Decision on Jurisdiction, 30 October 2020, paras. 317-320; Michael Anthony Lee-Chin v. Dominican Republic, ICSID Case No. UNCT/18/3, Partial Award on Jurisdiction, 15 July 2020, para. 212; Global Telecom Holding S.A.E. v. Canada, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/16, Award, 27 March 2020, para. 442; Natland Investment Group NV, Natland Group Limited, G.I.H.G. Limited, and Radiance Energy Holding S.A.R.L. v. The Czech Republic, PCA Case No. 2013-35, Partial Award, 20 December 2017, para. 261.
Robert Aleksandrowicz and Tomasz Częścik v. Cyprus, SCC Case No. V 2014/169, Award, 11 February 2017, para. 196; Fynerdale Holdings BV v. The Czech Republic, PCA Case No. 2018-18, Award, 29 April 2021, para. 527; Addiko Bank AG v. Montenegro, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/35, Award (Excerpts), 24 November 2021, para. 312 .
Over 98% of investment protection treaties contain a definition of investment.8 The overwhelming majority of them (more than 90%) define investment by a non-exhaustive list of protected “assets” (asset-based definition), including movable and immovable property, shares, intellectual property rights, claims to money, etc.9 Other treaties require for an asset to be linked to an “enterprise” in order to qualify for protection (enterprise-based definition)10 or, more rarely, contain an exhaustive list of protected assets.11
Some recent treaties also require assets to exhibit certain characteristics, such as a certain duration, assumption of risk and commitment of capital in order to qualify as an investment (inspired by the Salini test).12
In addition, certain treaties exclude specific types of assets from their definition of investment, most commonly ordinary commercial transactions,13 sovereign debt instruments14 and/or portfolio investments.15
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) (2018), Art. 9.1; United States, Mexico, Canada Agreement (USMCA) (2018), Art. 14.1; Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) (2016), Art. 8.1; Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) (1994), Art. 1(6); Netherlands-United Arab Emirates BIT (2013), Art. 1(a); China, Japan, Republic of Korea Trilateral Investment Agreement (2012), Art. 1(1); Raymond Charles Eyre and Montrose Developments (Private) Limited v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/25, Award, 5 March 2020, para. 293; Investment Protection Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam of the other part (2019), Art. 1.2(h); Inmaris Perestroika Sailing Maritime Services GmbH and others v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/8, Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 March 2010, para. 101; Alps Finance and Trade AG v. The Slovak Republic, Award, 5 March 2011, para. 231; Caratube International Oil Company LLP v. Republic of Kazakhstan (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/08/12, Award, 5 June 2012, para. 356; Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka, a.s. v. The Slovak Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/4, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, 24 May 1999, para. 77; William Nagel v. The Czech Republic, SCC Case No. 049/2002, Final Award, 9 September 2003, paras. 300-302; Emmis International Holding, B.V., Emmis Radio Operating, B.V., MEM Magyar Electronic Media Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/2, Award, 16 April 2014, paras. 161, 163; Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Company v. The Republic of Ecuador (I), PCA Case No. 2007-02/AA277, Interim Award, 1 December 2008, paras. 194-195; Nordzucker AG v. The Republic of Poland, Partial Award (Jurisdiction), 10 December 2008, para. 166; Jan Oostergetel and Theodora Laurentius v. The Slovak Republic, Decision on Jurisdiction, 30 April 2010, paras. 157-158; Sanum Investments v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic (I), PCA Case No. 2013-13, Award on Jurisdiction, 13 December 2013, para. 318; Mohammad Reza Dayyani and others v. Republic of Korea, PCA Case No. 2015-38, Judgment of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, 20 December 2019, paras. 37-38, 40, 42; Muhammet Çap & Sehil Inşaat Endustri ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti. v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/6, Award, 4 May 2021, para. 668; Etrak İnşaat Taahut ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. The State of Libya, ICC Case No. 22236/ZF/AYZ, Final Award, 22 July 2019, paras. 156, 167; Komaksavia Airport Invest Ltd. v. Republic of Moldova, SCC Case No. 2020/074, Final Award, 3 August 2022, para. 145-149; Gramercy Funds Management LLC, and Gramercy Peru Holdings LLC v. The Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. UNCT/18/2, Final Award, 6 December 2022, paras. 180-181; Prenay Agarwal, Vinita Agarwal and Ritika Mehta v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, PCA Case No. 2018-04, Judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal 20/13899, 21 February 2023, para. 79.
Canada-Hong Kong, SAR BIT (2016), Art. 1; North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (1992), Art. 1139; Agreement Between the Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the Republic of India on the Promotion and Protection of Investments, 21 May 2007, Art. 1.7; Mexico Model BIT (2008), Art. 1.5; Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd., et.al. v. United States of America, Award, 12 January 2011, para. 82.
CPTPP (2018), Art. 9.1; USMCA (2018), Art. 14.1; CETA (2016), Art. 8.1; China, Japan, Republic of Korea Trilateral Investment Agreement (2012), Art. 1(1); Switzerland-Tunisia BIT (2012), Art. 1.1; India-Japan FTA, 16 February 2011, Ch. 1, Art. 2, Note 2; Brazil-India BIT (2020), Art. 2.4; Investment Protection Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam of the other part, Art. 1.2(h); Investment Agreement between Australia and Hong Kong (2019), Section A, Art. 1; Komaksavia Airport Invest Ltd. v. Republic of Moldova, SCC Case No. 2020/074, Final Award, 3 August 2022, para. 151 .
Or are interpreted as excluding commercial transactions, such as for the ECT. See Energoalians v. Moldova below.
CETA (2016), Art. 8.1; Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016), Art. 1; North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (1992), Art. 1139; USMCA (2018), Art. 14.1; Agreement between the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the United Arab Emirates for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments (2019), Art. 1(d)(vi); FEDAX N.V. v. The Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/96/3, Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, 11 July 1997, para. 36; Merrill & Ring Forestry L.P. v. The Government of Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/07/1, Award, 31 March 2010, para. 139; Energoalians LLC v. Republic of Moldova, Judgment of the Grand Chamber of the CJEU, 2 September 2021, paras, 79-81; Energoalians LLC v. Republic of Moldova, Judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal, 10 January 2023, para. 59-60,72-73; Addiko Bank AG v. Montenegro, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/35, Award (Excerpts), 24 November 2021, para. 320.
Close to 80% of investment laws contain an asset or enterprise based definition of investment. Certain of them mirror the type of definitions typically found in investment treaties.16 However, most depart from that model and the structure, level of detail of provisions and scope of operations covered varies greatly.
In addition, the concept of investment circumscribes also the jurisdiction of ICSID tribunals. Under the ICSID Convention, tribunals are competent to decide disputes which arise “directly out of an investment,”17 and the term is not defined (see further Jurisdiction ratione materiae). Most ICSID tribunals require putative investments to fulfil the requirements of both the controlling investment treaty and the ICSID Convention (double key-hole approach).18 They have also construed “investment” under the Convention as having an autonomous meaning as compared to treaty definitions.19 See Salini Test.
Schreuer, C.H., Article 25, in Schreuer, C.H. (ed.), The ICSID Convention: A Commentary, 2nd ed., 2009.
ICSID Convention, Art 25; Lanco International Inc. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/6, Jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal, 8 December 1998, para. 48; SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/13, Decision on Jurisdiction, 6 August 2003, para. 133; LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp. and LG&E International Inc. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, Decision of the Arbitral Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, 30 April 2004, para. 64; Abaclat and others (formerly Giovanna a Beccara and others) v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 4 August 2011, para. 256; Hope Services LLC v. Republic of Cameroon, ICSID Case No. ARB/20/2, Award, 23 December 2021, para. 151.
Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka, a.s. v. The Slovak Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/4, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, 24 May 1999, paras. 67-68, 76; Joy Mining Machinery Ltd. v. Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/11, Award on Jurisdiction, 6 August 2004, paras. 42-43, 48-50; Malaysian Historical Salvors, SDN, BHD v. Malaysia, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/10 Award on Jurisdiction, 17 May 2007, para. 55; CMC Africa Austral, LDA, CMC Muratori Cementisti CMC Di Ravenna SOC. Coop., and CMC Muratori Cementisti CMC Di Ravenna SOC. Coop. A.R.L. Maputo Branch and CMC Africa v. Republic of Mozambique, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/23, Award, 24 October 2019, para. 191; Krederi Ltd. v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/17, Award, 2 July 2018, para. 243; Capital Financial Holdings Luxembourg S.A. v. Republic of Cameroon, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/18, Decision on the Application for Annulment of Capital Financial Holdings Luxembourg S.A., 25 October 2019, para. 207; Malaysian Historical Salvors, SDN, BHD v. Malaysia, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/10, Decision on the Application for Annulment, 16 April 2009, paras. 74, 80; Quiborax S.A., Non-Metallic Minerals S.A. v. Plurinational State of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/2, Decision on Jurisdiction, 27 September 2012, paras. 211, 213; Joseph Houben v. Republic of Burundi, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/7, Award, 12 January 2016, para. 114; Patrick Mitchell v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/7, Final Award, 9 February 2004, paras. 43-44; Orascom TMT Investments S.à r.l. v. People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/35, Award, 31 May 2017, para. 370; Spółdzielnia Pracy Muszynianka v. Slovak Republic, PCA Case No. 2017-08, Award, 7 October 2020, para. 294.
FEDAX N.V. v. The Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/96/3, Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, 11 July 1997, paras. 21-29; Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka, a.s. v. The Slovak Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/4, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, 24 May 1999, paras. 68-69, 76; Global Trading Resource Corp. and Globex International, Inc. v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/11, Award, 1 December 2010, para. 45.
At the backdrop of broad treaty language, many investment tribunals have imputed an objective meaning to the term investment to distinguish it from ordinary commercial operations and have required that it exhibit certain inherent characteristics.20 A list of necessary characteristics that an operation must exhibit to qualify as an investment was first articulated in the ICSID Salini v Morocco case21 and is now referred to as the Salini test. The relevance of individual characteristics, their specific contours and the legal nature of the test remain debated,22 including whether the Salini test should be applied in the context of ICSID proceedings only.23 Three of the original Salini characteristics can be said to form the core elements of the test currently in use: (i) duration; (ii) assumption of risk; and (iii) a contribution of capital.24 Tribunals have also sometimes required an operation to contribute significantly to the host State’s development.25
To the contrary, some tribunals consider the investment treaty language to be the only proper source of definition of the term “investment.”26 The Report of the Executive Directors on the ICSID Convention confirms that “[n]o attempt was made to define the term ‘investment’ given the essential requirement of consent by the parties, and the mechanism through which Contracting States can make known in advance, if they so desire, the classes of disputes which they would or would not consider submitting to the Centre”.27
Note that some tribunals refer to the notion of “readily recognizable investment” instead. See MHS v. Malysia and RSM Production v. Grenada below.
Ambiente Ufficio S.p.A and others v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/9, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (8 February 2013), paras. 475-481; Philip Morris Brand Sàrl (Switzerland), Philip Morris Products S.A. (Switzerland) and Abal Hermanos S.A. (Uruguay) v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, Decision on Jurisdiction, 2 July 2013, paras. 204-210; ABCI Investments Limited v. Republic of Tunisia, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/12, Decision on Jurisdiction, 18 February 2011, paras. 64-65; Inmaris Perestroika Sailing Maritime Services GmbH and others v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/8, Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 March 2010, paras. 129-131; M.C.I. Power Group, L.C. and New Turbine, Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/6, Award, 31 July 2007, para. 165; Patrick Mitchell v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/7, Final Award, 9 February 2004, para. 56; Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Limited v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award, 24 July 2008, paras. 314-316; Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers v. Republic of Albania, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21, Award, 30 July 2009, paras. 36, 43; Hassan Awdi, Enterprise Business Consultants, Inc. and Alfa El Corporation v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/13, Award, 2 March 2015, paras. 197-199; Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/41, Award, 11 October 2019, para. 200; Ascom Group S.A., Anatolie Stati, Gabriel Stati and Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, SCC Case No. 116/2010, Award, 19 December 2013, para. 806; Malaysian Historical Salvors, SDN, BHD v. Malaysia, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/10, Award on Jurisdiction, 17 May 2007, paras. 119-121; RSM Production Corporation v. Grenada, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/14, Award, 13 March 2009, para. 245.
Romak SA v Uzbekistan, PCA Case No 2007-07/AA280, Award, 26 November 2009, para. 207; Mytilineos Holdings SA v. The State Union of Serbia & Montenegro and Republic of Serbia, UNCITRAL, Partial Award, 8 September 2006, paras. 117–125; Ambiente Ufficio S.p.A and others v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/9, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 8 February 2013, paras. 475-481; Nova Scotia Power Incorporated v. Venezuela, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/11/1, Award, 30 April 2014, para 80; White Industries Australia Limited v. The Republic of India, Final Award, 30 November 2011, para. 7.4.9; Jan Oostergetel and Theodora Laurentius v. The Slovak Republic, Decision on Jurisdiction, 30 April 2010, paras. 161-172; South American Silver Limited (Bermuda) v. The Plurinational State of Bolivia, PCA Case No. 2013-15, Award, 30 August 2018, paras. 339-340.
KT Asia Investment Group BV v. Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/8, Award, 17 October 2013, para. 170; Poštová banka as and Istrokapital SE v. Hellenic Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/8, Award, 9 April 2015, para. 360; Romak SA v. The Republic of Uzbekistan, PCA Case No. AA280, UNCITRAL, Award, 26 November 2009, para. 207; Nova Scotia Power Incorporated v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (II), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/11/1, Award, 30 April 2014, para. 80; Quiborax S.A. v. Plurinational State of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/2, Decision on Jurisdiction, 27 September 2012, paras. 218-227; Saba Fakes v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/20, Award, 14 July 2010, paras. 110-111; Krederi Ltd. v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/17, Award, 2 July 2018, para. 237; Consortium Groupement L.E.S.I. - DIPENTA v. People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/8, Award, 10 January 2005, Part II, para. 13; Manchester Securities Corporation v. Republic of Poland, PCA Case No. 2015-18, Award, 7 December 2018, paras. 370-378; Mabco Constructions SA v. Republic of Kosovo, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/25, Decision on Jurisdiction, 30 October 2020, para. 296-297; Raymond Charles Eyre and Montrose Developments (Private) Limited v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/25, Award, 5 March 2020, para. 293; A.M.F. Aircraftleasing Meier & Fischer GmbH & Co. KG v. Czech Republic, PCA Case No. 2017-15, Final Award, 11 May 2020, para. 472; Border Timbers Limited, Timber Products International (Private) Limited, and Hangani Development Co. (Private) Limited v. Republic of Zimbabwe, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/25, Award, 28 July 2015, paras. 285-286; Komaksavia Airport Invest Ltd. v. Republic of Moldova, SCC Case No. 2020/074, Final Award, 3 August 2022, para. 151, 153-155, 165; Gramercy Funds Management LLC, and Gramercy Peru Holdings LLC v. The Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. UNCT/18/2, Dissenting Opinion of Brigitte Stern, para. 77.
Malaysian Historical Salvors, SDN, BHD v. The Government of Malaysia, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/10, Award on Jurisdiction, 17 May 2007, paras. 131-132; Malaysian Historical Salvors, SDN, BHD v. The Government of Malaysia, ICSID Case No ARB/05/10, Decision on Annulment, 16 April 2009, para. 80; Joy Mining Machinery Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/11, Award on Jurisdiction, 6 August 2004, para. 53; Helnan International Hotels A/S v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/19, Decision of the Tribunal on Objection to Jurisdiction, 17 October 2006, para. 77; Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi A.S. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/29, Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 November 2005, para. 137; Cairn Energy PLC and Cairn UK Holdings Limited v. The Republic of India, PCA Case No. 2016-07, Final Award, 21 December 2020, para. 706; Strabag SE v. Libya, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/15/1, Award, 29 June 2020, para. 110; Gramercy Funds Management LLC, and Gramercy Peru Holdings LLC v. The Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. UNCT/18/2, Final Award, 6 December 2022, para. 240.
Some tribunals adopt an interpretation that is also based on the context of surrounding or relevant treaty provisions. See below: Komaksavia v. Moldova.
RREEF Infrastructure (G.P.) Limited and RREEF Pan-European Infrastructure Two Lux S.à r.l. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/30, Decision on Jurisdiction, 6 June 2016, paras. 156-157; Hulley Enterprises Ltd. v. Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2005-03/AA226 (Ad hoc, UNCITRAL), Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (30 November 2009), para. 431; Petrobart Ltd. v. The Kyrgyz Republic, SCC Case No. 126/2003, Award, 29 March 2005, pp. 69-70; Biwater v. Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award, 24 July 2008, para. 312; Rompetrol v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, 18 April 2008, para. 107; Malaysian Historical Salvors v. Malaysia, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/10, Annulment Decision, 16 April 2009, paras. 60, 80; M.C.I. Power Group, L.C. and New Turbine, Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/6, Award, 31 July 2007, para. 159-160; Georg Gavrilovic and Gavrilovic d.o.o. v. Republic of Croatia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/39, Award, 26 July 2018, paras. 191-193; Inmaris Perestroika Sailing Maritime Services GmbH and others v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/8, Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 March 2010, paras. 129, 131; Alpha Projektholding GmbH v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/16, Award, 8 November 2010, paras. 311-313; Abaclat and others (formerly Giovanna A. Beccara and others) v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 4 August 2011, para. 364; SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Republic of Paraguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/29, Decision on Jurisdiction, 12 February 2010, para. 93; Philip Morris Brand Sàrl (Switzerland), Philip Morris Products S.A. (Switzerland) and Abal Hermanos S.A. (Uruguay) v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, Decision on Jurisdiction, 2 July 2013, paras. 204-206; Hassan Awdi, Enterprise Business Consultants, Inc. and Alfa El Corporation v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/13, Award, 2 March 2015, paras. 197-199; President Allende Foundation, Victor Pey Casado and Coral Pey Grebe v. Republic of Chile, PCA Case No. 2017-30, Award, 28 November 2019, para. 312; Komaksavia Airport Invest Ltd. v. Republic of Moldova, SCC Case No. 2020/074, Final Award, 3 August 2022, para. 156.
Report of the Executive Directors of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development on the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, para. 27; 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. 448-454.
Fedax N.V. and The Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/96/3, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, 11 July 1997, para. 28; Salini Costruttori S.P.A. and Italstrade S.P.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4, Decision on Jurisdiction, 16 July 2001, para. 52; Joy Mining Machinery Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/11, Award on Jurisdiction, 30 July 2004, paras. 49-50; Malaysian Historical Salvors Sdn, Bhd v. Government of Malaysia, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/10, Award on Jurisdiction, 17 May 2007, para. 54; Malaysian Historical Salvors Sdn, Bhd v. Government of Malaysia, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/10, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Mohamed Shahabuddeen, 16 April 2009, para. 21; Deutsche Bank AG v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/2, Award, 31 October 2012, paras. 308-310; Deutsche Bank AG v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/2, Dissenting Opinion of Makhdoom Ali Khan, 31 October 2012, paras. 69-74; AES Corporation and Tau Power B.V. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/16, Award, 1 November 2013, para. 192; Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/41, Award, 11 October 2019, para. 194; Christian Doutremepuich and Antoine Doutremepuich v. Republic of Mauritius, PCA Case No. 2018-37, Award on Jurisdiction, 23 August 2019, para. 145; Strabag SE v. Libya, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/15/1, Award, 29 June 2020, paras. 161-165.
Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka, a.s. v. The Slovak Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/4, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, 24 May 1999, para. 72; Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets v. Argentine Republic, L.P. v Argentina Republic v Argentina, Case No. ARB/01/3, Decision on Jurisdiction (14 January 2004), para. 70; Mytilineos Holdings SA v. The State Union of Serbia & Montenegro and Republic of Serbia (I), Partial Award on Jurisdiction (8 September 2006), paras. 120-125; Theodoros Adamakopoulos, Ilektra Adamantidou, Vasileios Adamopoulos and others v. Republic of Cyprus, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/49, Decision on Jurisdiction, 7 February 2020, para. 294; Klöckner Industrie-Anlagen GmbH and others v. United Republic of Cameroon and Société Camerounaise des Engrais, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/2, Excerpts of Award, 21 October 1983, para. 137; Joy Mining Machinery Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/11, Award on Jurisdiction, 30 July 2004, para. 54; ADC Affiliate Limited and ADC & ADMC Management Limited v. Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/16, Award, 2 October 2006, para. 331; Saipem S.p.A. v. People's Republic of Bangladesh, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/07, Decision on Jurisdiction and Recommendation on Provisional Measures, 21 March 2007, para. 110; Inmaris Perestroika Sailing Maritime Services GmbH and others v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/8, Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 March 2010, para. 92-98; Duke Energy International Peru Investments No. 1 Ltd. v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/28, Decision on Jurisdiction, 1 February 2006, para. 131; Duke Energy International Peru Investments No. 1 Ltd. v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/28, Decision on Annulment, 1 March 2011, para. 160; Elsamex, S.A. v. Republic of Honduras, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/4, Award, 16 November 2012, paras. 288-293; Mamidoil Jetoil Greek Petroleum Products Societe Anonyme S.A. v. Republic of Albania, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/24, Award, 30 March 2015, paras. 285-288; Vestey Group Ltd v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/4, Award, 15 April 2016, para. 196; Unión Fenosa Gas, S.A. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/4, Award, 31 August 2018, para. 6.68; Magyar Farming Company Ltd, Kintyre Kft and Inicia Zrt v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/27, Award, 13 November 2019, paras. 274-276; H&H Enterprises Investments, Inc. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/15, Decision on Respondent’s Objections to Jurisdiction, 5 June 2012, para. 42; Cairn Energy PLC and Cairn UK Holdings Limited v. The Republic of India, PCA Case No. 2016-07, Final Award, 21 December 2020, para. 748; President Allende Foundation, Victor Pey Casado and Coral Pey Grebe v. Republic of Chile, PCA Case No. 2017-30, Award, 28 November 2019, para. 312; Muhammet Çap & Sehil Inşaat Endustri ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti. v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/6, Award, 4 May 2021, para. 673; Fynerdale Holdings BV v. The Czech Republic, PCA Case No. 2018-18, Award, 29 April 2021, para. 543; Hope Services LLC v. Republic of Cameroon, ICSID Case No. ARB/20/2, Award, 23 December 2021, para. 163; Addiko Bank AG v. Montenegro, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/35, Award (Excerpts), 24 November 2021, paras. 338-339.
Clauses defining investment should not be confused with those which contain a definition of “investor” or with clauses that determine whether an investment is “covered” under a particular treaty (such as clauses that require an investment to be “made in accordance with the host State’s laws,”29 and/or “in the territory” of that State and/or that it be “held”/“made” by a qualifying investor).30
Ascom Group S.A., Anatolie Stati, Gabriel Stati and Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, SCC Case No. 116/2010, Award, 19 December 2013, para. 812; Achmea B.V. (formerly Eureko B.V.) v. The Slovak Republic (I), PCA Case No. 2008-13, Award, 7 December 2012, paras. 170-173; MNSS B.V. and Recupero Credito Acciaio N.V v. Montenegro, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/8, Award, 4 May 2016, para. 212; Capital Financial Holdings Luxembourg S.A. v. Republic of Cameroon, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/18, Award, 22 June 2017, paras. 466-467; Bear Creek Mining Corporation v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/21, Award, 30 November 2017, paras. 319-320.
Reed, L., and Others, Protected Investment, in Ruiz-Fabri, H. (ed.), EiPro Max Planck Encyclopaedia of International Procedural Law, 2019.
Yannaca-Small, K. and Katsikis, D., The Meaning of “Investment” in Investment Treaty Arbitration, in Yannaca-Small, K. (ed.), Arbitration under International Investment Agreements – A Guide to the Key Issues, 2018, pp. 266-301.
McLachlan, C. and Others, International Investment Arbitration: Substantive Principles, 2nd ed., 2017.
Baumgartner, J., Treaty Shopping in International Investment Law, 2016.
Matringe, J., La notion d’investissement, in Leben, C. (ed.), Droit international des investissements et de l’arbitrage transnational, 2015, pp. 135-160.
Schreuer, C., Investments, International Protection, in Wolfrum, R. (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Public International Law, 2013.
Gilles, A., La definition de l’investissement international, 2012.
Schreuer, C. and Others, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary, 2009.
Douglas, Z., The International Law of Investment Claims, 2009.
Rubins, N., The Notion of “Investment” in International Investment Arbitration, in Horn, N. (ed.), Arbitrating Foreign Investment Disputes, 2004, pp. 283-324.
Accédez à la source d'information la plus complète et la plus fiable en arbitrage
DEMANDEZ UN ESSAI GRATUITDéjà enregistré ?