The nationality of an investment is a condition or a set of conditions in some international investment treaties (“IIT”) applied to the determination of the investment’s origin. In particular, such conditions may stipulate that the treaty applies to investments made “in the territory of” the host State (the territorial nexus requirement) or require that the funds used to make the investment originate from a particular source or jurisdiction (the origin of capital requirement).
The conditions stipulated in a particular treaty as applied to the nationality of an investment circumscribe the investment’s ability to qualify for treaty protection and implicate a tribunal’s jurisdiction ratione materiae. By contrast, the nationality of an investor determines whether the investor qualifies for treaty protection and implicates a tribunal’s jurisdiction ratione personae.1
The territorial nexus requirement may be incorporated in the IIT’s provisions defining “investment”,2 provisions dealing with available protections,3 or provisions concerning remedies.4 The origin of capital requirement is rarely explicitly mentioned in modern IITs5 or national investment legislation.6
Certain types of investments (e.g., in tangible property) demonstrate a more clear-cut territorial nexus with the host State. Others (e.g., in financial instruments and contractual rights) need not always be physically located in or involve a flow of capital into the host State. In the latter case, tribunals have had to determine whether the investment in question satisfies the territorial nexus condition.7 The answer depends on the type of investment at issue, the applicable IIT’s text and the tribunal’s interpretation of the purpose of investment protection.8 See further Territoriality of investment.
In relation to investments in financial instruments, tribunals have adopted a broad interpretation of the territorial nexus requirement, eliminating the need for an actual transfer of investment funds into the host State’s territory; they have considered the requirement satisfied as long as the funds ultimately benefit the host State, for example, by creating value or aiding in financing its economy.9 Some learned arbitrators have expressed a different position.10
Initially, tribunals examining investments in contract rights differed from tribunals assessing financial instruments, holding that investments made outside the territory of the host State, however beneficial, would not satisfy the territorial nexus requirement.11 Subsequent cases have diverged, holding that the location of the beneficial activity matters for ascertaining the existence of territorial nexus, not the flow of funds.12
The issue of the origin of capital has arisen due to host States objecting to the tribunals’ jurisdiction ratione materiae or ratione personae on grounds that
The travaux préparatoires reveal that the authors of the ICSID Convention considered the proposal to incorporate an “origin of capital” requirement in the Convention but abandoned it.17 With rare exceptions,18 tribunals have largely confirmed that neither the ICSID Convention,19 nor the ECT contain an origin of capital requirement.20
Furthermore, tribunals interpreting BITs have held that the language of the BIT is decisive.21 Thus, absent an express origin of funds stipulation in a BIT, investments made using capital sourced in the host State22 or funds that are not the investor’s own capital,23 are also protected under the applicable BIT.
Schreuer, C. and others, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary, 2nd ed., 2009, pp. 136-140.
Baltag, C., The Energy Charter Treaty: The Notion of Investor, 2012, pp. 165, 199-202.
Castro de Figueiredo, R., ICSID and Non-Foreign Investment Disputes, Transnational Dispute Management, 2007.
Déjà enregistré ?