Arbitrating Investment Disputes Involving States with Competing Governments (on the Example of Venezuela)

Abstract

The present article analyses whether investment tribunals are competent to determine which representatives are entitled to act on behalf of respondent states with competing governments. The examination of existing case law and theoretical background suggests that investment tribunals have incidental jurisdiction to decide on the representation issue. In this case, the representation issue is resolved for the sole purpose of proceeding to consideration of claims, which are properly within the tribunals’ jurisdiction ratione materiae and the decision on this issue is not included in the dispositif of the awards and lacks res judicata effect. The most plausible approach to decide the representation issue is to conduct a substantive analysis of the government’s entitlement to act on behalf of the state. The alternative avoidance techniques to resolve the representation issue are questionable from the perspectives of their logical coherence, practical convenience and safeguarding the parties’ procedural rights. This analysis should be conducted in accordance with the criteria of customary international law. The legitimacy of a government’s origin is just one of these criteria and has a limited role in the overall test for identifying the government which is entitled to act on behalf of the state. Finally, this analysis should also take into account the considerations of procedural fairness, which depends on the factual circumstances of each specific case.