Abstract
In its September 25, 2008 decision in Czech Republic v. Pren Nreka, the Paris Court of Appeal held notably that in ad hoc arbitration under a bilateral investment treaty (BIT), the notion of “investment” must be interpreted in accordance with the terms of the BIT and is not subject to objective criteria or tests external to the BIT, while giving an extremely broad reading to language in a BIT defining an “investment” as “any kind of asset invested in connection with economic activities.” As discussed in the commentary below, this should revive the debate as to whether, in investment arbitration, a common and unified definition of the notion of “investment” should be applicable worldwide and before any arbitral tribunal.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
