Jurisdiction and admissibility: are we any closer to a line in the sand?

Abstract

While the distinction between the concepts of jurisdiction and admissibility in investment arbitration did not appear particularly significant to the first tribunals faced with the question, a review of several recent awards reveals that in the past few years, certain investment tribunals have referred to and acknowledged the importance of the distinction. In this context, this article aims to analyse whether a consistent approach to the application of the distinction has been adopted, and discusses the practical implications that the distinction (and any inconsistencies in its application) may have. Urbaser SA and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v The Argentine Republic , ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26, Decision on Jurisdiction (2012) Antoine Goetz & Others and SA Affinage des Metaux v Republic of Burundi , ICSID Case No. ARB/01/2, Award (2012) Hochtief AG v The Argentine Republic , ICSID Case No. ARB/07/31, Decision on Jurisdiction (2011) Abaclat and Others v Argentine Republic , ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (2011) SGS Societe Generale de Surveillance SA v The Republic of Paraguay , ICSID Case ARB/07/29, Decision on Jurisdiction (2010) SGS Societe Generale de Surveillance SA v Republic of the Philippines , ICSID Case No. ARB/02/6, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction (2004) Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets LP v Argentine Republic , ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Decision on Jurisdiction (2004) SGS Societe Generale de Surveillance SA v Islamic Republic of Pakistan , ICSID Case No. ARB/01/13, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction (2003) Methanex Corporation v United States of America , UNCITRAL, Partial Award (2002)