Abstract
This article deals with the examination of the jurisdictional requirements for ICSID arbitration set out in Article 25 of the ICSID Convention, as interpreted in ICSID case law. Emphasis is put on some of the most recent jurisdictional problems: competing jurisdictions, extension of MFN clauses to dispute resolution matters, definition of investment, effect of umbrella clauses and widely drafted dispute resolution clauses, and extent to which investors from non-Contracting States can avail themselves of ICSID arbitration. The article concludes that ICSID tribunals have shown a tendency towards liberal interpretation that favours assumption of jurisdiction. This attitude leads to the creation of a global investment protection system where a wide variety of investors, irrespective of their nationality, are able to go before ICSID in protecting their various economic activities, including purely contractual ones.
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.
