Abstract
AbstractInvestor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) has long served as an effective remedy for disputes between foreign investors and host states. In the context of the Russian–Ukrainian conflict, ISDS has gained particular prominence as a potential tool for advancing the legal claims of private persons even in wartime or otherwise hostile situations. In particular, we had a slew of ISDS cases between Ukrainian investors and Russia, especially in relation to Crimea. This has also raised a number of questions regarding territory and annexation within the context of international law, which the arbitration tribunals had to address. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility of ISDS for enforcing private claims in wartime, and to assess the judgments of the arbitration tribunals, with the addition of Russian ISDS cases against Ukraine as well, to serve as a contrast.
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.
