Issues of competence (jurisdiction) of international investment arbitration tribunals and admissibility of claims: a review of the most notable cases (2014–2015)

Настоящий материал (информация) произведён, распространён иностранным агентом Автономная некоммерческая организация «Институт права и публичной политики» либо касается деятельности иностранного агента Автономная некоммерческая организация «Институт права и публичной политики»

Available in Russian

Author: Iliya Rachkov

DOI: 10.21128/2226-2059-2017-2-94-117

Keywords: competence (jurisdiction) of international investment arbitration tribunals; foreign investments; foreign investors; host states; international investment arbitration; international investment law


The competence (jurisdiction) of international investment arbitration tribunals is one of the most vivid problems arising when a foreign investor tries to settle a dispute with a host state. The dispute settlement procedure often starts with determining the question: does the arbitration tribunal have competence (jurisdiction) to try the case between the foreign investor and the host state? If the tribunal answers this question in the affirmative in a specific dispute, it will proceed to try the dispute on its merits. Thus, foreign investors holding that their rights have been infringed by the host state, provide the tribunal with arguments proving that the tribunal has appropriate jurisdiction. In contrary, host states try to convince the tribunal that it lacks proper jurisdiction. Before bringing a claim to international arbitration tribunals, investors should carefully check whether the respective arbitration body has competence to try and adjudicate the dispute, whereas a state should think about finding arguments denying arbitration tribunal to have required jurisdiction. For this purpose, states, as a rule, use the appropriate wording from the international treaties they plan to conclude, or, otherwise, make the required changes to existing international treaties. In this article, the author provides a detailed review of cases before international investment arbitration tribunals in 2014–2015, with examples of host state objections against the tribunals’ jurisdiction and opinions of the tribunals on these objections. The author also presents the cases in accordance with the main questions which arise as the tribunals try to determine and confirm their jurisdiction.

About the author: Ilia Rachkov – Candidate of Sciences (Ph.D.) in Law, Associate Professor, International Law Department, MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia.

Citation: Rachkov I. (2017) Voprosy kompetentsii (yurisdiktsii) mezhdunarodnogo investitsionnogo arbitrazha i priyemlemosti iska: obzor naibolee primetchatelnych del za 2014–2015 gody [Issues of competence (jurisdiction) of international investment arbitration tribunals and admissibility of claims: a review of the most notable cases (2014–2015)] // Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no.2, pp.94–117. (In Russian).


Garmoza A.P. (2012) Arbitrazh na osnovanii mezhdunarodnykh investitsionnykh soglasheniy: voprosy kompetentsii [Bilateral Investment Treaties-based arbitration: the issues of competence], Moscow: Infotropic Media. (In Russian).

Hoffmann A.K. (2015) Denial of benefits. In: Bungenberg M., Griebel J., Hobe S., Reinisch A. (eds.)International Investment Law: A Handbook, Baden-Baden: Nomos; München: C.H.Beck; Oxford: Hart, pp.598–613.

Kalamkaryan K.A. (2004) Estoppel kak institut mezhdunarodnogo prava [Estoppel as an institute of international law]. Yurist-mezhdunarodnik, no.1, pp.10–22. (In Russian).

Peterson L.E. (2016) Russia disputes round-up: updates on status of 11 known investment treaty claims. Investment Arbitration Reporter, January 19. Available at: (accessed: 20.01.2017).

Rachkov I. (2014) Soglasie gosudarstva na rassmotrenie mezhdunarodnykh investitsionnykh sporov [The acceptance by a state to resolve International investment disputes]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no.4, pp.96–122. (In Russian).

Rachkov I. (2014) Byvshie aktsionery YUKOSa v. Russia: Kommentariy k arbitrazhnomu resheniyu pod egidoy Postoyannoy Palaty Treteyskogo Suda v Gaage [Former YUKOS shareholders v. Russia: Commentary for an arbitral award under the administration of PCA, The Hague]. Mezhduna­rodnoe pravosudie, no.3, pp.18–34. (In Russian).

Rachkov I. (2015) Primenenie dvustoronnikh investitsionnykh dogovorov rossiyskimi sudami [Application of bilateral investment treaties by Russian state courts]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no.3, pp.71–92. (In Russian).

Rogozina A.A. (2016) Predely primeneniya ogovorok o rezhime naibol'­shego blagopriyatstvovaniya k protsessualnym polozheniyam investi­tsionnykh dogovorov [The boundaries of application of most favourable regime clauses to procedural provisions of international investment treaties]. Rossiyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal, no.3, pp.202–214. (In Russian).

Simpson C. (2016) Slovak Bank Can’t Get Greek Debt Arbitration Decision Nixed. Available at: (accessed: 20.01.2017).

Usoskin S. (2014) Znachenie ponyatiya “investitsiya” v dvustoronnikh i mnogostoronnikh soglasheniyakh ob ich zashchite: tak li ono opredeleno? [The definition of investment in bilateral and multilateral investment protection treaties: is it so determined?]. Mezhdunarodnoe Pravosudie, no.4, pp.87–95. (In Russian).

Usoskin S. (2013) O roli arbitrazhey v razvitii investitsionnogo prava na primere opredeleniya ponyatiya “kapitalovlozheniya” [Of the role of arbitration in the development of International Investment Law on the example of the term “investing”]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no.3, pp.95–105. (In Russian).

Viktorova N.N. (2015) Primenenie rezhima naibol'shego blagopriyatstvo­vaniya pri razreshenii transgranichnykh investitsionnykh sporov [The Application of the Most Favourable Regime to transnational investment disputes resolution]. Lex Russica, no.7, pp.29–36. (In Russian).