Awards of international investment arbitration tribunals on the merits: an overview of the most remarkable cases of 2014–2015

Available in Russian

Author: Iliya Rachkov

DOI: 10.21128/2226-2059-2017-4-67-88

Keywords: denial of justice; expropriation; fair and equitable treatment; legitimate expectations of investors; minimum standard of treatment of foreigners; national treatment; proportionality


As a rule, international investment arbitration tribunals consider the claims of foreign investors against states hosting such investments. The course and the outcome of such claims are quite difficult to predict since there is no single set of international law rules (either substantive or procedural), nor is there a single dispute resolution body. However, despite this lack of predictability, one may detect certain trends and patterns. This is necessary in order to enable foreign investors and host states to plan their activities, and is also useful in case a dispute arises. This overview gives examples of how international investment tribunals apply the provisions of international treaties that deal with such questions as a host state’s violation of its duty to provide foreign investors with the national treatment, a minimum standard of treatment, a fair and equitable treatment, the state’s duties arising out of an umbrella clause, and selected aspects of expropriation. Although in 36.4% of known cases international arbitration tribunals rendered awards in favor of states (against 26.7% of disputes being decided in favor of foreign investors), as a rule those awards that were favorable to states were rendered by international investment tribunals at the jurisdictional stage. However, if it comes to the examination of a dispute on its merits, arbitration tribunals usually decide in favor of claimants, i.e. foreign investors. For Russia, these statistical data are of interest for two reasons. First, Russia combines two roles: that of a state that hosts foreign investments and that of a state of origin of foreign investments. Due to this dual role, Russia as a defendant and Russian investors as claimants are heavily involved in investor-state dispute resolutions at the international scale. Second, many Russian outbound investments are state-owned or state-controlled. This is why it is important for Russia to keep pace with the newest trends in investor-state dispute resolutions.

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

Citation: Rachkov I. (2017) Resheniya mezhdunarodnykh investitsionnykh arbit­razhey po sushchestvu sporov: obzor naibolee primechatel’nykh del za 2014–2015 gody [Awards of international investment arbitration tribunals on the merits: an overview of the most remarkable cases of 2014–2015] // Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no.4, pp.67–88. (In Russian).


Barnashov A.M. (2014) Ponyatie i rol' obshchikh printsipov prava Evropey­skogo Soyuza [Notion and role of general principles of law of the European Union]. In: Tarkhanov I.A., Abdullin A.I., Kurdyukov G.I., Davletgil­deyev R.Sh. (eds.) Materialy mezhdunarodnoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii “Mezhdunarodnyy pravoporyadok v sovremennom mire i rol' Rossii v ego ukreplenii”, posvyashchennoy 90-letiyu professora D.I.Feldmana , g.Kazan, Kazanskiy (Privolzhskiy) federal'nyy universitet, 11–12 oktyabrya 2012 g. [Materials of an international scientific and practical conference “International legal order in the contemporary world and Russia’s role in strengthening it” dedicated to the 90th anniversary of professor D.I.Feldman, city of Kazan, Kazan (Volga region) federal university, 11–12 October 2012], Moscow: Statut, 2014. (In Russian).

Dolzer R., Schreuer C. (2008) Principles of International Investment Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fiedler P. (2001) Stabilisierungsklauseln und materielle Verweisung im internationalen Vertragsrecht, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Gmbh.

Herdegen M. (2007) Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht. 6. Aufl., München: C.H.Bech.

Jacob M., Schill S.W. (2015) Fair and Equitable Treatment: Content, Practice, Method. 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.700–763.

Mammadov S. (2012) “Zontikovaya ogovorka” v praktike mezhdunarodnogo investitsionnogo spora [Umbrella clauses in the practice of international investment dispute resolution]. In: Alieva A., Krupko S., Trunka A. (eds.) Pravovye aspekty investitsionnykh dogovorov: sbornik statey, Moscow: Norma, pp.191–226. (In Russian).

Rachkov I. (2017) Voprosy kompetentsii (yurisdiktsii) mezhdunarodnogo investitsionnogo arbitrazha i priemlemosti iska: obzor naibolee prime­chatel'nykh 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).

Rachkov I. (2016) Reforma mezhdunarodno-pravovogo uregulirovaniya sporov mezhdu inostrannymi investorami i gosudarstvami [Reform of international law rules of settlement of disputes between foreign investors and states]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no.3, pp.117–136. (In Russian).

Rachkov I. (2014) Kontseptsiya “zakonnykh ozhidaniy inostrannogo investora” v praktike mezhdunarodnykh investitsionnykh arbitrazhey [Concept of legitimate expectations of foreign investors in the practice of international investment arbitration tribunals]. Moskovskiy zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava, no.1, pp.196–220. (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).

Reinisch A. (2015) National Treatment. 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.846–869.

Sinclair A. (2015) Umbrella Clause. 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.887–958.

Usoskin S. (2016) Soglasheniya o pooshchrenii i zashchite investitsiy i natsional'noe zakonodatel'stvo: o chistykh rukakh i ne tol'ko [Agreements on promotion and protection of investments, national laws, “clean hands” doctrine and other things]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no.1, pp.104–112. (In Russian).

Usoskin S.V. (2014) Reshenie arbitrazha kak investitsiya: na styke kommercheskogo i investitsionnogo arbitrazha [Arbitral awards as an investment: on the edge of commercial and investment arbitration]. Zakon, no.4, pp.80–87. (In Russian).

Usoskin S.V. (2012) Dogovor s gosudarstvom: ispol'zovanie invetarbitrazha dlya zashchity prav chastnogo investora [Contract with a state: employment of investment arbitration for protection private investors rights]. Zakon, no.6, pp.55–61. (In Russian).

Xenofontov K.E. (2014) Zontichnye ogovorki kak mekhanizm zashchity inostrannykh investitsiy [Umbrella clauses as a mechanism of protection of foreign investments]. Zakonodatel'stvo i ekonomika, no.5. (In Russian).

Yukhno A.S. (2010) Zontichnye ogovorki v praktike mezhdunarodnykh arbitrazhnykh tribunalov: poslednie tendentsii [Umbrella clauses in the practice of international arbitration tribunals: most recent trends]. Mezh­dunarodnoe publichnoe i chastnoe pravo, no.5, pp.2–10. (In Russian).

Yulov D.V. (2015) Zontichnaya ogovorka kak garantiya realizatsii prav i zakonnykh interesov inostrannykh investorov [Umbrella clause as a guarantee of implementation of rights and legitimate interests of foreign investors]. Aktual'nye problemy rossiyskogo prava, no.11, pp.197–202. (In Russian).