We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
1 Micula, v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (Sept. 24, 2008), 48 ILM 48 (2008)Google Scholar, available at http://arbitration.fr/resources/ICSID–ARB–05–20.pdf.
2 Article 25(2) of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States, Mar.18, 1965, 17 UST 1270, 575 UNTS 159, provides:
“National of another Contracting State” means:
(a) any natural person who had the nationality of a Contracting State other than the State party to the dispute on the date on which the parties consented to submit such dispute to conciliation or arbitration as well as on the date on which the request was registered pursuant to paragraph (3) of Article 28 or paragraph (3) of Article 36, but does not include any person who on either date also had the nationality of the Contracting State party to the dispute;
(b) any juridical person which had the nationality of a Contracting State other than the State party to the dispute on the date on which the parties consented to submit such dispute to conciliation or arbitration and any juridical person which had the nationality of the Contracting State party to the dispute on that date and which, because of foreign control, the parties have agreed should be treated as a national of another Contracting State for the purposes of this Convention.
3 Nottebohm (Liecht. v. Guat.), Preliminary Objections, 1953 ICJ REP. 111 (Nov. 18).
4 Soufraki v. United Arab Emirates, Icsid Case No. ARB/02/7, Award (July 7, 2004), 12 Icsid Rep. 158 (2007); Soufraki v. United Arab Emirates, Decision of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment of Mr. Soufraki (June 5, 2007), at http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/SoufrakiAnnulment.pdf.
5 In International Law Commission, Report on the Fifty–eighth Session, UN GAOR, 61st Sess., Supp. No. 10, at 16, UN Doc. A/61/10 (2006).
6 See, e.g., Siag v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/15, Decision on Jurisdiction, para. 198 (Apr. 11, 2007); Champion Trading Co. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/9, Decision on Jurisdiction, at 17 (Oct. 21, 2003).
7 Other cases where the nationality of individuals was a central issue were Soufraki and Siag.
8 See Luke Eric, Peterson, European Commission Moves to Intervene in Another ICSID Arbitration, Micula v. Romania—Dispute Hinging on Withdrawal of Investment Incentives by Romania, Investment Arb. Rep., May 11, 2009, at 3 Google Scholar, available at http://www.iareporter.com/Archive/IAR–05–ll–09.pdf.
9 For examples of other cases, see Luke Eric, Peterson, Path Cleared for BIT Arbitration by Swedish Investors to Challenge the Withdrawal of Investment Incentives by Romania; Romania Says Withdrawal of Incentives for Investments in Economically–Depressed Region Was Done in Order to Comply with European Union Restrictions on State Aid, Investment Arb. Rep., Oct. 1, 2008 Google Scholar, available at http://www.iareporter.com/Archive/IAR–10–01–08.pdf.
10 See Peterson, supra note 8.
12 International Law Commission, Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, in Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Fifty–third Session, UN GAOR, 56th Sess., Supp.No. 10, at 43, UN Doc. A/56/10 (2001), reprinted in James, Crawford The International Lav/Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction.Text and Commentaries (2002)Google Scholar.
