In this article the author attempts to argue for the recognition of assignment agreement as a protected “investment” in investor-state arbitration through first, demonstrating the fulfilment of the Salini test to meet objective requirements of “investment”; and subsequently, highlighting the fulfilment of subjective requirements of “investment”.
In this article the author discusses the claims of being a genuine investor which are debased if it is established that the ‘nationality’ was procured by mala fide corporate (re)structuring. As a direct consequence, commentators believe that the abus-de-droit doctrine has been used as a defence for the respondent’s state to claim the investor’s nationality as ‘mala fide’. One deliberates, however, whether the respondent states can potentially use and abuse this doctrine by implicating the investors to be involved in corporate (re)structuring, purely for their own tactical or political advantage. The present post examines this question in order to propose an adequate standard for the impetus of the investment arbitration and questions whether the use of doctrine aggravates potential abuse.
Double-hatting in investor-state dispute resolution has raised legitimacy issues. In this article, Divij Jain addresses the practice of double-hatting and suggests a potential solution to the problem.
In this blogpost, Parth Tyagi (3rd yr- NLIU Bhopal) and Achyutam Bhatnagar (3rd yr- NLUO) discuss how micro-investment disputes have been regularly denied access to the ICSID's jurisdiction. This post projects the importance of rejecting the Salini test (a test that has constantly been relied upon by ICSID to establish investment) and widening the ambit of the ICSID's jurisdiction to help in the development and promotion of ICSID's foundational values.