Piercing The Corporate Veil Doctrine In International Investment Agreements

Diploma Thesis from the year 2017 in the subject Law - Miscellaneous, grade: 1.7, Humboldt-University of Berlin (International Dispute Resolution Master of Laws (LL.M.) Programme), course: International Investment Arbitration, language: English, abstract: The piercing the corporate veil in ISDS plays a twofold role. From the investors’ perspective, it is instrumental if a tribunal can ignore the difference between the legal personality of the company in which they invested in and the shares that they hold. Per contra, States also invoke this doctrine by trying to convince a tribunal to look at the true personalities involved and not to allow an investor to hide behind the veil of the different legal personalities. To address these competing interests, the author of this Master Thesis in Chapter II intends to analyse the characteristic pattern and standing of shareholders in bringing indirect claims aimed to persuade the tribunal to ignore the difference between the legal personality of a company and its shareholders and to look at the true interests at stake instead. In Chapter III, the applicability of the piercing the corporate veil doctrine will be approached from the States’ perspective and when they invoke the denial of benefits clauses. On the basis of the foregoing, this Master Thesis purports to address the intersection between the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal in ISDS and the concepts of investor and investment underlying the application of the piercing the corporate veil doctrine. By doing so, the author of this Master Thesis explores the provisions of IIAs commented on by authoritative treatises, contemporary views embodied in articles, and jurisprudence of international investment treaty tribunals. In order to arrive at its findings and conclusions, this Master Thesis utilizes the method of description, method of conceptual analysis, comparative method, and method of evaluation.

Treaty shopping, also known under the terms of nationality planning, corporate (re-)structuring or corporate maneuvering, implies a strategic change of nationality or strategic invocation of another nationality with the aim of accessing another (usually more favourable) investment treaty for purposes of investment arbitration. When deciding on whether an investment claim based on treaty shopping should be upheld or dismissed, investment arbitral tribunals have been increasingly faced with significant questions, such as: What is treaty shopping and how may legitimate nationality planning be distinguished from treaty abuse in international investment law? Should a claimant that is controlled by a host-State national be considered a protected investor, or should tribunals pierce its corporate veil? Does an investor have to make the investment in good faith, and does it have to make a contribution of its own to the investment it is claiming protection for? When does a corporate restructuring constitute an abuse of process, and which is the role of the notion of dispute in this respect? How efficient are denial of benefits clauses to counter treaty shopping? Treaty Shopping in International Investment Law examines in a systematic manner the practice of treaty shopping in international investment law and arbitral decisions that have undertaken to draw this line. While some legal approaches taken by arbitral tribunals have started to consolidate, others remain unsettled, painting a picture of an overall inconsistent jurisprudence. This is hardly surprising, given the thousands of international investment agreements that provide for the investor ́s right to sue the host State on grounds of alleged breaches of investment obligations. This book analyses and discusses the different ways by which arbitral tribunals have dealt with the value judgment at the core of the distinction between objectionable and unobjectionable treaty shopping, and makes proposals de lege ferenda on how States could reform their international investment agreements (in particular with respect to treaty drafting) in order to make them less susceptible to the practice of treaty shopping.

Is privity of contract the reason why investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) is open to critics, or could it contribute to solving the system’s legitimacy crisis? Privity of contract essentially means that a subject must be a party to a contract, in order to acquire rights and assume obligations, to sue and be sued under that contract. Privity of contract came to land on the shores of ISDS and this has at least on one occasion been described as an ‘original sin’. Arbitral tribunals often need to decide whether they have jurisdiction in cases where a party to the investment contract is not the claimant but a related entity, or not the central government, but a state agency or state-owned enterprise. In light of the deep interconnection between, on the one hand, the criticism today surrounding investment treaty arbitration – be it called judicial activism and regulatory chill, or be it called abuse of law and indirect claims – and, on the other hand, the domains where privity of contract applies, this book’s original and far-reaching analysis clearly lays out, via an in-depth examination of relevant case law, a possible use of the doctrine that can contribute to leading ISDS out of the crisis. The study’s conclusions respond with thoroughly researched authority to such key questions as the following: In which domains of international investment arbitration does the notion of privity of contract operate, and with what effects? How are states and arbitral panels reacting to the persisting unresolved issues raised by the increasing pertinence of this legal doctrine? What solutions are advisable in the midst of the current criticisms surrounding ISDS? The author finds that the doctrine of privity of contract finds application in heterogeneous scenarios, from decisions on jurisdiction where there are forum selection clauses in investment contracts or fork-in-the-road provisions in investment treaties, to consolidation, counterclaims and umbrella clause claims. She proposes a flexible interpretation of the doctrine of privity of contract as a guiding principle arbitral tribunals should consider along with other factors (inter alia the tightness of the relation between the investor and its subsidiary and the host state’s involvement in the organization and function of agencies or state-owned enterprises). The book’s thorough and extensive examination of investment arbitration case law draws comparisons with other international adjudicatory bodies and identifies the most actual and compelling unresolved legal issues. Appendices include lists of many of the arbitration cases, international judgments and national judgments discussed. As a constructive contribution to the current debate, this enquiry is an extraordinary achievement. No other study has conducted such thorough research on the application of privity of contract in investment treaty arbitration. It will be of great interest to arbitration lawyers, arbitrators, foreign investors, host states and scholars in all areas of international arbitration and dispute settlement.

The Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy is a one-stop reference source. This Handbook covers the main conceptual questions in a logical, scholarly yet easy to comprehend manner. It is based on a truly global vision insisting particularly on Global South related issues and developments. In this respect, the Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy provides an excellent modern treatment of international investment law which is one of the fastest growing areas of international economic law. Professor Julien Chaisse, Professor Leïla Choukroune, and Professor Sufian Jusoh are the editors-in-chief of the Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy, a 1,500-page reference book, which is anticipated becoming one of the most influenced reference books in the international economic law areas. This Handbook is a highly comprehensive set of four volumes of original materials designed to cover all facets of international investment law and policy. The chapters, written by world-leading experts, explore key ideas and debates in relation to: international investment substantive law (Volume I), Investor-state dispute settlement (Volume II); interaction between international investment law and other fields of international law (Volume III); and, the new trends and challenges for international investment law (Volume IV). The Handbook will feature more than 80 contributions from leading experts (academics, lawyers, government officials), including Vivienne Bath, M. Sornarajah, Mélida Hodgson, Rahul Donde, Roberto Echandi, Andrew Mitchell, Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, Christina L. Beharry, Krista Nadakavukaren Schefer, Leon Trakman, Prabhash Ranjan, Emmanuel Jacomy, Mariel Dimsey, Stavros Brekoulakis, Romesh Weeramantry, Nathalie Bernasconi-Osterwalder, David Collins, Damilola S. Olawuyi, Katia Fach Gomez, Jaemin Lee, Alejandro Carballo-Leyda, Patrick W. Pearsall, Mark Feldman, Surya Deva, Luke Nottage, Rafael Leal-Arcas, James Nedumpara, Rodrigo Polanco, etc. This Handbook will be an essential reference tool for students and scholars of international economic law. Policy makers and researchers alike will find the Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy useful for years to come.

This monograph offers a detailed and distinctive analysis of corporate nationality under international investment law, covering the ICSID Convention and the investment treaty framework. It takes the reader back to the basics, threading through the concepts of jurisdiction, nationality, and corporate personality to give a clear context to the discussion of corporate nationality under international investment law, at a time when international investment is dominated by multinational business enterprises operating in a globalised economy. The book examines different understandings of corporate personality and nationality under a selection of jurisdictions and public international law. It also offers an in-depth analysis of approaches found in ICSID arbitral awards and in investment treaty practice, distilling the problematic areas and discussing the impacts of the areas of concern. It evaluates the techniques developed to address problems and puts forward suggestions for effective and balanced solutions to the questions of corporate nationality and personal scope of investment protection.

In recent years, investor-state tribunals have often permitted shareholders' claims for reflective loss despite the well-established principle of no reflective loss applied consistently in domestic regimes and in other fields of international law. Investment tribunals have justified their decisions by relying on definitions of 'investment' in investment agreements that often include 'shares', while the no-reflective-loss principle is generally justified on the basis of policy considerations pertaining to the preservation of the efficiency of the adjudicatory process and to the protection of other stakeholders, such as creditors. Although these policy considerations militating for the prohibition of shareholders' claims for reflective loss also apply in investor-state arbitration, they are curable in that context and must be balanced with policy considerations specific to the field of international investment law that weigh in favor of such claims: the protection of foreign investors in order to promote trade and investment liberalization.

The book argues that international investment law is a structured body of law based on uniform principles of investment protection.

This up-to-date and revised third edition offers a clear and comprehensive overview aimed at upper-level undergraduate and postgraduate courses on international investment law. Key features and benefits include: • concise descriptions of legal principles followed by classic and contemporary cases • extracts from and analysis of key recent decisions, revised investment treaty texts and new court system proposals • detailed discussion notes and all new ‘Questions to an Expert’ to enable classroom discussion and facilitate critical reflection.