Hide
Show all
Email this article 
The Concept and Status of the Investor in International Investment Law. Part II
Abstract
International investment law, as branch of public international law, makes investors its main beneficiaries. Adoption of the correct definition of an investor in investment treaties is therefore one of the most important and basic elements of their content. The purpose of this article is to present the theoretical and practical problems related to a natural person and a legal person and then to present the conditions that must be met for recognition of these entities as investors. Only in such case investors may demand protection treaty and claim against the host state.
The article describes how the matter of nationality of a natural person developed in domestic law and then in international investment law. It also describes the criteria for determining the nationality of legal persons, as nowadays the different sources of origin of the capital make it difficult to undoubtedly specify the nationality of legal persons. Therefore, the paper analyses the investor’s definition included in international investment law contained in the multilateral treaties, regional treaties, as well as bilateral investment treaties for the promotion and protection of the investment.
In the article the author undertakes to present differences as to the requirements which must be met by an investor who is a natural person and a legal person, which are contained in the Washington Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States from 1965. The paper presents also the awards of international arbitration courts that dealt with the problems of the concept of the investor and the protection treaty.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDF (Język Polski)References
Agreement Between Canada and … for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, Article 1, http://italaw.com/documents/Canadian2004-FIPA-model-en.pdf [dostęp: 10.04.2016].
Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/other_treaties/text.jsp?file_id=234900 [dostęp: 12.04.2016].
Aguas del Tunari S.A. Claimant/Investor v. Republic of Bolivia, Respondent/Contracting Party, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/3, www.iisd.org/pdf/2005/AdT_Decision-en.pdf [dostęp: 12.04.2016].
Amco Asia Corporation, Pan American Development Limited and PT Amco Indonesia Claimants v. The Republic of Respondent, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=showDoc&docId=DC663_En&caseId=C126 [dostęp: 03.04.2016].
Amerasinghe C.F., Interpretation of Article 25(2) b) of the ICSID Convention, [w:] International Arbitration in the 21st Century: Towards “Judicialization” and Uniformity, eds. R.B. Lillich, C.N. Brower, Irvington – New York 1993.
Autopista Concesionada de Venezuela (Aucoven) przeciwko Boliwariańskiej Republice Wenezueli, orzeczenie z dnia 27 września 2001 r., ICSID Case No. ARB/00/5, https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=showDoc&docId=DC609_En&caseId=C192 [dostęp: 10.04.2016].
Banro American Resources Inc. i Societe Aurifere de Kivu et du Maniema SARL przeciwko Demokratycznej Republice Konga, orzeczenie z dnia 1 września 2000 r., ICSID Case No. ARB/98/7, https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=showDoc&docId=DC577_En&caseId=C173 [dostęp: 10.04.2016].
Bors M., Pojęcie i status inwestora w międzynarodowym prawie inwestycyjnym Część I, „Studenckie Zeszyty Naukowe” 2014, nr 24, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/szn.2014.17.24.49.
Broches A., The Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States, Recueil des Cours de l’Academie de Droit International, 1972.
International Investment Law: Understanding Concepts and Tracking Innovations. Definition of Investor and Investment in International Investment Agreements, OECD 2008.
International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation (Claiment) Against the United Mexican States (Respondent), January 26, 2006, http://opiniojuris.org/wp-content/uploads/Thunderbird_Award.pdf [dostęp: 19.04.2016].
Jeżewski M., Międzynarodowe prawo inwestycyjne, Warszawa 2011.
Legum B., Defining investment and investor: Who is entitled to claim?, presentation at the Symposium “Making the Most of International Investment Agreements: A Common Agenda”, December 12, 2005.
Mr Franz Sedelmayer vs. The Russian Federation through the Procurement Department of the President of the Russian Federation, July 7, 1998, SCC Award, www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0757.pdf [dostęp: 18.04.2016].
Saluka Investments BV (The Netherlands) v. The Chech Republic, March 17, 2006, http://italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0740.pdf [dostęp: 03.04.2016].
Schreuer C., ICSID Convention: A Commentary, Cambridge 2000.
Sinclair A., The Substance of Nationality Requirements in Investment Treaty Arbitration, “ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal” 2005, Vol. 20 (2).
The Multilateral Agreement on Investment, OECD Draft Consolidated Text 1998, Part II, point 1(ii), www1.oecd.org/daf/mai/pdf/ng/ng987r1e.pdf [dostęp: 18.04.2016].
Tokio Tokeles przeciwko Ukrainie, opinia odrębna Prospera Weila z dnia 29 kwietnia 2004 r., Case No. ARB /02/18.
Umowa pomiędzy Królestwem Holandii i Republiką Boliwii, art. 1.b (ii), (iii), http://unctad.org/sections/dite/iia/docs/bits/netherlands_bolivia.pdf [dostęp: 03.04.2016].
Umowa pomiędzy Królestwem Szwecji i Republiką Indii, 2000, art. 1.d, http://unctad.org/sections/dite/iia/docs/bits/sweden_india.pdf [dostęp: 10.04.2016].
Umowa pomiędzy Republiką Chińską i Republiką Federalną Niemiec, 2003, art. 1.2.a, http://unctad.org/sections/dite/iia/docs/bits/china_germany.pdf [dostęp: 03.04.2016].
Umowa pomiędzy Republiką Francji i Republiką Singapuru, 1976, art. 3.a, http://unctad.org/sections/dite/iia/docs/bits/france_singapour_fr.pdf [dostęp: 10.04.2016].
Umowa pomiędzy Republiką Grecką i Rządem Kuby, 1996, art. 1.3.b, http://unctad.org/sections/dite/iia/docs/bits/cuba_greece.pdf [dostęp: 10.04.2016].
Umowa pomiędzy Republiką Włoską i Libią, 2003, art. 1.3.b, http://unctad.org/sections/dite/iia/docs/bits/Libya_Italy_it.pdf [dostęp: 03.04.2016].
Umowa pomiędzy Rzecząpospolitą Polską a Ludową Republiką Bangladeszu (Dz.U. z 2000 r., nr 43, poz. 492).
Umowa pomiędzy Stanami Zjednoczonymi Ameryki i Republiką Urugwaju, 2005, art. 1, http://unctad.org/sections/dite/iia/docs/bits/US_Uruguay.pdf [dostęp: 10.04.2016].
Umowa pomiędzy Wielką Brytanią i Republiką Salwadoru, 1999, art. 1.c.1, http://unctad.org/sections/dite/iia/docs/bits/uk_esalvador.pdf [dostęp: 03.04.2016].
Wyrok MTS z dnia 5 lutego 1970 r., ICJ Reports 1970, Separate opinion of judge Jessup, pkt 39, www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/50/5401.pdf [dostęp: 14.04.2016].
Yaung Chi Oo Trading PTE Ltd. przeciwko Republice Związku Mjanmy, orzeczenie z dnia 31 marca 2003 r., ASEAN I.D. Case No. ARB/01/1, § 49 i 52, www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0909.pdf [dostęp: 03.04.2016].
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/szn.2016.19.30.7
Date of publication: 2017-06-16 15:30:58
Date of submission: 2016-09-14 12:31:25
Statistics
Indicators
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2017 Michał Bors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.