Magnifier Search

RosInvest v. Russian Federation

Type of decisionAward on Jurisdiction
Date of decision1 October 2007
Tribunal
Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel (President)
Franklin Berman
Johan Steyn
Legal instrumentBIT between Russian Federation and United Kingdom (1989)
Further information

Statements from this decision

You are currently viewing the statements in their context. To view them in a list, click here.
The requirement of exhaustion of local remedies as a principle of customary international law is waived by the consent to investor-state arbitration
Decisions of other tribunals are not sources of law and are not legally binding upon another tribunal
The requirement of exhaustion of local remedies as a principle of customary international law is waived by the consent to investor-state arbitration
IITs must be interpreted using the rules of interpretation laid down in the VCLT
Within the meaning of Article 31 (3) (c) VCLT, "applicable in the relations between the parties" refers to such rules that condition the performance of the specific rights and obligations stipulated in the treaty
A tribunal should not adopt a dynamic approach to treaty interpretation not covered by the VCLT, at least if the VCLT is directly applicable and if the parties did not intend an evolutionary adaptation
A "fundamental change of circumstances" is of no relevance to treaty interpretation according to the VCLT
The right to prompt review of an expropriatory act under domestic law does not establish a duty for the investor to exhaust local remedies
An MFN clause in conjunction with another IIT can confer jurisdiction on a tribunal
The requirement of exhaustion of local remedies as a principle of customary international law is waived by the consent to investor-state arbitration
The right to prompt review of an expropriatory act under domestic law does not establish a duty for the investor to exhaust local remedies
The fact that an objection can be waived demonstrates that one is not dealing with a jurisdictional issue
A state's consent to arbitration is expressed in the IIT
A tribunal has a duty to determine its jurisdiction sua sponte
If an IIT only confers jurisdiction on the tribunal for disputes concerning matters "consequential upon an act of expropriation", the tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the question of whether an expropriation occurred and was legal
If an IIT only confers jurisdiction on the tribunal for disputes concerning the amount or payment of compensation for expropriation, the tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the question of whether an expropriation occurred and was legal
A "fundamental change of circumstances" is of no relevance to treaty interpretation according to the VCLT
Within the meaning of Article 31 (3) (c) VCLT, "applicable in the relations between the parties" refers to such rules that condition the performance of the specific rights and obligations stipulated in the treaty
IITs must be interpreted using the rules of interpretation laid down in the VCLT
A tribunal should not adopt a dynamic approach to treaty interpretation not covered by the VCLT, at least if the VCLT is directly applicable and if the parties did not intend an evolutionary adaptation

Feedback

Above you will find 13 statement(s) from this decision. Please note that when viewing the statements in their context, the same statement may appear multiple times if it is relevant for more than one topic. Did we miss something? Feel free to send us your suggestions!