No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Caratube International Oil Company LLP v. Republic of Kazakhstan
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 November 2021
Abstract
Jurisdiction — Foreign investor — ICSID Convention, Article 25(2)(b) — Foreign nationality — Ownership or control — Investment — Economic contribution — Whether the scope of protection under the BIT for companies under foreign control fell within the outer limit of ICSID jurisdiction — Whether the national of another contracting State had made an investment — Whether establishing foreign ownership under the BIT was sufficient in light of the requirement for foreign control in the ICSID Convention
Jurisdiction — Investment — Interpretation — “Every kind of investment” — Economic contribution — Origin of capital — Whether the definition of investment required an economic contribution by a foreign national — Whether origin of capital was relevant to the existence of an investment
Jurisdiction — Investment — Interpretation — ICSID Convention, Article 25(1) — Whether the inherent meaning of investment under ICSID jurisprudence was relevant in determining ownership or control by a foreign national — Whether there was an economic arrangement requiring a contribution to make a profit and some degree of risk
Jurisdiction — Investment — Foreign nationality — Ownership or control — Evidence — Burden of proof — Adverse inferences — Whether the burden of proof can shift from the claimant to the State due to seizure of document — Whether adverse inferences may be drawn from the failure to produce documents
Annulment — Failure to state reasons — Manifest excess of powers — Serious departure from a fundamental rule of procedure — ICSID Convention, Article 52(1) — Foreign nationality — Applicable law — Obiter dictum — Translation — Whether a tribunal’s misapplication of or failure to apply the applicable law justified annulment if its interpretation was reasonable or tenable — Whether reliance on an incorrect translation warranted annulment if the reasoning was incidental to the operative part of the award — Whether obiter dictum issued without hearing warranted annulment
Keywords
- Type
- Case Report
- Information
- Copyright
- © Cambridge University Press 2021