MFN-based Jurisdiction in Investor--State Arbitration: Is There Any Hope for a Consistent Approach?
Most-favored nation (MFN) clauses are a hotly contested basis for jurisdiction in investment arbitration. This article categorizes the divergent approaches taken by 17 arbitral tribunals to date, revealing the major types of MFN clauses interpreted, the key types of MFN questions confronted and the primary reasons cited for either upholding or denying MFN-based jurisdiction. It analyzes trends emerging from the awards and attempts to explain the inconsistent outcomes in terms of the different burdens of persuasion applied by tribunals. The article concludes by exploring the feasibility of finding a more consistent approach, one which respects both the dictates of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the pragmatic concerns of investors and host states. Oxford University Press 2011, all rights reserved, Oxford University Press.
Volume (Year): 14 (2011)
Issue (Month): 1 (March)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK|
Fax: 01865 267 985
Web page: http://www.jiel.oupjournals.org/
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.oup.co.uk/journals|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jieclw:v:14:y:2011:i:1:p:157-190. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press)or (Christopher F. Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.