ARTICLE
18 October 2017

Middle Eastern Investors As Claimants In Investment Treaty Arbitrations

CC
Clyde & Co

Contributor

Clyde & Co  logo
Clyde & Co is a leading, sector-focused global law firm with 415 partners, 2200 legal professionals and 3800 staff in over 50 offices and associated offices on six continents. The firm specialises in the sectors that move, build and power our connected world and the insurance that underpins it, namely: transport, infrastructure, energy, trade & commodities and insurance. With a strong focus on developed and emerging markets, the firm is one of the fastest growing law firms in the world with ambitious plans for further growth.
Investment arbitration is not unknown in the Middle East. For more than a decade...
Worldwide International Law
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Investment arbitration is not unknown in the Middle East. For more than a decade, investors from this region have been acting as claimants in investment arbitration cases. Middle Eastern states do not share the weariness with bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and investor-state arbitration that is found in other parts of the world, and continue to conclude new investment treaties. This article will discuss key cases involving investors from the Middle East against the background of investment treaty trends in the region.

Investment treaty arbitrations frequently take place as a result of events that lead to changes in the geopolitical landscape. For example, the political changes in Eastern Europe and their aftermath gave rise to treaty disputes for many years, and the proceedings commenced against South American states over recent years are testament to the political situation in that region. The MENA region—perhaps surprisingly given the recent political developments, and not including Egypt—is generally not a focal point of investment treaty disputes. And while academic studies regularly assess which Middle Eastern states have been respondents in these proceedings, it has not often been analysed how Middle Eastern investors feature as claimants in investment treaty arbitrations.

As will be seen, it would be incorrect, however, to assume that Middle Eastern investors do not act as claimants in investment treaty arbitrations. To date, they are known to have done so in approximately twenty cases, relying on investment treaties concluded by states in the region. Those cases came from various sectors and were directed against various states. Interestingly, many of the respondents were MENA states, but only rarely did the cases relate to events in the Arab Spring.

This article will discuss key cases involving investors from the Middle East against the background of investment treaty trends in the region. For the sake of completeness, it should be pointed out that in addition to the large number of bilateral investment agreements (BITs), two multilateral investment agreements have been concluded by the states in the region: the Unified Agreement for the Investment of Arab Capital in the Arab States, signed in 1980, and the Agreement for Promotion, Protection and Guarantee of Investments among the Member States of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, signed in 1981.

Please contact Anne K. Hoffmann for the full article. 

This article has been published in the fifth issue of the BCDR International Arbitration Review: BCDR International Arbitration Review 3, no. 2 (2016). 

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More