English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The notion of Investment is one of the most controversial issues trailing the dispute settlement mechanism of International Center for Settlement of Investment Dispute (ICSID). One notable issue surrounding the controversy is identifying an exact definition of investment for the purposes of ICSID Jurisdiction. While some tribunals tend to give effect to the agreement of the parties contained in their contracts or the underlying bilateral investment treaty as giving rise to the ICSID jurisdiction by consent, others tend to subject parties consent into a filtering mechanism based on a certain developed criteria. The aim of the paper is to add clarity to the corpus juris of investment treaty arbitration and provide guidance to the  investment treaty tribunals regarding the determination of notion of investment.  In doing so, the paper typifies the problem with the notable case of MHS v Malaysia. It then analyzes the two approaches from subjective and objective perspectives. The paper concludes with the proposition that ICSID notion of investment may not necessary lie with either of the two approaches. Keyywords : Investment, treaties, jurisdiction

Notion of investment under the ICSID Arbitration: A jurisdictional dilemma between subjective and objective approaches