The arbitrary deprivation of dual nationality in investment arbitration

Q3 Social Sciences Arbitration International Pub Date : 2023-10-04 DOI:10.1093/arbint/aiad044
Andrés A Mezgravis
{"title":"The arbitrary deprivation of dual nationality in investment arbitration","authors":"Andrés A Mezgravis","doi":"10.1093/arbint/aiad044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Recently, some investment tribunals have held that the doctrine of ‘effective and dominant nationality’ is a ‘relevant rule of international law’ according to which dual nationals can only invoke the protection of the respective bilateral investment treaty to the extent that they invoke their effective and dominant nationality to sue the State of their non-dominant nationality. However, the idea that multiple nationalities are an evil that must be avoided in the interest of States has ceased to be valid. In 1960, less than a third of states accepted dual nationality. By 2018, three-quarters of states allowed their nationals to possess another nationality. We are currently witnessing a paradigm shift that some arbitrators are still reluctant to acknowledge. When an investment tribunal claims to apply the ‘effective and dominant nationality principle’ what it is actually doing is refusing to recognize one of the claimant’s nationalities. The non-recognition of a nationality that does not correspond to an express legal norm and does not respond to a legitimate purpose is arbitrary and, therefore, should be prohibited as it violates a fundamental human right.","PeriodicalId":37425,"journal":{"name":"Arbitration International","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arbitration International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/arbint/aiad044","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Recently, some investment tribunals have held that the doctrine of ‘effective and dominant nationality’ is a ‘relevant rule of international law’ according to which dual nationals can only invoke the protection of the respective bilateral investment treaty to the extent that they invoke their effective and dominant nationality to sue the State of their non-dominant nationality. However, the idea that multiple nationalities are an evil that must be avoided in the interest of States has ceased to be valid. In 1960, less than a third of states accepted dual nationality. By 2018, three-quarters of states allowed their nationals to possess another nationality. We are currently witnessing a paradigm shift that some arbitrators are still reluctant to acknowledge. When an investment tribunal claims to apply the ‘effective and dominant nationality principle’ what it is actually doing is refusing to recognize one of the claimant’s nationalities. The non-recognition of a nationality that does not correspond to an express legal norm and does not respond to a legitimate purpose is arbitrary and, therefore, should be prohibited as it violates a fundamental human right.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
投资仲裁中对双重国籍的任意剥夺
最近,一些投资法庭认为,“有效和优势国籍”原则是一项“相关的国际法规则”,根据该规则,双重国籍者只有在援引其有效和优势国籍起诉其非优势国籍国时,才能援引各自双边投资条约的保护。但是,为了国家的利益必须避免多民族是一种罪恶的想法已经不再有效。1960年,只有不到三分之一的国家接受双重国籍。到2018年,四分之三的州允许其国民拥有另一个国籍。我们目前正在目睹一种范式的转变,而一些仲裁员仍不愿承认这一点。当投资法庭声称适用“有效和主导国籍原则”时,它实际上是在拒绝承认申请人的国籍之一。不承认不符合明确的法律规范和不符合合法目的的国籍是武断的,因此应予以禁止,因为它侵犯了一项基本人权。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Arbitration International
Arbitration International Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: Launched in 1985, Arbitration International provides quarterly coverage for national and international developments in the world of arbitration. The journal aims to maintain balance between academic debate and practical contributions to the field, providing both topical material on current developments and analytic scholarship of permanent interest. Arbitrators, counsel, judges, scholars and government officials will find the journal enhances their understanding of a broad range of topics in commercial and investment arbitration. Features include (i) articles covering all major arbitration rules and national jurisdictions written by respected international practitioners and scholars, (ii) cutting edge (case) notes covering recent developments and ongoing debates in the field, (iii) book reviews of the latest publications in the world of arbitration, (iv) Letters to the Editor and (v) agora grouping articles related to a common theme. Arbitration International maintains a balance between controversial subjects for debate and topics geared toward practical use by arbitrators, lawyers, academics, judges, corporate advisors and government officials.
期刊最新文献
The temptation of Occam’s Razor: jurisdiction, admissibility and party autonomy The participation of foreign counsel in Nigeria-seated arbitration proceedings How to assess the res judicata effects of international arbitral awards: giving concreteness to an autonomous approach Confidentiality and privacy of arbitration in the digital era: pies in the sky? Enforcing intra-EU ICSID arbitration awards in a post-Achmea world in Europe: could the European Court of Human Rights assist in resolving the deadlock?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1