{"title":"The Applicability of the Russia-Ukraine Bilateral Investment Treaty to Crimea in the Light of the Duty of Non-recognition in International Law","authors":"Felix Krumbiegel","doi":"10.54648/joia2021031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"According to international law, Russia’s territorial claim over Crimea shall not be recognized as it was brought about by a violation of the prohibition of violence. Despite this obligation, several arbitral tribunals have recently accepted jurisdiction in claims brought by Ukrainian investors under the Russia-Ukraine BIT and declared the Russia-Ukraine BIT applicable. I consider the arbitral tribunals’ reasoning to be inconsistent with the duty of non-recognition. Therefore, I analyze possible alternative ways in which Ukrainian and non-Ukrainian investors can obtain protection for their investments in Crimea under the Russia-Ukraine BIT without implicitly recognizing Russia’s territorial claim over Crimea.\nInternational Investment Law, Duty of non-recognition, Crimea, Annexation, Jurisdiction ratione loci","PeriodicalId":43527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Arbitration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Arbitration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2021031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
According to international law, Russia’s territorial claim over Crimea shall not be recognized as it was brought about by a violation of the prohibition of violence. Despite this obligation, several arbitral tribunals have recently accepted jurisdiction in claims brought by Ukrainian investors under the Russia-Ukraine BIT and declared the Russia-Ukraine BIT applicable. I consider the arbitral tribunals’ reasoning to be inconsistent with the duty of non-recognition. Therefore, I analyze possible alternative ways in which Ukrainian and non-Ukrainian investors can obtain protection for their investments in Crimea under the Russia-Ukraine BIT without implicitly recognizing Russia’s territorial claim over Crimea.
International Investment Law, Duty of non-recognition, Crimea, Annexation, Jurisdiction ratione loci
期刊介绍：
Since its 1984 launch, the Journal of International Arbitration has established itself as a thought provoking, ground breaking journal aimed at the specific requirements of those involved in international arbitration. Each issue contains in depth investigations of the most important current issues in international arbitration, focusing on business, investment, and economic disputes between private corporations, State controlled entities, and States. The new Notes and Current Developments sections contain concise and critical commentary on new developments. The journal’s worldwide coverage and bimonthly circulation give it even more immediacy as a forum for original thinking, penetrating analysis and lively discussion of international arbitration issues from around the globe.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
