ECHR and its First Protocol cannot be applied to the dispute under Article 31(3)(c) VCLT, since these instruments are not binding on Mauritius

You are not logged in. If you are a subscriber, please Login to access. If you are not a subscriber, you can contact us for a rate quote at subscribe@iareporter.com. Alternatively, you can sign up to receive free email headlines here.

Supplementary means of treaty interpretation are not limited to drafting history, and can be used to confirm the result of an interpretation based on Article 31

Lower court could validly take into account the customary international law prohibition against diplomatic protection over dual nationals under Article 31(3)(c) VCLT

Lower court did not find that the 2010 BIT between the state parties determined the scope of the 1973 BIT – but merely that it revealed the parties’ common intention

Court cannot review arbitrators’ reliance on context of ISDS provision and BIT’s object and purpose since award is not part of the record

Background: First instance judge sees no reason to set aside UNCITRAL award; claimant appeals the ruling to the Cour de cassation

Background: DNA-testing lab project was short-lived

Immediate and broad context of the BIT both militate for exclusion of claims by dual nationals

BIT’s object and purpose does not allow conclusion that dual nationals are covered

Ordinary meaning of the term “national” is unhelpful

Dual French and Mauritian national applies for set-aside after UNCITRAL tribunal declines to hear his treaty-based claims

Parties left to bear their own costs, but claimants must bear arbitration costs

No contribution given that investors retained full control of contributed sums

Salini test is applicable but not a mere box-ticking exercise

No duration and risk for one-off payments

MFN clause should be interpreted to determine its scope

MFN clause applies to matters governed by the treaty

Ejusdem generis principle means that MFN cannot import consent from another treaty

Dual nationals not expressly excluded by BIT text, but treaty context points to a different conclusion

Terms must have same meaning throughout a treaty

Investor pays one-third of state legal costs

No need to consider MFN issues of ‘first impression’

Reference to ICSID in one BIT clause reveals states’ intention to exclude dual nationals

Tribunal orders investor to pursue alternative funding possibilities

Archives