IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jieclw/v14y2011i1p157-190.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

MFN-based Jurisdiction in Investor--State Arbitration: Is There Any Hope for a Consistent Approach?

Author

Listed:
  • Julie A. Maupin

Abstract

Most-favored nation (MFN) clauses are a hotly contested basis for jurisdiction in investment arbitration. This article categorizes the divergent approaches taken by 17 arbitral tribunals to date, revealing the major types of MFN clauses interpreted, the key types of MFN questions confronted and the primary reasons cited for either upholding or denying MFN-based jurisdiction. It analyzes trends emerging from the awards and attempts to explain the inconsistent outcomes in terms of the different burdens of persuasion applied by tribunals. The article concludes by exploring the feasibility of finding a more consistent approach, one which respects both the dictates of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the pragmatic concerns of investors and host states. Oxford University Press 2011, all rights reserved, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Julie A. Maupin, 2011. "MFN-based Jurisdiction in Investor--State Arbitration: Is There Any Hope for a Consistent Approach?," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 157-190, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jieclw:v:14:y:2011:i:1:p:157-190
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jiel/jgq052
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jieclw:v:14:y:2011:i:1:p:157-190. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jiel .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.