- ICSID tribunal finds jurisdiction over expropriation dispute (Beijing Urban Construction Group v Yemen)
- Original news
- What are the key implications of the decision?
- What was the background to the decision?
- What were the parties' positions on jurisdiction and what did the tribunal decide?
- Objections ratione personae
- Objections ratione materiae
- Could the MFN clause circumvent art 10.2?
- The remaining objections—qualifying investment and a contractual claim
- Decision and tribunal details
Arbitration analysis: In a decision dated 31 May 2017, the tribunal in the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) arbitration proceeding between Beijing Urban Construction Group (the claimant) and the Republic of Yemen (the respondent) dismissed all but one of the respondent’s objections to its jurisdiction over the dispute. Accordingly, the tribunal concluded that it had jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s claims related to the alleged expropriation of its investment in Yemen.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial