- In brief: ICSID tribunal decides company’s seat does not establish nationality (CFHL v Cameroon)
- Original news
- What are the practical implications of this decision?
- What was this case about?
- What did the tribunal decide?
- What was Alexis Mourre’s dissenting opinion?
- Case details
Arbitration analysis: An International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) tribunal has decided that it does not have jurisdiction to hear an expropriation claim against Cameroon brought by a Luxembourg registered company. It has held that the claimant did not really have Luxembourgian nationality for the purposes of the 1981 treaty between the Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union and Cameroon. Alexis Mourre made a dissenting opinion, noting that the treaty’s definition of nationality depended solely on the location of a corporate entity’s statutory seat and did not permit the majority’s interpretation.
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