In 2015, the jurisprudence of International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) tribunals and ad hoc committees largely followed established lines. However, the awards on jurisdiction in the Po?tová banka and the Ping An cases evidenced very restrictive approaches to what is required in order to uphold jurisdiction over ICSID claims. On the substance of claims, the tribunals in Tidewater and in Quiborax reaffirmed the legality requirements of expropriations, a string of cases clarified the contours of the fair and equitable treatment standard, while the ad hoc committees in the Daimler and the K?l?ç cases continued to diverge on the scope of most-favoured nation (MFN) clauses.
Professor of International and European Law, University of Vienna, Austria. Member of the Editorial Board.
