Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Jurisdiction and Admissibility in International Investment Law

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

The distinction between jurisdictional and admissibility issues in investment arbitration is becoming more and more relevant. This results from an emerging jurisprudence emphasizing that a tribunal that lacks jurisdiction will have to dismiss a case brought before it, while it has discretion whether to dismiss a claim for reasons of inadmissibility, in particular, because the latter defects may be curable. Conceptually this difference is rooted in the idea that “jurisdiction is an attribute of a tribunal and not of a claim, whereas admissibility is an attribute of a claim but not of a tribunal”,1 with the consequence that “[t]he concept of ‘admissibility’ refers to the varied reasons that a tribunal, although it has jurisdiction, may decline to hear a case or a claim.”2This overview article will briefly outline a number of issues in regard to which investment tribunals have disagreed whether to qualify them as jurisdictional or admissibility-related. These range from so-called waiting periods, requiring investors to first seek amicable dispute settlement or to litigate before national courts, to express or implied “in accordance with host state law”-clauses. This article argues that the outcomes of many of these cases, which often appear to be inconsistent, may be explained on the basis of different conceptual qualifications as jurisdictional or admissibility-related issues.

Affiliations: 1: University of Vienna


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation