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


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

This comment deals with collective actions in ICSID arbitration. This topic has emerged as one of the hottest issues in international investment law after the recent Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility in the case Abaclat and others v. Argentina. In this decision the majority of the ICSID Arbitral Tribunal considers as admissible the collective action of about 60,000 Italian bondholders represented by the Association for the Protection of Investors in Argentine Securities. The decision issued by the Abaclat Tribunal could open the way to mass claims in international arbitrations based on international agreements on the protection of foreign investments (so-called BITs), brought by holdout creditors in case of sovereign insolvency. A critical review of some selected issues dealt with by the Tribunal will be presented. First of all, this comment addresses the qualification of the Italian investors’ mass claims as treaty claims (rather than as contractual claims). Secondly, the qualification of the claimants’ security entitlements in the Argentine bonds as investments made in Argentine territory pursuant to the Argentina-Italy BIT is analysed. Finally, the method and reasoning followed by the Tribunal in order to admit bondholders’ mass claims under BITs in ICSID arbitration are critically discussed. In this respect, the conclusion is drawn that the Tribunal has conflated questions regarding subjective jurisdictional requirements under the ICSID Convention and Argentina-Italy BIT with questions of claims’ admissibility, as well as issues related to parties’ consent to ICSID arbitration with mere procedural issues.


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 Italian Yearbook of International Law Online — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation