You are currently viewing the old version of the website.
From December 5, 2019 the website is available at: and
Follow Us

Institute for Law and Public Policy

Address: 129090, Moscow, Shchepkina str., 8

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 140, Moscow, 129090, Russia

Tel.: +7 (495) 608 6959, 608 6635; Fax: +7 (495) 608 6915

Our location
“Meždunarodnoe pravosudie” (International Justice) Journal

№1 (25) 2018

The problem of the jurisdictional effect of most-favoured nation clauses: a view from the context of systemic values of international investment law

Dmitry Krasikov - Candidate of Sciences (Ph.D.) in Law, Head of International Law Department, Saratov State Law Academy, Saratov, Russia.

DOI: 10.21128/2226-2059-2018-1-100-111

Abstract. The Decision of the Tribunal from January 25, 2000, in Maffezini v. Spain has become a starting point for developing inconsistent case-law in the area of investment disputes settlement concerning the jurisdictional effects of most-favoured nation clauses contained in bilateral investment treaties. This inconsistency has developed into one of the most debatable issues in the area of settling international investment disputes. The present article is based on a resort to the systemic values of International Investment Law as a guide that can help participants of the debate to leave the circle of a retrospective exchange of arguments. It is argued that taking these values into consideration should correspond to the modern context of the discussion, which is different from that which existed at the birth and crystallization of the controversy. A change in the context is characterised by coexistence of several school of thoughts on the issue under consideration, by evolution of the MFN-based jurisdictional approach into a significant part of the case-law in investment arbitration, as well as by development of states’ feedback towards inconsistencies in the area. The article contains a short overview of different approaches taken in the practice of investment arbitration and explains significance and relevance of taking the systemic values of International Investment Law into consideration. As a result of addressing the problem of jurisdictional effects of most-favored nation clauses in the context of such systemic values of International Investment Law as legal certainty, the attractiveness of participation in international investment relationships, the potential to solve and to develop general issues, and the neutrality in investor-state disputes settlement, it is argued that none of these values speaks against recognizing the jurisdictional significance of these clauses.

Keywords: most-favored nation clause; International Investment Law; jurisdiction of mixed arbitration tribunals; legal certainty.

Citation: Krasikov D. (2018) Problema yurisdiktsionnogo effekta ogovorki o naibol'­shem blagopriyatstvovanii: vzglyad v kontekste sistemnykh tsennostey mezhdunarodnogo investitsionnogo prava [The problem of the jurisdictional effect of most-favored nation clauses: a view from the context of systemic values of international investment law]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no.1, pp.100–111. (In Russian).


Douglas Z. (2011) The MFN Clause in Investment Arbitration: Treaty Interpretation Off the Rails. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, vol.2, no.1, pp.97–113.

Farkhutdinov I.Z. (2005) Mezhdunarodnoe investitsionnoe pravo: teoriya i praktika primeneniya [International Investment Law: the theory and practice of application], Moscow: Wolters Kluver. (In Russian).

Garmoza A.P. (2011) Opredelenie kompetentsii sostava arbitrazha, sformiro­vannogo na osnovanii mezhdunarodnogo investitsionnogo soglasheniya: Avtoref. dis. … kand. yurid. nauk [Determination of competence of arbitration tribunals established under an international investment treaty: Cand. legal sci. diss.], Moscow: The Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. (In Russian).

Ispolinov A.S. (2015) Kuda idyot sovremennyy investitsionnyy arbitrazh? [Where is the present investment arbitration heading toward?]. Rossiy­skiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal, no.3, pp.80–96. (In Russian).

Lisitsa V.N. (2016) Arbitrazhnye soglasheniya v investitsionnykh sporakh s uchastiem gosudarstva: problemy zaklyucheniya i ispolneniya [Arbitration agreements in investment disputes with states: problems of concluding and enforcement]. Yuridicheskaya nauka i praktika, vol.12, no.1, pp.86–93. (In Russian).

Maupin J.A. (2011) MFN-Based Jurisdiction in Investor-State Arbitration: Is There Any Hope for a Consistent Approach? Journal of International Economic Law, vol.14, no.1, pp.157–190.

Rachkov I. (2014) Soglasie gosudarstva na rassmotrenie mezhdunarodnykh investitsionnykh sporov [The acceptance of a state to resolve international investment disputes]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no.4, pp.96–122. (In Russian).

Rachkov I. (2017) Voprosy kompetentsii (yurisdiktsii) mezhdunarodnogo investitsionnogo arbitrazha i priemlemosti iska: obzor naibolee prime­chatel'nykh del za 2014–2015 gody [Issues of competence (jurisdiction) of international investment arbitration tribunals and the admissibility of claims: a review of the most notable cases (2014–2015)]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no.2, pp.94–117. (In Russian).

Rachkov I., Novikova E. (2011) Svezhee reshenie Arbitrazhnogo instituta Stokgol'mskoy torgovoy palaty po delu RosInvestCo UK Ltd protiv Rossii [A recent decision by the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce in the RosInvestCo UK Ltd v. Russia case]. Korporativnyy yurist, no.3, pp.53–58. (In Russian).

Reinisch A. (ed.) (2008) Standards of Investment Protection, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rogozina A.A. (2016) Predely primeneniya ogovorok o rezhime naibol'­shego blagopriyatstvovaniya k protsessual'nym polozheniyam investi­tsionnykh dogovorov [Limits of application of the most-favoured-nation clause to the procedural provisions of international agreements]. Rossiy­skiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal, no.3, pp.202–214. (In Russian).

Schill S.W. (2011) Allocating Adjudicatory Authority: Most-Favoured-Nation Clauses as a Basis of Jurisdiction: A Reply to Zachary Douglas. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, vol.2, no.2, pp.353–371.

Van Harten G. (2012) Arbitrator Behaviour in Asymmetrical Adjudication: An Empirical Study of Investment Treaty Arbitration. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, vol.50, no.1, pp.211–268.

Vicuña F.O. (2004) International Dispute Settlement in an Evolving Global Society: Constitutionalization, Accessibility, Privatization, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Von Bogdandy A., Venzke I. (2013) On the Functions of International Courts: An Appraisal in Light of Their Burgeoning Public Authority. Leiden Journal of International Law, vol.26, no.1, pp.49–72.

Weiler T. (ed.) (2005) International Investment Law and Arbitration: Leading Cases from The ICSID, NAFTA, Bilateral Treaties and Customary International Law, London: Cameron May.

Stay in the Loop!
The Moot Court Competition on Constitutional Justice 'Crystal Themis'
The Moot Court Competition on Constitutional Justice