Article discusses investment arbitration challenges for beneficiaries versus trustees, suggesting legal clarity is needed.
The collision between trusts and investment arbitration has ignited a critical jus standi battle: should beneficiaries or trustees have standing under BITs? This article dissects landmark rulings favouring beneficiaries, revealing their dissonance with English trust law. I argue that trustees, as legal owners of the trust property, should be the sole claimants capable of preserving doctrinal coherence and shielding trusts from host-state violations. Simultaneously, this article highlights how multinational compositions of trustees or beneficiaries generate jurisdictional complexities regardless of standing allocation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Matthew Ngai (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: