When in the context of the constitutional crisis in Venezuela after a fraudulent election ‘won’ by President Maduro in 2019, the Venezuelan National Assembly declared that Mr Guaidó was the President of the Assembly, states had to take a position on who the government of Venezuela was. This article examines states’ reactions on the diplomatic front on this issue of government recognition. The main focus is on how investor-state arbitration tribunals have addressed the issue of government identification and recognition and the controversial question of representation in proceedings involving Venezuela. The issue of conflicting pretensions by competing authorities claiming to be the representative of Venezuela in arbitration proceedings has been a controversial question in the field of investment arbitration in recent years. I will show that the case law that emerges from these awards provides a solid and coherent set of rules and principles which will be very helpful to future investment tribunals faced with similar competing claims to governmental status. What these tribunals have said and what they did in the specific context and limited scope of the crisis in Venezuela has much broader implications both in terms of theory and practice.
Patrick Dumberry (Wed,) studied this question.