The article addresses the criteria for establishing the jurisdiction of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes and the ways in which such criteria may be contractually modified in investment agreements. It examines the subject-matter, personal, and temporal requirements of the Centre’s jurisdiction and analyses legal mechanisms through which the parties refine access to international proceedings, including prior recourse to domestic remedies, limitations arising from parallel proceedings, and the operation of fork-in-the-road clauses. Particular attention is given to distinguishing jurisdictional issues from questions of admissibility, as well as to the risks of an overly formal approach to identity of claims, which may result in double recovery. The article argues for the use of additional analytical markers capable of capturing the unity of the claimant’s economic interest when assessing repetitiveness of claims, thereby supporting a balanced approach between procedural predictability and effective legal protection of investments.
Dmitry Semenovich Belkin (Wed,) studied this question.