By Francesco Gravina[1] Introduction Do the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) ruling in Achmea, its subsequent case law, together with the subsequent EU law and policy, violate the ECHR? A majority of scholarship suggests that it might in some constellations; namely, this jurisprudence could breach Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the ECHR… Read More To enforce or not, to annul or not, those are the questions: On the prohibition of intra-EU investment arbitration and the ECHR

By Lidewij Nollkaemper[1] Introduction In December 2025, Shell initiated proceedings against the Kingdom of the Netherlands before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Shell brought this case after the Netherlands decided to close the Groningen gas fields due to the gas extraction causing earthquakes, which put residents at risk. This legitimate policy… Read More Reading Climate into Investment Treaties: Systemic Integration as the Path Forward

By Fritz Kainz[1] Introduction A jurisdictional decision in CIT Group v. Argentina rendered by an ICSID Tribunal in 2007, which IAReporter recently published, contains a potentially drastic increase in the doctrine of indispensable parties before investment tribunals (the decision can be accessed in English and Spanish here). While the Tribunal rejected Argentina’s jurisdictional objection based… Read More CIT Group v. Argentina: Monetary Gold Through the Backdoor?

By Param Bhalerao[1] Introduction UNCITRAL Working Group III has been deliberating the reform of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) since 2017. In October 2025, the UNCITRAL Working Group III circulated two working papers that represent the most ambitious attempt yet to restructure how international investment disputes are resolved. Working Paper 259 (Statute of the Permanent Tribunal)… Read More The UNCITRAL Permanent Tribunals Mechanism: A Promising Reform?

By Niels Lachmann[i] Introduction The dispute in Espíritu Santo Holdings, LP and L1bre Holding, LLC v. United States of Mexico concerns the breakdown of a concession agreement about the provision of digital taximeters between the municipality of Mexico City and a Mexican company indirectly owned by the claimants, which were incorporated respectively in Canada (ES… Read More Politics under scrutiny and digital assets under cover: a couple of reflections on ES Holdings & L1bre v. Mexico

By Chenhaojie (Audrey) Sun [1] Introduction Mikhail Fridman’s investment treaty claim against Luxembourg is straightforward to describe, but much harder to classify. After his inclusion on the EU sanctions list, assets connected to him in Luxembourg were frozen. He subsequently commenced arbitration against Luxembourg before an arbitral tribunal constituted and administered by the Permanent Court… Read More Fridman v Luxembourg: When Does a Sanctions Freeze Become a Taking under Investment Law?

By Andrijana Mišović[1] Introduction In the context of international investment law and arbitration, a State contract refers to a contract concluded between a State and a foreign investor. But what if the contract is concluded between a State-owned (or otherwise State-related) entity and a foreign investor? What kind of State involvement is required for the… Read More Determining State Contracts in International Arbitration