How Narrow are Narrow Dispute Settlement Clauses in Investment Treaties?

The scope of jurisdiction of investment tribunals is a crucial question which often leads to protracted arguments in the course of regularly bifurcated arbitration proceedings. In recent years an increasing number of cases involved narrow dispute settlement clause in BITs which relate to the amount and mode of compensation only in cases of expropriation. Tribunals have differed on the appropriate reading of such clauses, in particular, on whether they should be regarded as excluding the issue whether an expropriation has occurred in the first place or not. In addition, some investment tribunals have relied on the post-Maffezini interpretation of MFN clauses in order to extend their jurisdiction beyond the narrow issue of the amount and mode of compensation. In its first part, this article intends to provide a comprehensive overview of the existing jurisprudence on this matter. Secondly, it analyses the different interpretation techniques resorted to by investment tribunals ultimately demonstrating that neither of them cogently leads to a certain outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]