Symposium on International Investment Law & Contemporary Crises – Part 5 of 8
Divergent approaches to the nationality of corporate claimants in banking and finance investor-state arbitration

When does corporate nationality really determine jurisdiction in investor-State arbitration?

In this morning’s symposium contribution, Francis Xavier and Matthew Koh (許恩達) (Rajah & Tann Asia) examine divergent treaty approaches to the nationality of corporate claimants in global banking and finance disputes.

The BIICL data reveals an important trend: in almost 29% of banking and finance cases, the nationality of the claimant differs from that of its controlling interests—a higher divergence than in ISDS cases generally.

Why does this matter?

Because jurisdiction ratione personae often turns on treaty wording.

The piece explores:

- Situations where incorporation alone is sufficient for jurisdiction
- Cases where foreign control allows locally incorporated entities to claim
- The role of Article 25(2)(b) of the ICSID Convention
- How treaty drafting can either widen or narrow State exposure

In a sector defined by complex cross-border corporate structures, nationality is rarely straightforward. Banking and finance disputes frequently involve layered ownership across multiple jurisdictions—raising questions about treaty planning, corporate restructuring, and “nationality shopping”.

The key lesson for States? Treaty language matters. Definitions of “investor” can significantly shape jurisdictional outcomes and risk exposure in future disputes.

Read the full contribution here: https://lnkd.in/eXQJDEKC