Jurisdiction and admissibility in international investment arbitration

For an investment treaty tribunal to proceed to adjudge the merits of investment claims, it must have jurisdiction over the parties and the claims, and the claims submitted to the tribunal must be admissible. The distinction between jurisdictional and admissibility concepts in investment arbitration is becoming increasingly relevant. This results from an expending legal practice undoubtedly evidencing that the scope of review in international arbitration typically depends on whether an objection falls within one or the other category, insofar as parties be in a position to challenge an award based on the tribunal's lack of jurisdiction, but not where a tribunal wrongly rejected an objection to admissibility. The subject of this thesis is to determine the exact meaning of the terms "jurisdiction" and "admissibility" and, thereby, come to a clearer picture of how to deal with these issues and to analyze a number of issues in regard to which investment tribunals have disagreed whether to qualify them as jurisdictional or admissibility-related. Part one revisits the historic development and principles of international investment protection. The second part addresses the jurisdictional issue in investment arbitration. It examines how states and investors consent to the adjudication of their investment disputes and explores personal, territorial, temporal and subject matter jurisdiction requirements. The third part distinguishes issues of admissibility from issues of jurisdiction and outlines a number of issues in regard to which investment tribunals have disagreed whether to qualify them as jurisdictional or admissibility-related. Key words: Jurisdiction, Admissibility, Arbitrability, Consent, Investment, Investor.