1 استادیار حقوق بین الملل خصوصی و اسلامی دانشگاه تهران
2 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق بین الملل دانشگاه پیام نور
عنوان مقاله [English]
The International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) is a leading arbitration forum in the field of investor-state dispute settlements. Therefore, its arbitral practice in various fields of international investment law carries amplitude endowment. Despite the fact that the term “investment” appears at the heart of both the name of the Centre as well as in the title of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, no definition of this term is seen in the text of the treaty. Absence of such definition has led to huge interpretative differences in the ICSID practice. Applying different objective and subjective interpretative approaches regarding the concept of investment included in Article 25(1) of the ICSID Convention by arbitral tribunals and diverse views toward this concept through the prism of Convention and that of instruments containing consent to ICSID Jurisdiction, including bilateral and multilateral investment treaties have led to such inconsistency in the ICSID practice. After about 50 years since the conclusion of the Convention, there is neither a single definition of this concept nor a consensus on the criteria to identify it. The current condition of inconsistency may adversely affect the international investment arbitration system and the very existence of the Convention. Thus, providing a solution has always been a concern for most of the savants and practitioners in the field of international investment law. It’s very difficult to make structural reforms in the Convention in order to solve the problem, however establishing a “jurisprudence constante” could be an option. In practice, the absence of a substantive definition of the term “investment” in the Convention has resulted into expansion of jurisdiction in ICSID arbitration.