1 LL M (Nantes University, France); Postgraduate diploma in International Business Dispute Resolution (Paris XII University, France). Lawyer (Paris, France). The author can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org. The author wishes to thank Prof. Scbastien Manciaux and Mr. Ivan Urzhumov for their useful comments on an earlier draft of this article and Mrs. Alexa Robertson for her advice. Responsibility for any errors or omissions rest solely with the author.
2 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, 18 March 1965, 575 UNTS 159; 4 Il 532 (1965); 1 IcsiDReports 3 (hereinafter the Convention or the IC.SID Convention). ' Article 25(1) of the Icsii) Convention, setting the rules governing access to IcsW arbitration, provides as follows: 'The jurisdiction of the Centre shall extend to any legal dispute arising directly out of an investment, between a Contracting State (or any constituent subdivision or agency of a Contracting State designated to the Centre by that State) and a national of another Contracting State, which the parties to the dispute consent in writing to submit to the Centre. When the parties have given their consent, no party may withdraw its consent unilaterally'. As is well known through the Reports of the Executive Directors on the Convention: 'no atternpt was made to define the term 'investment' given the essential requirement of consent by the parties, and the mechanisms through which Contracting States can make known in advance, if they so desire, the classes of disputes which they would or would not consider submitting to the Centre [in Article 25(4)]', in Report of the Executive Directors on the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (1965), ICSID Doc. Icsm-2, reprinted in HistoryofftheIcsiDConvention, vol. II-2, 1069, para. 27. That question has attracted considerable academic attention in recent years. See W. Ben Hamida, 'Two Nebulous Icsm Features: The Notion of Investment and the Scope of Annulment Control' (2007) JournaloffInternationalArbitration, 287-306; Y. Banifatemi, 'Unresolved Issues in Investment Arbitration', paper presented to the Congress organized by UrtCITtZAL for its 40th annual session (Vienna, 9-12 July 2007), available at: http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/congress/Banifatemi.pdf: E. Gaillard, 'Identify or Define? Reflections on the Evolution of the Concept of Investment in I(ISID Practice', in Ch. Binder, U. Kriebaum, A. Reinisch and S. Wittich (eds.) InternationalInvestmentLaw forthe21stCentury.F.ssaysinHonourofChristophSchreuer (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 403 sq.; S. Manciaux, 'The Notion of Investment: New Controversies' (2008) 9 Journalof WorldInvestment&Trade, 443; K. Yannaca-Small, 'Definition of "Investment': An Open-ended Search for a Balanced Approach', in K. Yannaca-Small (ed.), ArbitrationClnrlerInternationalInvestmentAgreements.AGuidctotHeKeyIssues (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) 243; M. Hunter and A. Barbuk, 'Reflections on the Definition of an Investment' in G. Aksen et al. (eds.). GlobalReflectionsoilGrtemntionalLaw,CommerceandDisputeResolution,LiberArniconnninhonorofRobertBriner (Ice Pub. No. 693, 2008), 381-400; J. D. Mortenson, 'The Meaning of "Investment": lcsm's Travaux and the Domain of International Investment Law', (2010) 51 HarvnrdIntemationalLaw Journal 257-318; UNCTAD, LastDevelopmentsinInvestor-StateDisputeSettlement, IlA Issues Note No. 1 (2010) (New York and Gcncva: United Nations, 2010), at 4-5; more generally, for a treatment of the notion of ICSID investment in monographs on international investment law, see e.g. S. Mal��ial1x� Investissementsetrangers
etarbitrageentreEtatsetressortissantsd'autresEtats (Paris: Litec, 2004); R. Dolzer and C. Schreuer, PrincipleofInternationalInvestmentLaw (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), at 60 sq.; C. Schreuer, TheIcsiDConvention:ACommentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), at 114 sq.; Z. Douglas, TheInternationalLair,afLnvestmentClaims (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2009). 5 SahaFakesv.Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARU/07/20, Award of 14 July 2010, para. 97. !' R. Dolzer, 'The Notion of Investment in Recent Practice', in S. Chamovitz, D. Steger & P. Van Den Bossche (eds.), LAWintheServiceof HumanDignity:EssaysinHonouref PlorentinoFeliciano (2005) 261-275 at 275. 7 J. D. Mortenson, 'The Meaning of "Investment": ICSID's Travaux and the Domain of International Investment Law', supra note 4, at 259. 1 J. D. Mortenson, 'The Meaning of "Investment": ICSID's Travaux and the Domain of International Investment Law', supra note 4, at 259. 9 S. Manciaux, 'The Notion of Investment: New Controversies, supra note 4, at 443, observes that 'this risk of incoherence could lead the foreign agents who doubt the qualification attributed to their transaction to turn away from ICSID arbitration (in spite of the advantages it presents) for the benefit of other available modes of dispute resolution, in order to discard the uncertainty concerning IcsiD rationernateriae jurisdiction'. Indeed, as the same author points out: 'fclontrary to the ICSID, the other international arbitration institutions (Ice, LCIA, Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, etc.) do not limit rationerrrateriae the jurisdiction of arbitral Tribunals ruling under them only to disputes relating to an investment'. Ibis. at footnote 30. See also J.D. Mortenson, 'The Meaning of "Investment": ICSID'S Travaux and the Domain of International Investment Law', supra note 4, at 259.
1IIPallteclmikiS.A.Contractors&Engineersv.Albania (IcsiD Case No. AHe/07/21), Award, 30 July 2009, para. 36. For a discussion of these requirements (duration and contribution to the development of thc host State), see below, Sections 4 and 5. " E. Gaillard, 'Identify or Define? Reflections on the Evolution of the Concept of Investment in IcsiD Practice', supra note 4, at 416. 12 The author has identified 16 relevant decisions or awards during the period under consideration. Some other cases, where the objection as to the existence of an investment was not even raised by the parties, and the tribunal only evoked the question en passant, have not been taken into account. For an examination of the evolution of the issue of the notion of investment between June 2004 and September 2008, see S. Manciaux, 'The Notion of Investment: New Controversies', supra note 4, at 443. " For a general discussion of the treatment of the notion of investment in BITS, see A. Ncwcombe and L. Paradell, LavandPracticeof InvestmentTreaties (Kluwer Law International, 2009), 65-68. 14 Named after the 'milestone' decision SaliniCostruttoriSpAandItalstradeSpAv.Morocco, 1(:Sll) Case No. Arb/00/4, Decision on Jurisdiction, 23 July 2001. ts E. Gaillard, 'Identify or Define? Reflections on the Evolution of the Concept of Investment in ICSII) Practice', supra note 4, at 416.
�� See e.g. R. Dolzer and C. Schreuer, Principleof InternationalInvestmentLaw,supra note 4, at 1 sq. " M. Sornarajah, TheInternationalLaM'oilForeignInvestment (Cambridge: Cambridge UW versity Press, 2010) 308. The author refers to the decision on jurisdiction of 11 July 1997 in Fe·rlaxN.V.v.Venezuela, IcsiD Case No. AM/96/3. '" At'sSummitGenerationLirrritedandAES- TiszaEromiiK(tv.Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22, Award, 23 September 2010, para. 6.2.5. 19 RSMProductionCorp.v.Repu6liqueCerrtrafricaine, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/02, Decision on Jurisdiction and Responsibility, 7 December 2010, paras 60-70, at 61: 'Le Tribunal partage 1'avis de la Demanderesse selon laquelle un contrat p�trolier est <` la quintessence d'une op6ration d'investissement �. Si un contrat d'exploitation p6troli�re n'cst pas un investissement, on nc voit guere quels seraient les contours de la notion d'investissement'. 20loanMiculaandothersv.Ramania, ICSID Case No. AEZts/05/20, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 24 September 2008 : '[t]hc Tribunal is satisfied, and Respondent does not argue otherwise, that the investments
made by the Corporate Claimants I...J qualify as investments for the purposes of the IcsiD Convention. Indeed, it would be hard to argue that the ownership and operation of plants for the production of food and related services, which involves a substantial commitment of resources over a significant period of time, is not an investment under any reasonable definition of the term. In the same vein, the Tribunal is satisfied that the shareholding of Messrs. Micula qualifies as investment for the purposes of the ICSID Convention' (para. 125). zrTotoCostruzinrriGeneraliS.p.A.v.Lebanon, IcsiD Case No. An.)!/07/12. Decision on Jurisdiction, 11 September 2009, paras. 77-87. ==PatiteclittikiS.A.Contractors&Engineersv.Albania (ICSID Case No. ARB/(7/21). Award, 30 July 2009, paras. 35-49. 23MillicomIntenrationalOperationsB.V.andSentelGsmSAv.Senegal, ICSID Case No. ARIJ/08/20, Decision on Jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal, 16 July 2010, para. 80. =aPhoenixAction,Ltd.v.CzechRepublic (lcslIJ Case No. AEZB/06/5), Award, April 15, 2009, para 79. uPhoenixAction,Ltd.v.CzechRepublic (ICSID Case No. AfUi/0()/5). Award, April 15, 2009, para 79. zr·BureauVeritas,Inspection,Valuation,AssessmentandControl,BIVACB.V.v.Paraguay, ICSID Case No. Arab/07/9, Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, 29 May 2009. 27AlyhaPwjektholdingC:rnbHv.Ukraine, 1(:sil) Case No. Altn/07/16, Award, 8 November 2010. 21InmarisPerestroiknSailingMaritimeServicesGmbHandothersv.Ukraine (ICSID Case No. ARB/08/8): Decision on Jurisdiction (March 8, 2010) 2" RSMProductionCorporationv.Grenada (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/14), Award, 13 March 2009, para. 255.
3°ATAConstruction,IndnstrialandTradingCompanyv. Jordnn, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/2, Award, 18 May 2010, para. 111. 31MalaysianHistnricalSalvors,SVN,BHDv.Malaysia, Icsm Case No. AK.H/U5/10, Decision on the Application for Annulment, 16 April 2009 (Shahabuddeen, dissenting). 32GlobalTradingResourceCorp.anrlClobexInternational,Inc.v.Ukraine, ICSID Case No. Aats/09/11, Award, 1 December 2010, paras. 55 to 57. 33 SabaFakesv.Turkey, IcsiD Case No. Ax.B/07/20, Award, 14 July 2010, para. 147. 34PhoenixActionLtdv.CzechRepublic (ICSID Case No. Alu3/06/5), Award, 15 April 2009, para. 100. See also paras. 135-144, specially para. 142.
5 CSOBv.SlovakRepublic, ICSID Case No. A1t13/97/4, Decision on Jurisdiction. 24 May 1999, 14 IcsroReview- ForeignInvestinefitLawjournal (1999) 251, para. 68: 'A two-fold test must therefore be applied in determining whether this Tribunal has the competence to consider the merits of the claim: whether the dispute arises out of an investment within the meaning of the Convention and, if so, whether the dispute relates to an investment' as defined in the Parties' consent to ICSID arbitration, in their reference to the BIT and the pertinent definitions contained in Article 1 of the BIT'. h R. Dolzer and C. Schreuer, PrinciplesoffInternationalInvestmentLaw,supra note 4, at 61-62. See also C. Schreuer, TbeIcsiDConvention:ACommentary,supra note 4, at 117-118. 37TotoCostruzioniGeneraliS.p.A.v.Lebanon, Icsid Case No. Atts/07/12, Decision on Jurisdiction, 11 September 2009, para. 66. 3" See PhoenixAction,Ltd.v.CzechRepublir, ICSID Case No. AKh/06/5, Award, 15 April 2009, para. 78: "[T]he jurisdiction of the Tribunal is contingent upon the fulfillment ofthejurisdictional requirements of both the (ICSID Convention and the relevant BIT". "SabaFakesv.Turkey, ICSID Case No. AK.B/07/20, Award, 14 Jaly 2010, para. 106. Representative of this trend are BiwaterGauffTanzania (ICSID Case No. ARBIOS/22), Award, 24 July 2008, and MalaysianHistoricalSalvorsv.Malaysia (Icsid Case No. Aaii/OS/1U), Decision on the Application for Annulment, 16 April 2009. auSabaFakesv.Turkey, ICSID Case No. An.B/07/20, Award, 14 July 2010, para. 106. rATAConstrurtion,IndustrialandTradingCompanyv.Jordan, ICSID Case No. ARI!/08/2. Award, 18 May 2010, para. 111.
42MalaysianHistoricalSalvors,S�>V',BirDv.Malaysia, ICSID Case No. Ann/05/10, Decision on the Application for Annulment, 16 April 2009, para. 80. 43MalaysianHistoricalSalvors,SDN,BHDV.Malaysia, I(,SID Case No. ARH/05/10, Decision on the Application for Annulment, 16 April 2009, para. 62. ;aBernardusHenrintsFunnekotterandothersv.Zim6abwe, 1(:six) Case No. An.H/05/6, Award, 22 April 2009, at para. 95. a5AlphaProjektholdingGrn6Hv.Ukraine, ICSID Case No. AKti/07/16, Award, 8 November 2010), para. 313. On the relevance of the so-called Salini test, sec Section 4 injra. ;6 AlphaProjektholdingC:m6Hv.Ukraine, Icaur Case No. AKti/07/16, Award, 8 November 2010), para. 313.
a� E. Gaillard, 'Identify or Define? Reflections on the Evolution of the Concept of Investment in IcsiD Practice', supra note 4, at 410. See also the following observations of Prof Gaillard on the ad hoc committee decision in PatrickMitclrellv.Congo (1 November 2006), in 1 (2007) journalduDroitInternational(Clunet), `Chronique des sentences arbitrales': he refers to 'a doctrinal opinion according to which, in reality, the condition of investment, precisely because it was left open by the drafters of the Washington Convention in order to allow drafters of laws on protection of investments or investment protection treaties to include operations deemed by them worth ofprotection, confounds itselfpurely and simply with the condition of consent. Under this conception, when the Centre's competence is based upon a Bit, the arbitrator's attention shall exclusively focus on the notion of investment arising from the BIT. ('une opinion doctrinalc selon laquelle, en reality, la condition d'investissement, prcciscment parce qu'elle a etc laissce ouverte par les rcdactcurs de la Convention de Washington pour periiiettre a ccux de lois sur la protection des investissements ou des traitcs de protection des investissements d'y inclure les operations leur paraissant meriter protection, se confond puretneut et simplement avec la condition de consenternent. Dans cette conception, lorsque la competence du Centre repose sur un traite de protection des investissements, c'cst exclusivcment la notion d'investissement du traite bilat6ral qui devrait retenir 1'attention des arbitres'.) .) ;s See E. Gaillard, 'Identify or Define? Reflections on the Evolution of the Concept of Investment in ICSID Practice', supra note 4, at 403 sq. 4'' SabaFlakesv.Turkey, !c'iN) Case No. Aki3/07/20, Award, 14 July 2010, paras. 98-101. s° Here the Tribunal made reference to RsatProductionCorpnrationP.Grenada (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/14), Award, 13 March 2009, para 241; see also CeskoslovenskaObchodniBankav.SlovakRepublic, Decision on Jurisdiction, 24 May 1999, para 64. 11 SabaFakesv.1'urkey, ICSID Case No. Arab/07/20, Award, 14 July 2010, paras. 99-100.
12SabaFakesv.Turkey, ICSID Case No. APB/07/20, Award, 14 July 2010, para. 101. 51 SabaFakesv.Turkey, ICSID Case No. An.B/07/20. Award, 14 July 2010, para. 102. sa See e.g. Li-si-Dipentav.Algeria (IcsiD Case No. Ajm/03/08), Award, 10 January 2005, para Il.l3(iv); Bayindirv. Pakistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/29), Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 November 2005, paras 131-137; and Victor PeyCaaadaetFoundationPresidenteAllendev.Chile (ICSID Case No. Aittt/98/2), Award, 8 May 2008, para 233. ss SaliniConstuttoriSvnandItalstradeSPAv.Morocco (ICSID Case No. A]m/00/4). Decision on Jurisdiction, 23 July 2001, paras 50-5 8. sfi JoyMiningv.Egypt case No. ARB/03/11), Award on Jurisdiction. 6 August 2004, para 53; see also HelnanInternationalHotelsv.Egypt (ICSID Case No. ARu/(5/19), Decision on Objection to Jurisdiction, 17 October 2006, para 77. Such additional requirement is dealt with at Section 5 below. s�PllOl'IIixAction,Ltd.v.CzerhRepublic (IcsiD Case No. AIŒI06/S), Award, 15 April 2009, para 114. Such additional requirement is dealt with at Section 5 below. s8MalaysianHistoricalSalvorsv.Malaysia (IcsiD Case No. Atts/05/10), Award on Jurisdiction, 17 May 2007, para 106(e), subsequently annulled by a Decision of 16 April 2009 (see supra, note 32). sv See eg. RsntProductionCorporationv.Crenada (ICSID Case No. AmB/05/14), Award, 13 March 2009, para.241. I.
° TotoCostnizioniGeneraliS.p.A.v.Lebanon, 1(:SID Case No. Aim/07/12, Decision on Jurisdiction, 11 September 2009, para. 81. The Tribunal emphasized that 'the Salini test has not been universally applied by 1(:SID Tribunals. An alternative set of criteria was used, for example, in an award rendered on July 24, 2008 in the 1(:SID case Biwater v. Tanzania, in which the Tribunal stated that there is no basis for a "rote or overly strict" application of the test in every case �...J These criteria are not fixed or mandatory as a matter of law. They do not appear in the ICSID Convention. On the contrary, it is clear from the travaux preparatoires of the Convention that several attempts to incorporate a definition of 'investment' were made, but ultimately did not succeed' (para. 82). «TotoCostnlzÍlmi(ieneraliS.p.A.v.Lebanon, lcsil) Case No. AkB/(17/12, Decision on Jurisdiction, 11 September 2009, para. 84. 62AlohaProjektholdingGmbHv.Ukraine, lCSIIJ Case No. Al�-B/07/16, Award (November 8, 2010), para. 311. 6} RSMProductionCorporationv.Grenada (ICSID Case No. AfLb/05/14), Award, 13 March 2009, para. 241: 'it appears that a broad consensus has since emerged from Icsn) awards, as well as from legal doctrine, regarding the characteristics establishing the existence of an investment for the purpose of Article 25 [...j those characteristics are: a significant commitment of resources by the private party, an economic risk entailed, a sufficient duration of the operation, a regularity of profit or return and a contribution to the economic and social development of the host State. The Tribunal recognizes the soundness of those general characteristics, while noting that they do not constitute "the jurisdictional criteria in Article 25(1) of the Icsij) Convention I ... Thoroughly absent from Article 25, they are benchmarks ofyardsticks to help a tribunal in assessing the existence of an investment, and their proponents or users rightly insist on the flexibility with which they should be used by a tribunal'.
64MalaysianHistoricalSalvors,SnN'.Budv.Malaysia, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/10, Decision on the Application for Annulment. 16 April 2009, para. 80. '°PhoenixAction,Ltd.v.CzechRepublic, (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award, 15 April 2009, para. 83. The tribunal, however, considered 'the contribution of an international investment to the development of the host State is impossible to ascertain - the more so as there are highly diverging views on what constitutes "development". A less ambitious approach should therefore be adopted, centered on the contribution of an international investment to the economy of the host State, which is indeed normally inherent in the mere concept of investment as shaped by the elements of contribution/duration/risk, and should therefore in principle be presumed', at para. 85. 6� RSMProductionCorp.v.RépubliqufCentrafricaine, Icsid Case No. Aius/07/02, Decision on Jurisdiction and Responsibility, 7 December 2010, para. 55: This Tribunal considers for its part that these are indeed jurisdictional criteria, even if it also acknowledges that a global approach is necessary' ('Ce Tribunal considere quant a lui qu'il s'agit bien de criteresjuridictionnels, mime s'il reconnait egalement qu'une approche globale est necessaire').
h7 7utoCostnmiuniCCl/craliS.p.A.v.Lebanon, ICSID Case No. An.u/07/12. Decision on Jurisdiction, 11 1 September 2009. para. 78: 'A construction contract in which the execution of the works extends over a substantial period of time involves by definition an element of risk'. See C. Schreuer, 71teIcsiDConvention:ACommentary,supra note 4, at 128, where the author emphasizes the fact that '[riisk is in part a function of duration and expectation of protit'. 68 See P.-M. Dupuy, 'The so-called requirement of a contribution to the economic development of the host State', paper presented at the International Arbitration Institute Conference held on 14 October 2010 in Paris on 'Jurisdiction in Investment Treaty Arbitration', forthcoming. I,"AlplraProjektlroldin,qGrnbHv.Ukraine, IcsiD Case No. Anti/07/1G, Award, 8 November 2010, para. 312. 71, '[Ilt is not the place for the Arbitral Tribunal to discuss the relevance of each of these conditions, since it appears obvious that, regardless of the list relied on, they are all fulfilled in the present case' in MillirornInternationalOperationsB.V.andSentelCsmSAv.Senegal, ICSID Case No. ARU/08120, Decision on Jurisdiction ofthe Arbitral Tribunal, 16 July 2010, para. 80. "MillicomInternationalOperationsB.V.andSentelGsiiSAv.Senegal, ICSID Case No. ARJ3/08/20, Decision on Jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal, 16 July 2010, para. 80. 72 TotoCostruzioniGeneraliS.p.A.v.Lebanon, IcsiD Case No. Aim/07/12, Decision on Jurisdiction, 11 September 2009, para. 86 (emphasis added).
71 It is, however, to be mentioned that, in his dissenting opinion to the decision of the ad hoc committee in MalaysianHistoricalSalvors,5�:�',Bttnv.Malaysia, Judge Mohamed Shahabuddeen held that '[t]here could only be an ICSID investment if the investment was intended to promote the economic development of the host State, and [...] twat economic development had to be substantial or significant.' (at para. 65). 74 See M. Pollcinghornc, K. Young & E. Levine, 'The so-called requirement of the legality of investments', paper presented at the International Arbitration Institute Conference held on 14 October 2010 in Paris on Jurisdiction in InvestmentTreaty Arbitration', forthcoming. �5Phofl1ixActionLtdv.CzechRepublic (Icsm Case No. A-RB/06/5), Award, 15 April 2009, para. 100. See also paras. 101-113. 7(,SagaFakesv.Republicof Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/20, Award, 14 July 2010, para. 112. 77 RSMProductionCorporationv. Grenada (ICSID Case No. AKB/05/14), Award, 13 March 2009, para. 236. 71MillicomInternationalOperationsB.V.andSentelGas.\1SAr.Senegal, Icsn) Case No. ARe/08/20, Decision on Jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal, 16 July 2010, para. 80.
7" S. Manciaux, 'The Notion of Investment: New Controversies' supra note 4, 443. "" Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) provides: 'I. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose. 2. The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes: (a) any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty; (b) any instrument which was made by one or more parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to the treaty. 3. There shall be taken into account, together with the context: (a) any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions; (b) any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation; (c) any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties. 4. A special meaning shall be given to a term if it is established that the parties so intended'. HI See Z. Douglas, TheInternationalLmvofInvestmentClaims.supra note 4, at 163, para. 340, and the bibliography he quotes.
82 The tnajority of the adhour committee in MalaysianHistoricalSalvors,SDN,BuDv.Malaysia(sura note 32) emphasized the decisions of the drafters of the IcsiD Convention 'to reject a monetary floor in the amountof aninvestment, to reject specification of its duration, to leave 'investment' undefined, and to accord great weight to the definition of investment agreed by the Parties in the instrument providing for recourse to 1(:SID' (at para. 80, emphasis added). ".1 Z. Douglas, TheInternationalLawof InvestmentClaims,supra note 4, at 164, para. 342- si SahaFakesv.RepublicofTurkey,, IcsiD Case No. Akrs/07/20, Award, 14 July 2010, para. 109. se See C. Schreuer, TheICSIDConvention:ACommentary,supra note 4, at 117, para. 122. s�AutoyistaCOllœsiOlwdadeVenexuela,C.A.v.Venexuela, Icsm Case No. Al�,B/00/5, Decision on Jurisdiction, 27 September 2001, para. 99. s� See e.g. SabaFakesv.Republicof Turkey, IcsiD Case No. AltB/07/20, Award, 14 July 2010, para. 112.
sa The footnotes have been omitted. 89 See supra, Section 2 (and notes 19, 29), Section 4 (notes 59, 63). 90 See supra, Section 2 (notes 24, 25, 34), Section 3 (note 38), Section 4 (notes 57, 65), Section 5 (note 75).