1. Introduction. – 2. The Nature of Arbitration Agreements and Their Validity Requirements. – 2.1. Definition and Forms of the Arbitration Agreement. – 2.1.1. The Definition of the Arbitration Agreement. – 2.1.2. Forms of the Arbitration Agreement. – 2.2. Requirements for the Validity of the Arbitration Agreement. – 2.2.1. Written Consent to the Arbitration Agreement. – 2.2.2. Arbitrability of the Subject Matter of Dispute. – 3. The Arbitration Agreement Within the Framework of the ICSID Convention. – 3.1. The Importance of Resorting to ICSID Arbitration in Investment Disputes. – 3.2. Consent to ICSID Arbitration Through an Arbitration Agreement. – 4. New Forms of ICSID Jurisdiction Without Prior Agreement. – 4.1. Consent to ICSID Arbitration Through Domestic Legislative Provisions. – 4.2. Consent to ICSID Arbitration Through a Bilateral Treaty. – 4.3. ICSID Jurisdiction Under the Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) Clause. – 5. Conclusions.
Background: A state's offer to resort to arbitration is one of the most significant topics that
which is later completed upon the investor’s acceptance. The state's expression of consent to
arbitration is no longer limited to cases where it concludes a contract with the investor
containing an arbitration clause. Rather, the state's consent is now inferred through legislative
offers and international agreements to which the state is a party.
Methods: In some cases, arbitration is based on specific international legal obligations,
such as bilateral investment treaties, which may bind states to arbitration in disputes with
foreign investors. As a result, states have become parties to arbitration claims initiated by
investors with whom they have no contractual relationship. This has led to a fundamental
shift in the landscape of international arbitration, as investment disputes have moved from
the realm of diplomatic protection to the jurisdiction of the International Centre for
Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). ICSID has, in turn, expanded its jurisdiction
to encompass investment disputes even in the absence of an agreement between the
disputing parties to resort to arbitration.
Results and conclusions: The study has demonstrated that a state's consent to ICSID
arbitration may, in certain cases, be inferred from domestic legislation or bilateral investment
treaties, thereby establishing a valid legal basis for ICSID jurisdiction even where no directly
concluded arbitration agreement exists between the state and the investor.