ABSTRACT
Investment tribunals give effect to the obligation of non-recognition in a better way when they affirm jurisdiction than if they were to decline jurisdiction. The case before the Swiss Federal Tribunal also illustrates quite well the potential implications of the tribunals’ decisions for the Russian-Ukrainian territorial conflict that is at the bottom of the investment disputes. The earlier illustrated decisions and the idea to apply investment treaties in occupied or annexed territories have indeed not remained without criticism. Dumberry’s argument that Russia as the occupant in Crimea might only benefit from its illegal acquisition of the territory for a short period of time is certainly correct. From the perspective of the individual investor, investment arbitration in many cases will be the only means to hold the occupant accountable for violations of economic rights in the occupied or illegally annexed territory in a neutral forum.
