Arbitrability of Economic Crimes Claims Under International Investment Arbitration

Prince Uche Amadi

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijls.20260901.11

Research Article |

| Peer-Reviewed

Arbitrability of Economic Crimes Claims Under International Investment Arbitration

Prince Uche Amadi^*

Published in International Journal of Law and Society (Volume 9, Issue 1)

Received: 26 November 2025 Accepted: 6 December 2025 Published: 7 January 2026

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Economic crime allegations in international investment arbitration has generated significant doctrinal and systemic challenges for the investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) regime. As disputes involving bribery, fraud, money laundering, and related misconduct arise with greater frequency, tribunals must balance the protective structure of investment treaties with the imperatives of legality, international public policy, and global anti-corruption norms. This article employs a doctrinal, comparative, and policy-oriented methodology to examine how arbitral tribunals have conceptualised and addressed the arbitrability of economic crime claims. Through an analysis of key awards, the study evaluates jurisdictional approaches, admissibility determinations, evidentiary burdens, and procedural techniques used to assess clandestine and transnational wrongdoing. The principal finding is that arbitral practice remains fragmented and inconsistent. Tribunals diverge on the interpretation of legality requirements, the allocation and standard of proof, and the treatment of misconduct occurring during the operational phase of an investment. These inconsistencies undermine legal certainty, expose the system to strategic misuse by both investors and states, and weaken the coherence of the ISDS framework. The absence of harmonised evidentiary protocols further complicates the adjudication of economic crimes, given their inherent secrecy and the limited investigative powers of arbitral tribunals. To address these challenges, the article proposes a reform agenda centred on clearer treaty drafting, specialised evidentiary methodologies, enhanced tribunal expertise in financial and criminal matters, structured coordination with domestic authorities, and increased transparency. By articulating a principled framework governing the arbitrability of economic crime claims, the article contributes to strengthening the legitimacy, predictability, and normative integrity of the international investment arbitration system.

Published in	International Journal of Law and Society (Volume 9, Issue 1)
DOI	10.11648/j.ijls.20260901.11
Page(s)	1-13
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2026. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Investment Arbitration, Economic, Money Launderin Crime, Public Policy, Jurisdiction, Treaty Reform, Anti-corruption, Legitimacy

References

[1]	Gary Born, International Commercial Arbitration (3rd edn, Kluwer Law International 2021) 947–956.
[2]	Emmanuel Gaillard, The Substantive Rules in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Dissecting the ‘Legality Requirement’ (2012) 25(5) ICSID Review 387.
[3]	Zachary Douglas, The International Law of Investment Claims (Cambridge University Press 2009) 141–143.
[4]	World Duty Free Company Ltd v Republic of Kenya (Award) ICSID Case No ARB/00/7 (4 October 2006) para 179.
[5]	Metal-Tech Ltd v Republic of Uzbekistan (Award) ICSID Case No ARB/10/3 (4 October 2013) paras 241–243.
[6]	Inceysa Vallisoletana SL v Republic of El Salvador (Award) ICSID Case No ARB/03/26 (2 August 2006) paras 230–245.
[7]	United Nations, Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention, 1958) art V(2)(b).
[8]	Giuditta Cordero-Moss, ‘International Commercial Contracts and National Mandatory Rules’ (2006) 9(1) International Arbitration Law Review 1.
[9]	UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2020: International Production Beyond the Pandemic (United Nations 2020) 120–125 https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/wir2020_en.pdf (accessed 14 April 2025).
[10]	Christoph Schreuer, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2009) 538–540.
[11]	Alan Redfern and Martin Hunter, Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration (4th edn, Sweet and Maxwell 2004) 129–130.
[12]	Andrew Newcombe and Lluís Paradell, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standards of Treatment (Kluwer Law International 2009) 130–135.
[13]	Pierre Mayer and Audley Sheppard, ‘Final ILA Report on Public Policy as a Bar to Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards’ (2003) 19(2) Arbitration International 249.
[14]	Christina Binder and others (eds), International Investment Law for the 21st Century: Essays in Honour of Christoph Schreuer (OUP 2009) 9–11.
[15]	OECD, Investor-State Dispute Settlement Public Consultation: 2012–2014 (OECD 2015) 33–34.
[16]	IBA Subcommittee on Corruption and Arbitration, IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration (2014).
[17]	International Law Association, Final Report on Public Policy as a Bar to Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards (2003) 19(2) Arbitration International 249.
[18]	Julian D M Lew, Loukas A Mistelis and Stefan M Kröll, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer Law International 2003) 740–743.
[19]	UNODC, Handbook on Strategies to Combat Economic Crime (United Nations 2021) 6.
[20]	Daniel Kaufmann (ed), The Many Faces of Corruption (World Bank 2007) 3.
[21]	OECD, Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.
[22]	Philip B Heymann, ‘The Problems of Defining International Bribery’ (2001) 35 The International Lawyer 667, 668.
[23]	Jeremy Horder (ed), Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Criminal Law (OUP 2014) 189.
[24]	Financial Action Task Force (FATF), What is Money Laundering? (FATF 2022) https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/faq/moneylaundering.html (accessed 2 June 2025).
[25]	Phoenix Action Ltd v Czech Republic (Award) ICSID Case No ARB/06/5 (15 April 2009) paras 100–104.
[26]	Tokios Tokelės v Ukraine (ICSID Case No ARB/02/18).
[27]	UNODC, Manual on Countering the Use of Trade for Terrorist Financing (United Nations 2021) 34–37.
[28]	Rumeli Telekom v Kazakhstan (Award) ICSID Case No ARB/05/16 (29 July 2008) para 717.
[29]	EDF (Services) Ltd v Romania (Award) ICSID Case No ARB/05/13 (8 October 2009) para 221.
[30]	Libananco Holdings Co v Turkey (Award) ICSID Case No ARB/06/8 (2 September 2011) para 125.
[31]	United Nations, United Nations Convention against Corruption (adopted 31 October 2003, entered into force 14 December 2005) 2349 UNTS 41.
[32]	Financial Action Task Force (FATF), International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism and Proliferation (The FATF Recommendations) (FATF, updated February 2023).
[33]	International Bar Association (IBA), IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration (2020).
[34]	ISO, ISO 37001: Anti-bribery management systems — Requirements with guidance for use (International Organization for Standardization 2016).
[35]	United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), UNCITRAL Transparency Rules on Treaty-Based Investor-State Arbitration (adopted 10 December 2013) UN Doc A/68/452.
[36]	Kathrin Betz ‘Economic Crime in International Arbitration’ ASA Bulletine 35 (Issue 2): 2017 281-292. https://doi.org/10.54648/asab2017026
[37]	Yerik Kryvoi ‘ International and Comparative Law Quarterly 67 (Issue 3) 2018 577-605 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589318000131
[38]	Despina Christophi ‘The Relationship Between Allegations of Economic Crimes in Foreign Investment and the Adjudicative Power of Investor-State Tribunals’ ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, 36, (Issue 1), Winter 2021, 129–149, https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siaa036

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Amadi, P. U. (2026). Arbitrability of Economic Crimes Claims Under International Investment Arbitration. International Journal of Law and Society, 9(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20260901.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Amadi, P. U. Arbitrability of Economic Crimes Claims Under International Investment Arbitration. Int. J. Law Soc. 2026, 9(1), 1-13. doi: 10.11648/j.ijls.20260901.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Amadi PU. Arbitrability of Economic Crimes Claims Under International Investment Arbitration. Int J Law Soc. 2026;9(1):1-13. doi: 10.11648/j.ijls.20260901.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijls.20260901.11,
  author = {Prince Uche Amadi},
  title = {Arbitrability of Economic Crimes Claims Under International Investment Arbitration},
  journal = {International Journal of Law and Society},
  volume = {9},
  number = {1},
  pages = {1-13},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijls.20260901.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20260901.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijls.20260901.11},
  abstract = {Economic crime allegations in international investment arbitration has generated significant doctrinal and systemic challenges for the investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) regime. As disputes involving bribery, fraud, money laundering, and related misconduct arise with greater frequency, tribunals must balance the protective structure of investment treaties with the imperatives of legality, international public policy, and global anti-corruption norms. This article employs a doctrinal, comparative, and policy-oriented methodology to examine how arbitral tribunals have conceptualised and addressed the arbitrability of economic crime claims. Through an analysis of key awards, the study evaluates jurisdictional approaches, admissibility determinations, evidentiary burdens, and procedural techniques used to assess clandestine and transnational wrongdoing. The principal finding is that arbitral practice remains fragmented and inconsistent. Tribunals diverge on the interpretation of legality requirements, the allocation and standard of proof, and the treatment of misconduct occurring during the operational phase of an investment. These inconsistencies undermine legal certainty, expose the system to strategic misuse by both investors and states, and weaken the coherence of the ISDS framework. The absence of harmonised evidentiary protocols further complicates the adjudication of economic crimes, given their inherent secrecy and the limited investigative powers of arbitral tribunals. To address these challenges, the article proposes a reform agenda centred on clearer treaty drafting, specialised evidentiary methodologies, enhanced tribunal expertise in financial and criminal matters, structured coordination with domestic authorities, and increased transparency. By articulating a principled framework governing the arbitrability of economic crime claims, the article contributes to strengthening the legitimacy, predictability, and normative integrity of the international investment arbitration system.},
 year = {2026}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Arbitrability of Economic Crimes Claims Under International Investment Arbitration
AU  - Prince Uche Amadi
Y1  - 2026/01/07
PY  - 2026
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20260901.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijls.20260901.11
T2  - International Journal of Law and Society
JF  - International Journal of Law and Society
JO  - International Journal of Law and Society
SP  - 1
EP  - 13
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2640-1908
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20260901.11
AB  - Economic crime allegations in international investment arbitration has generated significant doctrinal and systemic challenges for the investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) regime. As disputes involving bribery, fraud, money laundering, and related misconduct arise with greater frequency, tribunals must balance the protective structure of investment treaties with the imperatives of legality, international public policy, and global anti-corruption norms. This article employs a doctrinal, comparative, and policy-oriented methodology to examine how arbitral tribunals have conceptualised and addressed the arbitrability of economic crime claims. Through an analysis of key awards, the study evaluates jurisdictional approaches, admissibility determinations, evidentiary burdens, and procedural techniques used to assess clandestine and transnational wrongdoing. The principal finding is that arbitral practice remains fragmented and inconsistent. Tribunals diverge on the interpretation of legality requirements, the allocation and standard of proof, and the treatment of misconduct occurring during the operational phase of an investment. These inconsistencies undermine legal certainty, expose the system to strategic misuse by both investors and states, and weaken the coherence of the ISDS framework. The absence of harmonised evidentiary protocols further complicates the adjudication of economic crimes, given their inherent secrecy and the limited investigative powers of arbitral tribunals. To address these challenges, the article proposes a reform agenda centred on clearer treaty drafting, specialised evidentiary methodologies, enhanced tribunal expertise in financial and criminal matters, structured coordination with domestic authorities, and increased transparency. By articulating a principled framework governing the arbitrability of economic crime claims, the article contributes to strengthening the legitimacy, predictability, and normative integrity of the international investment arbitration system.
VL  - 9
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Prince Uche Amadi

College of Law and International Relations, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3680-5321

Download PDF

Submit an Article

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Amadi, P. U. (2026). Arbitrability of Economic Crimes Claims Under International Investment Arbitration. International Journal of Law and Society, 9(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20260901.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Amadi, P. U. Arbitrability of Economic Crimes Claims Under International Investment Arbitration. Int. J. Law Soc. 2026, 9(1), 1-13. doi: 10.11648/j.ijls.20260901.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Amadi PU. Arbitrability of Economic Crimes Claims Under International Investment Arbitration. Int J Law Soc. 2026;9(1):1-13. doi: 10.11648/j.ijls.20260901.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijls.20260901.11,
  author = {Prince Uche Amadi},
  title = {Arbitrability of Economic Crimes Claims Under International Investment Arbitration},
  journal = {International Journal of Law and Society},
  volume = {9},
  number = {1},
  pages = {1-13},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijls.20260901.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20260901.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijls.20260901.11},
  abstract = {Economic crime allegations in international investment arbitration has generated significant doctrinal and systemic challenges for the investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) regime. As disputes involving bribery, fraud, money laundering, and related misconduct arise with greater frequency, tribunals must balance the protective structure of investment treaties with the imperatives of legality, international public policy, and global anti-corruption norms. This article employs a doctrinal, comparative, and policy-oriented methodology to examine how arbitral tribunals have conceptualised and addressed the arbitrability of economic crime claims. Through an analysis of key awards, the study evaluates jurisdictional approaches, admissibility determinations, evidentiary burdens, and procedural techniques used to assess clandestine and transnational wrongdoing. The principal finding is that arbitral practice remains fragmented and inconsistent. Tribunals diverge on the interpretation of legality requirements, the allocation and standard of proof, and the treatment of misconduct occurring during the operational phase of an investment. These inconsistencies undermine legal certainty, expose the system to strategic misuse by both investors and states, and weaken the coherence of the ISDS framework. The absence of harmonised evidentiary protocols further complicates the adjudication of economic crimes, given their inherent secrecy and the limited investigative powers of arbitral tribunals. To address these challenges, the article proposes a reform agenda centred on clearer treaty drafting, specialised evidentiary methodologies, enhanced tribunal expertise in financial and criminal matters, structured coordination with domestic authorities, and increased transparency. By articulating a principled framework governing the arbitrability of economic crime claims, the article contributes to strengthening the legitimacy, predictability, and normative integrity of the international investment arbitration system.},
 year = {2026}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Arbitrability of Economic Crimes Claims Under International Investment Arbitration
AU  - Prince Uche Amadi
Y1  - 2026/01/07
PY  - 2026
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20260901.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijls.20260901.11
T2  - International Journal of Law and Society
JF  - International Journal of Law and Society
JO  - International Journal of Law and Society
SP  - 1
EP  - 13
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2640-1908
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20260901.11
AB  - Economic crime allegations in international investment arbitration has generated significant doctrinal and systemic challenges for the investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) regime. As disputes involving bribery, fraud, money laundering, and related misconduct arise with greater frequency, tribunals must balance the protective structure of investment treaties with the imperatives of legality, international public policy, and global anti-corruption norms. This article employs a doctrinal, comparative, and policy-oriented methodology to examine how arbitral tribunals have conceptualised and addressed the arbitrability of economic crime claims. Through an analysis of key awards, the study evaluates jurisdictional approaches, admissibility determinations, evidentiary burdens, and procedural techniques used to assess clandestine and transnational wrongdoing. The principal finding is that arbitral practice remains fragmented and inconsistent. Tribunals diverge on the interpretation of legality requirements, the allocation and standard of proof, and the treatment of misconduct occurring during the operational phase of an investment. These inconsistencies undermine legal certainty, expose the system to strategic misuse by both investors and states, and weaken the coherence of the ISDS framework. The absence of harmonised evidentiary protocols further complicates the adjudication of economic crimes, given their inherent secrecy and the limited investigative powers of arbitral tribunals. To address these challenges, the article proposes a reform agenda centred on clearer treaty drafting, specialised evidentiary methodologies, enhanced tribunal expertise in financial and criminal matters, structured coordination with domestic authorities, and increased transparency. By articulating a principled framework governing the arbitrability of economic crime claims, the article contributes to strengthening the legitimacy, predictability, and normative integrity of the international investment arbitration system.
VL  - 9
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download