Abstract:This thesis examines the intricate relationship between taxation measures and investment agreements, highlighting the jurisdictional issues arising from clauses that exempt taxation measures from these agreements. These exclusion clauses are designed to delineate the jurisdictional boundaries of arbitral tribunals, specifying that disputes arising from taxation measures falling within these exclusions may be beyond their jurisdiction. This becomes particularly relevant when assessing whether taxation measures, excluded from the scope of investment agreements, are bona fide taxes. If they are not, the exclusion may not apply, potentially bringing the dispute within the tribunal’s purview. Conversely, taxation measures enacted under a state’s sovereign authority, even in the absence of specific exclusion clauses, are generally unlikely to be deemed violations of investor protection obligations, such as against expropriation or breaches of fair and equitable treatment standards. The critical questions is whether the contested taxation measures are genuinely aimed at raising public revenue in a fair and equitable manner, or if they serve to discriminate against or penalize foreign investor unfairly in the guise of taxes. This distinction is important for two reasons. First, bona fide taxation measures supported by exclusion clauses do not give rise to jurisdictional authority for an arbitral tribunal. Second, the absence of such clauses does not necessarily imply a breach of the host country’s obligations, provided the taxation measures are legitimate exercises of its sovereign power. The thesis argues that the mere presence of exclusion clauses should not automatically legitimize all taxation actions by the host state, nor should the absence of such clauses deter the state from implementing necessary tax policies aimed at public purposes. In international investment disputes concerning taxation, the core issue is whether the taxation measures were unfairly aimed at discriminating or penalizing foreign investments, rather than achieving a legitimate public purpose or deviating from the measures promised at the time of investment attraction. Overreliance on exclusion clauses to apply clearly unreasonable measures in the guise of taxation measureless could grant jurisdiction to the arbitral tribunal. However, in the absence of such conditions, and regardless of the presence of exclusion clauses in the investment agreement, host countries should confidently implement necessary tax policies for public objectives.

Setting Limits on Corporate Nationality Planning in Investment Treaty Arbitration

Recent Trends in Investment Arbitration on the Right to Regulate, Environment, Health and Corporate Social Responsibility: Too Much or Too Little?

State-Owned Enterprises As Claimants in International Investment Arbitration

Resolving Investor State Dispute Settlement’s Legitimacy Crisis: The Case for Reinstating the Requirement to Exhaust Local Remedies

Investment Arbitration Appellate Mechanism Options: Consistency, Accuracy, and Balance of Power

CENTRAL ASIAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HISTORY Appellate Mechanism in Investment Arbitration: Novis Inventis or Sophistication of Existing Mechanism?

The Standard of Most-Favored-Nation Treatment in Investor-State Dispute Settlement Practice

The Standing of State-Owned Entities under Investment Treaties

Mandatory Binding Dispute Resolution In The Base Erosion And Profit Shifting (Beps) Two Pillar Solution

On Foreign Investor ‘Privilege’ and the Limits of the Law: A Reply to Ivar Alvik

Multinational Enterprises and Investment Treaties

Cairn Energy: when retroactive taxation not justified by prevention of tax avoidance is unfair and inequitable

Binding Nature and Scope of the Arbitration Agreement Stipulated in the Articles of Incorporation for New Partners

'One-Stop' Commercial Dispute Resolution Services: Implications for International Investment Law

The Private Law Critique of International Investment Law

Returning the Home State to the Global Anti-Corruption Campaign

Article: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: Overlooked Procedural Deficiencies in ICSID’s Annulment Structure

Application of Taxation Measures in Investment Arbitration

Guarding the Great Wall?—jurisprudential Review of Treaty Interpretative Tools in Chinese BIT-based Arbitration Cases

Treaty Interpretation Issues in International Investment Arbitration and the Countermeasures