On The Application Of MFN Clause To Dispute Settlement Matters In International Investment Arbitration

Most-favored-nation (MFN) treatment clause is one of the most important treatment terms in international investment treaties, according to the provision, contracting parties may enjoy investment treatment no less favorable than that of the third country, which has seldom been disputed. However, since the reward of ICSID on Maffezini v. Spain, which had made it available to apply the MFN clause to dispute settlement matters, the problem of whether the MFN clause could apply to dispute settlement has become a topic of controversy. The later practice of international investment arbitration has been various, which has made the problem more complicated. As China has signed a variety of bilateral investment treaties, the dispute settlement provisions of these treaties differ in thousands ways. Besides, the wording of the MFN clause of this treaties are not consistent. Therefore, the problem of whether the MFN clause could apply to dispute settlement is closely related to the development of China in the field of international investment. This paper will carry out the analysis of the newest develoment of this problem.In the first part, I introduced the history of the development of the MFN clause, and the characteristics of the MFN clause in the field of international investment. Besides, I figured out that the reward of ICSID on Maffezini v. Spain was the source and cause of the problem of whether the MFN clause could apply to dispute settlement, since it was the first case to make the MFN clause available to apply to dispute settlement, which had never been mentioned before.In the second part, I introduced and anaylsed9typical cases of the international investment arbitrition cases related to this problem since Maffezini v. Spain in2004.I put these9cases into two groups, which one of them is named MFN clauses as tools to avoid procedural obstacles where the basic treaty provides already for investment arbitration and the other one is named MFN clauses as possible tools to establish jurisdiction where the basic treaty does not provide for investment arbitration. It is clearly to figure out that most of the cases in the first group supported the application of MFN clause applying to dispute settlement, and that most of the case in the second group rejected the application.In the third part, I used the method of induction and comparison to anaylse the9cases focused on three key points, which were the interpretation of the treaty, the problem of wether the MFN clause could apply to procedural matters and the particularity of the dispute settlement clause.And in the last part, I anaylsed the view of Chinese scholars and government on this problem to figure out the standpiont and tendency of China.