The past decade has witnessed an increase in the number of investor-State arbitrations. With the increase has been a widening of the range and deepening of the complexity of issues raised, addressed, and resolved in the cases. In recent years, novel procedural issues have surfaced. One of them is whether arbitral tribunals have the authority to adjudicate claims of multiple investors in a single proceeding, and if so, how they should conduct the arbitration. In 2011, the tribunal in Abaclat & Others v. Argentine Republic, constituted under the auspices of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), held that claims of more than one investor, in fact, multiple investors, are admissible and that the tribunal had jurisdiction over them. Since Abaclat, another tribunal has similarly held that collective claims could be heard under the ICSID framework.2 The issue of multiple investors is one that will likely not fade so it is fitting that the Abaclat decision be re-published in International Legal Materials to promote wider access to it.

When Yasin Al-Kadi, a Saudi businessman and alleged terrorist financier, prevailed at the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and secured the lifting of economic sanctions that had been imposed against him since 2001, he opened a major gap in the multilateral legal framework for targeted economic sanctions. The framework dates to the late 1990s, was expanded substantially after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and now may be in decline, due in substantial part to the ECJ’s decision. The Kadi case rests on a simple legal proposition: there must be evidence to support restrictions against an individual for his alleged misconduct. The dilemma for authorities that impose targeted economic sanctions is that while the evidence exists, it tends to be sensitive, often classified–particularly with respect to terrorism, but also in similar frameworks imposing sanctions against those involved in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or human rights violations–and the intelligence services that collect such information prefer to keep it closely held.