Abstract

While most investor-state arbitration analysis is elsewhere, ratione temporis, the unique jurisdictional intersection of text, principles, and tribunal jurisprudence, remains a complex and misunderstood inquiry. The core inquiry is the relation of events and lex specialis to the point of dispute, the temporal point at which states have consented to international obligations potentially giving rise to a breach. However, there are multiple point of dispute tests and lex specialis categories used, resulting in diverging and potentially confusing jurisprudence. When connected to the one-time acts and continuing acts dichotomy, itself stemming from separate phenomenon, the true scale of tribunal uncertainty becomes clear. Therefore, this article seeks not only to ascertain the current paradigm of these counterbalancing legal influences, but also suggest innovative options for the future, ranging from more details ratione temporis provisions, on to the idea of a claim-based system and a default ILC provision, while advancing the goals of clarity and right to redress, remaining mindful of the importance of state consent.