The Distinction between Treaty Claims & Contract Claims

The conclusion of investment treaties between states، given the nature of national law and international law، is a new string of discussions between arbitrators and lawyers، which has created some of the issues that do not comply with the rules of the classical national law and international law. Conclusion of two separate but simultaneous agreements، the treaty between the state-state، and between the state-investor on thesubject of separation and recognition of the contractual claims، and the treaty claims (considering the effects of determination of the applicable law and the competence of tribunals) have created considerable importance for the host states، exporting capital states، investment companies and arbitrators. In fact، separation of claims arising out the contract or the treaty not only، in case، makes the domestic courts or international tribunals to be qualified، but also affects on the law governing the dispute based on domestic law or international law principles. Therefore، several criteria have been considered for separation of disputes. Currently the most famous is still the classic standard of Jure Imperii and Jure Gestionis. It is also true in the subject of competent jurisdiction regarding the criteria for which shall the tribunal refer to the stage to accept or decline jurisdiction، whether the plausibility of claimant’s claim is sufficient or shall be considered the Prima Facie Criteria.