Dawood Rawat v. The Republic of Mauritius, PCA Case 2016-20
PCA · Investment (ICSID and treaty) · Mauritius · 6 Apr 2018
Why it matters
This case is a landmark on the treatment of dual nationals in investment treaty arbitration. The Tribunal held that a dual national of the host state and a third state cannot invoke the BIT against the host state, even via an MFN clause. It clarified the interpretation of 'ressortissant' and the limits of MFN clauses in BITs without direct investor-state arbitration provisions.
Summary
Dawood Rawat, a dual national of Mauritius and France, initiated arbitration against Mauritius under the France-Mauritius BIT, alleging that Mauritius froze and misappropriated his investments in BAICM and Bramer Bank. He sought over US$ 1 billion in compensation. Mauritius objected to jurisdiction on two grounds: lack of consent (ratione voluntatis) and lack of personal jurisdiction (ratione personae), arguing that Rawat, as a dual national, was not a protected investor under the BIT. The Tribunal first addressed the personal jurisdiction objection. It interpreted the term 'ressortissant' in Article 1(2) of the France-Mauritius BIT, which defines protected investors. The Tribunal noted that the BIT was concluded in 1973, before the ICSID Convention's exclusion of dual nationals in Article 25(2)(a) was well-established, but found that the term 'ressortissant' in the BIT context meant a national of one contracting party, not a dual national. Applying the VCLT rules of interpretation, the Tribunal considered the ordinary meaning, context, and object and purpose of the BIT. It concluded that dual nationals are not covered, as the BIT's purpose is to protect investors from the other state, not those who also hold the host state's nationality. The Tribunal also applied the principle of effet utile, noting that interpreting 'ressortissant' to include dual nationals would render the BIT's arbitration clause meaningless, as ICSID arbitration would be unavailable for dual nationals. Having found no personal jurisdiction, the Tribunal did not need to address the MFN clause issue. The Tribunal ordered Rawat to pay one-third of Mauritius' legal fees for the jurisdictional phase, amounting to US$ 111,697.00.
The detail
Parties: Dawood Rawat v. The Republic of Mauritius, PCA Case 2016-20
Case number: italaw/cases/3775
Outcome: The Tribunal upheld Mauritius' objection to jurisdiction ratione personae, finding it lacked jurisdiction because Rawat was a dual national of Mauritius and France and thus not protected under the France-Mauritius BIT. The Tribunal ordered Rawat to pay US$ 111,697.00 towards Mauritius' legal fees.
Applicable law: France-Mauritius BIT (1973), Finland-Mauritius BIT (2007), UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (1976)
Issues in play: The key issue was whether the term 'ressortissant' in the France-Mauritius BIT excluded dual nationals. The Tribunal interpreted the BIT in context and found that dual nationals were not covered, thus the BIT did not apply to Rawat.
Read the full decision at italaw ↗
Locus Standi links to the source decision and publishes its own plain-language summary. It does not reproduce the text of the award.