On 6 April 2018, an ad hoc arbitral tribunal finds that it lacks jurisdiction to hear Dawood Rawat’s claims, a French and Mauritian investor, who initiated proceedings against Mauritius under the 1973 French and Mauritius BIT (BIT). He sought at least one billion US dollars in compensation for alleged interferences with a banking and insurance business, British American Investment Co (Mtius) Ltd, and its subsidiary, Bramer Banking Corporation Ltd. The State had allegedly commenced a series of “politically and personally motivated” attacks on his business and his family, following the election of a new government in Mauritius in December 2014.

As the treaty did not contain an investor-state dispute settlement clause, Claimant relied on Mauritius’ consent to arbitration in the 2007 Finland-Mauritius bilateral treaty, which it said to be applicable by virtue of the MFN clause in the France-Mauritius BIT. However, the Tribunal did not have to rule on this issue as it concluded that the States parties to the BIT France-Mauritius of 1973 did not intend for it to apply to “nationals” having dual French and Mauritian nationality. It reached this conclusion by interpreting Article 9 of the BIT in the light of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and thus taking into account Article 25 (2) (a) of the ICSID Convention excluding dual nationals from the definition of nationals.