The arbitral tribunal ruled in favour of the respondent and disqualified the claim, concluding that Phoenix`s purchase of the two Czech companies was only a pretext for exploiting the Israeli-Czech contract. The Tribunal`s decision has had repercussions on international investment arbitration courts, in particular for its analysis of what constitutes an investment under the ICSID Convention. When the General Court weighed the concept of investment in the context of the ICSID Convention, it defined the concept of 61Salini Costruttori SpA and Italstrade SpA v. Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No ARB/00/4, Decision on Jurisdictions, §50-58 (23 July 2001), 42 ILM 609 (2003). The Salini test requires four elements for the existence of an investment: the contribution of money or other assets of economic value, a fixed term, an element of risk and a contribution to the development of the host State.62 d. to 52. What is Treaty Shopping and how can „legitimate planning of nationalities“ be distinguished from „contractual abuse“ in international investment law? Should an applicant controlled by a national of the host Member State be a protected investor or should the courts „imbue his corporate veil“? Does an investor have to make his own contribution to the investment for which he claims protection? When does the restructuring of the company constitute an abuse of process and what is the role of the concept of litigation in this regard? To what extent are „denial of benefits“ clauses effective in countering contract purchases? These are. More Several limitations of treaty trade are conceivable: despite its potential usefulness, this alternative could prove even more tedious and painful than the termination and renegotiation of BITs because of its magnitude. It goes without saying that the level of protection that investors wish to offer would vary considerably, particularly between developed and developing countries, as well as between capital-exporting and capital-importing countries.121Primec, a.o.o. 3, to 43. Therefore, the search for a sufficient common ground for the conclusion of a multilateral agreement on investments that has failed despite previous attempts,122Lee, a. a. O.
Note 93, at 17; Primec, note 3 above, at 43. currently seems very difficult. On the other hand, if the investment law system evolves in keeping with globalization, States will be able to further support the harmonization of rules and a more uniform system of investment law. To change the definition of investors in IIA, which is the basis of treaty trade, many states would have to denounce and renegotiate their existing ESAs. . . .