Item

Abstract

Since the Bilateral Investment Treaty (hereinafter BIT) is the most important and the most effective investment rights’ protection measure, the most significant obstacle to successful investment rights’ protection in the territory of the Crimea is the BIT jurisdiction. The Ukraine can refer to force majeure protection as well as not having the jurisdiction, giving the reason that the Ukraine is not exercising effective control in Crimea. Russia can reject its signed BITs jurisdiction in Crimea. The argument for rejection could be that at the BIT conclusion moment, Crimea was not a part of Russia and thereby the BIT jurisdiction is not referable to Crimea. If the investor – claimant’s state did not recognize the annexation of Crimea, arbitration’s acquiesce of jurisdiction in accordance with the BIT is ambiguous. Russian investors in Crimea have lost their foreign status and thereby the UkraineRussia BIT protection. Generally, there is a small possibility of using the BITs concluded by Russia or the Ukraine. The most favourable for Russian investors is the European Court of Human Rights protection. Considering the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, it is possible to attribute the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms jurisdiction to Russian investment rights’ violation in Crimea.