Arbitrability of Economic Crimes Claims Under International Investment Arbitration

Economic crime allegations in international investment arbitration has generated significant doctrinal and systemic challenges for the investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) regime. As disputes involving bribery, fraud, money laundering, and related misconduct arise with greater frequency, tribunals must balance the protective structure of investment treaties with the imperatives of legality, international public policy, and global anti-corruption norms. This article employs a doctrinal, comparative, and policy-oriented methodology to examine how arbitral tribunals have conceptualised and addressed the arbitrability of economic crime claims. Through an analysis of key awards, the study evaluates jurisdictional approaches, admissibility determinations, evidentiary burdens, and procedural techniques used to assess clandestine and transnational wrongdoing. The principal finding is that arbitral practice remains fragmented and inconsistent. Tribunals diverge on the interpretation of legality requirements, the allocation and standard of proof, and the treatment of misconduct occurring during the operational phase of an investment. These inconsistencies undermine legal certainty, expose the system to strategic misuse by both investors and states, and weaken the coherence of the ISDS framework. The absence of harmonised evidentiary protocols further complicates the adjudication of economic crimes, given their inherent secrecy and the limited investigative powers of arbitral tribunals. To address these challenges, the article proposes a reform agenda centred on clearer treaty drafting, specialised evidentiary methodologies, enhanced tribunal expertise in financial and criminal matters, structured coordination with domestic authorities, and increased transparency. By articulating a principled framework governing the arbitrability of economic crime claims, the article contributes to strengthening the legitimacy, predictability, and normative integrity of the international investment arbitration system.