2 See Waguih Elie George Stag and Clorinda Vecchi v. The Arab Republic of Egypt, Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/15 (May 28,2007) (“Decision on Jurisdiction“).

3 Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investments Between the Republic of Italy and the Arab Republic of Egypt, Italy-Egypt, Mar. 2, 1989, UNCTAD Investment Instruments Online Article, <http://www.unctad.org/sections/dite/iia/docs/bits/egyptitaly.pdf> (“Italy-Egypt Bit” or “Bit”). The BIT appears to preclude claims by ‘ ‘judicial'’ persons who are incorporated in the host state.

4 See, e.g., Champion Trading Company et. at. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No ARB/02/ 9 at 17 (Oct. 21, 2003) (based on Article 25(2)(a), “[the Claimants’ dual nationality] excludes them from invoking the Convention“).

5 See Hussein Nuaman Soufraki v. The United Arab Emirates, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/7 (July 7, 2004).

6 Italy-Egypt BIT, Art. 1(3).

7 See Decision on Jurisdiction ¶ 27-32.

8 See id. ¶33-36.

9 Decision on Jurisdiction, ¶143.

10 See id. ¶ 146 (citing Italy-Egypt BIT, Art. 1(3)).

11 Decision on Jurisdiction ¶150 (citing Soufraki v. UAE, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/7 ¶ 55) (emphasis added).

12 See id. ¶29&149.

13 See id. ¶182&192.

14 See id. ¶193 (“[T]he Tribunal finds that such references to documents reflecting nationality are prima facie evidence only and [ ] Mrs. Vecchi's nationality falls to be determined by the Tribunal's interpretation and application of Egyptian law.“).

15 Id. ¶153.

16 Id. ¶172.

17 Id. ¶170.

18 Decision on Jurisdiction ¶ 194 (internal references omitted)

19 See id. ¶196.

20 Id.

21 Id. ¶200.

22 Decision on Jurisdiction ¶ 201

* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text appearing at the International Institute for Sustainable Development website (visited May 15, 2007)<http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2007/itnsiagvsegypt.pdf>.

32 See supra, para. 54.

33 Rulings Nos. 5329 and 5344 of Judicial Year 47 [hereinafter the Lakah case].

34 Rulings Nos. 1648 and 1960 of Judicial Year 47 issued by the First Circuit of the Higher Administrative Court on 6 November 2000.

35 Id.

36 Respondent's Post-Hearing Submission, para. 28.

37 Transcript, Day 1, p. 46. See also Respondent's Memorial on Jurisdiction, para. 6.

38 Case concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v . United States of America), 1996, ICJ Reports 803, 810).

39 Plama Consortium Limited v Republic of Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 February 2005, 20 ICSID Rev.-FILJ 262 (2005), para. 119

40 Salini Costruttori S.p.A and Italstrade S.p.A v The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/13, Award, 15 November 2004, para. 151.

41 Although the Respondent does in passing question the strength of the Claimants’ connections with Italy in its Reply, when responding to Professor Reisman's Opinion that the Claimants’ Italian nationality was acquired for bona fide reasons and that there was no room for an application of effective nationality principles since this was not a case of dual nationality.

42 See Soufraki, supra note 6.

43 See Respondent's opening, Transcript, Day 1, p. 30 (“nationality is of public order 1 think this is in agreement and is determined by Egyptian law“).

44 Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 6 ed., p. 377.

45 Oppenheim's International Law, (Robert Jennings and Arthur Watts eds., 9 ed.), p. 853.

46 Id. p. 267

47 See Respondent's Reply on Jurisdiction, para. 8 (“there is no evidence that either Waguih or Clorinda has the type of connections with Italy that would permit a finding of effective nationality under international law“); and para. 9 (“Egypt is not required under international law to arbitrate investment with persons who have non-existen[t], spurious or insubstantial links to the State of which they may be formally nationals“).

48 Transcript, Day l,p. 157. For example, Counsel for the Claimants noted that the Tribunal is fully entitled to consider whether Egypt's application of its nationality law is objectionable as a matter of international law (although this was in the context of the abuse of rights doctrine).

49 This was also confirmed by Professor E1 Haddad in her Supplemental Expert Opinion, para. 51 (“the loss and acquisition of Egyptian nationality is a matter that is not subject to the will of the concerned parties but remains governed by imperative legal rules that must be applied irrespective of the stance of individuals towards such rules”).

50 Claimants’ Counter-Memorial on Jurisdiction, para. 21 (referring to para. 39 of Prof Dr Riad's Expert Opinion). Claimantsalso referred to five other decisions of the Egyptian courts, which came to the same conclusion.

51 Soufraki, supra note 6, para. 55.

52 Id. para. 63.

53 Article 41 of the ICSID Convention.

54 See Respondent's Memorial on Jurisdiction, para. 49. See also Respondent's Post-Hearing Submission, para. 17.

55 Professor Riad’ s opinion was that this categorization may play a part under the application of Article 16 which concerns the stripping of Egyptian nationality when an Egyptian national acquires a foreign nationality without permission but had no relevance to the operation of Article 10.

56 This was also the view of Professor Salama, referred to in Egypt's Reply, para. 30: “Therefore, if such permission is issued thereafter, it would merely serve to confirm the reality, together with protecting the individual from being penalized by being divested of his Egyptian nationality as stipulated under Article 16(1).”

57 See Expert Opinion of Prof Dr Riad of 10 July 2006, para. 31, and his supplementary Opinion of 1 August 2006, para. 5. Any such discrimination would, as explained by Professor Riad, be contrary to the Egyptian Constitution, which strictly requires that all Egyptians be treated equally under the law.

58 Claimants’ Counter-Memorial, para. 57. See also Supplementary Expert Opinion of Prof Dr E1 Haddad, para. 17, where it was conceded, at least in the case of a nationality acquired through naturalization, that a person may apply to the Egyptian Minister of Interior for permission despite having already acquired the nationality of the foreign country.

59 See Claimants’ Rejoinder, para. 11.

60 Expert Opinion of Prof Dr Riad of 10 July 2006, para. 34 (emphasis added).

61 Id. para. 26.

62 Id. para. 19.

63 Respondent's Memorial on Jurisdiction, paras. 34-35.

64 Decisions of 10 December 2000 and 21 December 2002.

65 See also Supplemental Expert Opinion of Professor E1 Haddad, para. 30 (“Despite the eloquence and strength of conviction of this opinion, it still does not comply with the current provision of the Egyptian Nationality Act, which requires a person to reiterate his wish to retain the Egyptian nationality after his will ful naturalization”).

66 In addition, Professor El Haddad's Supplemental Opinion stated at para. 30, when discussing the critical view of Professor Salama, that “[d]espite the eloquence and strength of conviction of this opinion, it still does not comply with the current provision of the Egyptian Nationality Act, which requires a person to reiterate his wish to retain the Egyptian nationality after his willful naturalization.”

67 Transcript, Day 2, p. 15.

68 Id. p. 20.

69 See the Lakah case, supra note 33.

70 Respondent's Post-Hearing Submission, para. 28.

71 Expert Opinion of Prof Dr Riad of 10 July 2006, para. 49.

72 Expert Opinion of Prof Dr Riad of 1 August 2006, para. 20.

73 Expert Opinion of Prof Dr Riad of 10 July 2006, paras. 50- 51.

74 Respondent's Memorial on Jurisdiction, paras. 55-57.

75 Expert Opinion of Prof Dr Riad of 10 July 2006, para. 47.

76 See Expert Opinion of Prof Reisman of 12 July 2006, para.25 (referring to Feldman v Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB( AF)/ 99/1, Interim Decision on Preliminary Jurisdictional Issues,6 December 2000 (“dual nationality problems, including the search of thè ‘dominant or effective nationality', require,” in the first place, “the existence of a double citizenship” as a matter of law” (emphasis in the original)).

77 Id. para. 26.

78 Champion Trading, supra note 4, p. 288 (emphasis in the original).

79 Case No. A/18,6 April 1984, Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (5 Iran-U.S.C.T.R. 251).

80 See the extract from Oppenheim's International Law quoted at paragraph 144 above.

81 Respondent's Memorial on Jurisdiction, paras. 70-71.

82 See Fedax, supra note 20, para. 24. The term “investment” in Article 25 of the Convention must be given a “broad reach.” The Tribunal observed that “distinguished commentators of the Convention have concluded that a ‘broad approach to the interpretation of this term is warranted.’’’ Id. para. 22.

83 Schreuer, supra note 25, p. 274.

84 Tokios Tokeles, supra note 21, para. 82.

85 Id. para. 17.

86 Id. para. 74.

87 Id. para. 77.

88 Id. para. 80.

89 Id. paras. 81-82.

90 See Transcript, Day 1, p. 74. Counsel for Egypt conceded as much at the hearing when he acknowledged that estoppel is “not a hundred per cent jurisdiction.” Id