{"id":385121,"date":"2026-05-26T09:00:33","date_gmt":"2026-05-26T03:30:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=385121"},"modified":"2026-05-25T18:54:19","modified_gmt":"2026-05-25T13:24:19","slug":"state-owned-enterprises-icsid-convention-analysis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/26\/state-owned-enterprises-icsid-convention-analysis\/","title":{"rendered":"State-Owned Enterprises as Claimants Under the ICSID Convention"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The applicability of international investment treaties to SOEs hinges on the definition of “investor” outlined in each treaty.<\/p>\n

In recent years, State-owned enterprises (SOEs) have become significant contributors in the global investment arena, evolving from national entities to influential players in international economic transactions.1<\/sup><\/a> As reported by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), more than 550 SOE-led transnational corporations now collectively possess over $2 trillion in foreign assets.2<\/sup><\/a> This transformation has not only altered international markets but also posed challenges to the current legal structures that regulate investor-State dispute settlements.<\/p>\n

The applicability of international investment treaties to SOEs hinges on the definition of “investor” outlined in each treaty. Some treaties specifically mention “State-owned” or “government-linked” entities, thereby affirming SOEs‘ entitlement to file claims.3<\/sup><\/a> Others do not address this issue, leading to uncertainty, particularly when SOEs partake in activities that might be interpreted as exercises of sovereign authority. This situation raises crucial questions regarding whether such actions impact an SOE’s status as an “investor” and its right to pursue treaty-based arbitration.<\/p>\n

The complexity surrounding this issue is amplified under the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes Convention, 1966 (ICSID Convention), which was designed to encourage “private international investment” and explicitly excludes disputes between States.4<\/sup><\/a> In this context, the frequently referenced “Broches test” acts as a criterion to assess whether a SOE can be considered an investor, as it prohibits claims from those acting as agents of the State or performing essentially governmental functions.5<\/sup><\/a> However, the unclear definitions within the test have resulted in differing interpretations. Specifically, these ambiguities necessitate a detailed analysis of the criteria within the ICSID framework.<\/p>\n

In response to recent developments, this article aims to provide a structured examination of the changing role of SOEs in international investment law, particularly focusing on their position as claimants in investor-State arbitration. Firstly<\/span>, it assesses the legal and economic importance of SOEs in the international markets. Secondly<\/span>, it delves into the jurisdictional difficulties that SOEs encounter under international investment treaties. Thirdly<\/span>, it examines the legal standing to bring claims under the ICSID Convention. Fourthly<\/span>, the article presents a forward-looking view on the policy and legal adjustments necessary to harmonise the treatment of SOEs in international investment arbitration. As a result, this study intends to clarify the legal framework governing claims related to SOEs, striking a balance between protecting investors and addressing the complexities posed by the increasing involvement of States in global investment.<\/p>\n

State-owned enterprises as claimants under the ICSID Convention<\/h2>\n

Even when an investment treaty provides protections for SOEs, additional jurisdictional challenges may emerge under the ICSID Convention, which was specifically designed to address disputes between private investors and States rather than disputes among States.6<\/sup><\/a> Unlike alternative dispute resolution methods, the ICSID Convention explicitly rules out State-to-State claims, including those arising from subrogation, underscoring the drafters‘ objective to preserve a depoliticised forum focused exclusively on investor-State conflicts.7<\/sup><\/a> As a result, a key criterion in ICSID proceedings is to ascertain whether an SOE is operating in a truly commercial role or merely serving as an extension of its State. This differentiation is frequently evaluated using the Broches test, which assesses whether the claim fits within the Convention’s intended scope or lies beyond its jurisdictional boundaries.<\/p>\n

Article 25 of the ICSID Convention and Broches test<\/h2>\n

During the negotiations for the ICSID Convention, a significant issue was whether conflicts between governments and foreign SOEs should be included under the Centre’s jurisdiction. Aron Broches, who was the General Counsel of the World Bank at the time, noted that there seems to be no justification for excluding a SOE from utilising the Centre’s processes, provided the government involved in the dispute consents.8<\/sup><\/a> This perspective was also evident in the initial drafts of the Convention, which made it clear that the term “national” was intended to cover both privately owned businesses and those that are wholly or partially owned by the Government.9<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The ICSID Convention was primarily designed to enhance international economic development by making private foreign investment easier and more secure. While Article 25(1) does not directly mention SOEs or private companies, the Preamble of the Convention showcases a specific aim to address depoliticised disputes between investors and States rather than disputes between States themselves.10<\/sup><\/a> According to Article 25(1), ICSID’s jurisdiction encompasses any legal conflict arising directly from an investment, involving a contracting State and a national from another contracting State.11<\/sup><\/a> Notably, the Convention specifies that States cannot be regarded as “nationals” under Article 25(2)(b<\/span>)12<\/sup><\/a>, even in instances of subrogation, thereby affirming its purpose to resolve disputes between investors and States, not those between States.<\/p>\n

To resolve the uncertainty over the eligibility of SOEs as claimants under the Convention, Broches developed what later came to be known as the “Broches test”.13<\/sup><\/a> This test states that unless a government-owned corporation or mixed economy business is acting as an agent of the Government or performing essentially governmental functions, it should not be excluded from being considered a “national of another contracting State”.14<\/sup><\/a> Broches‘ perspective also acknowledged that the traditional dichotomy is insufficient because many investments made today conflate the sources of private and public capital.15<\/sup><\/a> Since then, this test has been incorporated into academic debates and ICSID jurisprudence. Nowadays, the most widely used standard for determining whether a SOE qualifies as a “national of another contracting State” for Article 25(2)(b<\/span>) is the Broches test.16<\/sup><\/a> In particular, Articles 5 and 8 of the ILC Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, which specify the conditions under which an entity’s actions can be attributed to the State, have been called a “mirror image” of the attribution tests found in international law. Together, the Broches test and Article 25 of the ICSID Convention provide a comprehensive structure for distinguishing between, in fact, commercial SOEs and State entities, guaranteeing that the Centre has jurisdiction over only investor-State disputes.<\/p>\n

While India is not a member of ICSID, its 2016 Model BIT adopts a balanced perspective, establishing procedural safeguards while permitting claims, including those from SOEs, under well-defined conditions.<\/p>\n

Application of the Broches test<\/h2>\n

Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka A.S.<\/span> v. Slovakia<\/span>17<\/sup><\/a>, is the most significant case interpreting and using the Broches test. The Tribunal was charged with deciding whether Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka (CSOB), a State-owned bank, met the requirements of Article 25 of the ICSID Convention to be considered a national of another contracting State. The Tribunal assessed whether CSOB was performing essentially government functions in connection with the events in question and whether it was acting as an agent of the Czech Republic. The Tribunal stressed that “juridical persons” under Article 25 did not refer only to privately held businesses but also to entities that are fully or partially owned by the Government. Crucially, the Tribunal used a functional approach, concentrating on the character of the SOE’s activities rather than their underlying purpose. CSOB’s involvement in the transactions that gave rise to the dispute, namely, loan receivables, was found to be commercial, even though it had occasionally operated as an agent of the Czech State and pursued governmental policies. The Tribunal rejected Slovakia’s jurisdictional objection and concluded that the Broches test’s functional analysis must be applied to the dispute at hand rather than the SOE’s character.<\/p>\n

Rumeli Telekom and Telsim Mobil<\/span> v. Kazakhstan<\/span>18<\/sup><\/a>, echoed this functional lens. Kazakhstan contested the claimants‘ standing there, claiming that the Turkish Government effectively controlled the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund. The Tribunal made a distinction between operational control and State ownership. It rejected the contention that Turkish Savings Deposit Insurance Fund TSDIF was a State agent and instead compared it to a Receiver, concluding that the claimants were independently incorporated under Turkish law.<\/p>\n

In BUCG<\/span> v. Yemen<\/span>19<\/sup><\/a>, the Tribunal addressed whether Beijing Urban Construction Group (BUCG), a Chinese SOE, acted as an agent of the Chinese State or performed governmental functions, thereby disqualifying it under the Broches test. Yemen argued that BUCG operated under State direction, pursuing Chinese policy objectives and exercising elements of governmental authority. BUCG countered that its investment in constructing an airport terminal was a commercial project. The Tribunal emphasised a functional, context-specific approach and agreed with BUCG. There is no proof that BUCG performed sovereign duties in Yemen or acted on behalf of the Chinese Government. It was decided that the State’s control over BUCG’s internal operations had no bearing on the investment’s commercial nature. The Tribunal emphasised, crucially, that the Broches test must evaluate the role of the Government on the territory of the host State.<\/p>\n

Significantly, in other cases, the Tribunals have avoided an extensive Broches analysis, indicating an uneven application of Article 25 to SOEs.<\/p>\n

Challenges in the application of the Broches test<\/h2>\n

The application of the Broches test, as outlined in Article 25(1) of the ICSID Convention, entails notable challenges in interpretation. Although Article 25(1) does not explicitly rule out SOEs, the Broches test suggests that SOEs functioning as agents of the State or engaged in governmental activities may be excluded from ICSID jurisdiction. This interpretation needs to be aligned with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties20<\/sup><\/a>, which requires that the terms of treaties be understood based on their ordinary meaning, context, and the intended object and purpose.<\/p>\n

A key uncertainty revolves around the ambiguous notion of “agency”. It remains ambiguous whether Broches was referring to the home State or host State of the SOE, and under what conditions an SOE engaging in foreign investments would be seen as an agent of its home country. This complexity is heightened by the principle of international law, which stipulates that States can only exercise sovereign authority within their borders. Most SOEs function in commercial roles overseas, and their extraterritorial activities jurisdiction rarely qualify as governmental functions, making it challenging to substantiate the “agency” designation in real-world scenarios.21<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The test remains ambiguous regarding whether a “governmental function” should be evaluated in the context of the home State or the host State. If it hinges on the home State’s functions, it seems unreasonable to refuse ICSID standing for a foreign investment that is not connected to those functions. Conversely, if it is based on the host State, a SOE engaging in commercial activities should not be treated differently from a private investor conducting the same activities.22<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Moreover, the lines separating public and private functions have grown less distinct. Tasks like electricity distribution, which were once purely governmental, are now managed by private companies, public organisations, or a combination of both. The Broches test, based on Cold War-era beliefs that SOEs cannot function like private companies, no longer mirrors the realities of contemporary investments.23<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Way forward<\/h2>\n

As SOEs broaden their cross-border investment efforts, their dual role as both business entities and State-linked organisations presents intricate challenges for the legitimacy and consistency of the investor-State dispute settlement framework. To tackle these issues, the following essential reforms are suggested:<\/p>\n

1. International investment treaties should explicitly define SOEs and set criteria for recognising them as investors. This would minimise arbitral over-reliance on the Broches test and foster consistency by differentiating between sovereign actions and commercial activities.<\/p>\n

2. Reforms focused on enhancing SOE governance, transparency, and independence from State interference can help confirm their status as legitimate investors. Tribunals are more inclined to support claims from commercially autonomous entities rather than those driven by political motivations.<\/p>\n

3. Considering the changing characteristics of SOEs, a review of Article 25 of the ICSID Convention is necessary. A consistent application of the Broches test, potentially bolstered by interpretative guidelines or a multilateral approach, can offer clarity on the standing of SOEs.<\/p>\n

4. Investment treaties should restrict the application of most-favoured-nation (MFN) clauses to prevent SOEs from taking advantage of treaty networks for more favourable conditions, thereby reducing opportunistic claims.<\/p>\n

Exemptions related to national security must be carefully drafted and applied narrowly to prevent arbitrary dismissal of SOE claims while maintaining the regulatory authority of the State.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

*5th year student, Institute of Law, Nirma University. Author can be reached at: aayushii.bhargava@gmail.com<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

**5th year student, Institute of Law, Nirma University. Author can be reached at: ayushimalik63@gmail.com<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/a> UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2013: Global Value Chains — Investment and Trade for Development<\/span> 12 (UN Publishing, 2013).<\/p>\n

2.<\/a> Mark Feldman, “The Standing of State-Owned Entities under Investment Treaties”, in Yearbook on International Investment Law & Policy 2010—2011<\/span> (Karl P. Sauvant ed., Oxford University Press, 2012) p. 615.<\/p>\n

3.<\/a> Édgar Iván Leon Robayo, Valentina Botello León and Andrés Felipe Reina Arango, “Jurisdiction ‘Ratione Personae’: State-Owned Enterprises Before Investment Arbitration” (2022) 24 Estudios Socio-Jurídicos 71.<\/p>\n

4.<\/a> Aron Broches, Selected Essays: World Bank, ICSID, and Other Subjects of Public and Private International Law<\/span> (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1995) p. 167.<\/p>\n

5.<\/a> Giulio Alvaro Cortesi, “ICSID Jurisdiction with Regard to State-Owned Enterprises — Moving toward an Approach Based on General International Law” (2017) 16 Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 108.<\/p>\n

6.<\/a> Antonio Parra, The History of ICSID<\/span> (Oxford University Press, 2012) p. 12.<\/p>\n

7.<\/a> Christoph H. Schreuer et al., The ICSID Convention: A Commentary<\/span> (Cambridge University Press, 2009) p. 160.<\/p>\n

8.<\/a> ICSID, History of the ICSID Convention: Documents Concerning the Origin and the Formulation of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States<\/span>, Volume II-1, para 30 (1968, reprinted in 2009) p. 11.<\/p>\n

9.<\/a> Aron Broches, Selected Essays: World Bank, ICSID, and Other Subjects of Public and Private International Law<\/span> (Martinus Nijhoff, 1995), para 202.<\/p>\n

10.<\/a> Giulio Alvaro Cortesi, “ICSID Jurisdiction with Regard to State-Owned Enterprises — Moving Toward an Approach Based on General International Law” (2017) 16 Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 108.<\/p>\n

11.<\/a> Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States, 1965, Art. 25(1).<\/p>\n

12.<\/a> Aron Broches, “The Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States” (1988) 3 ICSID Review — Foreign Investment Law Journal 1, 9.<\/p>\n

13.<\/a> Wang Qing, Xu Lai, Ling Fanghao, Huang Ruotian, Bai Qianqian, He Kaiye and Sun Jiaxuan, “The Standing of State-Owned Enterprises under the ICSID Convention: A Chinese Perspective” (2023) 13(2) Journal of WTO and China 47.<\/p>\n

14.<\/a> Paul Blyschak, “State-Owned Enterprises and International Investment Treaties: When are State-Owned Entities and Their Investments Protection” (2011) 6 Journal of International Law & International Relations 1 (Spring).<\/p>\n

15.<\/a> Chijioke Chijioke-Oforji, “Sovereign Wealth Funds and State-Owned Enterprises as Claimants Under International Investment Agreements and ICSID” in T. Mortimer and C. Nyombi (Eds.), Rebalancing International Investment Agreements in Favour of Host States<\/span> (Wildy, Simmonds & Hill Publishing, 2018) p. 317.<\/p>\n

16.<\/a> Farouk El-Hosseny, “State-Owned Enterprises as Claimants before ICSID: Is the Broches Test on the Ebb?” (2016) 3 BCDR International Arbitration Review 34.<\/p>\n

17.<\/a> Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka A.S. (CSOB)<\/span> v. Slovakia<\/span>, 2017 SCC OnLine ICSID.<\/p>\n

18.<\/a> Rumeli Telekom and Telsim Mobil<\/span> v. Kazakhstan<\/span>, 2008 SCC OnLine ICSID 1.<\/p>\n

19.<\/a> Beijing Urban Construction Group Co.<\/span> v. Republic of Yemen<\/span>, 2017 SCC OnLine ICSID 1.<\/p>\n

20.<\/a> Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Art. 31(1).<\/p>\n

21.<\/a> Chijioke Chijioke-Oforji, “Sovereign Wealth Funds and State-Owned Enterprises as Claimants Under International Investment Agreements and ICSID” in T. Mortimer and C. Nyombi (Eds.), Rebalancing International Investment Agreements in Favour of Host States<\/span> (Wildy, Simmonds & Hill Publishing, 2018) p. 317.<\/p>\n

22.<\/a> Xiangxiu Wang and Yawen Zhang, “ICSID’s Jurisdiction over Arbitration of Transnational Investment Treaties of State-Owned Enterprises — From ‘Beijing Urban Construction Group v. Yemeni Government’ Case Concerning Jurisdiction”, in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Economics, Business, Finance, and Management (ICEBFM 2019)<\/span> (Francis Academic Press, 2019) p. 616.<\/p>\n

23.<\/a> Albert Badia, Piercing the Veil of State Enterprises in International Arbitration<\/span> (Kluwer Law International, 2014) p. 2.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Aayushi Bhargava* and Ayushi Malik**<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":385138,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[42503,1191],"tags":[105258,105262,105259,105260,105257,105261],"class_list":["post-385121","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal-analysis","category-op-ed","tag-broches-test-soe-claimants-international-investment-law","tag-icsid-convention-soe-standing-investment-disputes","tag-icsid-jurisdiction-state-owned-enterprises-article-25-analysis","tag-investor-state-dispute-settlement-soe-claims-icsid","tag-state-owned-enterprises-icsid-convention-investment-arbitration-analysis","tag-state-owned-enterprises-international-investment-treaties-arbitration"],"yoast_head":"\nState-Owned Enterprises Under ICSID Convention | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Analysis of SOE standing, Article 25, and the Broches test under the ICSID Convention\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/26\/state-owned-enterprises-icsid-convention-analysis\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State-Owned Enterprises as Claimants Under the ICSID Convention\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Analysis of SOE standing, Article 25, and the Broches test under the ICSID Convention.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/26\/state-owned-enterprises-icsid-convention-analysis\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-05-26T03:30:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Broches-test-SOE-claimants-international-investment-law.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"State-Owned Enterprises as Claimants Under the ICSID Convention\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/26\\\/state-owned-enterprises-icsid-convention-analysis\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/26\\\/state-owned-enterprises-icsid-convention-analysis\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Editor\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"headline\":\"State-Owned Enterprises as Claimants Under the ICSID Convention\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-26T03:30:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/26\\\/state-owned-enterprises-icsid-convention-analysis\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2530,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/26\\\/state-owned-enterprises-icsid-convention-analysis\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Broches-test-SOE-claimants-international-investment-law.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"Broches test SOE claimants international investment law\",\"ICSID Convention SOE standing investment disputes\",\"ICSID jurisdiction State owned enterprises Article 25 analysis\",\"investor state dispute settlement SOE claims ICSID\",\"State owned enterprises ICSID Convention investment arbitration analysis\",\"State owned enterprises international investment treaties arbitration\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Op Eds\",\"OP. ED.\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/26\\\/state-owned-enterprises-icsid-convention-analysis\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/26\\\/state-owned-enterprises-icsid-convention-analysis\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/26\\\/state-owned-enterprises-icsid-convention-analysis\\\/\",\"name\":\"State-Owned Enterprises Under ICSID Convention | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/26\\\/state-owned-enterprises-icsid-convention-analysis\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/26\\\/state-owned-enterprises-icsid-convention-analysis\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Broches-test-SOE-claimants-international-investment-law.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-26T03:30:33+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Analysis of SOE standing, Article 25, and the Broches test under the ICSID Convention\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/26\\\/state-owned-enterprises-icsid-convention-analysis\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/26\\\/state-owned-enterprises-icsid-convention-analysis\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/26\\\/state-owned-enterprises-icsid-convention-analysis\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Broches-test-SOE-claimants-international-investment-law.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Broches-test-SOE-claimants-international-investment-law.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Broches test SOE claimants international investment law\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/26\\\/state-owned-enterprises-icsid-convention-analysis\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State-Owned Enterprises as Claimants Under the ICSID Convention\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_4\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State-Owned Enterprises Under ICSID Convention | SCC Times","description":"Analysis of SOE standing, Article 25, and the Broches test under the ICSID Convention","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/26\/state-owned-enterprises-icsid-convention-analysis\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State-Owned Enterprises as Claimants Under the ICSID Convention","og_description":"Analysis of SOE standing, Article 25, and the Broches test under the ICSID Convention.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/26\/state-owned-enterprises-icsid-convention-analysis\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-05-26T03:30:33+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Broches-test-SOE-claimants-international-investment-law.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"State-Owned Enterprises as Claimants Under the ICSID Convention","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/26\/state-owned-enterprises-icsid-convention-analysis\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/26\/state-owned-enterprises-icsid-convention-analysis\/"},"author":{"name":"Editor","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"headline":"State-Owned Enterprises as Claimants Under the ICSID Convention","datePublished":"2026-05-26T03:30:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/26\/state-owned-enterprises-icsid-convention-analysis\/"},"wordCount":2530,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/26\/state-owned-enterprises-icsid-convention-analysis\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Broches-test-SOE-claimants-international-investment-law.webp","keywords":["Broches test SOE claimants international investment law","ICSID Convention SOE standing investment disputes","ICSID jurisdiction State owned enterprises Article 25 analysis","investor state dispute settlement SOE claims ICSID","State owned enterprises ICSID Convention investment arbitration analysis","State owned enterprises international investment treaties arbitration"],"articleSection":["Op Eds","OP. ED."],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/26\/state-owned-enterprises-icsid-convention-analysis\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/26\/state-owned-enterprises-icsid-convention-analysis\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/26\/state-owned-enterprises-icsid-convention-analysis\/","name":"State-Owned Enterprises Under ICSID Convention | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/26\/state-owned-enterprises-icsid-convention-analysis\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/26\/state-owned-enterprises-icsid-convention-analysis\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Broches-test-SOE-claimants-international-investment-law.webp","datePublished":"2026-05-26T03:30:33+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Analysis of SOE standing, Article 25, and the Broches test under the ICSID Convention","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/26\/state-owned-enterprises-icsid-convention-analysis\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/26\/state-owned-enterprises-icsid-convention-analysis\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/26\/state-owned-enterprises-icsid-convention-analysis\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Broches-test-SOE-claimants-international-investment-law.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Broches-test-SOE-claimants-international-investment-law.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Broches test SOE claimants international investment law"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/26\/state-owned-enterprises-icsid-convention-analysis\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State-Owned Enterprises as Claimants Under the ICSID Convention"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Broches-test-SOE-claimants-international-investment-law.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/385121","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=385121"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/385121\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":385140,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/385121\/revisions\/385140"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/385138"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=385121"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=385121"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=385121"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}