In August 2011, an International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Tribunal in Abaclat v Argentina considered and upheld, for the first time, an investment treaty tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear claims pursued jointly by a ‘mass’ of approximately 60,000 claimants (‘mass claims’).³ Two subsequent Tribunals deciding cases pursued by smaller pools of 119 and 183 claimants—Ambiente Ufficio v Argentina and Alemanni v Argentina (together with Abaclat, the ‘Argentine Arbitrations’)—distinguished themselves terminologically from ‘mass claims’,⁴ but also found jurisdiction to resolve ‘multiparty’ proceedings (‘multiparty arbitration’).⁵

中文翻译：

---

Theodoros Adamakopoulos 等人诉塞浦路斯案：1 多方仲裁向前一步，后退两步

2011 年 8 月，国际投资争端解决中心 (ICSID) 仲裁庭在Abaclat v Argentina 案中首次考虑并支持投资条约仲裁庭审理由大约 60,000 名“集体”提出的索赔的管辖权（'大规模索赔'）。³随后的两个仲裁庭裁决了由 119 名和 183 名索赔人组成的较小规模的案件——Ambiente Ufficio 诉阿根廷和Alemanni 诉阿根廷（连同Abaclat，“阿根廷仲裁”）——在术语上将它们与“大规模索赔”区分开来，⁴但也发现了解决“多方”程序（“多方仲裁”）的管辖权。⁵