University of Tehran Public Law Studies Quarterly 2423-8120 55 3 2025 09 23 The Application of the Most-Favored-Nation Clause Regarding Jurisdiction in ICSID Awards of 2016 and 2023 The Application of the Most-Favored-Nation Clause Regarding Jurisdiction in ICSID Awards of 2016 and 2023 1931 1953 99399 10.22059/jplsq.2024.373787.3500 FA Mohammad Razavirad Assistant Prof., Department of Law, Faculty of Humanitarian Sciences, Qaemshahr Branch, Islamic ‎Azad University, Qaemshahr, Iran‎ Sareh Nazemi Ph.D. Student in International Trade and Investment Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran Journal Article 2024 03 12 The acceptance of the applicability of the most-favored-nation clause regarding dispute resolution methods by the arbitrators in the Mavzini case has led to extensive legal debates, resulting in conflicting awards by arbitration bodies. The 2015 report of the International Law Commission on this clause reflects the comprehensive efforts of this institution to organize the governing rules through a thorough examination of the legal interpretations made by arbitration bodies. This paper aims to analyze two recent ICSID awards to address the question of how effectively the Commission's report has contributed to resolving legal disagreements and preventing conflicting awards in this forum. The present research is conducted using a descriptive-analytical method and involves the study of international documents and awards. The investigation began with the perspective that the Commission's report, given the status of this institution and the extensive study conducted, could encourage arbitration bodies to reach consensus on the main contentious issues. However, the findings indicate that arbitrators in dispute resolution bodies continue to make decisions based on personal interpretations of the mentioned cases, and disagreements and the issuance of conflicting awards persist significantly.<br />  The acceptance of the applicability of the most-favored-nation clause regarding dispute resolution methods by the arbitrators in the Mavzini case has led to extensive legal debates, resulting in conflicting awards by arbitration bodies. The 2015 report of the International Law Commission on this clause reflects the comprehensive efforts of this institution to organize the governing rules through a thorough examination of the legal interpretations made by arbitration bodies. This paper aims to analyze two recent ICSID awards to address the question of how effectively the Commission's report has contributed to resolving legal disagreements and preventing conflicting awards in this forum. The present research is conducted using a descriptive-analytical method and involves the study of international documents and awards. The investigation began with the perspective that the Commission's report, given the status of this institution and the extensive study conducted, could encourage arbitration bodies to reach consensus on the main contentious issues. However, the findings indicate that arbitrators in dispute resolution bodies continue to make decisions based on personal interpretations of the mentioned cases, and disagreements and the issuance of conflicting awards persist significantly.<br />  https://jplsq.ut.ac.ir/article_99399_58cbf3cba8e55635fb66ba6249e6a408.pdf