{"id":291310,"date":"2026-06-17T16:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-06-17T14:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/?p=291310"},"modified":"2026-06-17T16:40:49","modified_gmt":"2026-06-17T14:40:49","slug":"dual-nationality-is-no-bar-french-supreme-court-upholds-bit-protection-for-venezuelan-spanish-investors","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/2026\/06\/17\/dual-nationality-is-no-bar-french-supreme-court-upholds-bit-protection-for-venezuelan-spanish-investors\/","title":{"rendered":"Dual Nationality Is No Bar: French Supreme Court Upholds BIT Protection for Venezuelan\u2013Spanish Investors"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading has-text-align-center\"><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/fr-serafin-garcia-armas-et-karina-garcia-gruber-c-republique-bolivarienne-du-venezuela-arret-de-la-cour-de-cassation-premiere-chambre-civile-24-21-876-wednesday-6th-may-2026\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>Garc\u00eda Armas and Garc\u00eda Gruber v. Venezuela<\/em>, n\u00ba 24-21.876<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>THE AUTHOR<\/strong>:<br><strong>Rheda El Hamzaoui<\/strong>, Legal Trainee at\u00a0<strong><a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/firm\/belot-malan-associes\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">B\u00e9lot\u00a0Malan &amp;\u00a0Associ\u00e9s\u00a0<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-paragraph\"><em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/paris-baby-arbitration\/posts\/?feedView=all\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Paris Baby Arbitration (&#8220;PBA&#8221;)<\/a> is building a strong community of future arbitration professionals linked to Paris and beyond. Partnering with\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Daily Jus<\/a>, PBA shares sharp, bilingual analyses and fresh perspectives on the developments shaping the arbitration field, making it more accessible to students and young practitioners worldwide.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tabs atbs-tabs-e53aa7e1 atbs-tabs-d078d18f atbs-tabs-fe8ed5c8 atbs-tabs-4b7fc855 atbs-tabs-e9190e75 atbs-tabs-cc044763 atbs-tabs-e5227453 atbs-tabs-28ee9d1e atbs-tabs-0f9baf1e atbs-tabs-089ca7bc atbs-tabs-d3e0c47d atbs-tabs-6f4e5034 atbs-tabs-edc4d811 atbs-tabs-9f79343d atbs-tabs-e29c0043 atbs-tabs-3388e41b atbs-tabs-eacf5739 atbs-tabs-1640bf1d atbs-tabs-f4af3a56 atbs-tabs-873c354e atbs-tabs-83bd85a4 atbs-tabs-62375cc4 atbs-tabs-5956dcf8\"><div class=\"tabs-container\"><div class=\"tabs-nav\"><ul class=\"tabs-titles\"><li class=\"tab-title icon_left\" data-title-tab-id=\"1\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"tab-title-text\">English<\/span><\/li><li class=\"tab-title icon_left\" data-title-tab-id=\"2\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"tab-title-text\">French<\/span><\/li><\/ul><\/div><div class=\"tabs-content\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tab\"><div class=\"single-tab\" data-tab-id=\"1\" data-tab-parent-id=\"atbs-tabs-e53aa7e1\">\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In a dismissal judgment dated 21 January 2026, the First Civil Chamber of the\u00a0<em>Cour de Cassation<\/em>\u00a0(\u201c<strong>Court<\/strong>\u201d), clarified\u00a0how dual nationality is to be treated under a bilateral investment treaty. It\u00a0upheld\u00a0the primacy of the treaty text where the category of protected investors is clearly defined, as\u00a0<em>lex\u00a0specialis<\/em>, over the general rules of public international law.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">An arbitral tribunal sitting in Paris declared itself competent in an award dated 15 December 2014. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela brought an action to set aside that award, which the Paris Court of Appeal dismissed in a judgment of 27 June 2023, delivered after a first cassation and remittal. Before the&nbsp;<em>Cour de cassation<\/em>, the State essentially argued that, in the absence of a specific provision in the treaty on dual nationals, the general rules of public international law on diplomatic protection should apply, in order to take into&nbsp;account&nbsp;the investors\u2019 \u201c<em>dominant and effective<\/em>\u201d nationality.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Where a bilateral investment treaty merely requires that the investor holds&nbsp;the nationality of one of the contracting parties, without providing for a specific regime for dual nationals, may the court, in order to fill that silence, import the mechanisms of diplomatic protection (in particular the dominant and effective nationality doctrine) so as to exclude from the benefit of the treaty those dual\u2011national investors who also have the nationality of the host State?&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The\u00a0<em>Cour de cassation<\/em>\u00a0dismissed\u00a0the appeal and\u00a0upheld\u00a0the dismissal of the set\u2011aside application. Relying on Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, it\u00a0recalled\u00a0that a treaty must first be interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of its terms, in their context and in the light of its object and purpose. Only where the text is ambiguous may\u00a0supplementary\u00a0means of interpretation be used.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In the present case, the BIT defined\u00a0\u201cinvestor\u201d as any person having the nationality of one of the contracting parties, without excluding the situation in which that person also\u00a0held\u00a0the nationality of the State in whose territory the investment\u00a0was\u00a0made. Neither the object nor the general scheme of the treaty, which\u00a0was\u00a0geared towards creating favourable conditions for reciprocal investments, lead to the exclusion of dual nationals. The Court therefore concluded\u00a0that the text\u00a0was\u00a0clear: dual\u2011national investors fall within the personal scope of the BIT. It\u00a0consequently\u00a0refused\u00a0to supplement that text by reference to the specific\u00a0rules on\u00a0diplomatic protection and rejected\u00a0the requirement to\u00a0determine\u00a0the dominant or effective nationality, which would amount to adding a condition not contained in the treaty itself.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/fr-serafin-garcia-armas-et-karina-garcia-gruber-c-republique-bolivarienne-du-venezuela-arret-de-la-cour-de-cassation-premiere-chambre-civile-24-21-876-wednesday-6th-may-2026\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">judgment<\/a> is significant in two aspects. Methodologically, it reaffirms the centrality of the treaty text as\u00a0<em>lex\u00a0specialis<\/em>\u00a0between the States parties: where the provisions of a BIT clearly delimit the category of protected investors, the court may not narrow that category by resorting to external constructions, even those derived from customary international law on diplomatic protection, unless it can be shown that this reflects the common intention of the States. Practically, the decision enhances legal certainty for dual\u2011national investors: where the treaty simply requires the nationality of one of the contracting parties without expressly excluding them, a State can no longer, before the French set\u2011aside judge, contest the tribunal\u2019s jurisdiction by invoking dual nationality and the dominant nationality doctrine. The ruling thus strengthens the predictability of the\u00a0<em>Cour de cassation<\/em>\u2019s interpretation of BITs and\u00a0consolidates\u00a0Paris\u2019s attractiveness as a seat for investment arbitration.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-paragraph\">T<em>his article was originally published in the PBA Bulletin on June 5, 2026 with thanks to Paris Baby Arbitration, Jus Mundi &amp; Jus Connect.<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-buttons is-content-justification-center is-layout-flex wp-container-core-buttons-is-layout-fe48e5de wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link wp-element-button\" href=\"https:\/\/pbarbitration.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/BULLETIN-86-ENG.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">read it Here<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>ABOUT THE AUTHOR<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Rheda El Hamzaoui<\/strong>, as a French student pursuing a focus on\u00a0International\u00a0arbitration, Rheda gained hands-on experience at\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/firm\/archipel\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Archipel<\/a>\u00a0law firm and the International Commercial Chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal,\u00a0assisting\u00a0attorneys and judges with research,\u00a0drafting\u00a0and hearing reports.\u00a0Building on an LL.M. in International Business Litigation, the Arbitration\u00a0Academy,\u00a0and a MOOC in Domestic and International Arbitration, Rheda competed in the 33rd Willem C. Vis Moot.\u00a0 His passion for arbitration also extends to football fields, where he serves as an official referee. He is currently pursuing an internship at\u00a0<strong><a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/firm\/belot-malan-associes\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">B\u00e9lot\u00a0Malan &amp;\u00a0Associ\u00e9s<\/a><\/strong> before taking the Paris Bar<em>.<\/em>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">*<em><em>The&nbsp;views&nbsp;and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tab\"><div class=\"single-tab\" data-tab-id=\"2\" data-tab-parent-id=\"atbs-tabs-e53aa7e1\">\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Primaut\u00e9 du texte du trait\u00e9 : la Cour de cassation \u00e9carte le crit\u00e8re de la nationalit\u00e9 dominante dans le TBI Espagne\u2013Venezuela<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Dans un arr\u00eat de rejet en date du 6 mai 2026, la premi\u00e8re chambre civile de la Cour de cassation (\u00ab<strong>\u202fCour\u202f<\/strong>\u00bb) a pr\u00e9cis\u00e9 dans quelle mesure les stipulations d\u2019un trait\u00e9 bilat\u00e9ral d\u2019investissement, qualifi\u00e9 de\u00a0<em>lex\u00a0specialis<\/em>\u00a0entre \u00c9tats parties, peuvent (ou non) \u00eatre compl\u00e9t\u00e9es par les r\u00e8gles g\u00e9n\u00e9rales du droit international public relatives \u00e0 la protection diplomatique, s\u2019agissant du traitement des investisseurs binationaux.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Un p\u00e8re et sa fille, les consorts [P], avaient acquis en 2001 et 2006 les parts de deux soci\u00e9t\u00e9s v\u00e9n\u00e9zu\u00e9liennes, Transporte Dole et\u00a0Alimentos\u00a0Frisa. Tous deux poss\u00e8dent la nationalit\u00e9 v\u00e9n\u00e9zu\u00e9lienne et ont, en 2003 et 2004, acquis la nationalit\u00e9 espagnole. En 2012, ils ont engag\u00e9 une proc\u00e9dure d\u2019arbitrage fond\u00e9e sur le <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/treaty\/en-agreement-between-the-kingdom-of-spain-and-the-republic-of-venezuela-on-the-reciprocal-promotion-and-protection-of-investments-spain-venezuela-bit-1995-thursday-2nd-november-1995\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">trait\u00e9 bilat\u00e9ral de promotion et de protection des investissements conclu le 2 novembre 1995 entre l\u2019Espagne et la R\u00e9publique bolivarienne du Venezuela<\/a> (\u00ab<strong>\u202fTBI\u202f<\/strong>\u00bb).\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Un tribunal arbitral si\u00e9geant \u00e0 Paris s\u2019est d\u00e9clar\u00e9 comp\u00e9tent par une sentence du 15 d\u00e9cembre 2014. La R\u00e9publique bolivarienne du Venezuela a form\u00e9 un recours en annulation contre cette sentence, rejet\u00e9 par la Cour d\u2019appel de Paris dans un arr\u00eat du 27 juin 2023, rendu sur renvoi apr\u00e8s une premi\u00e8re cassation. Devant la Cour de cassation, l\u2019\u00c9tat soutenait principalement que, faute de disposition sp\u00e9cifique du trait\u00e9 sur les doubles nationaux, il convenait d\u2019appliquer les r\u00e8gles g\u00e9n\u00e9rales du droit international public relatives \u00e0 la protection diplomatique, afin de tenir compte de la nationalit\u00e9 \u00ab&nbsp;<em>effective et dominante&nbsp;<\/em>\u00bb des investisseurs.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Lorsque le trait\u00e9 bilat\u00e9ral d\u2019investissement se borne \u00e0 exiger que l\u2019investisseur ait la nationalit\u00e9 de l\u2019une des parties contractantes, sans pr\u00e9voir de r\u00e9gime particulier pour les doubles nationaux, le juge peut-il, pour combler ce silence, importer les m\u00e9canismes de la protection diplomatique (notamment la th\u00e9orie de la nationalit\u00e9 dominante et effective) afin d\u2019exclure du b\u00e9n\u00e9fice du trait\u00e9 les investisseurs binationaux qui ont aussi la nationalit\u00e9 de l\u2019\u00c9tat d\u2019accueil ?&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La Cour de cassation rejette le pourvoi et confirme le rejet du recours en annulation. Elle rappelle, dans le sillage des articles 31 et 32 de la Convention de Vienne sur le droit des trait\u00e9s, que l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation d\u2019un trait\u00e9 s\u2019op\u00e8re d\u2019abord selon le sens ordinaire de ses termes, replac\u00e9s dans leur contexte et appr\u00e9ci\u00e9s au regard de son objet et de son but. Ce n\u2019est qu\u2019en cas d\u2019ambigu\u00eft\u00e9 que des moyens compl\u00e9mentaires peuvent \u00eatre mobilis\u00e9s.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Or, en l\u2019esp\u00e8ce, le TBI d\u00e9finit l\u2019\u00ab&nbsp;investisseur \u00bb comme toute personne ayant la nationalit\u00e9 de l\u2019une des parties contractantes, sans exclure le cas o\u00f9 cette personne aurait \u00e9galement la nationalit\u00e9 de l\u2019\u00c9tat sur le territoire duquel l\u2019investissement est r\u00e9alis\u00e9. Ni l\u2019objet ni l\u2019\u00e9conomie g\u00e9n\u00e9rale du trait\u00e9, orient\u00e9s vers la cr\u00e9ation de conditions favorables aux investissements r\u00e9ciproques, ne conduisent \u00e0 \u00e9carter les binationaux. La Cour en d\u00e9duit que le texte est clair : les investisseurs binationaux entrent dans le champ de protection du TBI. Elle refuse, d\u00e8s lors, de compl\u00e9ter ce texte par les r\u00e8gles propres \u00e0 la protection diplomatique et \u00e9carte l\u2019exigence d\u2019une recherche de la nationalit\u00e9 dominante ou effective, qui reviendrait \u00e0 ajouter au trait\u00e9 une condition qu\u2019il ne pr\u00e9voit pas.&nbsp;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">L\u2019int\u00e9r\u00eat de <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/fr-serafin-garcia-armas-et-karina-garcia-gruber-c-republique-bolivarienne-du-venezuela-arret-de-la-cour-de-cassation-premiere-chambre-civile-24-21-876-wednesday-6th-may-2026\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">l\u2019arr\u00eat<\/a> est double. Sur le plan m\u00e9thodologique, il r\u00e9affirme la centralit\u00e9 du texte conventionnel en tant que loi sp\u00e9ciale entre \u00c9tats parties : lorsque les stipulations d\u2019un TBI d\u00e9limitent clairement la cat\u00e9gorie des investisseurs prot\u00e9g\u00e9s, le juge ne peut restreindre cette cat\u00e9gorie en s\u2019appuyant sur des constructions ext\u00e9rieures, fussent\u2011elles issues du droit international coutumier de la protection diplomatique, sauf \u00e0 d\u00e9montrer que telle \u00e9tait la volont\u00e9 commune des \u00c9tats. Sur le plan pratique, la d\u00e9cision s\u00e9curise la situation des investisseurs binationaux : d\u00e8s lors que le trait\u00e9 se contente d\u2019exiger la nationalit\u00e9 d\u2019une des parties contractantes sans les exclure express\u00e9ment, un \u00c9tat ne peut plus, devant le juge de l\u2019annulation fran\u00e7ais, contester la comp\u00e9tence du tribunal arbitral en invoquant la double nationalit\u00e9 et la th\u00e9orie de la nationalit\u00e9 dominante. L\u2019arr\u00eat renforce ainsi la pr\u00e9visibilit\u00e9 de l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation des TBI par la Cour de cassation et consolide l\u2019attractivit\u00e9 de la place de Paris en tant que si\u00e8ge d\u2019arbitrage d\u2019investissement.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-paragraph\"><em><em>Cet article a \u00e9t\u00e9 initialement publi\u00e9 dans l<\/em><\/em>e bulletin PBA<em><em> le vendredi 5 juin, 2026, avec le soutien de Paris Baby Arbitration, Jus Mundi &amp; Jus Connect.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-buttons is-content-justification-center is-layout-flex wp-container-core-buttons-is-layout-fe48e5de wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link wp-element-button\" href=\"https:\/\/pbarbitration.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/BULLETIN-86-FR.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">lire Ici<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>ABOUT THE AUTHOR<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Rheda El Hamzaoui<\/strong>, as a French student pursuing a focus on\u00a0International\u00a0arbitration, Rheda gained hands-on experience at\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/firm\/archipel\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Archipel<\/a>\u00a0law firm and the International Commercial Chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal,\u00a0assisting\u00a0attorneys and judges with research,\u00a0drafting\u00a0and hearing reports.\u00a0Building on an LL.M. in International Business Litigation, the Arbitration\u00a0Academy,\u00a0and a MOOC in Domestic and International Arbitration, Rheda competed in the 33rd Willem C. Vis Moot.\u00a0 His passion for arbitration also extends to football fields, where he serves as an official referee. He is currently pursuing an internship at\u00a0<strong><a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/firm\/belot-malan-associes\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">B\u00e9lot\u00a0Malan &amp;\u00a0Associ\u00e9s<\/a><\/strong> before taking the Paris Bar<em>.<\/em>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">*<em><em>Les points de vue et les opinions exprim\u00e9s par les auteurs sont les leurs et ne refl\u00e8tent pas n\u00e9cessairement ceux de leurs organisations, de leurs employeurs ou de Daily Jus, Jus Mundi ou Jus Connect.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Paris strengthens its appeal as an investment arbitration seat with a ruling favouring treaty certainty over the dominant nationality doctrine.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":291320,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jnews-multi-image_gallery":[],"jnews_single_post":{"format":"standard","override":[{"template":"custom","single_blog_custom":"274736","parallax":"1","fullscreen":"1","layout":"right-sidebar","sidebar":"author","second_sidebar":"default-sidebar","sticky_sidebar":"1","share_position":"hide","share_float_style":"share-monocrhome","show_featured":"1","show_post_meta":"1","show_post_date":"1","post_date_format":"default","post_date_format_custom":"Y\/m\/d","show_post_reading_time":"0","post_reading_time_wpm":"300","post_calculate_word_method":"str_word_count","show_zoom_button":"0","zoom_button_out_step":"2","zoom_button_in_step":"3","show_comment_section":"1","number_popup_post":"1","show_post_related":"0","show_inline_post_related":"0"}],"image_override":[{"single_post_thumbnail_size":"crop-500","single_post_gallery_size":"crop-500"}],"trending_post_position":"meta","trending_post_label":"Trending","sponsored_post_label":"Sponsored by","disable_ad":"0"},"jnews_primary_category":{"id":"179"},"jnews_social_meta":{"fb_title":"Dual Nationality Is No Bar: French Supreme Court Upholds BIT Protection for Venezuelan\u2013Spanish Investors","twitter_title":"Dual Nationality Is No Bar: French Supreme Court Upholds BIT Protection for Venezuelan\u2013Spanish Investors","twitter_description":"Paris strengthens its appeal as an investment arbitration seat with a ruling favouring treaty certainty over the dominant nationality doctrine.","fb_description":"Paris strengthens its appeal as an investment arbitration seat with a ruling favouring treaty certainty over the dominant nationality doctrine.","fb_image":"291321","twitter_image":"291321"},"jnews_review":[],"enable_review":"","type":"","name":"","summary":"","brand":"","sku":"","good":[],"bad":[],"score_override":"","override_value":"","rating":[],"price":[],"jnews_override_counter":{"view_counter_number":"0","share_counter_number":"0","like_counter_number":"0","dislike_counter_number":"0"},"footnotes":""},"categories":[205,207,167,179,188,276,161,247],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-291310","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-arbitration","category-commercial-arbitration","category-europe","category-france","category-legal-insights","category-paris-baby-arbitration-pba","category-world","category-worldwide-perspectives"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/291310","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=291310"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/291310\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":291319,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/291310\/revisions\/291319"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=291310"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=291310"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=291310"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=291310"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}