1 Losinger & Co (Switzerland v Yugoslavia), (Jurisdiction) [1936] PCIJ Ser C No 78; Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (Greece v UK) (Jurisdiction) [1924] PCIJ Ser A No 2; Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzów (Germany v Poland) [1927] PCIJ Ser A No 9; Case concerning Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Germany v Poland) [1928] PCIJ Ser A No 17; Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Germany v Poland) (Jurisdiction) [1926] PCIJ Ser A No 7; Electricity Company of Sofia and Bulgaria (Belgium v Bulgaria) (Jurisdiction) [1939] PCIJ Ser A/B No 77; SS Wimbledon (UK v Germany) (Jurisdiction) [1923] PCIJ Ser A No 1; Payment of Various Serbian Loans Issued in France (France v Yugoslavia) (Jurisdiction) [1929] PCIJ Ser A No 20; Phosphates in Morocco (Italy v France) (Jurisdiction) [1938] PCIJ Ser A/B No 74; Jurisdiction of the Courts of Danzig (Advisory Opinion) [1928] PCIJ Ser B No 15; Status of Eastern Carelia (Advisory Opinion) [1923] PCIJ Ser B No 5; Oscar Chinn (Jurisdiction) [1934] PCIJ Ser A/B No 63; Polish Postal Service in Danzig (Advisory Opinion) [1925] PCIJ Ser B No 11; Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (Denmark v Norway) (Jurisdiction) [1933] PCIJ Ser A/B No 53. THE PCIJ AND THE PROTECTION OF FOREIGN INVESTMENTS Ursula Kriebaum I. Introduction The list of issues on which investment tribunals have referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice’s (PCIJ) case law is long. It includes jurisdictional issues, provisional measures, issues of substance such as whether contractual rights can be the object of an expropriation and the question of reparations, and a state of necessity. Judgments and opinions in no less than thirteen cases1 decided by the PCIJ have found their way into decisions and awards of investment tribunals. This runs from frequently quoted cases like Factory at Chorzów and Mavrommatis to the Eastern Greenland case on which only a few investment tribunals relied. Two of the issues touched upon by the have PCIJ left important traces in the case law of investment tribunals: one is jurisdiction ratione tempo- ris; the other is the standard of reparation for treaty violations. Other judg- ments of the PCIJ are mentioned in only very few awards of investment tribunals. The subsequent sections address four representative aspects of current investment law, as reflected in arbitral jurisprudence, with a view to tracing the PCIJ’s legacy.