Sometimes, however, a court approach can be directly the opposite. In Lemire, the Tribunal did not consider the conditions of admissibility of the law with respect to the image of the applicant, Joseph Charles Lemire, since the respondent, Ukraine, failed to refer to it as the basis of his legal objections. [140] Although the applicant was not entitled but depended on the rights of another legal entity to protect his own interests, which amounts to the absence of a violation of the Ukraine-US ILO, the court did not respond to the applicant`s lack of prestige. The dissenting arbitrator, Jurgen Voss, criticised the contempt for the legal personality of the local CJSC company “Radiocompany Gala”. [141] He indicated that the applicant had lodged an appeal in which the rights that belonged to that local enterprise were invoked. [142] The exploitation of the teaching of the corporate veil and the non-compliance with the legal personality of the local company could not be justified by the fact that the applicant`s personal wealth was mixed with the heritage of the local company. [143] This doctrine can only be found if the applicable IGE provides directly that the distinction established by the host State`s law between the local company and its shareholders could be compromised at the international level. [144] For example, Solomon v. Solomon stated, as stated in Chapter I, that the legal personality of a single-man company must also be fully respected.

Therefore, Lemire should have only presented itself if Ukraine had breached certain obligations directly owed to it by the ILO, and not to the company in which it had a stake. A similar result was adopted by the AMTO tribunal. [145] The core of our proposal is the model of veil piercing based on the International Investment Law Treaty (“IIL”) which treats the issue of the corporate veil in a very different way from the way it is dealt with in the civil liability claims concerned. Footnote 10 Despite the main parallels with regard to barriers to access to remedial measures created by local denial of justice and the corporate veil in both areas, the existing legal framework has double standards, two measures that favour international investors when it comes to applying the principle of the corporate veil. Footnote 11 The corporate veil is more easily ignored in IIL decisions in order to protect the parent company`s access to benefits under an investment contract, compared to the difficulty with which BHR applicants find themselves in the same company when seeking damage caused by their subsidiaries.