Arbitral Praeliminaria – Reflections on the Distinction between Admissibility and Jurisdiction after BG v. Argentina

2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 137-153
Author(s):  
FRIEDRICH ROSENFELD
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Present Article ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Arbitral Proceedings

AbstractArbitral tribunals have traditionally encountered difficulties in drawing the distinction between jurisdiction and admissibility. The various approaches range from the rejection of the concept of admissibility in arbitral proceedings to an overly expansive interpretation of the concept of admissibility so as to include aspects of jurisdiction. With BG Group v. Republic of Argentina, the US Supreme Court has further complicated the problem in what has become the first decision in its history on the interpretation of a bilateral investment treaty. The present article sets forth a test for distinguishing jurisdiction from admissibility which is in line with international jurisprudence and takes due account of the normative and institutional particularities of international investment arbitration proceedings.

The Right to an Unchanging World – Indirect Expropriation in International Investment Agreements and State Sovereignty

ICL Journal ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan Pupolizio
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Global Scale ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
Property Rights Protection ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Investment Agreements

AbstractThis paper examines indirect expropriation in international investment agreements and compares current foreign investments protection with property protection in the XIXth century USA, when the US Supreme Court adhered to an abstract and de-physicalized conception of property later contested by legal realists. Its central claim is that investor state arbitration poses a serious and underestimated challenge to state sovereignty, granting arbitrators a ‘proto-constitutional’ power of judicial review on regulatory powers, including the legislative one. Moreover, the indeterminacy of indirect expropriation leads to a potential transformation of property rights protection that could eventually give transnational enterprises a new ‘right to an unchanging world’, as the US Supreme Court did more than a century ago, albeit this time on a global scale.

The Investment Arbitration between Italy and Cuba: The Application of Customary International Law under Scrutiny

2012 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 499-524
Author(s):  
Enrico Milano
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Present Article ◽  
International Investment ◽  
The State ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Special Regard ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Diplomatic Protection ◽  
Arbitral Proceedings ◽  
Bilateral Treaties

Abstract The present article describes the arbitral proceedings in the investment dispute between Italy and Cuba, with special regard for the Final Award rendered in 2008. The arbitration has raised a number of interesting issues in the application of customary international law, including the admissibility of claims in diplomatic protection in investment disputes under a BIT, the application of the rule on the exhaustion of local remedies, the attribution of acts of State-owned enterprises to the State and the use of general international law as a means to interpret treaty provisions defining the scope of the BIT. Some of these aspects have proved particularly controversial, as shown by the thorough dissenting opinion attached by arbitrator Tanzi, and they are critically analysed. The arbitration confirms the profound interdependence of bilateral treaties and customary international law in international investment arbitration.

Insult of Public Officials

2021 ◽  
pp. 388-409
Author(s):  
Christoph Bezemek
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Structural Differences

This chapter assesses public insult, looking at the closely related question of ‘fighting words’ and the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire. While Chaplinsky’s ‘fighting words’ exception has withered in the United States, it had found a home in Europe where insult laws are widely accepted both by the European Court of Human Rights and in domestic jurisdictions. However, the approach of the European Court is structurally different, turning not on a narrowly defined categorical exception but upon case-by-case proportionality analysis of a kind that the US Supreme Court would eschew. Considering the question of insult to public officials, the chapter focuses again on structural differences in doctrine. Expanding the focus to include the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACtHPR), it shows that each proceeds on a rather different conception of ‘public figure’.

Micula v Romania between International Investment Law and European Law – The UK Supreme Court Judgement – the Final or the NEXT PIece of the Puzzle?

De Jure ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Steliyana Zlateva ◽  
◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Investment ◽  
European Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

The Judgement of the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court in the long Micula v. Romania investment treaty dispute confirmed that the arbitral awards of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), rendered by tribunals established under intra-EU BITs, could be enforced in the UK. The Micula case concerns the interplay between the obligations under the ICSID Convention and EU law. In particular, it addresses the question of whether the award obtained by the Micula brothers against Romania constitutes state aid prohibited by EU law, as well as the enforcement obligations under the ICSID Convention in view of the EU duty of sincere cooperation.

Religious Neutrality and the Government’s Freedom of Speech in the Jurisprudence of the us Supreme Court

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
András Koltay
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The State ◽  
Social Conditions ◽  
Religious Symbols ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
Hard Cases

The issue of the use of religious symbols by the State, the Government, the Municipalities and Courts has emerged as a practical constitutional problem during the last quarter of a century. Contradictory examples of us Supreme Court jurisprudence prove that this issue is among the constitutional ‘hard cases’. The relatively recent appearance of the problem clearly indicates the ways in which American social conditions have changed and the transformation of us society’s attitude to religion.

Judges and Policy Making Authority in the United States and the European Union

ICL Journal ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonios E. Kouroutakis
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Activism ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court

AbstractInstitutions such as the US Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice in due time have developed a status of supremacy through judicial activism. The main target of the article is to identify the judicial activism exercised by these Courts and to reason its need in the legal order. In the first part the US Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice are placed in the overall polity that they belong to and the development of their status and their characteristics are analyzed. The major concern of the first part is to examine how those declared their supremacy and focus on major cases and their reason­ing.In the second part the extent of the judicial supremacy in each legal order is discussed and its effects in the decision making process are examined. The assumption that judicial activ­ism is acceptable only if it expresses consensus in the legal order is tested and it is argued that up to an extent, Judicial Activism does not distort the political agenda when it ex­presses the consensus of the legal system. Finally, it is argued that when such activism exceeds the boundaries of the consensus, the other actors in the legal system would even­tually react and would limit such activism.

Rebus sic stantibus as a Stabilizing Doctrine in the Climate Crisis

Climate Law ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 211-244
Author(s):  
Diana Azarnoush Arsanjani Reisman
Keyword(s):  
World Order ◽  
Third Party ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaty ◽  
Changing Climate ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
The Us ◽  
Orderly Fashion ◽  
The Face ◽  
Climate Crisis

Abstract In the face of massive, unanticipated and even disjunctive changes, the balance of the respective interests of the state parties to existing treaties may no longer survive the changed—or changing—climate landscape. While, ideally, the co-contracting states to such treaties could mutually agree to terminate or revise their treaty obligations to accommodate such changes and redress the now imbalance of interests in the treaty, some scenarios are bound to be contentious. In such cases, is there any other procedure that can provide for an orderly and fair adjustment of treaties so as to avert a breakdown of the network of treaties and a destabilization of world order? This article proposes that the rebus sic stantibus doctrine may function as a stabilizing doctrine for maintaining and possibly adjusting treaty regimes in an orderly fashion. Unlike the doctrine of necessity or many explicit treaty carve-outs, such as the security exception of the US Model Bilateral Investment Treaty, the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus may allow for both an objective test and also one that must be pleaded before a third-party arbiter. For this reason, rebus operates within controlled limits. Rebus offers an international tribunal the opportunity to set out a fair termination or revision of a climate-impacted treaty. I trace the evolution of rebus as a stabilizing doctrine and illustrate the potentialities of its application to the climate crisis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document