Adamakopoulos and Others v. Cyprus: “Massive” Problems Concerning a Mass Claims Proceeding in Investment Treaty Arbitration?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Keer HUANG
Keyword(s):  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Majority Decision ◽  
The Future ◽  
Investment Treaty Arbitration

Abstract The Adamakopoulos and Others v. Cyprus Decision is noteworthy because it provides a blueprint for mass claims proceedings in investment treaty arbitration, justifying the possibility of addressing investment claims en masse in the future. This case comment reviews the background to the dispute, addresses the majority decision on the mass claims, and comments on the Tribunal's reasoning regarding the non-requirement of additional consent to mass claims arbitration, the homogeneity of the claims, and procedural flexibility.

11 Other Forms of Arbitration and the Future of Arbitration in Korea

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim Joongi
Keyword(s):  
South Korea ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
The South ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
Resolution Process ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Dispute Resolution Process ◽  
The Future ◽  
North And South ◽  
Investment Treaty Arbitration

This chapter looks at other forms of arbitration and reflects on the future of arbitration in Korea. In addition to commercial arbitration, other forms of arbitration, particularly investment treaty arbitration, are becoming increasingly important for Korean parties, practitioners, and researchers. Recent efforts to establish a dispute-resolution process through a similar framework between North and South Korea are also discussed. The chapter shows the joint contributions of both sides toward the South–North arbitration efforts. Finally, the chapter notes that while in many regards the future of arbitration in Korea looks bright, despite this outlook, there are still challenges yet to overcome.

Emergency Arbitration

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sim Cameron
Keyword(s):  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
The Future ◽  
Interim Measures ◽  
Emergency Measures ◽  
Investment Treaty Arbitration

Emergency arbitration enables a party to seek urgent relief from an emergency arbitrator during the period required for the constitution of an arbitral tribunal. The procedure is not a substitute for expedited or summary proceedings. It simply enables a party to bypass national courts and obtain pre-tribunal relief in the form of interim measures even before an arbitral tribunal has been formed. The limited mandate of the emergency arbitrator is to determine whether the circumstances warrant urgent relief within the period required for tribunal formation. Studies have revealed that emergency arbitrators have adopted inconsistent approaches to emergency arbitration proceedings. Parties contemplating emergency arbitration are thus faced with uncertainty both as to procedure and prospects, and a lack of clarity as to how to formulate an application for emergency measures. By identifying commonalities between emergency arbitration rules, this book aims to promote greater uniformity in the practice of emergency arbitration, thereby giving parties greater control and certainty in bringing and defending applications for emergency measures. As emergency arbitration rules confer wide discretion on the emergency arbitrator, this uniformity is promoted whilst at the same time recognising, where appropriate, the need for an element of flexibility to be maintained. The book contains seven parts. Part I sets out an overview of emergency arbitration. Parts II to V move through all phases of an emergency arbitration, starting with pre-commencement considerations and ending with enforcement. Part VI is dedicated to emergency arbitration in investment treaty arbitration. Finally, in Part VII, the future of emergency arbitration is explored.

From Lena Goldfields to Crystallex: A Proposal For Collective Financing Of Sovereign Award Debt

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 549-576
Author(s):  
Ruth Teitelbaum
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Investors ◽  
Arbitral Award ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
The Future ◽  
Investment Treaty Arbitration

Abstract The Lena Goldfields payment story must be recognized for upholding a critical principle: the notion that an arbitral award debt is a collective problem between sovereigns. The stories of payment in Lena Goldfields and Crystallex lead to the following inquiry: why should today’s system of investment treaty arbitration, based upon treaties providing for reciprocal obligations between sovereigns, treat the payment of arbitral awards as a one-sided obligation of only one sovereign, to be borne alone? If sovereigns are able to enter into treaties providing for mutual protections and benefits, including the mutual consent to arbitrate future investment disputes with foreign investors, why should they not also be able to collectively insure the future payment of awards owed to foreign investors in the future?

A Game-Theoretical Model of Investment Treaty Arbitration

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Collins ◽  
Philip Thomas ◽  
Mark Broom ◽  
Trung Hieu Vu
Keyword(s):  
Theoretical Model ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Game Theoretical Model ◽  
Investment Treaty Arbitration
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document