scholarly journals Abuse of Rights in International Arbitration

Author(s):  
El Far Ahmed

In recent years, international arbitration has become plagued by different forms of substantive and procedural abuse. For example, we have witnessed a rise in cases where parties restructure their investments in an abusive manner by altering one of its features purely to gain access to ICSID arbitration. Similarly, the increasingly common practice of initiating parallel arbitral proceedings in order to maximise a party’s chances of success, and the possibility of inconsistent decisions pose a risk to standards of fairness. Abusive practices designed by parties to prejudice their opponents may undermine the fair resolution of disputes and frustrate the administration of arbitral justice. There are pre-existing tools and legal rules that can be utilised to prevent abuse. However, these tools are inherently rigid in their application and fail to remedy all forms of abuse. Abuse of Rights in International Arbitration introduces the principle of abuse of rights and considers its application as a general principle of law to prevent different forms of substantive and procedural abuse in international arbitration. The virtue of a single theory with a wide scope and an overarching premise is that it is a principle, which involves equity considerations, enjoys the flexibility of general principles of law, and can address different abusive behaviours. The author carefully examines the legal basis and core elements of abuse of rights and analyses the relevant case law to address how the principle may affect administration of arbitral justice. Arguing for the application of abuse of rights as a general principle of law, the author expertly examines how it could apply in both international commercial and investment arbitration to tackle procedural misconduct and different abusive practices.

Author(s):  
El Far Ahmed

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the principle of abuse of rights in international arbitration. It is now generally recognized that international arbitration is the preferred method for resolving disputes in international trade and the normal means for resolving commercial and investment disputes. However, in recent years, international arbitration has been plagued by different forms of procedural abuse. Abusive practices developed by parties may not only cause paramount prejudice to their opponents, but can also undermine the fair resolution of disputes and frustrate the administration of arbitral justice. The existing rules for the prevention of abuse have a defined and narrow scope, are inherently rigid in their application, and fail to remedy different forms of abuse. As such, a general principle of abuse of rights is vital in international arbitration. The virtue of a single theory with a wide scope and an overarching premise is that it is a principle which involves equity considerations, enjoys the flexibility of general principles of law, and can be used to address different abusive behaviours.


Author(s):  
El Far Ahmed

This chapter explores the nature of abuse of rights in international arbitration. It determines the legal basis of abuse of rights, questions the transnational nature of the principle, and examines whether it comprises a principle of transnational public policy. A scrutiny of the principle’s application in international arbitration not only demonstrates the omnipresence of the principle in most legal systems as well as under international law, but provides compelling evidence that a general principle of abuse of rights has emerged in international arbitration. Moreover, a review of different legal systems testify that the principle is recognized as a general substantive and procedural principle of law. This is further confirmed by the views of renowned scholars and by the constant application of abuse of rights as a general principle of law. However, while the principle reflects fundamental interests that decision makers should uphold, its depiction as part of transnational public policy is controversial.


2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 673-685
Author(s):  
Inga Vezmar Barlek

The article emphasizes the principle of proportionality as a general principle of law. Analysis of some CJEU case law is introduced, regarding interpretative role of the principle of proportionality and its legal basis for annulment of individual and general acts. The distinction between the infringement of margin of appreciation and the principle of proportionality is given. The specificity of the Croatian administrative dispute law regarding the control of legality of the acts issued within margin of appreciation is emphasized. The principle of proportionality role as a legal basis for annulment of general acts in Croatian administrative dispute law is opened for discussion.


2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-25
Author(s):  
Jerzy Parchomiuk

The concept of abuse of rights is universal in nature and is present in all branches of law. The development of scholarly opinion and jurisprudence led in time to the introduction of the prohibition on abuse of rights as a general principle of administrative law, understood as a ban on the use of rights or powers in a manner inconsistent with the purposes for which they were established or in violation of constitutional and axiological order. This paper is a presentation of a model that describes basic characteristics of abuse of right in administrative law. These basic characteristics can be summarized in a few theses as follows: (1) subjective variability – prohibition of abuse applies to both the authority as well the individual; (2) strong links between abuse and circumvention of law – abuse of right is often aimed at avoiding the application of those norms of administrative law which the individual considers to be disadvantageous to her/him; (3) different legal basis of the prohibition of abuse – general principles of law (e.g. the principle of good faith), specific regulations referring to specific powers, immanent limits of the powers or the right; (4) “axiological entanglement” – links with universal, basic administrative law values: legality, rule of law, certainty, justice and common good; (5) vague boundaries and casuistic nature, making it difficult to formulate generalized conclusions, especially with regard to the consequences of abuse of right.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 194-216
Author(s):  
Patrick Dumberry

Abstract This article examines the concept of ‘general principle of international law’ and the way it has so far been used by tribunals in investment cases. It will first outline the nature and meaning of these principles emerging on the international plane and distingue them from other general principles grounded in States’ domestic laws. The empirical analysis of four general principles (burden of proof, estoppel, res judicata and abuse of rights) shows that many tribunals have explicitly recognized them as general principles of international law. The reasoning of other tribunals, the expressions they have used and the international law material they have referred to strongly suggest that they have also come to the same conclusion. Finally, this article considers the reasons why this concept is important to the further development of investment arbitration.


2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 299-331
Author(s):  
Benjamin Hayward

International arbitration is an important area of federal jurisdiction and federal legislative competence, and has attracted significant policy attention in Australia. This paper undertakes a study of pro-arbitration judicial policy in recent arbitration-related Australian case law which touches upon the continuing applicability of the controversial 1999 Eisenwerk decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal. Against this pro-arbitration judicial policy context, this paper reviews five Eisenwerk-related cases handed down between 2010 and 2012. It concludes that despite pro-arbitration judicial policy being embedded as a requirement of reasoning in decisions under the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth), there is mixed evidence of such policy in the cases surveyed. This paper concludes that the extent to which this policy is evidenced largely corresponds with the degree to which contemporary decisions have departed from Eisenwerk.


2021 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 271-305
Author(s):  
Paula Giliker

AbstractThe law of tort (or extra or non-contractual liability) has been criticised for being imprecise and lacking coherence. Legal systems have sought to systemise its rules in a number of ways. While civil law systems generally place tort law in a civil code, common law systems have favoured case-law development supported by limited statutory intervention consolidating existing legal rules. In both systems, case law plays a significant role in maintaining the flexibility and adaptability of the law. This article will examine, comparatively, different means of systemising the law of tort, contrasting civil law codification (taking the example of recent French proposals to update the tort provisions of the Code civil) with common law statutory consolidation and case-law intervention (using examples taken from English and Australian law). In examining the degree to which these formal means of systemisation are capable of improving the accessibility, intelligibility, clarity and predictability of the law of tort, it will also address the role played by informal sources, be they ambitious restatements of law or other means. It will be argued that given the nature of tort law, at best, any form of systemisation (be it formal or informal) can only seek to minimise any lack of precision and coherence. However, as this comparative study shows, further steps are needed, both in updating outdated codal provisions and rethinking the type of legal scholarship that might best assist the courts.


1983 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Melissa A. Barker

This paper explores the viability of the doctrines of accession and specification as potential sources of a historical-legal basis for ownership rights accruing to labor by recognizing its unique capacity to create value. Focusing on examples from American case law, the origin and development of these doctrines are documented. The changes in these doctrines, from their first appearance in the early civil law or Code of Justinian to the present, often reflect the historic changes in the composition of products, the legal relationship between labor and capital and the changes in the dominant mode of production. The purpose of this inquiry is to determine if a legal rationale exists which justifies collective ownership of the means of production.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document