Business Corporations as Non-State Actors in International Law: A Brand-New International Law-Making Process through Investment Treaty Arbitration

2015 ◽  
Vol 64 (4) ◽  
pp. 905-933
Author(s):  
Jarrod Hepburn

AbstractThe UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts have appeared in a small but steady trickle of investment treaty arbitrations over the last decade. This article considers the use of the Principles by investment tribunals on questions of both domestic law and international law. It suggests that reference to the Principles can play an important legitimating role on questions of domestic law, but that this should not replace reference to the applicable law. On questions of international law, reference to the Principles may be justified by resort to the general principles of law. However, the article contends that there is only a limited role for the UNIDROIT Principles where the primary and secondary rules of investment protection are already found in treaties and custom. In addition, while general principles have historically been drawn from domestic private law, there is increasing recognition that general principles of public law are more relevant to investment arbitration. Given this, arbitrators resolving questions of international law must be cautious in references to the UNIDROIT Principles, a quintessentially private law instrument.


Author(s):  
McLachlan Campbell ◽  
Shore Laurence ◽  
Weiniger Matthew

This is the long-awaited second edition of this widely-referenced work on the substantive law principles of investment treaty arbitration. It forms a detailed critical review of the substantive principles of international law applied by investment arbitration tribunals, and a clear and comprehensive description of the present state of the law. The first edition met with immediate success as a result of the authors’ achievement in describing and analysing the volume of law created, applied and analysed by tribunals. The second edition is fully updated to take account of the arbitration awards rendered in the period since 2007. Written by an internationally recognised author team, it is now the most comprehensive and up to date work in its field and no practitioner or academic can afford to be without it.


2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 412-425
Author(s):  
Gaurav Sharma

Recent years have witnessed a number of counterclaims by State parties in investment treaty arbitrations based on environmental concerns and the need to protect local resources and safeguard the associated human rights of local communities. This article charts the development of the case law in this context, starting with the Urbaser v. Argentina award of December 2016, before examining its impact on the cases that followed in its wake, notably including the respective 2017 and 2018 awards in Burlington v. Ecuador and Aven v. Costa Rica. It concludes by considering whether these recent cases mark the beginning of a new era of international law claims which finds a parallel in the broader paradigm shift in public discourse on the critical role of all stakeholders in the conservation of the environment, and which may one day result in investors facing standalone claims as the respondent in future investment treaty claims brought by States.


2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 695-726
Author(s):  
Konstanze von Papp

A purely consensual approach to international arbitration has its limits even in commercial arbitration. In investment treaty arbitration, the traditional approach to finding ‘consent’ to arbitrate encounters difficulties if there are any pre-arbitration requirements that have not been satisfied. This will be illustrated by the case of BG Group v Republic of Argentina. Drawing a line between purely ‘procedural’ pre-arbitration requirements and those that are strict conditions on a host state’s consent to arbitrate is difficult, if not impossible. This article suggests alternative solutions, taking into account the need to appreciate domestic arbitration laws as well as public international law concerns. ‘Biting the bullet’ would mean accepting the lack of consent between host state and investor. A doctrinally clearer approach to jurisdictional issues could then be found by drawing an analogy to non-signatory issues in commercial arbitration.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document