2 Applicability of International Dispute Settlement Mechanisms to Space Law

Author(s):  
Andrea Bianchi

This chapter looks at epistemic communities in international arbitration. Epistemic communities are an explanatory key to classifying and understanding the behaviour of different groups of professionals operating in this area of the law. They are used to understand how ideas and their underlying values are formed and circulated in the field of international arbitration, and to show how the boundaries of this legal regime are designed, how knowledge is formed within the field, and how the varying perception by their members of their role as arbitrators may affect their practice. As such, epistemic communities may provide a new lens through which one can productively look at the operation of international dispute settlement mechanisms, and may even help determine why different types of adjudicators seem to come from different planets. The chapter then argues that international arbitrators should take no offence at epistemic communities having become a common way of looking at them as a group. If not the ultimate evidence of moral probity, membership in an ‘epistemic community’ certainly attests to a higher degree of respectability and acceptance by contemporary social standards.


Author(s):  
Allan Rosas

This article focuses on recent developments with regard to the mechanisms for international dispute settlement which the EU has accepted or in some instances promoted, or which in any case are of direct relevance for the EU. As a preliminary question, the case law of the European Court of Justice concerning the compatibility of international dispute settlement mechanisms will be analysed. The article then provides an overview of such mechanisms included in multilateral and bilateral agreements concluded by the EU, with a particular emphasis on recent bilateral trade and cooperation agreements. The last parts of the article look at specific institutional problems such as the question of the representation of the EU before international dispute settlement mechanisms, and the special challenges posed by investment disputes and, in this context, investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS), including ISDS mechanisms in bilateral investment agreements concluded between the EU Member States.


2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriele Ruscalla

In the last decades, transparency has become a fundamental principle in international adjudication. It is usually defined as including concepts such as public access and disclosure of documents or information. Due to the high impact of the activities of international institutions on civil societies and the growing relevance of individuals as subjects of the International Community, it became evident that there was a need to: 1. make the decision-making processes of international organisations more transparent; 2. increase the accountability of the international institutions towards civil societies; 3. give access to the public to international dispute settlement mechanisms. For the purpose of this article, the third aspect, ie access to the public to international dispute settlement mechanisms, will considered. In particular, even though reference will be made to other international dispute settlement systems, the practice of international investment and commercial arbitral tribunals will be dealt with. The article will then study the role of transparency in international arbitration, highlighting three main challenges. First, the author will consider the difficult relation between transparency and confidentiality in arbitral proceedings. As this issue is extremely delicate in international commercial arbitration, this practice will be the focus of this section of the article. Second, transparency as a tool to reach a higher level of consistency in international arbitration will be discussed. This is a highly topical issue in international arbitration, as shown by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) negotiations that led to the adoption in 2014 of the Rules on Transparency in Treatybased Investor-State Arbitration. As a matter of fact, UNCITRAL looked into the issue of amicus curiae briefs provided by the investor’s home State on issue of treaty interpretation, to secure more consistent and harmonised interpretations of standards in investment arbitration. The author will explore whether consistency through transparency is desirable in international arbitration. Third, the paper will deal with the growing tendency to codify standards in international arbitration. This phenomenon is well illustrated by the current negotiations on investment and trade treaties such as the EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) that provide for specific provisions on transparency relating to investor-to-State disputes. The necessity and effectiveness of this codification will be investigated.


2021 ◽  

The settlement of interstate disputes through recourse to courts and tribunals has grown gradually over the years, not only through the creation of new mechanisms to that effect, but also by using existing courts and tribunals. How these different international dispute settlement mechanisms operate in theory and practice is the subject of this comparative analysis by academic and practicing lawyers. The book takes stock of the procedure applicable in various interstate dispute settlement bodies, including international and regional courts and tribunals, and arbitration. This comparative view is essential to a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the various procedural rules and regulations and the practical operation of international litigation. This book is aimed not only at scholars, but also at the courts and tribunals themselves, assisting them in revising their procedures, and at States and organisations developing future international legal mechanisms.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document