Alternative Investors -- State Dispute Settlement Systems: Diplomatic Protection and State to State Arbitration

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giorgio Sacerdoti ◽  
Matilde Recanati
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Settlement Systems ◽  
Diplomatic Protection

Identifying Community Interests in International Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rüdiger Wolfrum
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Community ◽  
Available P ◽  
General Question ◽  
Global Commons ◽  
Settlement Systems ◽  
Community Interest ◽  
National Jurisdiction ◽  
Advisory Opinions

This chapter explores the general question of how to establish that the regulation of a certain matter constitutes a matter of community-wide concern, which is the necessary step for the recognition of community obligation. The hypothesis is that such a qualification must, first, be well founded factually and, secondly, accepted as such in a legal or political legitimizing process. On this basis, the chapter suggests that the governance of spaces beyond national jurisdiction constitutes a community interest and has to be guided by the interests of the international community. Exploring this question with respect to key common spaces and particular issues, the chapter notes the difficulty of most of the dispute settlement systems, which, being bilateral, are not fully adequate to address questions related to the management of global commons as well as for the protection of the environment. To avoid this difficulty, the chapter suggests greater reliance on advisory opinions where available.

15 Investment Treaty Dispute Settlement

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Salacuse Jeswald W
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
State Governments ◽  
Rule Based ◽  
Host State ◽  
Rule Based System ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Diplomatic Protection ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Investment Treaties

This chapter focuses on investment treaty dispute settlement, examining the nature of conflicts between investors and states and the various means provided by treaties to resolve them. In general, investor–state disputes governed by treaties occur because a host state has taken a ‘measure’ that allegedly violates that state's treaty commitments on the treatment it has promised to accord to investments protected by that treaty. Before the advent of investment treaties, investors basically had three methods to seek resolution of their disputes with host states: (a) direct negotiation with host state governments; (b) domestic courts in the host country; and (c) diplomatic protection by their home states. In order to establish a stable, rule-based system for international investment, treaties provide means to resolve disputes about the interpretation and application of treaty provisions. Most investment treaties provide four separate dispute settlement methods: (1) consultations and negotiations between contracting states; (2) arbitration between contracting states; (3) consultations and negotiations between covered investors and host governments; and (4) investor–state arbitration.

The Legal Personality of Individuals in International Claims

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Astrid Kjeldgaard-Pedersen
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Second World War ◽  
World War ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
Diplomatic Protection ◽  
Foreign State ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
The Right ◽  
Second World

Chapter 4 discusses international claims, that is, claims arising out of injury inflicted upon an individual by a foreign State in violation of international law. Such claims may be enforced either through diplomatic protection or by granting the injured individual himself the right to bring a case against the foreign State before an international dispute settlement body. The common idea is that claims of individuals against foreign States were solely asserted through diplomatic protection before the Second World War, whereas the right of individuals to petition international courts independently is a post-1945 phenomenon. By studying international claims practice in three historical periods (before the First World War, the interwar period, and after the Second World War), the present chapter tests this account against positive international law, and inquires whether the concept of international legal personality played a role in the contracting States’ choice of one method of dispute resolution over the other.

Competing Jurisdictions Between MERCOSUR and WTO

2008 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-234 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikolaos Lavranos ◽  
Nicolas Vielliard
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
Settlement System ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Settlement Systems ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
Wto Appellate Body ◽  
Dispute Settlement System ◽  
Different Levels

AbstractThe wider issues raised by the Brazilian Tyres case are discussed in this contribution. Regarding the institutional aspects, this case examines the difficulties between regional dispute settlement systems and the global WTO dispute settlement system. In particular, the WTO Appellate Body showed no deference towards the prior report of the MERCOSUR Arbitral Tribunal. Indeed, the WTO Appellate Body is espousing a supremacy of WTO law – not only vis-à-vis regional dispute settlement bodies, but also regarding WTO panels. It is argued that this attitude is not sustainable in the light of the increasing proliferation of international courts and tribunals, which inevitably results into disputes being adjudicated by different courts and tribunals at different levels. Regarding the substantive aspects, this case is a prime example of the difficulties of balancing non-trade interests and trade interests. At the end, trade interests superseded the nontrade interests. It is argued that the way Article XX GATT has been interpreted and applied by the WTO Appellate Body leaves states insufficient room to address urgent environmental and health problems by restricting trade. It is argued that in this case Brazil's non-trade interests should have been given preference over the trade interests of the EC and Uruguay.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document