investment treaty arbitration
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

291
(FIVE YEARS 67)

H-INDEX

10
(FIVE YEARS 2)

2022 ◽  
pp. 424-458
Author(s):  
Fredrik Lindmark ◽  
Daniel Behn ◽  
Ole Kristian Fauchald

Author(s):  
Keer HUANG

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.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Johanna McDavitt

<p>This paper aims to use the transparency debate within investment arbitration, and specifically the discussions of Working Group II when preparing the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency, as a lens to examine how the international community conceptualises investment arbitration. It will argue that investment arbitration is no longer viewed as a private system of dispute resolution akin to international commercial arbitration. Rather, the public interest, public international law, and regulatory nature of investment arbitration is increasingly coming to the fore. Accordingly, the consent of the parties is no longer at the heart of arbitral authority. This paper aims to identify what alternate theoretical conception of investment arbitration is driving transparency initiatives in investment arbitration.</p>


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Johanna McDavitt

<p>This paper aims to use the transparency debate within investment arbitration, and specifically the discussions of Working Group II when preparing the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency, as a lens to examine how the international community conceptualises investment arbitration. It will argue that investment arbitration is no longer viewed as a private system of dispute resolution akin to international commercial arbitration. Rather, the public interest, public international law, and regulatory nature of investment arbitration is increasingly coming to the fore. Accordingly, the consent of the parties is no longer at the heart of arbitral authority. This paper aims to identify what alternate theoretical conception of investment arbitration is driving transparency initiatives in investment arbitration.</p>


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Marco Steingruber

Abstract Private law sources in international law were a main object of study of Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, who is considered one of the greatest international lawyers of the last century. In his time, the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law’s Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) did not exist. The first version of the PICC was only published in 1994, more than three decades after his death. In the year 2000, the disputing parties of an investment treaty arbitration case concluded before a tribunal chaired by his son, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, a settlement agreement dated 20 March 2000, which would later be embodied in an International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes Additional Facility arbitral award issued by the tribunal on 18 September 2000, where they incorporated slightly modified PICC provisions. The present article will argue that private law sources are still important in certain areas of international law, such as investment arbitration. In investment arbitration, they are not only important in presence of contracts but they can also arguably be useful for the interpretation of treaties. Investment tribunals have indeed recognized the importance of the PICC for both the interpretation of contracts (transnational agreements) and the interpretation of treaties (international agreements).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document