Search results

The European Union and international arbitration are two robust legal regimes that have managed to develop largely in accordance with their own respective "first principles," and they have accordingly thrived. This article initially explains why that has been the case. But the era of parallelism between the regimes has ended, and rather suddenly. This article identifies the two principal fronts on which tensions between EU law and international arbitration law have emerged. Interestingly, both commercial and investment arbitration are implicated. A first front entails a conflict between the European Court of Justice's (ECJ's) expansive notions of EU public policy and two well-established axioms of international commercial arbitration law: first, that public policy must be construed narrowly when invoked as a ground for annulling an award or denying it recognition and enforcement; and second, that parties in arbitration are expected to raise all substantive arguments pertinent to their claims or defences in the course of the arbitral proceedings and not reserve them for post-award relief from a disappointing award. A second front finds EU Member States invoking their obligations under EU law as a defence – sometimes jurisdictional, sometimes substantive – in investor-State tribunals. The paradigm argument is that EU law mandates withdrawal of an illegal state aid in reliance on which an investor entered that market. This article examines two prevailing methodologies for addressing these tensions, in arbitral tribunals themselves as well as in reviewing courts. It concludes that many such tensions – particularly those along the first front – may be resolved through accommodation techniques well-established in other areas of the law. Others, particularly those arising in the investor-State context, resist resolution in that way and are requiring decision-makers to face the uncomfortable prospect of making one of these legal regimes cede ground to the other. The ECJ and investor-State tribunals are understandably inclined to prioritise the regimes differently, with the ultimate outcome falling to member state courts which owe allegiance to both regimes.

International investment law -- Public health in contemporary international law and policy -- The interplay between public health and foreign direct investments -- Access to medicines in international investment law and arbitration -- Trademark protection v. tobacco control in international investment law -- The environmental health spillovers of foreign direct investment in international investment arbitration -- Reconciling conflicting interests

The distinctive features of human progress in the nineteenth century were the advancement of natural science, discovery and invention, the growth of human freedom and political liberty, the unifying and nationalization of races into independent states and the development of the principle and the extension of the practice of international arbitration.

Opening Plenary Session Setting The Scene: What Are the Myths? What Are the Realities? What Are the Challenges? --Opening Plenary Session Arbitration and Decision-Making: Live Empirical Study --A. Precision Stream A.1 Proof: A Plea for Precision --A. Precision Stream A.2 Early Stages of the Arbitral Process: Interim Measures and Document Production --A. Precision Stream A.3 Matters of Evidence: Witness and Experts --A. Precision Stream A.4 Treaty Arbitration: Pleading and Proof of Fraud and Comparable Forms of Abuse --B. Justice Stream B.1 Who Are the Arbitrators? --B. Justice Stream B.2 Premise: Arbitral Institutions Can Do More to Further Legitimacy. True or False? --B. Justice Stream B.3 Treaty Arbitration: Is the Playing Field Level and Who Decides Whether It Is Anyway? --B. Justice Stream B.4 Universal Arbitration: An Aspiration Within Reach or a Sisyphean Goal? --Plenary Session: Spotlight on International Arbitration in Miami and the United States --Breakout Sessions on Arbitral Legitimacy: The Users' and Judges' Perspectives --Lunch Seminar: Latin America: Hottest Issues, Country by Country --Lunch Seminar: Power of Arbitration to Fill Gaps in the Arbitration Agreement and Underlying Contract --Closing Plenary Legitimacy: Examined Against Empirical Data --Closing Plenary Where We Have Been, Where We Should Go.

"The intention behind this book has therefore been to provide a unique perspective on international adjudication and arbitration. Rather than just examining procedural requirements and the operation of different courts and tribunals, or exploring the legal principles as articulated by international courts and tribunals, this book seeks to link the very nature of different substantive areas of international law with the procedures that are typically preferred for resolving disputes on that particular subject area and discern why such a preference may exist. The question is examined both in terms of preferences and practice of particular states or regions, and in relation to different areas of substantive international law"--

The Singapore dispute resolution landscape entered the new millennium with the reconstruction of the dual carriageway for arbitration. In 2002, the old road to arbitral resolution of disputes ( i.e. , the old Arbitration Act and the old International Arbitration Act ) were reconstructed and what emerged were two updated legislations: the Arbitration Act and the International Arbitration Act . At about the same time, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) also diversified with the introduction of a new set of Domestic Arbitration Rules.

Italy-United States Air Transport Arbitration. Advisory Opinion of TribunalAfter a dispute had arisen between the United States and Italy as to the rights of American air lines to operate all-cargo services to Italy, the question was submitted to the arbitral tribunal: "Does the Air Transport Agreement between the United States and Italy of February 6, 1948, as amended, grant the right to a designated airline of either party to operate scheduled flights carrying cargo only?"