Suchergebnisse

The Guide on the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards provides a detailed analysis of the judicial interpretation and application of the New York Convention by reference to case law from 45 Contracting States. The Guide, and the newyorkconvention1958.org website which supplements it, will become an essential tool that benefits all those involved in the interpretation and application of the New York Convention, including judges, arbitrators, practitioners, academics and Government officials. The Guide gives clear expression to the principal finding of extensive research, namely, that the Contracting States have interpreted and applied the New York Convention in an overwhelmingly consistent manner and that courts have diverged from the general trends in the case law in only isolated instances. As such, the Convention continues to fulfill its purpose of facilitating the worldwide recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards to the greatest extent possible. ; https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/books/1047/thumbnail.jpg

When the ICSID system was being set up, the matter of compliance with investment awards rendered against States was considered "academic". ICSID's architects believed that as long as States would remain under an international obligation to comply with awards they would generally do so. Writing in the 2000s and early 2010s, commentators observed that States have generally complied with adverse investment awards. In the last two decades, the number of investor-State arbitrations has soared, and more and more damages awards have been rendered against States. This analysis seeks to contribute to a fact-based debate on the future of international investment law by addressing an under-examined but essential aspect of that regime, namely, compliance with investment awards. It assesses empirically the experience with investment arbitration of the thirty-two most sued States, covering approximately 70% of all cases initiated through to the end of 2019. The data examined indicates that the ICSID founders' prognosis that compliance with investment awards would be a non-issue—framed as it was in such sweeping terms—has not held true. Whereas the majority of States have complied with adverse awards (usually after seeking annulment), the instances of non-compliance or significantly delayed compliance are important. A significant proportion of the cases where States have been ordered to pay damages have required enforcement proceedings. Instances of home State's intervention--and inevitably re-politicization of the dispute--have resurged. There is thus a gap between the regime's authority and effectiveness that needs to be addressed. Still, and regardless of its imperfections, it could be said that the modern investment dispute resolution system continues to be revolutionary, in particular when compared to the antecedent regime, which rested almost entirely on the inclination of the home State to espouse its nationals' claims.

The development of international organisations and the increasing significance of their role in a wide range of fields, has put at issue the adequacy of the rules governing their operation, with regard to the needs of modern justice. In particular, the question of the scope of the immunity from jurisdiction of international organisations is the subject of some debate, as the multiplication of disputes involving international organisations has led courts to address this topic with increasing frequency.1

Preliminary Material /Emmanuel Gaillard and George A. Bermann -- Preface /Emmanuel Gaillard and George A. Bermann -- Introduction /Emmanuel Gaillard and George A. Bermann -- Article I /Emmanuel Gaillard and George A. Bermann -- Article II /Emmanuel Gaillard and George A. Bermann -- Article III /Emmanuel Gaillard and George A. Bermann -- Article IV /Emmanuel Gaillard and George A. Bermann -- Article V /Emmanuel Gaillard and George A. Bermann -- Article VI /Emmanuel Gaillard and George A. Bermann -- Article VII /Emmanuel Gaillard and George A. Bermann -- Article VIII /Emmanuel Gaillard and George A. Bermann -- Article IX /Emmanuel Gaillard and George A. Bermann -- Article X /Emmanuel Gaillard and George A. Bermann -- Article XI /Emmanuel Gaillard and George A. Bermann -- Article XII /Emmanuel Gaillard and George A. Bermann -- Article XIII /Emmanuel Gaillard and George A. Bermann -- Article XIV /Emmanuel Gaillard and George A. Bermann -- Article XV /Emmanuel Gaillard and George A. Bermann -- Article XVI /Emmanuel Gaillard and George A. Bermann -- ANNEX I Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 10 June 1958) /Emmanuel Gaillard and George A. Bermann -- ANNEX II External Resources (Interactive Guide, Bibliography, Case Law, Jurisdiction Briefs, Travaux Préparatoires, General Index) /Emmanuel Gaillard and George A. Bermann -- Editorial Board /Emmanuel Gaillard and George A. Bermann -- UNCITRAL Secretariat /Emmanuel Gaillard and George A. Bermann -- Research Assistants /Emmanuel Gaillard and George A. Bermann -- Acknowledgement of Contributions /Emmanuel Gaillard and George A. Bermann.