Suchergebnisse

This article rejoins one of the core debates in investor-state arbitration, over the extent to which arbitrators may refer to sources of international law beyond the investment treaty that governs the dispute. This issue may appear esoteric, but the political backlash to investment treaty arbitration is largely fueled by uncertainty over the content of the substantive rules that bind states in their relations with foreign investors. Such uncertainty affords arbitrators room to indulge what is alleged to be a pro-investor bias. It may chill regulatory initiatives, even if in the end most states' actions are vindicated. The problem at the heart of investment arbitration is, therefore, a legal one, so there may be a legal response to the political backlash. This article argues that arbitrators are obligated by the choice of law clauses contained in most investment treaties to consider all potentially relevant sources of international law. Arbitrators are akin to agents of the states that enter into investment treaties, and are bound by choice of law provisions in those treaties. Since most of these refer simply to the text of the treaty and "international law", tribunals not only may but must refer to international law beyond the treaty. Putting choice of law at the centre of determinations of tribunals' interpretive authority refocuses arbitrators' attention on states, which are, after all, the parties to the arbitration agreements that empower investor-state tribunals. It gives proper weight to the economic objectives of international investment law, but also provides arbitrators with an appropriate basis on which to account for the public interest, via international law doctrines of environmental protection, indigenous rights, and the like. Finally, it could help stave off a continued backlash to investor-state arbitration, which would harm the global investment climate and the global rule of law. ; Not peer reviewed

Bound with: Formulation of orders / Frank H. Schofield. ; Mode of access: Internet.

"Reprint from the Legal intelligencer, August 12, 1921." ; Mode of access: Internet.

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.

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.

Errata slip inserted ; On spine: House tax arbitration, 1903-1904 : case of Japan, Notes, and Appendix ; Mode of access: Internet.

This article analyses if and in which direction investment tribunal in intra-EU investment arbitration would apply EU law and if it could at least take it into account by decision making process. It considers three approaches in which EU law and its rules could be relevant. First, EU law is a system based on international treaties, and is therefore a part of international law Second, in consequence of the doctrine of direct effect, rules of the EU law automatically become a part of legal orders of member states, and from the point of view of investment tribunal these rules are part of the legal order of host state. Third, EU law can be in international investment arbitration relevant as a fact. ; This article analyses if and in which direction investment tribunal in intra-EU investment arbitration would apply EU law and if it could at least take it into account by decision making process. It considers three approaches in which EU law and its rules could be relevant. First, EU law is a system based on international treaties, and is therefore a part of international law Second, in consequence of the doctrine of direct effect, rules of the EU law automatically become a part of legal orders of member states, and from the point of view of investment tribunal these rules are part of the legal order of host state. Third, EU law can be in international investment arbitration relevant as a fact.

"Arbitration proceedings before the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague for the settlement of claims against Venezuela." ; Mode of access: Internet.

"Sonder-abdruck aus dem Wörterbuch des deutschen staats- und verwaltungsrechts, begründet von Karl Freiherrn von Stengel", no. 102. ; Mode of access: Internet.

It is no exaggeration to describe the relationship between the European Union and international arbitration as the most dramatic confrontation between two international legal regimes seen in a great many years. International law scholars commonly lament the "fragmentation" of international law, i.e., the co-existence of multiple international legal regimes whose competences overlap and whose policies may differ, resulting in a degree of regulatory disorder. However, seldom do these regimes actually "collide." By contrast, the two international regimes in which we are interested this evening international arbitration and the European Union may be described, without hyperbole, as on a collision course. Arguably, the collision has already occurred. The emergence of hostilities on this scale in recent years came about as something of a surprise to me. At Columbia and elsewhere, I have taught EU law and international arbitration law concurrently in different courses, of course for more decades than I care to count. Over that period, I have written and spoken about the EU and international arbitration as separate and distinct enterprises. Rarely did teaching, writing or speaking of one necessitate, or even prompt, discussion of the other.

The law applicable to arbitral proceedings in general, and to investor-State arbitral disputes in particular, has always been a conundrum. This is for a simple reason: arbitral proceedings are detached from any national legal system. Given this, the question raised is how to let arbitrators determine the applicable law for the dispute. The solution provided by arbitral clauses enacted within arbitral rules of procedures, or investment treaties, are slightly different. Namely, the freedom conferred upon the arbitral tribunal to determine the applicable law, absent any party's choice, has raised much debate among both academics and the jurisprudential praxis. This paper aims to reopen the debate on the lex applicable in investor-State dispute settlements. After providing some historical background on arbitral proceedings, along with the interpretation and application given to ICSID Convention art. 42.(1), the analysis will then show that the recent arbitral praxis has had to tackle a third set of laws. Reference will be made to European union law, questioning whether and how arbitral tribunals should apply European law in disputes arising out of so-called intra-EU BITs or the Energy Charter Treaty. Some conclusions on the relationship between international and European law will then be attempted.

Part 1, the first of Woolf's two reports, and pt. 3, the Fabian International Agreements Committee's project (Articles suggested for adoption by an international conference .) appeared first in London in 1915 as supplements to the July 10 and July 17 issues of the New statesman, with collective title Suggestions for the prevention of war. ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Parts 1 and 3 appeared first in 1915 as spplements to the July 10 and 17 issues of the New statesman, with collective title Suggestions for the prevention of war. ; "This volume is the outcome of a Committee of the Fabian Research Department . To Mr. L. S. Woolf was committed the task of preparing two reports (which appear as Parts I and II of this volume); and upon this investigation the Committee drafted what now stands as Part III." ; Includes bibliographical references and an index. ; Mode of access: Internet.

The formulation of legal norms is greatly conditioned not only by different juridical systems and drafting traditions, but also by specific linguistic features and socio-cultural aspects. The paper investigates this issue by taking into consideration provisions concerning commercial arbitration in an Asian country. The text selected for our analysis is The People's Republic of China Arbitration Law 1994 (PRCAL, for short). This law can be considered a highly important step in the development of Chinese legislation in this field as it has had a great impact on international arbitration carried out by Chinese companies. International business exchanges with China have increased enormously over the last few years and even the recent economic recession has not slowed down this growth, making China the biggest Asian market in terms of import-export trade. As a natural consequence, this increase in business deals and contracts has brought about a rise in the number of trade disputes, with a consequent increase in arbitration proceedings. The aim of this paper is to examine the English version of PRCAL in order to highlight some of the linguistic and legal features present that betray specific cultural values. In some cases, the PRCAL text is compared to the United Nations Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, with the aim of offering a more detailed understanding of textual phenomena closely linked to differing legal and cultural traditions.

The formulation of legal norms is greatly conditioned not only by different juridical systems and drafting traditions, but also by specific linguistic features and socio-cultural aspects. The paper investigates this issue by taking into consideration provisions concerning commercial arbitration in an Asian country. The text selected for our analysis is The People's Republic of China Arbitration Law 1994 (PRCAL, for short). This law can be considered a highly important step in the development of Chinese legislation in this field as it has had a great impact on international arbitration carried out by Chinese companies. International business exchanges with China have increased enormously over the last few years and even the recent economic recession has not slowed down this growth, making China the biggest Asian market in terms of import-export trade. As a natural consequence, this increase in business deals and contracts has brought about a rise in the number of trade disputes, with a consequent increase in arbitration proceedings. The aim of this paper is to examine the English version of PRCAL in order to highlight some of the linguistic and legal features present that betray specific cultural values. In some cases, the PRCAL text is compared to the United Nations Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, with the aim of offering a more detailed understanding of textual phenomena closely linked to differing legal and cultural traditions.