Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Half Title -- Title -- Copyright -- Contents -- Table of cases -- Introduction -- 1 What is arbitration? -- 2 The laws and rules applicable to arbitration -- 3 The agreement to arbitrate -- 4 The arbitral tribunal -- 5 Arbitral proceedings -- 6 The arbitral award -- 7 Challenging and enforcing arbitral awards -- Index.

Abstract
Investment arbitration has attracted growing criticism both in academia and in the general political debate. The system has been criticized by groups and stakeholders with very different agendas – from academics to anti-globalization activists, from alt-right groups to policy-makers. While sharing a common aversion to such dispute resolution mechanism, these groups do not generally take the same viewpoints, and the same type of criticism could originate from different political and theoretical underpinnings. The current efforts to reform investor-state dispute settlement, undertaken both by the European Union and by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, constitute to a large extent an attempt to respond to the aforementioned public criticism. However, in spite of the growing importance of the topic in the public debate, reform discussions have been predominantly, if not exclusively, focused on states and their roles in, and their expectations towards, investment arbitration. Public opinion, conversely, remains largely overlooked. To fill this gap, this research devises an experimental approach to understand the roots of public criticism(s) against investment arbitration. In so doing, it aims to generate a constructive, timely and accessible empirical analysis of the theoretical underpinnings of ISDS criticisms, providing an integrated guide to one of the most heated debates in international economic law today. The main purpose is to understand which are the points of friction (real or perceived) that trigger public criticism against investment arbitration and, in the light of this information, whether this dispute resolution mechanism should be maintained in its current form, partially reformed or rejected entirely. To this end, the article presents the results of the first-ever set of behavioural experiments concerning ISDS and public opinion.

"Part of the Oxford EU Financial Regulation Series, The EU Crowdfunding Regulation provides an in-depth and timely analysis of the EU Crowdfunding Regulation, which is intended to make it easier for crowdfunding platforms to operate throughout the EU, which came into force on 10 November 2021.The book answers legal questions raised by the Regulation, and assesses its impact on legal practice, considering the position of the various types of crowdfunding. The analysis is divided into six parts. The first two parts describe how the Regulation came into being and the role of the Regulation in European capital markets, before defining and assessing the scope of the Regulation. Parts three to five explain how the Regulation applies to the three main players in crowdfunding: the crowdfunding service providers; the project owners; and the investors who form the 'crowd', examining the relevant applicable obligations and safeguards. The final part looks at managing, preventing, and resolving crowdfunding-related disputes.Providing a balance between academic scrutiny and practical context (including consideration of how the Regulation interacts with UK law after Brexit) and drawing upon various aspects of financial law, consumer law, and dispute prevention/resolution, this book is invaluable for legal practitioners and academics looking for a single resource to elucidate this rapidly expanding mode of financing."