Akinkugbe: Reverse Contributors? African State Parties, ICSID and the Development of International Investment Law

Olabisi D Akinkugbe (Dalhousie Univ. - Law) has posted Reverse Contributors? African State Parties, ICSID and the Development of International Investment Law (ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

International investment disputes involving African States before the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) have generated significant critical inquiry. Yet, not enough academic literature has been devoted to accounting for the implications that arise from the disputes involving African States to the development of the ICSID case law and international investment law in general. This article addresses this gap by conceptualizing African States parties before ICSID tribunals as reverse contributors. While the article acknowledges the critiques of ICSID vis-à-vis African State parties, it contends that, over time, the involvement of African States in ICSID disputes has generated opportunities for the clarification, confirmation and development of ICSID jurisprudence. Although the article is not a case for African exceptionalism, it contributes to the dearth of materials that revisit the participation of African States before ICSID, while simultaneously acknowledging the need for reforms.

Fouret, Gerbay, & Alvarez: The ICSID Convention, Regulations and Rules: A Practical Commentary

Julien Fouret (Eversheds Sutherland), Rémy Gerbay (MoloLamken LLP), & Gloria M. Alvarez (Univ. of Aberdeen - Law) have published The ICSID Convention, Regulations and Rules: A Practical Commentary (Edward Elgar Publishing 2020). Here's the abstract:

This major new commentary on the ICSID Convention, Regulations and Rules offers a new, forward-looking and highly practical interpretation of the convention and its associated documents. It is the first commentary to provide systematic article-by-article coverage not only of the Convention itself, but also of the institution rules, the ICSID arbitration rules and the ICSID administrative and financial regulations.

Conference: Proposed Revision of ICSID Rules

On November 13, 2018, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, the School of International Arbitration of Queen Mary University of London, and the British Institute of International and Comparative Law will hold a conference in London to discuss the proposed revision of the ICSID Arbitration Rules. The program is here.

Leventhal: The 2018 Proposals for Amendments of the ICSID Rules: ICSID Enters the Era of Trump, Populism, and State Sovereignty

Alexander G. Leventhal (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) has posted an ASIL Insight on The 2018 Proposals for Amendments of the ICSID Rules: ICSID Enters the Era of Trump, Populism, and State Sovereignty.

Lünsmann: Unilateraler 'Consent' im System der Streitbeilegung nach der ICSID Konvention

Jesper Lünsmann has published Unilateraler 'Consent' im System der Streitbeilegung nach der ICSID Konvention: 'Consent' als Voraussetzung der 'jurisdiction of the Centre' (Nomos 2017). Here's the abstract:

Advertisement

Der Autor unternimmt die erste umfassende dogmatische Untersuchung der heutzutage wichtigsten Grundlage von ICSID-Schiedsverfahren: dem unilateralen „consent“. Diese staatlichen Erklärungen sind in Internationalen Investitionsabkommen enthalten und bieten Investoren die Möglichkeit, Schiedsverfahren gegen ihren jeweiligen Gaststaat einzuleiten. Die Frage nach der Natur dieser staatlichen Erklärungen wird anhand einer Auslegung der ICSID-Konvention gemäß den Regeln der Wiener Vertragsrechtskonvention beantwortet. Die gefundenen Ergebnisse werden sodann auf zwei offene Fragen des internationalen Investitionsrechts angewandt: zum einen die Folgen des Rücktritts eines Mitgliedstaates der ICSID-Konvention für die Möglichkeit von Investoren ein Schiedsverfahren gegen den Staat einzuleiten; zum anderen die Frage, welches Recht auf den „consent“ anzuwenden, und nach welchen Regeln ein solcher auszulegen ist.

Advertisement

The author provides the first comprehensive theoretical analysis of the most important foundation of ICSID-arbitrations: the unilateral consent. These declarations of state are included in International Investment Agreements and open the possibility for investors to initiate arbitration against its host-state. The central goal of the analysis is to determine the nature of these declarations of state. In order to do so, the author interprets the ICSID-Convention according to the rules of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. In a second step, the conclusions will be applied to two practical questions of International Investment Law: first, the consequences of a denunciation of the ICSID-Convention for the investor‘s possibility to initiate an arbitration against its host-state; second, the question of which law and which rules of interpretation applies to „consent“.

Calamita: The Challenge of Establishing a Multilateral Investment Tribunal at ICSID

N. Jansen Calamita (National Univ. of Singapore - Centre for International Law) has posted The Challenge of Establishing a Multilateral Investment Tribunal at ICSID (ICSID Review, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

Advertisement

In its recent treaties with Canada and Vietnam, the European Union has established a new model of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). It entails a reworking of existing structures of investor-state arbitration through, inter alia, the replacement of ad hoc arbitral tribunals with standing, treaty-based investment tribunals, staffed with judges appointed by the states parties. It further provides for the establishment of a two-tiered system of tribunals, comprising first-instance and appellate bodies, and allows for appellate review as of right on issues of law and fact.

The new EU model of ISDS does not appear to be compatible with the ICSID Convention. The changes made by the EU and its counterparties are simply too fundamental and too many for the awards produced by this new process of ISDS to be classified properly as ICSID Convention arbitral awards. Moreover, it is not within the power of groups of states or disputing parties to modify among themselves fundamental proscriptions of the ICSID Convention, such as the Convention’s express prohibition on the appellate review of ICSID Convention arbitral awards.

This paper proceeds from the premise that a system of ISDS like the EU model is not compatible or compliant with the ICSID Convention and asks whether, nevertheless, a new multilateral system based broadly on that model can be designed to work at ICSID without amending the Convention. Is it possible, in other words, for ICSID to serve as a forum for the negotiation of an instrument that would create a new multilateral ISDS mechanism outside of the ICSID Convention? Or, considered differently, in the event that negotiations for a new mechanism occur in some other forum or in an ad hoc way, can ICSID and its secretariat nevertheless serve as the international organisation onto which the new mechanism might be docked? If so, what limits might there be on the role the Centre could properly play? These questions are of existential importance to ICSID as an institution. For if states agree to establish a multilateral investment tribunal to replace ICSID Convention arbitration (and all other forms of ad hoc investor-state arbitration for that matter), the question must be asked as to what will be left for ICSID as an institution to do, at least with respect to disputes arising under investment treaties.

Diel-Gligor: Towards Consistency in International Investment Jurisprudence

Katharina Diel-Gligor has published Towards Consistency in International Investment Jurisprudence: A Preliminary Ruling System for ICSID Arbitration (Brill | Nijhoff 2017). Here's the abstract:

Investor-State arbitration is currently a much-debated topic, both within the legal community and in the public at large. In Towards Consistency in International Investment Jurisprudence, Katharina Diel-Gligor addresses the alleged proliferation of inconsistent decision-making in this field – one of the main points of concern raised in the ongoing discussions. After exploring whether such criticism is appropriate at all, she goes on to examine the different causes, forms, and manifestations of the inconsistencies that exist through a detailed analysis of ICSID arbitration. The author then canvasses possible approaches to reform and concludes that an ICSID preliminary ruling system – the practicalities of which are set out in the study – is a suitable means for enhancing consistency in investment arbitration and moving towards a jurisprudence constante.

Cleis: The Independence and Impartiality of ICSID Arbitrators

Maria Nicole Cleis (Université de Neuchâtel - Law) has published The Independence and Impartiality of ICSID Arbitrators: Current Case Law, Alternative Approaches, and Improvement Suggestions (Brill | Nijhoff 2017). Here's the abstract:

The legitimacy of investor-State arbitration is a much-debated topic, with arbitrators’ independence and impartiality being one of the core concerns. In The Independence and Impartiality of ICSID Arbitrators, Maria Nicole Cleis explores how unbiased decision-making is ensured under the ICSID Convention. Juxtaposing existing disqualification decisions in the ICSID system against corresponding requirements in related dispute settlement systems, the book convincingly argues that the current approach to disqualification requests against ICSID arbitrators is too exacting in light of the high stakes of investor-State disputes. The author’s nuanced analysis of the status quo is followed by novel suggestions for reforms (including a proposal for ICSID-specific guidelines on conflict of interest), making the book a valuable source of ideas on constructive paths forward.

Calamita: The (In)Compatibility of Appellate Mechanisms with Existing Instruments of the Investment Treaty Regime

N. Jansen Calamita (National Univ. of Singapore - Centre for International Law) has posted The (In)Compatibility of Appellate Mechanisms with Existing Instruments of the Investment Treaty Regime (Journal of World Investment & Trade, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

The European Union has established a new model of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) in its recent treaties with Canada and Vietnam. The EU’s new model entails a radical reworking of ISDS through, inter alia, the introduction of an appellate mechanism, the replacement of ad hoc arbitral tribunals with standing, treaty-based investment tribunals, and the replacement of party-appointed arbitrators with judges appointed by the states parties. Beyond its bilateral arrangements with Canada and Vietnam, the EU has indicated that it will pursue a treaty to multilateralize its new investment tribunal system.

This talk addresses the legal compatibility of the EU’s new model of ISDS with existing instruments of the investment treaty regime in two respects. First, whether the introduction of an appellate mechanism or, indeed, the more total reworking of ISDS to establish investment tribunals, renders multilateral instruments like the ICSID Convention and the New York Convention inapplicable to the modified process of ISDS. Second, how the integration of any new appellate mechanism with existing international investment treaties might technically be achieved.

The paper concludes that the EU’s new model is not compatible with the ICSID Convention and will not produce “ICSID Convention” awards that require enforcement by third states under the Convention’s unique enforcement regime. The paper further concludes, however, that the awards rendered by the EU’s new model should be treated as arbitral awards for the purposes of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Lastly, with respect to the integration of any new appellate mechanism with existing international investment treaties, the paper considers the prospects of adopting a so-called “Mauritius Convention” approach.

Baltag: ICSID Convention After 50 Years: Unsettled Issues

Crina Baltag has published ICSID Convention After 50 Years: Unsettled Issues (Wolters Kluwer 2017). Contents include:

• Crina Baltag, The ICSID Convention: A Successful Story – The Origins and History of the ICSID
• Horia Ciurtin, Paradoxes of (Sovereign) Consent: On the Uses and Abuses of a Notion in International Investment Law
• Roberto Castro de Figueiredo, The Notion of Investment and Economic Development under the ICSID Convention
• Matei Purice, Natural Persons as Claimants under the ICSID Convention
• Chester Brown & Ashique Rahman, Juridical Persons and the Requirements of the ICSID Convention
• Albert Badia, Attribution of Conducts of State-Owned Enterprises Based on Control by the State
• Alfred Siwy, Contract Claims and Treaty Claims
• Hanno Wehland, Jurisdiction and Admissibility in Proceedings under the ICSID Convention and the ICSID Additional Facility Rules
• Michele Potestà, Preliminary Objections to Dismiss Claims that are Manifestly without Legal Merit under Rule 41(5) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules
• Monique Sasson, The Applicable Law and the ICSID Convention
• Sam Luttrell, Bias Challenges in ICSID Arbitration: Unsettled Issues
• Alejandro López Ortiz, Patricia Ugalde Revilla & Christopher Chinn, The Role of National Courts in ICSID Arbitration
• Lucas Bento, Mapping the Genetic Code of Provisional Measures: Characteristics and Recent Developments
• Stefan Dudas, Treaty Counterclaims under the ICSID Convention
• Markus Burgstaller, Recognition and Enforcement of ICSID Awards: The ICSID Convention and the European Union
• Silvia M. Marchili & Sara McBrearty, Annulment of ICSID Awards: Recent Trends
• Matthew Hodgson & Elizabeth Evans, Allocation of Costs in ICSID Arbitrations
• Romesh Weeramantry, Treaty Interpretation, the ICSID Convention and Investment Treaties
• Modern Authoritarian Regimes and the Denunciation of the ICSID Convention Vanessa A. Giraud Martinelli
• Daniel de Andrade Levy, The ICSID Convention and Non-Contracting States: The Brazilian Position Metaphor
• Dany Khayat & William Ahern, Enhancing the Appeal of Conciliation under the ICSID Convention
• Daniel Kalderimis, The Future of the ICSID Convention: Bigger, Better, Faster?

Tsolakidis Das Aufhebungsverfahren nach Artikel 52 der ICSID-Konvention

Nikolaos Tsolakidis has published Das Aufhebungsverfahren nach Artikel 52 der ICSID-Konvention (Nomos 2016). Here's the abstract:

Bereits seit den ersten beiden Aufhebungsentscheidungen, Klöckner I und Amco I, ist die inhaltliche Reichweite der Aufhebungsgründe aus Artikel 52 ICSID-Konvention Gegenstand umfangreicher Diskussionen in Schrifttum und Praxis. Im Mittelpunkt der Kritik steht eine häufig wahrgenommene Überschreitung der Grenze zwischen Aufhebung und Berufung. Vor diesem Hintergrund versucht dieses Werk, ein umfassendes Verständnis im Hinblick auf die Aufhebungsgründe der ICSID-Konvention zu vermitteln. Hierzu erfolgen insbesondere eine Auseinandersetzung mit der Entstehungsgeschichte der ICSID-Aufhebungsgründe sowie eine Analyse der bisherigen Aufhebungsrechtsprechung. Darüber hinaus werden im Schrifttum diskutierte Lösungsansätze erörtert und gegeneinander abgewogen. Abschließend wird ein eigener Lösungsansatz dargestellt, der auf der Unterscheidung zwischen Prüfungsgegenstand (subject of review) und Prüfungsmaßstab (standard of review) beruht.

From the very first cases, Klöckner I and Amco I, there has been considerable debate over the scope of Article 52 ICSID Convention. The focal point of contention is a perceived transgression of the line between annulment and appeal. Against this background, this book attempts to provide a comprehensive understanding of the annulment grounds under the ICSID Convention. To this end, it provides an overview of the evolution of annulment grounds for arbitral awards in international law and analyses the actual application of Article 52 ICSID Convention by ad hoc committees. Finally, it addresses whether and to what extent the perceived shortcomings of ICSID’s annulment process need to be remedied, thereby proposing that ad hoc committees, in applying the annulment grounds under the ICSID Convention, should distinguish more clearly between subject and standard of review.

Hafner-Burton, Puig, & Victor: Against International Settlement? Secrecy, Adjudication and the Transformation of International Law

Emilie Marie Hafner-Burton (Univ. of California, San Diego - School of Global Policy and Strategy), Sergio Puig (Univ. of Arizona - Law), & David G. Victor (Univ. of California, San Diego - School of Global Policy and Strategy) have posted Against International Settlement? Secrecy, Adjudication and the Transformation of International Law. Here's the abstract:

Three decades ago Owen Fiss published a landmark article - Against Settlement - which argued that the rising popularity of pretrial settlement and alternative dispute resolution was an unwelcome trend. It sacrificed the public benefits of complete and transparent adjudication for the private expedience of settling disputes. In this Article, we propose that international law is on the cusp of its very own settlement crisis.

As international governance is taking on increasingly more difficult and demanding topics, firms and governments have radically expanded the use of international courts to resolve complex legal disputes. In their effort to become more legitimate and effective, these bodies have adopted a wide array of reforms aimed at promoting transparency. Using a unique dataset on all investor-state arbitrations under the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), we show that those reforms are, in part, failing because parties have found ways to use pre-judgment or ‘out-of-court’ settlement to hide procedural and substantive outcomes. In fact, such settlements are the dominant means by which parties keep the outcomes of investment adjudication secret.

We illustrate, statistically, how different factors explain why private interests favor settlements and argue that international scholars have tended to view dispute resolution as an unalloyed good even when it is done in private - exactly the bias Fiss warned about long ago. Reforms, such as stronger disclosure rules and supervised settlements, will be needed to stem the settlement crisis in international law and yield a more consistent, coherent, and legitimate corpus of law.

Kinnear et al.: Building International Investment Law: The First 50 Years of ICSID

Meg Kinnear, Geraldine Fischer, Jara Minguez Almeida, Luisa Fernanda Torres, & Mairée Uran Bidegain have published Building International Investment Law: The First 50 Years of ICSID (Wolters Kluwer 2016). Contents include:

• W. Michael Reisman & Mahnoush H. Arsanjani, Applicable Law under the ICSID Convention: The Tortured History of the Interpretation of Article 42
• Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, Rules of Interpretation and Investment Arbitration
• James Crawford & Paul Mertenskötter, The Use of the ILC’s Attribution Rules in Investment Arbitration
• Gary B. Born, On Burden and Standard of Proof
• Charles N. Brower & Paula F. Henin, Res Judicata
• Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf & Guled Yusuf, Precedent & Jurisprudence Constante
• Jan Paulsson, The Tipping Point
• Emmanuel Gaillard & Yas Banifatemi, The Long March towards a Jurisprudence Constante on the Notion of Investment
• Jean Kalicki, Dmitri Evseev & Mallory Silberman, Legality of Investment
• Pierre Tercier & Nhu-Hoang Tran Thang, Criteria to Determine Investor Nationality (Juridical Persons)
• Christoph Schreuer, Criteria to Determine Investor Nationality (Natural Persons)
• Piero Bernardini, Continuous Nationality Rule in Investor-State Arbitration
• Stephen Jagusch, Anthony Sinclair & Manthi Wickramasooriya, Restructuring Investments to Achieve Investment Treaty Protection
• V.V. Veeder & Andrew Legg, The Meaning of “Foreign Control” under Article 25(2)(B) of the ICSID Convention
• Gabriel Bottini, Indirect Shareholder Claims
• Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Preconditions to Arbitration and Consent of States to ICSID Jurisdiction
• Andrea K. Bjorklund, Waiver of Local Remedies and Limitation Periods
• Stephan W. Schill, Maffezini v. Plama: Reflections on the Jurisprudential Schism in the Application of Most-Favored-Nation Clauses to Matters of Dispute Settlement
• Jeremy K. Sharpe, The Minimum Standard of Treatment, Glamis Gold, and Neer’s Enduring Influence
• Lucy Reed & Simon Consedine, Fair and Equitable Treatment: Legitimate Expectations and Transparency
• Margrete Stevens & Doak Bishop, Fair and Equitable Treatment: Denial of Justice
• Vaughan Lowe, Arbitrary and Discriminatory Treatment
• Stanimir A. Alexandrov, The Evolution of the Full Protection and Security Standard
• Zachary Douglas, Property Rights as the Object of an Expropriation
• L. Yves Fortier & Stephen L. Drymer, Indirect Expropriation
• Oscar M. Garibaldi, Effective Means to Assert Claims and Enforce Rights
• Andrés Rigo Sureda, The Umbrella Clause
• August Reinisch, National Treatment
• David D. Caron & Esmé Shirlow, Most-Favored-Nation Treatment: Substantive Protection
• Barton Legum & Ioana Petculescu, Performance Requirements
• Carolyn B. Lamm & Andrea J. Menaker, The Consequences of Corruption in Investor-State Arbitration
• Alain Pellet, Police Powers or the State’s Right to Regulate
• Mark Feldman, Denial of Benefits after Plama v. Bulgaria
• Peter Tomka, Defenses Based on Necessity under Customary International Law and on Emergency Clauses in Bilateral Investment Treaties
• Donald McRae, Countermeasures and Investment Arbitration
• Anne K. Hoffmann, Counterclaims
• John Y. Gotanda, Assessing Damages: Valuation Standards
• Mark Kantor, The Impact of Contributory Investor Conduct: Only with Difficulty Commensurable
• Donald Francis Donovan, Allocation of Costs
• Eduardo Zuleta, Security for Costs: Authority of the Tribunal and Third-Party Funding
• Albert Jan van den Berg, The Role of Dissenting Opinions
• Antonio R. Parra, ICSID Arbitration Rule 41(5) Objections
• Eduardo Silva Romero Consolidation and Parallel Proceedings
• Veijo Heiskanen, And Others: Mass Claims in ICSID Arbitration
• Brigitte Stern, Interim/Provisional Measures
• Marc Lalonde, Quo Vadis Disqualification?
Philippe Sands, Conflict of Interest for Arbitrators and/or Counsel
• Toby Landau & Romesh Weeramantry, A Case for Transparency in Investment Arbitration
• J. Christopher Thomas, Amicus Curiae in ICSID Arbitration
• Hi-Taek Shin, Annulment

Workshop: ICSID at 50: Investment Arbitration as a Motor of General International Law?

On March 11-12, 2016, Rainer Hofmann (Univ. of Frankfurt), Stephan W. Schill (Univ. of Amsterdam), and Christian J. Tams (Univ. of Glasgow) will again convene the Frankfurt Investment Law Workshop. The topic is: "ICSID at 50: Investment Arbitration as a Motor of General International Law?" The program is here. Here's the idea:

For many years, the Frankfurt Investment Law Workshop - jointly organized by Rainer Hofmann (Frankfurt), Stephan W. Schill (Amsterdam), and Christian J. Tams (Glasgow) - has been a forum for the discussion of foundational issues of international investment law.

As ICSID reaches its half-century, the next workshop asks whether and to what extent international investment law and investor-State arbitration are 'motors of general international law‘? No doubt, investment law in its 'BIT era’ operates within a framework of general international law - it does not exist, to take up a phrase coined in relation to WTO law, in 'clinical isolation‘. But how about the reverse effect? Do investment law and investment arbitration have radiating effects? Do they shape international law more generally?

The workshop addresses this question against the backdrop of investment law’s increased relevance. Over the past decade, international investment law, once considered an exotic niche area, has moved into the international legal mainstream. The increasing numbers of investment treaties, proliferating investment disputes, and the negotiation of mega-regionals (such as TTIP and TTP) attest to this; they have raised awareness for investment law and resulted in increasing contestation. The question is whether approaches and ideas tried out and tested in investment treaty making and arbitration are being picked up by law-makers and dispute settlers in other fields. Contributions to this workshop address this question. They focus on three areas in which investment law and arbitration might be seen as a motor of legal development: the law of dispute settlement, the law of treaties, and state responsibility. As in previous years, the workshop will bring together academics and practitioners and provide them with a forum for open and frank exchanges.

The program is available here; for edited collections that have grown out of earlier Frankfurt Investment Law Workshops see here, here and here.

If you are interested in participating, please contact Sabine Schimpf, Merton Centre for European Integration and International Economic Order, University of Frankfurt, E-Mail: [email protected] by 28 February 2016.

Böttcher: Dekonstitutionalisierungstendenzen im internationalen Investitionsschutzrecht

Anna Lotte Böttcher has published Dekonstitutionalisierungstendenzen im internationalen Investitionsschutzrecht (Nomos 2015). Here's the abstract:

Das internationale Investitionsschutzregime steht in jüngster Zeit vermehrt im Fokus der öffentlichen Kritik. Dabei werden verschiedene Defizite des bestehenden Regimes diskutiert und unterschiedliche Konsequenzen gefordert. Zum Teil wird von einem backlash gegen das Investitionsschutzregime gesprochen, zum Teil von notwendigen Mankos, die es mit Blick auf die positiven Errungenschaften zu akzeptieren gilt.

Kritik kam seit jeher aus Südamerika. Daher überraschte es nicht, dass es mit Bolivien, Ecuador und Venezuela drei Staaten dieses Kontinents waren, die die Kündigung des ICSID erklärten und in Form neuer Verfassungen strukturelle Veränderungen des Regimes anvisierten.

Das Buch geht auf diese strukturellen Entwicklungen, ihre Ursachen und Konsequenzen ein. Es wird eine Einordnung der nationalen rechtlichen Prozesse in die aktuellen völkerrechtlichen Entwicklungen vorgenommen. Daneben werden konkrete Schwachstellen des Regimes identifiziert und mögliche Lösungswege aufgezeigt.

Gätzschmann: Der vorläufige Rechtsschutz in Schiedsverfahren nach der ICSID-Konvention

Ina Gätzschmann has published Der vorläufige Rechtsschutz in Schiedsverfahren nach der ICSID-Konvention (Nomos 2015). Here's the abstract:

Im Fokus der Arbeit steht das Rechtsinstitut des vorläufigen Rechtsschutzes im internationalen Investitionsschutzrecht. Art. 47 der ICSID-Konvention (ICSID) wird anhand der bisherigen Rechtssprechungspraxis der ICSID-Schiedsgerichte eingehend untersucht und in den größeren Kontext zu vorläufigen Maßnahmen nach Art. 41 des IGH-Statuts und Art. 26 der UNCITRAL-Regeln gestellt.

Vor dem Hintergrund immer noch bestehender Unsicherheiten über die Auslegung des Art. 47 ICSID macht sich die Arbeit zum Ziel, für den Rechtsanwender klare Leitlinien zu schaffen, wie ein Antrag auf Anordnung vorläufiger Maßnahmen gestellt werden muss, um erfolgreich zu sein. Nachdem die Voraussetzungen der Norm anhand von Fallbeispielen konkretisiert werden, werden die Fragen der Bindungswirkung sowie der Anerkennungs- und Durchsetzungsfähigkeit von Anordnungen nach Art. 47 ICSID geklärt.

Pauwelyn: WTO Panelists Are From Mars, ICSID Arbitrators Are From Venus: Why? And Does it Matter?

Joost Pauwelyn (Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies) has posted WTO Panelists Are From Mars, ICSID Arbitrators Are From Venus: Why? And Does it Matter? Here's the abstract:

Who are the individuals deciding today’s international disputes? Is the pool of people, their nationality, professional background, diversity, status or ideology different across international tribunals? If so, why? And does it matter in terms of outcomes, or the effectiveness or legitimacy of the tribunal or the broader legal system within which the tribunal operates?

This contribution focuses on adjudicators in World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement and investor-state arbitration at the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Part II identifies six striking differences between WTO panelists and ICSID arbitrators. Part III offers a number of factors that explain these differences. Part IV points at some of the possible consequences of these differences, a full assessment of which is left for future research. Part V concludes.

Shan & Su: China and International Investment Law: Twenty Years of ICSID Membership

Wenhua Shan (Xi'an Jiaotong Univ. - Law) & Jinyuan Su (Xi'an Jiaotong Univ. - Law) have published China and International Investment Law: Twenty Years of ICSID Membership (Brill | Nijhoff 2014). Contents include:

• Meg Kinnear, ICSID and International Investment Treaty Arbitration: Progress and Prospects
• M Sornarajah, The Past, Present and Future of the International Law on Foreign Investment
• Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, Judicial Administration of Justice in Multilevel Commercial, Trade and Investment Adjudication?
• Chester Brown, The Development by States of Model Bilateral Investment Treaties
• Hamamoto Shotaro, Protection of the Investor’s Legitimate Expectations: Intersection of a treaty obligation and a general principle of law
• Yongjie Li, Factors to be Considered for China’s Future Investment Treaties
• Norah Gallagher, China’s BIT’s and Arbitration Practice: Progress and Problems
• Martin Endicott, China and International Investment Law: An Evolving Relationship
• Nils Eliasson, The Chinese Investment Treaty Programme, Jurisdictional Challenges and Investment Planning: The Example of Chinese Outbound Investments in the Natural Resources Sector
• Eric Pekar, The Chinese Investment Regime and the US-China BIT Negotiations
• Marc Bungenberg & Catharine Titi, The Evolution of EU Investment Law and Future of EU-China Investment Relations
• Leon E Trakman, Instituting Investment Claims under the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
• Mark Feldman, Joint Interpretations under a Divided TPP Investment Chapter

Sarooshi: Investment Treaty Arbitration and the World Trade Organization: What Role for Systemic Values in the Resolution of International Economic Disputes?

Dan Sarooshi (Univ. of Oxford - Law; Essex Court Chambers) has posted Investment Treaty Arbitration and the World Trade Organization: What Role for Systemic Values in the Resolution of International Economic Disputes? (Texas International Law Journal, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

The WTO Dispute Settlement System and ICSID are two of the most widely used methods of international dispute settlement. But the WTO, unlike ICSID, is much more than just a dispute settlement system: the WTO possesses an important institutional element that has the capacity to formulate and apply systemic values, and it is this feature which represents a fundamental difference between the WTO Dispute Settlement System and ICSID arbitration. This element of WTO dispute settlement provides this article with an analytical perspective that is used to evaluate and compare a number of key elements of WTO and ICSID dispute settlement in order to gauge the extent to which broader values can, or indeed should, play a role in these two leading fora for the settlement of international economic disputes. A number of issues considered include, e.g., dispute settlement and national regulations relating to the environment, applicable law, remedies, and amicus curiae submissions.

Puig: Social Capital in the Arbitration Market

Sergio Puig (Stanford Univ. - Law) has posted Social Capital in the Arbitration Market. Here's the abstract:

Traditional socio-legal and legal scholarship have criticized the social structure of international arbitration. Some scholars have characterized this group of experts as a network of 'grand old men' and international arbitration as a 'white, male club.' However, faced with difficulties of data availability, they have failed to inform criticism with even basic social structure analysis. With unprecedented access to the historical data of arbitrator appointment in all arbitration proceedings under ICSID between 1972 and 2011, this article is the first to study the social structure of investor-State arbitrators. Using network analytics, a long-standing but recently popularized methodology for understanding social structures, the article shows the structure of connections between international arbitrators generated by formal appointments. Moreover, the visualizations in this article and the subsequent analytics provide insight into the arbitration world, gender imbalances, hierarchy, and evolution and generating dynamics. The article shows how the informal prestige and influence of jurists is far from equal, reveals the 'grand old men' (and women) or 'power-brokers' and 'bridges' in investor-State arbitration, and argues that arbitrators’ social capital may be generated through a process of preferential attachment. Arbitrators who have been appointed more frequently are more likely to attract further appointments.