Advertisement

Resolution of Investment Disputes

  • André von Walter
  • Maria Luisa Andrisani
Chapter
Part of the Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation book series (SEELR, volume 15)

Abstract

This chapter aims to analyse the most innovative elements of the CETA Investment Dispute Resolution Section in comparison with the existing ISDS system. For this purpose, it sheds light on the main policy objectives that have been pursued during the CETA investment dispute settlement negotiations and assesses how they are taken into account throughout the text of the Agreement.

Keywords

CETA Tribunal CETA Appellate Tribunal ISDS reform Consistency Predictability Legal correctness Appeal mechanism Impartiality Independence Transparency Multilateral Investment Court 

References

  1. Cook G (2015) A digest of WTO jurisprudence on public international law concepts and principles. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Diel-Gligor K (2017) Towards consistency in international investment jurisprudence: a preliminary ruling system for ICSID arbitration. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden and BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2008) Principles of international investment law. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dolzer R, von Walter A (2007) Fair and equitable treatment – lines of jurisprudence on customary law. In: Ortino F, Liberti L, Sheppard A, Warner H (eds) Investment treaty law: current issues. BBICL, London, pp 99–116Google Scholar
  5. Eberhardt P, Olivet C (2012) Who guards the guardians? The conflicting interests of investment arbitrators. Corporate Europe Observatory, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  6. European Commission (2015) Concept paper: Investment in TTIP and beyond – the path for reform. Enhancing the right to regulate and moving from current ad hoc arbitration towards an Investment Court. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/may/tradoc_153408.PDF
  7. Gaillard E, Banifatemi Y (2003) The meaning of “and” in Article 42(1), second sentence, of the Washington Convention: the role of international law in the ICSID choice of law process. ICSID Rev – Foreign Int Law J 18:375–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gaukrodger D, Gordon K (2012) Investor-state dispute settlement: a scoping paper for the investment policy community. OECD Working Papers on International Investment 2012/03, OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/5k46b1r85j6f-en
  9. Hyde JN (1962) Economic development agreements. RdC 105:270–374Google Scholar
  10. ICSID Secretariat (2004) Discussion Paper: Possible Improvements of the Framework for ICSID Arbitration. https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Documents/resources/Possible%20Improvements%20of%20the%20Framework%20of%20ICSID%20Arbitration.pdf
  11. Jennings RY (1961) State contracts in international law. Br Yearb Int Law 37:156–182Google Scholar
  12. Kaufmann-Kohler G, Potestà M (2016) Can the Mauritius Convention serve as a model for the reform of investor-State arbitration in connection with the introduction of a permanent investment tribunal or an appeal mechanism? Analysis and Roadmap. CIDS, http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/CIDS_Research_Paper_Mauritius.pdf
  13. Knahr C (2010) Annulment and its role in the context of conflicting awards. In: Waibel M et al (eds) The Backlash against investment arbitration: perceptions and reality. Kluwer Law, The Hague, pp 151–164Google Scholar
  14. Knahr C, Reinisch A (2007) Transparency versus confidentiality in international investment arbitration – the Biwater Gauff compromise. Law Prac Int Courts Trib 6:97–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Leben C (2003) La théorie du contrat d’Etat et l’évolution du droit international des investissements. RdC 302:197–386Google Scholar
  16. Lowe V, Tzanakopoulos A (2013) The development of the law of the sea by the International Court of Justice. In: Sloan J, Tams C (eds) The development of international law by the International Court of Justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 177–193Google Scholar
  17. Mackenzie R, Sands P (2003) International courts and tribunals and the independence of the international judge. Harv Int Law J 44(1):271–285Google Scholar
  18. Markert L (2010) Challenging arbitrators in investment arbitration: the challenging search for relevant standards and ethical guidelines. Contemp Asia Arb J 3(2):237–282Google Scholar
  19. McRae D (2010) The WTO Appellate Body: a model for an ICSID appeals facility? J Int Disp Settlement 1(2):371–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. OECD (2005) Transparency and Third Party Participation in Investor-State Dispute Settlement Procedures. OECD Working Papers on International Investment 2005/01. OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/524613550768
  21. Parra AR (2001) Applicable substantive law in ICSID arbitrations initiated under investment treaties. ICSID Rev – Foreign Int Law J 16:20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Paulsson J (2010) Moral Hazard in international dispute resolution. ICSID Rev – Foreign Int Law J 25(2):339–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pauwelyn J (2015) The rule of law without the rule of lawyers? Why investment arbitrators are from mars, trade panelists are from venus. Am J Int Law 109(4):761–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pohl J, Mashigo K, Nohen A (2012) Dispute settlement provisions in international investment agreements: a large sample survey. OECD Working Papers on International Investment 2012/02, OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/5k8xb71nf628-en
  25. Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch (2015) Setting the record straight: debunking ten common defenses of controversial investor-state corporate privileges. https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/files/ustr-isds-response.pdf
  26. Redfern A (2004) The 2003 freshfields lecture – dissenting opinions in international commercial arbitration: the good, the bad and the ugly. Arbitr Int 20(3):223–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reinisch A (2007) Necessity in international investment arbitration – an unnecessary split of opinions in recent ICSID Cases? Comments on CMS and LG&E. J World Invest Trade 8(2):191–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reisman WM (2000) The regime for Lacunae in the ICSID choice of law provision and the question of its threshold. ICSID Rev – Foreign Int Law J 15:362–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roberts A (2017) Would a multilateral investment court be biased? Shifting to a treaty party framework of analysis. Eur J Int Law Anal. https://www.ejiltalk.org/would-a-multilateral-investment-court-be-biased-shifting-to-a-treaty-party-framework-of-analysis/
  30. Santulli C (2001) Le statut international de l’ordre juridique étatique. Etude du traitement du droit interne par le droit international. Pedone, ParisGoogle Scholar
  31. Schill SW (2016) The European Commission’s proposal of an “Investment Court System” for TTIP: stepping stone or stumbling block for multilateralizing international investment law. ASIL Insight 20(9)Google Scholar
  32. Schreuer C (2008) Preliminary rulings in investment arbitration. In: Sauvant K (ed) Appeals mechanism in international investment disputes. Oxford University press, Oxford, pp 207–212Google Scholar
  33. Schreuer C, Malintoppi L, Reinisch A, Sinclair A (2009) The ICSID Convention – a commentary, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Titi C (2015) International investment law and the European Union: towards a new generation of international investment agreements. Eur J Int Law 26(3):654–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. UNCTAD (2016) Roadmap for IIA Reform. IIA UNCTAD Issues Note n.1. http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaepcb2016d3_en.pdf
  36. Van den Berg AJ (2011) Dissenting opinions by party-appointed arbitrators in investment arbitration. In: Mahnoush Arsanjani H, Katz Cogan J, Sloane RD, Wiessner S (eds) Looking to the future: essays on international law in Honor of W Michael Reisman. Martinus Nijhoff, The Netherlands, pp 828–831Google Scholar
  37. Van Harten G (2007) Investment treaty arbitration and public law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  38. Verdross A (1959) Protection of private property under Quasi-International Agreements. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Internationaal Recht 7:355–362Google Scholar
  39. Von Walter A (2011) Le contentieux lié à l’investissement: entre dépolitisation et repolitisation. Conventions – réguler la mondialisation. http://convention-s.fr/decryptages/le-contentieux-lie-a-linvestissement-entre-depolitisation-et-repolitisation/
  40. Waibel M (2007) Two worlds of necessity in ICSID arbitration: CMS and LG&E. Leiden J Int 20:637–648Google Scholar
  41. Weil P (1969) Problèmes relatifs aux contrats passés entre un Etat et un particulier. RdC 128:94–240Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.European CommissionBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations