Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Friends with Benefits? Amicus Curiae in the TPP Investor-State Dispute Settlement Mechanism

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Paradigm Shift in International Economic Law Rule-Making (ODS 2017)

Part of the book series: Economics, Law, and Institutions in Asia Pacific ((ELIAP))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Amici curiae are individuals or organisations who do not have the right to participate in the dispute as parties but want to intervene because the outcome of the proceedings may affect their interests. The participation of amici in investor-state arbitration has been justified as a useful tool to pursue different interests, inter alia, the promotion of greater transparency, accountability, and openness of this dispute settlement mechanism. However, opening up investment arbitration to the participation of non-disputing parties may raise several concerns, namely as regards the identity and interests pursued by the so-called ‘friends of the tribunal’. This chapter analyses the provisions of TPP’s Chap. 9 on amicus curiae intervention and discusses to what extent they balance the perceived benefits and potential drawbacks of this mechanism of public participation in investor-state arbitral proceedings. The social acceptance of the TPP will depend, to a large extent, on whether it offers solutions that effectively tackle the criticisms that have been thrown at investor-state arbitration, especially those that relate to a perceived lack of transparency and public participation. However, this goal can only be truly achieved if amicus curiae participation creates added value and does not undermine the purpose of peaceful and orderly settlement of investment disputes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Bryan Garner, ‘Amicus Curiae’, Black’s Law Dictionary (8th edn, 2004) 93. For an overview of the role played by amicus curiae before different international courts and tribunals, see Lance Bartholomeusz, ‘The Amicus Curiae before International Courts and Tribunals’ (2005), 5 Non-State Actors and International Law 209.

  2. 2.

    John VanDuzer, ‘Enhancing the Procedural Legitimacy of Investor-State Arbitration Through Transparency and Amicus Curiae Participation’ (2007) 52 McGill Law Journal 681, 720; Laurence B de Chazournes, ‘Transparency and Amicus Curiae Briefs’ (2004) 5 Journal of World Investment and Trade 333; Christina Knahr and August Reinisch, ‘Transparency versus Confidentiality in International Investment Arbitration—The Biwater Gauff Compromise’ (2006) 6 Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 97; Eugenia Levine, ‘Amicus Curiae in International Investment Arbitration: The Implications of an Increase in Third-Party Participation’ (2001) 29 Berkeley Journal of International Law 200, 206.

  3. 3.

    John VanDuzer, ‘Enhancing the Procedural Legitimacy of Investor-State Arbitration Through Transparency and Amicus Curiae Participation’ (2007) 52 McGill Law Journal 696; Amokura Kawharu, ‘Participation of Non-Governmental Organizations in Investment Arbitration as Amici Curiae’, in Michael Waibel and others (eds) The Backlash Against Investment Arbitration: Perceptions and Reality (2010) 275, 285.

  4. 4.

    Tomoko Ishikawa, ‘Third Party Participation in Investment Arbitration’ (2010) 59 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 373, 403.

  5. 5.

    Daniel Magraw Jr and Niranjali Amerasinghe, ‘Transparency and Public Participation in Investor-State Arbitration’ (2008) 15 ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law 337, 346.

  6. 6.

    Noah Rubins, ‘Opening the Investment Arbitration Process: At What Cost, for What Benefit?’, in Hofmann, Rainer and Tams, Christian (eds), The International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID): Taking Stock After 40 Years (2007) 213, 218.

  7. 7.

    Epaminontas Triantafilou, ‘Amicus Submissions in Investor-State Arbitration after Suez v. Argentina’ (2008) 24 Arbitration International 571, 576.

  8. 8.

    Epaminontas Triantafilou, ‘Is a Connection to the “Public Interest” a Meaningful Prerequisite of Third Party Participation in Investment Arbitration?’ (2010) 5 Publicist 38, 43; Lucas Bastin, ‘The Amicus Curiae in Investor-State Arbitration’ (2012) 1 Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law 208, 225–226.

  9. 9.

    Kyla Tienhaara, ‘Third Party Participation in Investment-Environment Disputes: Recent Developments’ (2007) 16 Review of European Community & International Environmental Law 230, 240.

  10. 10.

    Eugenia Levine, ‘Amicus Curiae in International Investment Arbitration: The Implications of an Increase in Third-Party Participation’ (2001) 29 Berkeley Journal of International Law 220.

  11. 11.

    Daniel Magraw Jr and Niranjali Amerasinghe, ‘Transparency and Public Participation in Investor-State Arbitration’ (2008) 15 ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law 355.

  12. 12.

    See Fernando Dias Simões, ‘A Guardian and a Friend? The European Commission’s Participation in Investment Arbitration’, Michigan State International Law Review (forthcoming).

  13. 13.

    Christina Knahr, ‘The New Rules on Participation of Non-Disputing Parties in ICSID Arbitration: Blessing or Curse?’, in Chester Brown and Kate Miles (eds) Evolution in Investment Treaty Law and Arbitration (2011) 319, 335–336.

  14. 14.

    Alexis Mourre, ‘Are Amici Curiae the Proper Response to the Public’s Concerns on Transparency in Investment Arbitration?’ (2006) 5 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 257, 266.

  15. 15.

    Andrea Bjorklund, ‘The Emerging Civilization of Investment Arbitration’ (2009) 113 Penn State Law Review 1269, 1292–1293; Jorge Viñuales, ‘Human Rights and Investment Arbitration: the Role of Amici Curiae’ (2006) 8 International Law: Revista Colombiana de Derecho Internacional 231, 245.

  16. 16.

    Christina Knahr, ‘Transparency, Third Party Participation and Access to Documents in International Investment Arbitration’ (2007) 23 Arbitration International 327.

  17. 17.

    Peter Willetts, Non-Governmental Organizations in World Politics: the Construction of Global Governance (Routledge 2011) 31.

  18. 18.

    Epaminontas Triantafilou, ‘Amicus Submissions in Investor-State Arbitration after Suez v. Argentina’ (2008) 24 Arbitration International 576.

  19. 19.

    Amokura Kawharu, ‘Participation of Non-Governmental Organizations in Investment Arbitration as Amici Curiae’, in Michael Waibel and others (eds) The Backlash Against Investment Arbitration: Perceptions and Reality (2010) 286.

  20. 20.

    See Epaminontas Triantafilou, ‘Is a Connection to the “Public Interest” a Meaningful Prerequisite of Third Party Participation in Investment Arbitration?’ (2010) 5 Publicist 38, 43.

  21. 21.

    Eric De Brabandere, ‘NGOs and the “Public Interest”: The Legality and Rationale of Amicus Curiae Interventions in International Economic and Investment Disputes’ (2011) 12 Chicago Journal of International Law 85, 113.

  22. 22.

    Amokura Kawharu, ‘Participation of Non-Governmental Organizations in Investment Arbitration as Amici Curiae’, in Michael Waibel and others (eds) The Backlash Against Investment Arbitration: Perceptions and Reality (2010) 286–287.

  23. 23.

    Laurence B de Chazournes, ‘Transparency and Amicus Curiae Briefs’ (2004) 5 Journal of World Investment and Trade 334.

  24. 24.

    Tomoko Ishikawa, ‘Third Party Participation in Investment Arbitration’ (2010) 59 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 399.

  25. 25.

    Tomoko Ishikawa, ‘Third Party Participation in Investment Arbitration’ (2010) 59 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 400.

  26. 26.

    Christine Chinkin and Ruth Mackenzie, ‘Intergovernmental Organizations as “Friends of the Court”’, in de Laurence B De Chazournes and others (eds) International Organizations and International Dispute Settlement: Trends and Prospects (2002) 135, 154; Ross Buckley and Paul Blyschak, ‘Guarding the Open Door: Non-Party Participation Before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes’ (2007) 22 Banking and Finance Law Review 353, 371; Tomoko Ishikawa, ‘Third Party Participation in Investment Arbitration’ (2010) 59 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 400.

  27. 27.

    Amokura Kawharu, ‘Participation of Non-Governmental Organizations in Investment Arbitration as Amici Curiae’, in Michael Waibel and others (eds) The Backlash Against Investment Arbitration: Perceptions and Reality (2010) 287.

  28. 28.

    Jorge Viñuales, ‘Amicus Intervention in Investor-State Arbitration’ (2007) 61 Dispute Resolution Journal 72, 75; Laurence B de Chazournes, ‘Transparency and Amicus Curiae Briefs’ (2004) 5 Journal of World Investment and Trade 334; Amokura Kawharu, ‘Participation of Non-Governmental Organizations in Investment Arbitration as Amici Curiae’, in Michael Waibel and others (eds) The Backlash Against Investment Arbitration: Perceptions and Reality (2010) 286.

  29. 29.

    Katia Gómez, ‘Rethinking the Role of Amicus Curiae in International Investment Arbitration: How to Draw the Line Favorably for the Public Interest’ (2012) 35 Fordham International Law Journal 510, 556.

  30. 30.

    Nigel Blackaby and Caroline Richard, ‘Amicus Curiae: A Panacea for Legitimacy in Investment Arbitration?’, in Michael Waibel and others (eds) The Backlash Against Investment Arbitration: Perceptions and Reality (2010) 253, 269.

  31. 31.

    Amokura Kawharu, ‘Participation of Non-Governmental Organizations in Investment Arbitration as Amici Curiae’, in Michael Waibel and others (eds) The Backlash Against Investment Arbitration: Perceptions and Reality (2010) 282.

  32. 32.

    Charles Brower, ‘Structure, Legitimacy, and NAFTA’s Investment Chapter’ (2003) 36 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 37, 73; Laurence B de Chazournes, ‘Transparency and Amicus Curiae Briefs’ (2004) 5 Journal of World Investment and Trade 334.

  33. 33.

    Tomoko Ishikawa, ‘Third Party Participation in Investment Arbitration’ (2010) 59 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 399.

  34. 34.

    Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and Interaguas Servicios Integrales de Agua S.A. v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/17), order in Response to a Petition for Participation as Amicus Curiae, of 17 March 2006, para 33. See also para 30.

  35. 35.

    Tomoko Ishikawa, ‘Third Party Participation in Investment Arbitration’ (2010) 59 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 400–401.

  36. 36.

    Steve Charnovitz, ‘Opening the WTO to Non-governmental Interests’ (2000) 24 Fordham International Law Journal 173, 209–210.

  37. 37.

    Suez/Interaguas v. Argentina, Order in Response to a Petition for Participation as Amicus Curiae, para 23; Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. and Vivendi Universal, S.A. v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19), Order in Response to a Petition for Transparency and Participation as Amicus Curiae, of 19 May 2005, para 24.

  38. 38.

    Andrea Bjorklund, ‘The Emerging Civilization of Investment Arbitration’ (2009) 113 Penn State Law Review 1293.

  39. 39.

    Charles Brower, ‘The Ethics of Arbitration: Perspectives from a Practicing International Arbitrator’ (2010) 5 Publicist 1, 28–29.

  40. 40.

    Epaminontas Triantafilou, ‘Is a Connection to the “Public Interest” a Meaningful Prerequisite of Third Party Participation in Investment Arbitration?’ (2010) 5 Publicist 43.

  41. 41.

    Noah Rubins, ‘Opening the Investment Arbitration Process: At What Cost, for What Benefit?’, in Hofmann, Rainer and Tams, Christian (eds), The International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID): Taking Stock After 40 Years (2007) 216; Daniel Magraw Jr and Niranjali Amerasinghe, ‘Transparency and Public Participation in Investor-State Arbitration’ (2008) 15 ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law 355; Thomas Wälde, ‘Procedural Challenges in Investment Arbitration under the Shadow of the Dual Role of the State Asymmetries and Tribunals’ Duty to Ensure, Pro-actively, the Equality of Arms’ (2010) 26 Arbitration International 3, 33.

  42. 42.

    Jorge Viñuales, ‘Amicus Intervention in Investor-State Arbitration’ (2007) 61 Dispute Resolution Journal 72, 75; Epaminontas Triantafilou, ‘Amicus Submissions in Investor-State Arbitration after Suez v. Argentina’ (2008) 24 Arbitration International 577.

  43. 43.

    Thomas Wälde, ‘Procedural Challenges in Investment Arbitration under the Shadow of the Dual Role of the State Asymmetries and Tribunals’ Duty to Ensure, Pro-actively, the Equality of Arms’ (2010) 26 Arbitration International 33–34.

  44. 44.

    Kyla Tienhaara, ‘Third Party Participation in Investment-Environment Disputes: Recent Developments’ (2007) 16 Review of European Community & International Environmental Law 241.

  45. 45.

    Thomas Wälde, ‘Procedural Challenges in Investment Arbitration under the Shadow of the Dual Role of the State Asymmetries and Tribunals’ Duty to Ensure, Pro-actively, the Equality of Arms’ (2010) 26 Arbitration International 33.

  46. 46.

    Ruth Mackenzie, ‘The Amicus Curiae in International Courts: Towards Common Procedural Approaches?’, in Tullio Treves and others (eds), Civil Society, International Courts and Compliance Bodies (2005) 295, 299.

  47. 47.

    Nigel Blackaby and Caroline Richard, ‘Amicus Curiae: A Panacea for Legitimacy in Investment Arbitration?’, in Michael Waibel and others (eds) The Backlash Against Investment Arbitration: Perceptions and Reality (2010) 272–273.

  48. 48.

    Luigi Crema, ‘Testing Amici Curiae in International Law: Rules and Practice’, in Benedetto Conforti and others (eds) The Italian Yearbook of International Law (2012) 22, 91, 114.

  49. 49.

    Lance Bartholomeusz, ‘The Amicus Curiae before International Courts and Tribunals’ (2005) 5 Non-State Actors and International Law 209, 280; Alexis Mourre, ‘Are Amici Curiae the Proper Response to the Public’s Concerns on Transparency in Investment Arbitration?’ (2006) 5 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 269.

  50. 50.

    Noah Rubins, ‘Opening the Investment Arbitration Process: At What Cost, for What Benefit?’, in Hofmann, Rainer and Tams, Christian (eds), The International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID): Taking Stock After 40 Years (2007) 217–219; Epaminontas Triantafilou, ‘Amicus Submissions in Investor-State Arbitration after Suez v. Argentina’ (2008) 24 Arbitration International 576–577; Nigel Blackaby and Caroline Richard, ‘Amicus Curiae: A Panacea for Legitimacy in Investment Arbitration?’, in Michael Waibel and others (eds) The Backlash Against Investment Arbitration: Perceptions and Reality (2010) 273.

  51. 51.

    Methanex Corp. v. United States, Decision of the Tribunal on Petitions from Third Persons to Intervene as “Amici Curiae”, of 15 January 2001, para 38.

  52. 52.

    Order in Response to a Petition for Transparency and Participation as Amicus Curiae, of 19 May 2005, para 13.

  53. 53.

    Order in Response to a Petition by Five Non-Governmental Organizations for Permission to Make an Amicus Curiae Submission, of 12 February 2007, para 25.

  54. 54.

    Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Limited v. United Republic of Tanzania (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22), Procedural Order no. 5, of 2 February 2007, para 64.

  55. 55.

    Alexis Mourre, ‘Are Amici Curiae the Proper Response to the Public’s Concerns on Transparency in Investment Arbitration?’ (2006) 5 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 269.

  56. 56.

    Suez/Vivendi v. Argentina and Order in Response to a Petition for Transparency and Participation as Amicus Curiae, of 19 May 2005, para 25; Suez/Interaguas v. Argentina, Order in Response to a Petition for Participation as Amicus Curiae, of 17 March 2006, para 24.

  57. 57.

    Christina Knahr, ‘The New Rules on Participation of Non-Disputing Parties in ICSID Arbitration: Blessing or Curse?’, in Chester Brown and Kate Miles (eds) Evolution in Investment Treaty Law and Arbitration (2011) 335–336.

  58. 58.

    Brigitte Stern, ‘Civil Society’s Voice in the Settlement of International Economic Disputes’ (2007) 22 ICSID Review 280, 341.

  59. 59.

    See NAFTA Free Trade Commission Statement on non-disputing party participation, of 7 October 2003 (hereafter FTC Statement 2003), section B, second paragraph, subparagraph (f), and sixth paragraph, subparagraph (d), available at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/38791.pdf.

  60. 60.

    Canada Model BIT 2004, Article 39.4 (d), available at http://www.italaw.com/documents/Canadian2004-FIPA-model-en.pdf.

  61. 61.

    ICSID Arbitration Rules, Rule 37(2) (c), available at https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/StaticFiles/basicdoc/CRR_English-final.pdf.

  62. 62.

    UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration, Article 4.4 (a), available at http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/2014Transparency.html.

  63. 63.

    Section B, second paragraph, subparagraph (c).

  64. 64.

    The NAFTA FTC’s Statement 2003 (section B, second paragraph, subparagraph (d)) and the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency (Article 4.2 (b)) contain similar language.

  65. 65.

    This provision echoes similar language found on the NAFTA FTC’s Statement 2003—Section B, second paragraph, subparagraph (e); and in the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency—Article 4.2 (c) (i) and (ii).

  66. 66.

    Jorge Viñuales, ‘Amicus Intervention in Investor-State Arbitration’ (2007) 61 Dispute Resolution Journal 72, 75.

  67. 67.

    Katia Gómez, ‘Rethinking the Role of Amicus Curiae in International Investment Arbitration: How to Draw the Line Favorably for the Public Interest’ (2012) 35 Fordham International Law Journal 555–557.

  68. 68.

    Katia Gómez, ‘Rethinking the Role of Amicus Curiae in International Investment Arbitration: How to Draw the Line Favorably for the Public Interest’ (2012) 35 Fordham International Law Journal 550.

  69. 69.

    Jorge Viñuales, ‘Human Rights and Investment Arbitration: the Role of Amici Curiae’ (2006) 8 International Law: Revista Colombiana de Derecho Internacional 269.

  70. 70.

    Katia Gómez, ‘Rethinking the Role of Amicus Curiae in International Investment Arbitration: How to Draw the Line Favorably for the Public Interest’ (2012) 35 Fordham International Law Journal 560.

  71. 71.

    Thomas Wälde, ‘Procedural Challenges in Investment Arbitration under the Shadow of the Dual Role of the State Asymmetries and Tribunals’ Duty to Ensure, Pro-actively, the Equality of Arms’ (2010) 26 Arbitration International 34.

  72. 72.

    Similar language can be found on NAFTA’s FTC Statement 2003—section B, second paragraph, subparagraph (g), third paragraph, subparagraph (d) and sixth paragraph, subparagraph (b); the 2004 Canada Model BIT—Article 39, para 4 (b); the ICSID Arbitration Rules—Body of Rule 37(2) and its paragraphs (a) and (b); and the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency—Article 4.1, 4.2 (e), 4.3 (b) and 4.4 (d).

  73. 73.

    Katia Gómez, ‘Rethinking the Role of Amicus Curiae in International Investment Arbitration: How to Draw the Line Favorably for the Public Interest’ (2012) 35 Fordham International Law Journal 558.

  74. 74.

    See NAFTA’s FTC Statement 2003—section B, sixth paragraph, subparagraph (a); 2004 Canada Model BIT, Article 39.4; ICSID Arbitration Rules, rule 37(2) (a); and the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency, Article 4.3 (b).

  75. 75.

    Rahim Moloo, ‘Evidentiary Issues Arising in an Investment Arbitration’, in Chiara Giorgetti (ed), Litigating International Investment Disputes: A Practitioner’s Guide (2014) 287, 310.

  76. 76.

    Daniel Magraw Jr and Niranjali Amerasinghe, ‘Transparency and Public Participation in Investor-State Arbitration’ (2008) 15 ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law 347; Tomoko Ishikawa, ‘Third Party Participation in Investment Arbitration’ (2010) 59 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 402–403.

  77. 77.

    Daniel Magraw Jr and Niranjali Amerasinghe, ‘Transparency and Public Participation in Investor-State Arbitration’ (2008) 15 ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law 347; Tomoko Ishikawa, ‘Third Party Participation in Investment Arbitration’ (2010) 59 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 355.

  78. 78.

    Epaminontas Triantafilou, ‘Amicus Submissions in Investor-State Arbitration after Suez v. Argentina’ (2008) 24 Arbitration International 578.

  79. 79.

    See section B, seventh paragraph, subparagraphs (a) and (b), second paragraph, subparagraph (h), and third paragraph, subparagraph (c) of the NAFTA FTC’s Statement of 2003; rule 37(2) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules; and Article 4.5 and 4.4 (c) of the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency.

  80. 80.

    Brigitte Stern, ‘The Future of International Investment Law: A Balance Between the Protection of Investors and the States’ Capacity to Regulate’, in Jose Alvarez and others (eds), The Evolving International Investment Regime: Expectations, Realities, Options (2011) 174, 188–189.

  81. 81.

    See, e.g., Suez/Vivendi v. Argentina, Order in Response to a Petition for Transparency and Participation as Amicus Curiae, of 19 May 2005, para 15; Suez/Interaguas v. Argentina, Order in Response to a Petition for Participation as Amicus Curiae, of 17 March 2006, para 15; Biwater v. Tanzania, Procedural Order no. 5, paras 56–59.

  82. 82.

    Christine Chinkin and Ruth Mackenzie, ‘Intergovernmental Organizations as “Friends of the Court”’, in de Laurence B De Chazournes and others (eds) International Organizations and International Dispute Settlement: Trends and Prospects (2002) 155.

  83. 83.

    Daniel Magraw Jr and Niranjali Amerasinghe, ‘Transparency and Public Participation in Investor-State Arbitration’ (2008) 15 ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law 358.

  84. 84.

    Daniel Magraw Jr and Niranjali Amerasinghe, ‘Transparency and Public Participation in Investor-State Arbitration’ (2008) 15 ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law 353; Kyla Tienhaara, ‘Third Party Participation in Investment-Environment Disputes: Recent Developments’ (2007) 16 Review of European Community & International Environmental Law 230, 240; Katia Gómez, ‘Rethinking the Role of Amicus Curiae in International Investment Arbitration: How to Draw the Line Favorably for the Public Interest’ (2012) 35 Fordham International Law Journal 559.

  85. 85.

    Christina Knahr, ‘Transparency, Third Party Participation and Access to Documents in International Investment Arbitration’ (2007) 23 Arbitration International 353.

  86. 86.

    Similar language is contained in section B, seventh paragraph, subparagraph b) of the NAFTA’s FTC Statement of 2003; rule 37(2) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules; and Article 4.5 of the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency.

  87. 87.

    Daniel Magraw Jr and Niranjali Amerasinghe, ‘Transparency and Public Participation in Investor-State Arbitration’ (2008) 15 ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law 359.

  88. 88.

    Epaminontas Triantafilou, ‘Amicus Submissions in Investor-State Arbitration after Suez v. Argentina’ (2008) 24 Arbitration International 576; Nigel Blackaby and Caroline Richard, ‘Amicus Curiae: A Panacea for Legitimacy in Investment Arbitration?’, in Michael Waibel and others (eds) The Backlash Against Investment Arbitration: Perceptions and Reality (2010) 269.

  89. 89.

    Katia Gómez, ‘Rethinking the Role of Amicus Curiae in International Investment Arbitration: How to Draw the Line Favorably for the Public Interest’ (2012) 35 Fordham International Law Journal 560–561.

  90. 90.

    Katia Gómez, ‘Rethinking the Role of Amicus Curiae in International Investment Arbitration: How to Draw the Line Favorably for the Public Interest’ (2012) 35 Fordham International Law Journal 561.

References

  • Bartholomeusz, L. (2005). The amicus curiae before international courts and tribunals. Non-State Actors and International Law, 5, 209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastin, L. (2012). The amicus curiae in investor-state arbitration. Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law, 1, 208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjorklund, A., (2009). The emerging civilization of investment arbitration. Penn State Law Review, 113, 1269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackaby, N., & Richard, C. (2010). Amicus curiae: A panacea for legitimacy in investment arbitration? In M. Waibel, et al. (Eds.), The backlash against investment arbitration: Perceptions and reality (p. 253).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brower, C. (2003). Structure, legitimacy, and NAFTA’s investment chapter. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 36, 37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brower, C. (2010). The ethics of arbitration: Perspectives from a practicing international arbitrator. Publicist, 5, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, R., & Blyschak, P. (2007). Guarding the open door: Non-party participation before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Banking and Finance Law Review, 22, 353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charnovitz, S. (2000). Opening the WTO to non-governmental interests. Fordham International Law Journal, 24, 173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinkin, C., & Mackenzie, R. (2002). Intergovernmental organizations as “Friends of the Court”. In L. B. De Chazournes, et al. (Eds.), International organizations and international dispute settlement: Trends and prospects (p. 135).

    Google Scholar 

  • Crema, L. (2012). Testing amici curiae in international law: Rules and practice. In B. Conforti, et al. (Eds.), The Italian Yearbook of International Law, 22, 91.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Brabandere, E. (2011). NGOs and the “Public Interest”: The legality and rationale of amicus curiae interventions in international economic and investment disputes. Chicago Journal of International Law, 12, 85.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Chazournes, L. B. (2004). Transparency and amicus curiae briefs. Journal of World Investment and Trade, 5, 333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dias Simões, F. (2017). A guardian and a friend? The European Commission’s Participation in Investment Arbitration. Michigan State International Law Review, 25, 234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner, B. (2004). Black’s law dictionary (8th edn). West Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez, K. (2012). Rethinking the role of amicus curiae in international investment arbitration: How to draw the line favorably for the public interest. Fordham International Law Journal, 35, 510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ishikawa, T. (2010). Third party participation in investment arbitration. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 59, 373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kawharu, A. (2010). Participation of non-governmental organizations in investment arbitration as amici curiae. In M. Waibel, et al. (Eds.), The backlash against investment arbitration: Perceptions and reality (p. 275).

    Google Scholar 

  • Knahr, C. (2007). Transparency, third party participation and access to documents in international investment arbitration. Arbitration International, 23, 327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knahr, C. (2011). The new rules on participation of non-disputing parties in ICSID arbitration: Blessing or curse? In: C. Brown & K. Miles (Eds.), Evolution in investment treaty law and arbitration (p. 319).

    Google Scholar 

  • Knahr, C., & Reinisch, A. (2006). Transparency versus confidentiality in international investment arbitration—The Biwater Gauff compromise. Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 6, 97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, E. (2001). Amicus curiae in international investment arbitration: The implications of an increase in third-party participation. Berkeley Journal of International Law, 29, 200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, R. (2005). The amicus curiae in international courts: Towards common procedural approaches? In T. Treves, et al. (Eds.), Civil society, international courts and compliance bodies (p. 295).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Magraw, D., Jr., & Amerasinghe, N. (2008). Transparency and public participation in investor-state arbitration. ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law, 15, 337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moloo, R. (2014). Evidentiary issues arising in an investment arbitration. In C. Giorgetti (Ed.), Litigating international investment disputes: A practitioner’s guide (p. 287).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mourre, A. (2006). Are amici curiae the proper response to the public’s concerns on transparency in investment arbitration? The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 5, 257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubins, N. (2007). Opening the investment arbitration process: At what cost, for what benefit? In R. Hofmann & C. J. Tams (Eds.), The international convention on the settlement of investment disputes (ICSID): Taking stock after 40 years (p. 213).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, B. (2007). Civil society’s voice in the settlement of international economic disputes. ICSID Review, 22, 280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, B. (2011). The future of international investment law: A balance between the protection of investors and the states’ capacity to regulate. In J. Alvarez, et al. (Eds.), The evolving international investment regime: Expectations, realities, options (p. 174).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tienhaara, K. (2007). Third party participation in investment-environment disputes: Recent developments. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 16, 230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triantafilou, E. (2008). Amicus submissions in investor-state arbitration after Suez v. Argentina. Arbitration International, 24, 571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triantafilou, E. (2010). Is a connection to the “Public Interest” a meaningful prerequisite of third party participation in investment arbitration? Publicist, 5, 38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Duzer, J. (2007). Enhancing the procedural legitimacy of investor-state arbitration through transparency and amicus curiae participation. McGill Law Journal, 52, 681.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viñuales, J. (2006). Human rights and investment arbitration: The role of amici curiae. International Law: Revista Colombiana de Derecho Internacional, 8, 231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viñuales, J. (2007). Amicus intervention in investor-state arbitration. Dispute Resolution Journal, 61, 72–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wälde, T. (2010). Procedural challenges in investment arbitration under the shadow of the dual role of the state asymmetries and tribunals’ duty to ensure, pro-actively, the equality of arms. Arbitration International, 26, 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willetts, P. (2011). Non-governmental organizations in world politics: The construction of global governance. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Macas, Taipa, Macau, China

    Fernando Dias Simões

Authors
  1. Fernando Dias Simões
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fernando Dias Simões .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong

    Julien Chaisse

  2. Singapore Management University, Singapore, Singapore

    Henry Gao

  3. Judicial Yuan, Justices of the Constitutional Court, Taipei, Taiwan

    Chang-fa Lo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Dias Simões, F. (2017). Friends with Benefits? Amicus Curiae in the TPP Investor-State Dispute Settlement Mechanism. In: Chaisse, J., Gao, H., Lo, Cf. (eds) Paradigm Shift in International Economic Law Rule-Making. ODS 2017. Economics, Law, and Institutions in Asia Pacific. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6731-0_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6731-0_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-6730-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-6731-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation