Jurisdictional Objections and Defenses (Ratione Personae, Ratione Materiae, and Ratione Temporis)

Kang, Sungjin

doi:10.1007/978-981-13-5744-2_67-1

Sungjin Kang⁴

530 Accesses

Abstract

The determination of whether a court or an arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction over a case is a very important stage in the course of such proceedings. Investment arbitral tribunals have classified the jurisdictional issues as follows: “(1) there should be jurisdiction over subject-matter of the dispute (jurisdiction rationae materiae); (2) the claimant must have standing to refer the dispute to the arbitral tribunal (jurisdiction rationae personae); (3) the parties must establish jurisdiction under the parties’ consent (Jurisdiction voluntatis); and (4) the dispute must satisfy the time limits in the treaty as to standing as well as to the arising of the cause of action (jurisdiction rationae temporis).”

The issues surrounding the jurisdiction ratione personae and jurisdiction ratione materiae appear again and again. Article 25 of the ICSID Convention and the related jurisprudence are usually treated as “leading” rules governing the jurisdictional objections, and principles like Salini criteria are widely accepted as principles governing the jurisdictional objections. In addition, principles under general public international law still governs the issue, and thus tribunals often apply leading ICJ cases and ILC Draft Articles in many cases. Also, the jurisdictional objections usually take similar form of arguments, citing similar rules. As a result, the value of precedents is regarded higher by arbitral tribunals. However, the issues are ultimately handled on a case-by-case basis, as each case is distinct from one another, dealing with different investment treaties.

The views and opinions expressed in this chapter is strictly personal, and nothing in this chapter reflects any official view of Kim & Chang. All errors are attributed to the author.

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.
Statute of the International Court of Justice, Article 35(1).
2.
Id., Article 36(2)–36(5).
3.
Rules of the International Court of Justice, Article 79(1).
4.
Sornarajah M (2017) The international law on foreign investment, 4th edn. Cambridge University Press, p 358
5.
Id., p. 358.
6.
Id., pp. 359–360.
7.
E.g., Article 11, SADC Model Bilateral Investment Treaty Template: Investors and Investments shall comply with all laws, regulations, administrative guidelines and policies of the Host State concerning the establishment, acquisition, management, operation and disposition of investments.
8.
E.g., Article 17(1), SADC Model Bilateral Investment Treaty Template: Investors and Investments shall be subject to civil actions for liability in the judicial process of their Home State for the acts, decisions or omissions made in the Home State in relation to the Investment where such acts, decisions or omissions lead to significant damage, personal injuries or loss of life in the Host State.
9.
Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/25, Award (16 August 2007). (Hereinafter Fraport I)
10.
Id., para 285.
11.
Id., para 286.
12.
Id., para 398.
13.
Id., para 398.
14.
Id., paras 400–401. On the issue of shareholders legal standing, see Chaisse J (2016) Shareholder protection reloaded – redesigning the matrix of shareholder claims for reflective loss. Stanford J Int Law 52(1):51–94
15.
Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/12, Award (10 December 2014) (Hereinafter Fraport II)
16.
Id., paras 320–332; 437, 467, 468.
17.
Kalicki J, Evseev D, Silberman M (2016) Chapter 9: Legality of investment. In: Kinnear M et al (eds) Building international investment law: the first 50 years of ICSID. Wolters Kluwer, p 139
18.
For example, in World Duty Free v. Kenya, the tribunal refused to move forward to the merits as the claimant procured bribes to the then-president Kenya, which was “contrary to the international public policy.” World Duty Free v. Kenya, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24 (27 August 2008)
19.
SAUR International S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID case No. ARB/04/4, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability (6 June 2012), paras 306–308.
20.
Inceysa Vallisoletana S.L. v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB 03/26, Award (2 August 2006), paras 194–195.
21.
Phoenix Action Ltd. V. Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award (15 April 2009), paras 113–114.
22.
See footnote 22, p. 135.
23.
Canada – Costa Rica BIT, Art. I(g); Alasdair Ross Anderson et al. v. Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/07/3, Award (19 May 2010), paras 55–57.
24.
Alasdair Ross Anderson et al. v. Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/07/3, Award (19 May 2010), para 57.
25.
Inceysa Vallisoletana S.L. v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB 03/26, Award (2 August 2006), paras 242–244.
26.
Plama Consortium Limited v. Republic of Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Award (27 August 2008), paras 134–135.
27.
Id., paras 134–145.
28.
See footnote 25, paras 237, 239.
29.
Fraport I, para 346.
30.
See footnote 22, p. 139.
31.
Teinver S.A., Transportes de Cercanías S.A. and Autobuses Urbanos del Sur S.A. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/1, Decision on Jurisdiction (21 December 2012), paras 316–331.
32.
Shaw M (2017) International law, 8th edn. Cambridge University Press, p 483
33.
Shany Y et al (2014) The Oxford handbook of international adjudication. Oxford University Press, p 787
34.
Waste Management, Inc. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/98/2, (8 MAY 2000) Dissenting Opinion, para 58.
35.
Id., para 58.
36.
Id., para 62.
37.
Id., para 63.
38.
Giovanni Alemanni and Others v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/8, (November 17, 2014) Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, para 1.
39.
Id., para 274.
40.
Id., para 318.
41.
Id., para 260.
42.
Itera International Energy LLC and Itera Group NV v. Georgia, (ICSID ARB/08/7), Decision on admissibility of ancillary claims, 4 December 2009, para 34.
43.
ICSID Arbitration Rules, Rule 41(1).
44.
ICSID Arbitration Rules, Rule 41(3), first sentence.
45.
ICSID Arbitration Rules, Rule 41(3), second sentence.
46.
ICSID Arbitration Rules, Rule 41(4), first sentence.
47.
ICSID Arbitration Rules, Rule 41(5), first sentence.
48.
ICSID Arbitration Rules, Rule 41(6).
49.
Carlson M, Childres P (2019) Chapter 5: Bifurcation in investment treaty arbitration. In: The investment treaty arbitration review. Law Business Research, pp 54–55
50.
Id., pp. 54–55.
51.
LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp., and LG&E International, Inc.v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, Decision on Jurisdiction (30 April 2004); Decision on Liability (3 October 2006); Award (25 July 2007).
52.
Glencore Finance (Bermuda) Limited v. Plurinational State of Bolivia, PCA Case No. 2016-39, Procedural Order No. 2 Decision on Bifurcation, 31 January 2018, para 56.
53.
Hussein Nuaman Soufraki v. The United Arab Emirates, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/7, Award (7 July 2004) (Hereinafter Soufraki v. UAE Award)
54.
Schreuer C (2016) Chapter 11: Criteria to determine investor nationality (natural persons). In: Kinnear M et al (eds) Building international investment law: the first 50 years of ICSID. Wolters Kluwer, p 154
55.
Id., para 66–68.
56.
Id., para 55.
57.
Schreuer C (2016) Chapter 11: Criteria to determine investor nationality (natural persons). In: Kinnear M et al (eds) Building international investment law: the first 50 years of ICSID. Wolters Kluwer, p 157
58.
Ioan Micula et al. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB 05/20, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (24 September 2008), para 86.
59.
Id., para 94.
60.
Schreuer C (2016) Chapter 11: Criteria to determine investor nationality (natural persons). In: Kinnear M et al (eds) Building international investment law: the first 50 years of ICSID. Wolters Kluwer, p 160
61.
Ambiente Ufficio S.p.A. et al. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/9, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (8 February 2013).
62.
Id., para 318.
63.
Michael Ballantine and Lisa Ballantine v. The Dominican Republic, PCA Case No. 2016-17.
64.
Nottebohm Case [1955] ICJ Reports 4.
65.
Schreuer C et al (2010) The ICSID convention – a commentary, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Article 25 – Jurisdiction, para 664.
66.
Champion Trading v. Egypt, Decision on Jurisdiction (21 October 2003), p. 11.
67.
Schreuer C et al (2010) The ICSID convention – a commentary, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Article 25 – Jurisdiction, para 671.
68.
Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Judgment, 5 February 1970, ICJ Reports 1970, p. 42, para 70.
69.
ICSID Convention, Art. 25(2)(b): any juridical person which had the nationality of a Contracting State other than the State party to the dispute on the date on which the parties consented to submit such dispute to conciliation or arbitration and any juridical person which had the nationality of the Contracting State party to the dispute on that date and which, because of foreign control, the parties have agreed should be treated as a national of another Contracting State for the purposes of this Convention.
70.
ICSID Convention, Art. 42(1): The Tribunal shall decide a dispute in accordance with such rules of law as may be agreed by the parties. In the absence of such agreement, the Tribunal shall apply the law of the Contracting State party to the dispute (including its rules on the conflict of laws) and such rules of international law as may be applicable.
71.
Tokios Tokeles v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18, Decision on Jurisdiction (29 April 2004).
72.
Id., paras 25–26.
73.
1994 Ukraine – Lithuania BIT, Art. 1(2)(b).
74.
See footnote 71, para 29.
75.
See footnote 71, paras 30–39.
76.
See footnote 71, paras 42–51.
77.
See footnote 71, para 39.
78.
See footnote 71, Dissenting Opinion of P. Weil, para 21.
79.
See footnote 71, Dissenting Opinion of P. Weil, para 16.
80.
Prof. Weil considered that the claimant could not qualify as an “investor” considering the corporate structure and ownership. See footnote 71, Dissenting Opinion of P. Weil, para 30.
81.
See footnote 71, Dissenting Opinion of P. Weil, para 27.
82.
KT Asia Investment Group B.V. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/08, Award (17 October 2013), para 121.
83.
Mera Investment Fund Limited v. Republic of Serbia, ICSID Case No. ARB/17/2, Decision on Jurisdiction (30 November 2018)
84.
Bilateral investment treaty; specifically, “Agreement between Serbia and Montenegro and the Republic of Cyprus on Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments” of 21 July 2005 (CL001)
85.
Id., para 62.
86.
Id., para 70.
87.
Id., para 85.
88.
Id., paras 86–88.
89.
Id., paras 91–92.
90.
Id., para 107.
91.
Bernardini P (2016) Chapter 12: Continuous nationality rule in investor-state arbitration. In: Kinnear M et al (eds) Building international investment law: the first 50 years of ICSID. Wolters Kluwer, pp 163–164
92.
Barcelona Traction, para 61.
93.
UN ILC, Draft articles on Diplomatic Protection 2006, Article 10(1).
94.
UN ILC, Draft articles on Diplomatic Protection 2006, Article 9, second sentence.
95.
UN ILC, Draft articles on Diplomatic Protection 2006, Article 17.
96.
Loewen Group, Inc. and Raymond L. Loewen v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/98/3.
97.
Id., paras 220–237.
98.
Id., para 226.
99.
El Paso Energy International Company v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15, Decision on Jurisdiction (27 April 2006), para 135.
100.
Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, p 245
101.
The Law Dictionary, https://thelawdictionary.org/dispute/ (Accessed 1 October 2019)
102.
Case Concerning East Timor, ICJ Reports (1995) p. 89, para 22. (Judgment of 30 June 1995)
103.
Id., para 22.
104.
“Treaty between the United States and Ecuador concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments” of 11 May 1997
105.
Burlington Resources Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5, Decision on Jurisdiction (2 June 2010), para 289.
106.
Maffezini v. Kingdom of Spain (ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7), Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, (25 January 2000), 5 ICSID Rep. 387, para 96. (Cited from Railroad Development Corporation (RDC) v. Republic of Guatemala, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/23, Second Decision on Jurisdiction (18 May 2010), para 129.)
107.
Schreuer C et al (2010) The ICSID convention – a commentary, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Article 25 – Jurisdiction, para 43.
108.
Id., para 44.
109.
Pan American Energy LLC and BP Argentina Exploration Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/13, Decision on Preliminary Objections (27 July 2006), paras 177–180.
110.
Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, p 246
111.
Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona SA, and InterAguas Servicios Integrales del Agua SA v. Argentina, Decision on Jurisdiction (16 May 2006), para 34.
112.
Fedax N.V. v. The Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/96/3, Decision on Jurisdiction (11 July 1997), para 28; Siemens A.G. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8, Decision on Jurisdiction (3 August 2004), para 150; Tokios Tokeles v. Ukraine, Decision on Jurisdiction (29 April 2004), para 90.
113.
Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka, A.S. v. The Slovak Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/4, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction (24 May 1999).
114.
Id., para 62.
115.
Id., para 72.
116.
Id., paras 75–91.
117.
Casinos Austria International GmbH and Casinos Austria Aktiengesellschaft v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/32, Decision on Jurisdiction (29 June 2018), para 194.
118.
ICSID Convention, First Draft, Article 30 contained a general definition of “investment” as “any contribution of money or other assets of economic value for an indefinite period or… not less than five years.” Id., p. 287
119.
Schreuer C et al (2009) The ICSID convention – a commentary, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Art. 25, para 114.
120.
Id., paras 114–115.
121.
NAFTA Article 1139: Investment under NAFTA “means”:
1. (a)
  an enterprise;
2. (b)
  an equity security of an enterprise;
3. (c)
  a debt security of an enterprise
  1. (i)
    where the enterprise is an affiliate of the investor, or
  2. (ii)
    where the original maturity of the debt security is at least 3 years, but does not include a debt security, regardless of original maturity, of a state enterprise;
4. (d)
  a loan to an enterprise
  1. (i)
    where the enterprise is an affiliate of the investor, or
  2. (ii)
    where the original maturity of the loan is at least 3 years, but does not include a loan, regardless of original maturity, to a state enterprise;
5. (e)
  an interest in an enterprise that entitles the owner to share in income or profits of the enterprise;
6. (f)
  an interest in an enterprise that entitles the owner to share in the assets of that enterprise on dissolution, other than a debt security or a loan excluded from subparagraph (c) or (d);
7. (g)
  real estate or other property, tangible or intangible, acquired in the expectation or used for the purpose of economic benefit or other business purposes; and
8. (h)
  interests arising from the commitment of capital or other resources in the territory of a Party to economic activity in such territory, such as under
  1. (i)
    contracts involving the presence of an investor’s property in the territory of the Party, including turnkey or construction contracts, or concessions, or
  2. (ii)
    contracts where remuneration depends substantially on the production, revenues or profits of an enterprise;
122.
Rubins N (2004) The notion of “investment” in international investment arbitration. In: Horn N, Kroell S (eds) Arbitrating foreign investment disputes. Kluwer Law International, pp 293–294
123.
NAFTA Art. 1139 (i) and (j): but investment does not mean,
- (i) claims to money that arise solely from
- (i) commercial contracts for the sale of goods or services by a national or enterprise in the territory of a Party to an enterprise in the territory of another Party, or
- (ii) the extension of credit in connection with a commercial transaction, such as trade financing, other than a loan covered by subparagraph (d); or
- (j) any other claims to money, that do not involve the kinds of interests set out in subparagraphs (a) through (h);
124.
Pope & Talbot Inc. (US) v. Canada, Merits Award (26 June 2000), para 98.
125.
Methanex Corp. (Canada) v. United States, Final Award on Jurisdiction and Merits (3 August 2005), para 35.
126.
Salini Costruttori S.p.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4, Decision on Jurisdiction (23 July 2001), para 2.
127.
Id., paras 4–5
128.
Id., para 6.
129.
Treaty between the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco and the Government of the Republic of Italy for the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments (“Italy-Morocco BIT”), signed on 18 July 1990, entered into force on 1 January 1992. Id., para 9
130.
Id., para 36.
131.
Id., para 44.
132.
Id., para 38. Italy-Morocco BIT Article 1: The term “investment” designates all categories of assets invested, after the coming into force of the present agreement, by a natural or legal person, including the Government of a Contracting Party, on the territory of the other Contracting Party, in accordance with the laws and regulations of the aforementioned party. In particular, in no way exclusively, the term “investment” includes:
- (c) capitalized debts, including reinvested income, as well as rights to any contractual benefit having an economic value;
- (e) any right of an economic nature conferred by law or by contract, and any license or concession granted in compliance with the laws and regulations in force, including the right of prospecting, extraction, and exploitation of natural resources
133.
Id., para 45.
134.
Id., para 48.
135.
Id., paras 50–51
136.
Id., para 52.
137.
Id., paras 52–54; See footnote 2, pp. 307–308.
138.
Id., para 53.
139.
Id., para 54.
140.
Id., para 55.
141.
Id., para 56.
142.
Id., para 56.
143.
Id., para 57.
144.
Id., para 58.
145.
2004 US Model BIT, Article 1; 2012 US Model BIT, Article 1.
146.
2004 US Model BIT, Article 1, Footnote 1.
147.
2012 US Model BIT, Article 1, Footnote 2, First Sentence.
148.
2012 US Model BIT, Article 1, Footnote 2, Second Sentence.
149.
2012 US Model BIT, Article 1, Footnote 3.
150.
Korea-US FTA, Article 11.28.
151.
Communication From The Commission To The Council, The European Parliament, The European Economic And Social Committee And The Committee Of The Regions: Towards a comprehensive European international investment policy, COM(2010)343 (Final), 7 July 2010
152.
Id., p. 1.
153.
Id., pp. 1–2.
154.
Noble Energy, Inc. and Machala power CIA. LTDA v. Ecuador and Consejo Nacional de Electricidad, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/12, Decision on Jurisdiction, (5 March 2008).
155.
Id., para 130.
156.
Id., para 132.
157.
Id., para 133.
158.
Alpha Projektholding GmbH v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/16, Award (8 November 2010), paras, 44–229.
159.
Id., paras 317–332.
160.
Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi A.S. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/29, Decision on Jurisdiction (14 November 2005).
161.
Id., para 104.
162.
Id., para 121.
163.
Id., paras 127–129.
164.
Id., para 131.
165.
Id., paras 132–133.
166.
Id., para 136.
167.
Id., para 137–138.
168.
Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13, Decision on Jurisdiction, (16 June 2006).
169.
Id., para 91.
170.
Id., para 93.
171.
Saipem S.p.A. v. The People’s Republic of Bangladesh, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/07, Decision on Jurisdiction and Recommendation on Provisional Measures, (21 March 2007), para 99.
172.
Toto Costruzioni Generali S.p.A. v. Republic of Lebanon, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/12, Decision on Jurisdiction (11 September 2009). See e.g. Chaisse J (2015) The issue of treaty shopping in international law of foreign investment – structuring (and restructuring) of investments to gain access to investment agreements. Hast Bus Law Rev 11(2):225–306
173.
Id., para 86.
174.
Id., para 86.
175.
Christian Doutremepuich and Antoine Doutremepuich v. Republic of Mauritius, PCA Case No. 2018-37, paras 121–155.
176.
Id., paras 125–140.
177.
Id., paras 141–144.
178.
Casinos Austria International GmbH and Casinos Austria Aktiengesellschaft v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/32, Decision on Jurisdiction (29 June 2018), para 187.
179.
Id., paras 188–193.
180.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/j/jurisdiction-ratione-temporis/ (Accessed 9 October 2019)
181.
Salini Costruttori S.p.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4, Decision on Jurisdiction (23 July 2001), para 170; KORUS FTA, Article 11.1.2: For greater certainty, this Chapter does not bind either Party in relation to any act or fact that took place or any situation that ceased to exist before the date of entry into force of this Agreement.
182.
Schreuer C et al (2010) The ICSID convention – a commentary, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Article 25 – Jurisdiction, para 51.
183.
Emilio Agustín Maffezini v. The Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7, Decision on Jurisdiction (25 January 2000), para 95–96.
184.
Id., paras 98–99.
185.
Agreement between the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union on the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments dated June 4, 1984. (entered into force on 5 October 1986)
186.
Agreement between the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments dated June 6, 2005. (entered into force on 1 December 2009)
187.
Ping An Life Insurance Company, Limited and Ping An Insurance (Group) Company, Limited v. The Government of Belgium, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/29, Award (30 April 2015), para 37–50.
188.
Id., paras 168–170.
189.
Id., para 171.
190.
Id., para 173.
191.
Permanent Court of International Justice, Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Judgment of 30 August 1924 (Series A, No. 2)
192.
Id., para 186.
193.
Id., paras 187–188.
194.
Id., paras 189–191.
195.
Id., para 192.
196.
Id., paras 212–219.
197.
Id., paras 224–229.
198.
Id., para 240.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Kim & Chang, Seoul, South Korea
Sungjin Kang

Authors

Sungjin Kang
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sungjin Kang .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Faculty of Law, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong
Julien Chaisse
Professor of International Law; and Director of the Research and Innovation Theme in Democratic Citizenship, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK
Leïla Choukroune
Institute of Malaysia and International Studies, National University of Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
Sufian Jusoh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this entry

Cite this entry

Kang, S. (2020). Jurisdictional Objections and Defenses (Ratione Personae, Ratione Materiae, and Ratione Temporis). In: Chaisse, J., Choukroune, L., Jusoh, S. (eds) Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5744-2_67-1

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5744-2_67-1
Received: 22 October 2019
Accepted: 23 October 2019
Published: 03 January 2020
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-5744-2
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-5744-2
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Law and CriminologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics