nach oben

Erschienen in:

2021 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

5. Coexistence of State-to-State Arbitration Under IIAs with Other Forums of Dispute Resolution and Treaty Interpretation

verfasst von : Angshuman Hazarika

Erschienen in: State-to-state Arbitration based on International Investment Agreements

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

State-to-state arbitration may be present as a common mode for binding resolution of interstate disputes under international investment agreements. They are however far from being the sole mode of resolution of interstate disputes. States may be parties to different treaties which provide for referral of disputes to international courts or tribunals. The current chapter discusses the possibility of co-existence of state-to-state arbitration with these alternative modes of dispute resolution. While it primarily focusses on regional and specialised courts, it also discusses the possibility for overlap of state-to-state arbitration with other bodies entrusted with the power to interpret international investment agreements.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Resolution of Procedural Hurdles in Utilising State-to-State Arbitration Under IIAs

Nächstes Kapitel Additional Suggestions for Developing State-to-State Arbitration as an Effective Means of Dispute Resolution

Council of the European Union, Negotiating directives for a Convention establishing a multilateral court for the settlement of investment disputes, 12981/17 ADD 1 DCL 1, Brussels, 20 March 2018; Art. 3.12, EU-Singapore IPA, 2018; See also, Alvarado Garzon (2019), p. 478.

See also, Bungenberg and Reinisch (2018), p. 72.

Gallo and Nicola (2015–2016), p. 1136.

Art. 3.13, EU-Singapore IPA, 2018.

Bungenberg and Reinisch (2018), p. 73; Brown (2017), p. 689; Kaufmann-Kohler and Potesta (2016), p. 67; European Union (2019), p. 6.

New Investment Tribunal for Investor state disputes under: Art. 3.9, EU-Singapore Investment Agreement, 2018; Art 3.38, EU-Vietnam Investment Agreement; Art. and Art. 8.27, CETA and Multilateral Investment Court under Art. 15, 2018 Netherlands Model BIT. However possibility for state-to-state arbitration for resolution of state-to-state disputes have been retained under all these agreements as seen under: Art. 3.28, EU-Singapore Investment Agreement, 2018; Art 3.5, EU-Vietnam Investment Agreement; Art. and Art. 29.6, CETA; Art. 25, 2018 Netherlands Model BIT.

Murphy et al. (2013), p. 43; Schill (2015), p. 4.

Chase (2015), p. 226.

Art. 13(2) Australia-Uruguay BIT, 2019.

Posner and Walter (2015), p. 393.

Art. 19.1, India-Brazil ICFT.

Art. 30, Arab Investment Agreement.

Bungenberg and Reinisch (2018), p. 95 et seqq.

Reinisch (2016b), p. 20; Franck (2005), p. 1617 et seqq.; Bottini (2015), p. 466 et seqq.; Appleton (2013), p. 24; Calamita (2017), p. 604 et seq.; Moul (2015), p. 914; For Opposition to an Appellate Body, See, Nilsson and Englesson (2013), p. 576 et seqq.

Hober (2015), p. 63 et seq.; Appleton (2013), p. 23; Bottini (2015), p. 466 et seqq.; Franck (2005), p. 1606 et seqq.

Appleton (2013), p. 25.

Celik (2012–2013), p. 57; Cremades and Madalena (2008), p. 538; D’Agostino and Jones (2007), p. 238 et seq. For a discussion on the issues to be considered before formation of an Appellate mechanism, see, Feldman (2017), p. 534 et seqq.

Bouwhuis (2016).

Cate (2013), p. 426.

For a contrary opinion, Kulick (2016), p. 150.

An appeal is only foreseen against an ISAT decision in the appellate mechanism, on this, see, See also, Bungenberg and Reinisch (2018), p. 190; For an example of the proposed functioning of the Appeal Tribunal, See, Art. 3.10, EU-Singapore Investment Agreement, 2018.

Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 12.

Based on the known Appeal Mechanisms proposed in Art. 28(10), 2012 US Model BIT and Art. 8.28 CETA; See also, Calamita (2017), p. 586 et seqq.

Bungenberg and Reinisch (2018), p. 73.

Broches (1995), p. 218.

Chase (2015), p. 227; For opposition to an appellate mechanism, See, Andelic (2014).

Weiniger and Sewlikar (2018).

Schreuer (2008), p. 209; Schreuer (2013), p. 400.

Gáspár-Szilágyi (2018), p. 360 et seq.

Art. 272 TFEU: The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give judgment pursuant to any arbitration clause contained in a contract concluded by or on behalf of the Union, whether that contract be governed by public or private law. See also, Herrmann (2014), p. 579.

Art. 273 TFEU: The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction in any dispute between Member States which relates to the subject matter of the Treaties if the dispute is submitted to it under a special agreement between the parties.

de Chazournes and McGarry (2014), p. 863.

Cimiotta (2018), p. 339.

CJEU, Case C-284/16, Slowakische Republik (Slovak Republic) v Achmea BV, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158.

Gáspár-Szilágyi (2018), p. 361.

Cimiotta (2018), p. 340.

Hess (2018), p. 9; Cimiotta (2018), p. 338; Deutsches Aktieninstitut (2018), p. 2; For a contrary view stating that intra-EU BITs are not affected by the Achmea decision, see ICSID, Case No. ARB/13/27, Marfin Investment Group Holdings S.A. and others v. Republic of Cyprus, Award, 26 July 2018, para 594 et seqq.; Nagy (2018), p. 996.

Cimiotta (2018), p. 340; Herrmann (2014), p. 574; See also, Lavranos (2013), p. 139 et seqq.

Cimiotta (2018), p. 342.

de Chazournes and McGarry (2014), p. 863.

Schill (2013), p. 385; See also, Lavranos (2013), p. 139.

CJEU, Opinion 2/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376, para 300.

CJEU, Opinion 1/09, ECLI:EU:C:2011:123, para 74.

CJEU, Opinion 2/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376, para 301.

CJEU, Opinion 2/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376, para 300; See also, European Commission (2017a), p. 2 et seqq.

CJEU, Opinion 1/09, ECLI:EU:C:2011:123, para 74; See also, CJEU, Case C-284/16, Slowakische Republik (Slovak Republic) v Achmea BV, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158, para 57; See also, CJEU, Opinion 2/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376, para 299; ECJ, Opinion 1/91, ECLI:EU:C:1991:490, para 39 et seq.

On the issue of the CJEU considering that an external court which issues decisions on interpretation or application of an international agreement which is an integral part of the Community legal order could be compatible with EU law, see, ECJ, Opinion 1/91, ECLI:EU:C:1991:490, para 39.

Hess (2018), p. 9 et seqq., See also, CJEU, Case C-284/16, Slowakische Republik (Slovak Republic) v Achmea BV, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158, para 58; Lavranos (2013), p. 139 et seqq.

Weiss and Kaupa (2014), p. 13; Munari and Cellerino (2018), p. 87; European Commission (2018); See also, ECJ, C-459/03—Commission v. Ireland, ECLI:EU:C:2006:345, para 182.

Borovikov et al. (2018), p. 176; See also, European Commission (2018).

Borovikov et al. (2018), p. 173.

CJEU, Case C-284/16, Slowakische Republik (Slovak Republic) v Achmea BV, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158, para 58.

On the possible effects of the Achmea judgment on extra EU BITs see, Ankersmit (2018), p. 6; Gáspár-Szilágyi (2018), p. 367 et. seqq.; Niemelä (2018).

European Commission (2018).

Reinisch (2013a), p. 182.

See, Gáspár-Szilágyi (2018), p. 366; Lavranos (2013), p. 139 et seqq.

Munari and Cellerino (2018), p. 87; Lavranos (2013), p. 139 et seqq.

PCA, Award in the Arbitration regarding the Iron Rhine (“IJzeren Rijn”) Railway between the Kingdom of Belgium and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Decision of 24 May 2005, RIAA, Vol. XXVII, pp. 35–125.

PCA, Award in the Arbitration between Croatia and Slovenia, PCA Case No. 2012-04, 29 June, 2017.

European Commission, Declaration of the Member States of 15 January 2019 on the legal consequences of the Achmea judgment and on investment protection, https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/190117-bilateral-investment-treaties_en (Accessed 24 Mar 2020).

Communication from the Commission, Towards a comprehensive European international investment policy, Brussels, 7.7.2010, COM(2010)343 final, p. 9; See also, Herrmann (2014), p. 571; Reinisch (2013a), p. 182.

European Commission, Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on the conclusion of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore, Brussels, 18.4.2018, COM(2018) 196 final 2018/0093 (NLE), p. 4.

CJEU, Opinion 1/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:341; CJEU, Opinion 2/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376, para 302 et seqq., See also, ECJ, C-459/03—Commission v. Ireland, ECLI:EU:C:2006:345; CJEU, Opinion 1/09, ECLI:EU:C:2011:123; See also, Gallo and Nicola (2015–2016), p. 1146.

ECJ, Opinion 1/91, para 39, ECLI:EU:C:1991:490; See also, Bungenberg and Reinisch (2018), p. 113; Schill (2013), p. 385 et. seqq.; See also, Gáspár-Szilágyi (2018), p. 362.

CJEU, Opinion 1/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:341, para 112.

CJEU, Opinion 2/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376, para 299; See also, Bungenberg and Reinisch (2018), p. 113; Hess (2018), p. 16 et seqq. For other situations where the court deemed an external dispute resolution mechanism to be incompatible, Nagy (2018), p. 1004 et seqq.

CJEU, Opinion 1/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:341, para 106.

CJEU, Opinion 1/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:341, para 119.

Bungenberg and Reinisch (2018), p. 113 et seqq.; See also, Herrmann (2014), p. 582.

Available in German-UBEREINKOMMEN zum Schutz des Rheins gegen chemische Verunreinigung, Anhang B, Nr. 8, OJ L 240, 19.9.77, p. 44.

Statement submitted by the European Communities to the Secretariat of the Energy Charter pursuant to Art. 26(3)(b)(ii) of the Energy Charter Treaty, OJ L 69, 9.3.98, p. 115.

Schill (2013), p. 389; See also, Gallo and Nicola (2015–2016), p. 1147; See also, Herrmann (2014), p. 583 et seqq.

On this see, Art. 174, Draft Withdrawal Agreement of the UK from EU; See also, Herrmann (2014), p. 582 et seq.

PCA, Award in the Arbitration regarding the Iron Rhine (“Ijzeren Rijn”) Railway between the Kingdom of Belgium and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Decision of 24 May 2005, RIAA, Vol. XXVII, pp. 35–125, para 103; See also, Djeffal (2011), p. 572 et seqq.

For a discussion on this see, Bungenberg and Reinisch (2018), p. 113 et seqq.

Art. 11, Germany-Pakistan BIT, 1959; Art. VIII, USA-Panama BIT, 1982.

Statute of the International Court of Justice; See also, Charney (1987), p. 855; See also, Etinski (2016), p. 9 et seq.; Papadaki (2014), p. 561 et seq.; Nolan and Caivano (2010), p. 887.

Statute of PCIJ.

Perez (2012), p. 475.

See, Declarations of Liberia and Switzerland under Art. 36(2) of ICJ Statute dated 20 March 1952 and 28 July 1948 respectively at https://www.icj-cij.org/en/declarations (Accessed 24 Mar 2020).

Perez (2012), p. 475.

Pact of Bogota.

Charney (1987), p. 855.

Charney (1987), p. 855 et seq.

ICJ, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 392, 428.

ICJ, Elettronica Sicula S.P.A. (ELSI), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1989, p. 15.

Schreuer (1997), p. 217; Perez (2012), p. 467; Delaume (1983), p. 801 et seq.; Huseynli (2017), p. 65.

Joubin-Bret, ASIL Proc, 2012/106, p. 132; Schreuer (2007), p. 348; UNCTAD (2003b), p. 58; Delaume (1983), p. 802.

Broches (1972), p. 379 et seq.; Gerlich (2015), p. 92. For a contrary view, See Vannieuwenhuyse (2009), p. 120.

Broches (1972), p. 379 et seq. See also, Perez (2012), p. 469.

For an IIA which explicitly prevents referral of disputes to the ICJ under Art. 64 of the ICSID Convention, see, Art. 10(4), Turkey-Gambia BIT, 2013; Art. 10(4) Turkey-Pakistan BIT, 2012; See also, Mizushima (2015), p. 289 et seqq.;

Malintoppi (2006), p. 136 et seqq.

Gray and Kingsbury (1992), p. 109 et seqq.; Malintoppi (2006), p. 140 et seqq.

Art. 30, Arab Investment Agreement.

Art. XII, CCJ Agreement.

Art. 42, Protocol of Cochabamba.

Art. 38, EAC Agreement.

Art. 22, Statute of the Central American Court of Justice, 1992. See also, Rivas, Encuentro, 1999/49, p. 110 et seqq.

Art. 28, Moscow Convention.

100

An example can be seen in Art. 133 (3), Japan-India CEPA, 2011 which states that once a request for establishment of an arbitral tribunal is made, this mode of dispute resolution will be used to the exclusion of any other procedure for that particular dispute.

101

Art. 27, Arab Investment Agreement.

102

Subcommittee on Unfair Trade Policies and Measures (2015), p. 1197.

103

Subcommittee on Unfair Trade Policies and Measures (2015), p. 1197.

104

Pfaff (2007), p. 313 et seqq.

105

An example can be seen in Art. 11.1 (2) Indonesia-EFTA CEPA which states that once a selection of WTO Dispute resolution or arbitration is made, this mode of dispute resolution will be used to the exclusion of other procedure for that particular dispute. Similar provision also seen in Art. 5.4, Armenia-Singapore TISaIA, 2019.

106

Subcommittee on Unfair Trade Policies and Measures (2015), p. 1198.

107

Lubambo (2017), p. 84.

108

See, Art. 31.1, 2015 Indian Model BIT.

109

Schreuer (2007), p. 349 et. seqq.; See also, Titi (2017), p. 41.

110

ICSID, SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/13. Communication from the Swiss Government published in Sarkinovic (2012), p. 338 et seq.

111

ICSID, Aguas del Tunari v Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/3, Decision on Respondent’s Objections to Jurisdiction, October 21, 2005, para 258 et. seqq.

112

Johnson and Razbaeva (2014), p. 5.

113

ILC (2013), p. 35; Johnson and Razbaeva (2014), p. 5.

114

High Level Committee (2017), p.112

115

Art. 23.3, India-Taiwan BIA, 2018; Art. 24.3, Belarus-India BIT, 2018.

116

ICSID AF, Case No. ARB(AF)/16/3, B-Mex LLC and others v United Mexican States, Procedural Order No. 7, 23 November, 2018, para 5 et seqq.

117

UNCTAD (2011), p. 7.

118

Law Commission of India (2015), para. 5.8.3.

119

Wong (2014), p. 8.

120

PCA Case No. 2012-5, Republic of Ecuador v. United States of America, Opinion With Respect To Jurisdiction In The Interstate Arbitration Initiated By Ecuador Against The United States, W. Michael Reisman, April 24, 2012, para 23 et seq.

121

Brown (2017), p. 689; Roberts (2014), p. 11 et seq.; Lourie (2017), p.147; Alschner (2015), p. 325 et seq.; Lubambo (2017), p. 84; Orecki (2013), p. 5; For a contrary view see, Vicuna (2005), p. 214; Schreuer (2007), p. 346. For a discussion of an explicit situation when there is no overlap between the state-to-state dispute resolution provision of a treaty and the power of an ISAT, See relation between ICSID Convention—Art. 25 and 64 as discussed in UNCTAD (2003b), p. 58.

122

Kulick (2016), p. 143; UNCTAD (2003b), p. 56.

123

Vandevelde (1992), p. 538; Calamita (2017), p. 586 et seq.; Kulick (2015), p. 451 et seq. For an explicit recognition of this situation in treaties, See, Art. 7(1), Sweden-Yugoslavia BIT, 1978 and Sweden-Malaysia BIT.

124

Lo (2013), p. 14; Lubambo (2016), p. 228.

125

Kulick (2016), p. 146.

126

Cate (2013), p. 423.

127

Chi (2013), p. 27; See also, Cate (2013), p. 423.

128

Posner and Walter (2015), p. 382.

129

Commission JP (2007), p. 130, 136; See also, Reinisch (2016a), p. 302 et seqq.

130

Commission JP (2007), p. 132.

131

Lubambo (2017), p. 85.

132

Lubambo (2016), p. 228.

133

Kaufmann-Kohler (2011), p. 176; UNCTAD (2003a), p. 31; Schreuer (2007), p. 349 et. seqq.; Johnson and Razbaeva (2014), p. 6; Pyka (2016), p. 83.

134

Gaukrodger (2016a), p. 10; Potesta (2013), p. 762; See also, Titi (2017), p. 39; Rosenfeld (2016a), p. 334; Puig and Kinnear (2010), p. 258. For a discussion on non-acceptance of NAFTA Joint Commission interpretation by a tribunal see, Trevino (2014), p. 222.

135

Art. 22.1(4)(c), EU-Japan EPA.

136

Committees on Research in International Law (1935), p. 969.

137

Potesta (2013), p. 762; Schill (2016), p. 323.

138

On this see, Art. 4.1(4)(f), EU-Singapore IPA, 2018; Kulick (2015), p. 455; Moloo (2013), p. 74; Comella (2014), p. 23; See also, UNCTAD (2003b), p. 55; See also, Ewing-Chow and Losari (2015), p. 111 et seqq.

139

Titi (2017), p. 40.

140

Lubambo (2016), p. 227; Gaukrodger (2016a), p. 14.

141

Trevino (2014), p. 223.

142

Trevino (2014), p. 224.

143

Shqarri (2015), p. 99.

144

United Nations (2012), p. 16.

145

Art. IX:2, WTO Agreement; See also, Krajewski (2001), p. 21; Van Damme (2010), p. 611; Gazzini (2008), p. 173.

146

See also, Krajewski (2001), p. 21; Berner (2016), p. 871.

147

Van Damme (2010), p. 612.

148

See, Art. 20(19) and Art. 26, ASEAN-India Investment Agreement, 2014.

149

Schreuer (2007), p. 353.

150

Preamble, Joint Interpretative Notes on the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, 2017.

151

Gaukrodger (2016a), p. 14.

152

Ewing-Chow and Losari (2015), p. 101.

153

Feldman (2017), p. 541.

154

Krajewski (2001), p. 22.

155

Art. 3(9), Dispute Settlement Understanding; Art IX:2, WTO Agreement; Van den Bossche and Zdouc (2013), p. 139.

156

Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 12; For its effect on ongoing proceedings, See also, Schreuer (2007), p. 353.

157

Broches (1972), p. 377; Broches (1995), p. 214; Trevino (2014), p. 221.

158

Hindelang (2014), p. 70 and 81.

159

Kulick (2015), p. 456 et seq.; Gallo and Nicola (2015–2016), p. 1144; Kulick (2016), p. 148; See also Broches (1995), p. 218.

160

Broches (1972), p. 377; Broches (1995), p. 218.

161

Gaukrodger (2016a), p. 7; Trevino (2014), p. 221.

162

Titi (2017), p. 41; See also, Trevino (2014), p. 222.

163

CME Czech Republic BV v The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award (14 March 2003), para 89; Agreed minutes have been considered to within the ambit of binding international acts by Switzerland although they rank lower on the hierarchy then a Treaty or an Agreement, on this, see, Directorate of International Law (2015), p. 45.

164

Trevino (2014), p. 222.

165

Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 12.

166

Gaukrodger (2016a), p. 9.

167

Rosenfeld (2016a), p. 339.

168

Feldman (2017), p. 541 et seq.; See also, Committees on Research in International Law (1935), p. 975 et seqq.

169

Art. 24.2, Belarus-India BIT, 2018.

170

Schill (2011), p. 1103.

171

Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 13.

172

Office Memorandum, F. No. 26/07/2013-IC, Joint Interpretative Statement, Government of India, 8 February, 2016, p. 9.

173

Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 18.

174

Wehland (2013), p. 15; Price (2005), p. 74. See also, Wouters and Vidal (2006), p. 8.

175

High Level Committee (2017), p. 112.

176

For an explicit declaration of this situation in state practice, see, Art. 4.1(4)(f), EU-Singapore IPA, 2018; Art. 22.1(5)(e), EU-Japan EPA.

Alschner W (2015) The return of the home state and the rise of ‘Embedded’ investor-state arbitration. In: Lalani S, Lazo RP (eds) The role of the state in investor-state arbitration. Brill, Leiden, pp 293–333

Alvarado Garzon AE (2019) Designing a multilateral investment court: blueprints for a new route in Investor-State Dispute Settlement. ZEuS 22(3):477–502CrossRef

Andelic K (2014) Why ICSID doesn’t need an appellate procedure, and what to do instead. TDM 11(1)

Ankersmit L (2018) Achmea: the beginning of the end for ISDS in and with Europe? ITN 9(1):3–6

Appleton B (2013) The song is over: why it’s time to stop talking about an International Investment Arbitration Appellate Body. ASIL Proc 107:23–26

Berner K (2016) Authentic interpretation in public international law. ZaöRV 76:845–878

Borovikov E, Evtimov B, Crevon-Tarassova A (2018) European Union. In: International arbitration review, 9th edn. Law Business Research Ltd., London, pp 173–182

Bottini G (2015) Reform of the investor-state arbitration regime: the appeal proposal. In: Kalicki JE, Joubin-Bret A (eds) Reshaping the Investor-State Dispute Settlement system: journeys for the 21st century. Brill, Leiden, pp 455–473

Bouwhuis S (2016) An ISDS appellate body: real world or quixotic ideal? Paper presented at the GELN Biennial Symposium Program, Melbourne Law School, 19–20 May 2016

Broches A (1972) The convention on the settlement of investment disputes between states and nationals of other states. Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, vol 136. Brill, Leiden, pp 331–410

Broches A (1995) Selected essays: World Bank, ICSID, and Other subjects of public and private international law. Martinus Nijhoff, AD Dordrecht

Brown CM (2017) A multilateral mechanism for the settlement of investment disputes - some preliminary sketches. ICSID Rev 32(3):673–690

Bungenberg M, Reinisch A (2018) From bilateral arbitral tribunals and investment courts to a multilateral investment court. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRef

Calamita NJ (2017) The (In)Compatibility of appellate mechanisms with existing instruments of the investment treaty regime. JWIT 18(4):585–627CrossRef

Cate IMT (2013) The costs of consistency: precedents in investment treaty arbitration. Columbia J Trans Law 51:418–478

Celik DD (2012–2013) Absence of precedent in investment arbitration: a missed opportunity to clarify standards of protection. King’s Stud LR IV(II):51–60

Charney JI (1987) Compromissory clauses and the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. AJIL 81(4):855–887CrossRef

Chase PH (2015) TTIP, Investor-State Dispute Settlement and the rule of law. Eur View 14:217–229CrossRef

Chi M (2013) Privileging domestic remedies in international investment dispute settlement. ASIL Proc 107:26–29

Cimiotta E (2018) The first ever interpretative preliminary ruling concerning the validity of an international agreement between EU Member States: The Achmea Case. Eur Papers 3(1):337–344

Comella VF (2014) Arbitration, democracy and the rule of law: some reflection on Owen Fiss’s Theory. Yale Law School SELA (Seminario en Latinoamérica de Teoría Constitucional y Política) Papers

Commission JP (2007) Precedent in investment treaty arbitration: a citation analysis of a developing jurisprudence. JOIA 24(2):129–158CrossRef

Committees on Research in International Law (1935) Article 19, Interpretation of Treaties. AJIL Supp: Research in Int Law 29:937–977CrossRef

Cremades BM, Madalena I (2008) Parallel proceedings in international arbitration. Arbitr Int 24(4):507–539CrossRef

D’Agostino J, Jones O (2007) Energy charter treaty: a step towards consistency in international investment arbitration. J Energy Nat Resources Law 25(3):225–243CrossRef

de Chazournes LB, McGarry B (2014) What roles can constitutional law play. JWIT 15(5–6):862–888CrossRef

Delaume GR (1983) ICSID arbitration and the courts. AJIL 77(4):784–803CrossRef

Deutsches Aktieninstitut (2018) “Achmea”-judgment of the European Court of Justice has detrimental effect on investment protection in Europe!. Brussels

Directorate of International Law (2015) Practice guide to International Treaties Edition 2015. Federal Department of Foreign Affairs-Swiss Confederation, Bern

Djeffal C (2011) The Iron Rhine Case – a treaty’s journey from peace to sustainable development. ZaöRV 71:569–586

Etinski RM (2016) Means of interpretation and their interrelationship. Proc Law Faculty Novi Sad 50(1):9–37

European Commission (2017a) Fact Sheet September 2017 - The Opinion of the European Court of Justice on the EU-Singapore Trade Agreement and the Division of Competences in Trade Policy

European Commission (2018) Commission provides guidance on protection of cross-border EU investments – Questions and Answers. 19 July 2018, MEMO/18/4529

European Union (2019) Possible reform of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), Submission from the European Union and its Member States. UNCITRAL Working Group III, 36^th Session, 29 October-2 November 2018, 24 January 2019. Doc No. A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.159/Add.1

Ewing-Chow M, Losari JJ (2015) Which is to be the master? Extra-arbitral interpretative procedures for IIAs. In: Kalicki JE, Joubin-Bret A (eds) Reshaping the Investor-State Dispute Settlement system: journeys for the 21st century. Brill, Leiden, pp 91–114

Feldman M (2017) Investment arbitration appellate mechanism options: consistency, accuracy, and balance of power. ICSID Rev 32(3):528–544

Franck SD (2005) The legitimacy crisis in investment treaty arbitration: privatizing public international law through inconsistent decisions. Fordham Law Rev 73(4):1521–1625

Gallo D, Nicola FG (2015–2016) The external dimension of EU investment law: jurisdictional clashes and transformative adjudication. Fordham Int Law J 39(5):1081–1152

Gáspár-Szilágyi S (2018) It is not just about investor-state arbitration: a look at case C-284/16, Achmea BV. Eur Papers 3(1):357–373

Gaukrodger D (2016a) The legal framework applicable to joint interpretative agreements of investment treaties, OECD Working Papers on International Investment, 2016/01. OECD Publishing, Paris

Gaukrodger D (2016b) State-to-state dispute settlement and the interpretation of investment treaties, OECD Working Papers on International Investment, 2016/03. OECD Publishing, Paris

Gazzini T (2008) Can authoritative interpretation under article IX:2 of the agreement establishing the WTO modify the rights and obligations of members? ICLQ 57(1):169–181CrossRef

Gerlich O (2015) State immunity from execution in the collection of awards rendered in international investment arbitration: The Achilles’ heel of the investor-state arbitration system? Am Rev Int Arbitr 26(1):47–99

Gray CD, Kingsbury B (1992) Developments in dispute settlement: inter-state arbitration since 1945. Br YBIL 63(1):97–134

Herrmann C (2014) The role of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the emerging EU investment policy. JWIT 15(3–4):570–584CrossRef

Hess B (2018) The fate of investment dispute resolution after the Achmea Decision of the European Court of Justice. MPILux Research Paper Series 2018 (3)

Hindelang S (2014) Part II: study on Investor-State Dispute Settlement (‘ISDS’) and alternatives of dispute resolution in international investment law. European Parliament-Directorate-General for External Policies, Policy Department

Hober K (2015) Investment treaty arbitration and its future - if any. In: Yearbook on arbitration and mediation, vol 7. Pa State Law, pp 58–65

Huseynli K (2017) Enforcement of investment arbitration awards: problems and solutions. Baku State Univ Law Rev 3(1):40–74

ILC (2013) Report of the International Law Commission, Sixty-fifth session (6 May–7 June and 8 July–9 August 2013). Document A/68/10

Johnson L, Razbaeva M (2014) State control over interpretation of investment treaties. Vale Columbia Center of Sustainable International Investment

Kaufmann-Kohler G (2011) Interpretive powers of the free trade commission and the rule of law. In: Gaillard E, Bachand F (eds) Fifteen years of NAFTA chapter 11 arbitration. JurisNet LLC, Huntington, pp 175–194

Kaufmann-Kohler G, Potesta 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, Geneva

Krajewski M (2001) Public services and the Scope of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Centre for International Environmental Law

Kulick A (2015) Investment arbitration, investment treaty interpretation, and democracy. Camb J Int Comp Law 4(2):441–460CrossRef

Kulick A (2016) State-state investment arbitration as a means of reassertion of control - from antagonism to dialogue. In: Kulick A (ed) Reassertion of control over the investment treaty regime. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 128–152CrossRef

Lavranos N (2013) Is an international investor-state arbitration system under the auspices of the ECJ possible. In: Calamita NJ (ed) The future of ICSID and the place of investment treaties in international law - investment treaty law current issues IV. BIICL, London, pp 129–148

Lo CF (2013) Relations and possible interactions between state-state dispute settlement and investor-state arbitration under BITs. Contemp Asia Arbitr J 6(1):1–30

Lourie G (2017) Interpretation of investment agreements. Doctoral Dissertation, Goethe University, Frankfurt

Lubambo M (2016) Is state-state investment arbitration an old option for Latin America. Conflict Res Q 34(2):225–247CrossRef

Lubambo M (2017) Host states and state-state investment arbitration: strategies and challenges. Brazilian J Int Law 14(2):81–93

Malintoppi L (2006) Methods of dispute resolution in inter-state litigation: when states go to arbitration rather than adjudication. LPICT 5:133–162

Mizushima T (2015) The role of the state after an award is rendered in investor-state arbitration. In: Lalani S, Lazo RP (eds) The role of the state in investor-state arbitration. Brill, Leiden, pp 274–292

Moloo R (2013) When actions speak louder than words: the relevance of subsequent party conduct to treaty interpretation. Berkeley J Int Law 31(1):39–87

Moul E (2015) The International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes and the developing world: creating a mutual confidence in the international investment regime. Santa Clara Law Rev 55(4):881–916

Munari F, Cellerino C (2018) Investment arbitration and EU general principles of law: current developments. In: Gattini A, Tanzi A, Fontanelli F (eds) General principles of law and international investment arbitration. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 74–110

Murphy SD, Kidane W, Snider TR (2013) Litigating war: mass civil injury and the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission. Oxford University Press, New York

Nagy CI (2018) Intra-EU Bilateral Investment Treaties and EU law after Achmea: “Know Well What Leads You Forward and What Holds You Back”. German Law J 19(4):981–1015CrossRef

Niemelä P (2018) Achmea – a perspective from international (investment) law. European Law Blog. http://europeanlawblog.eu/2018/03/15/achmea-a-perspective-from-international-investment-law/. Accessed 24 Mar 2020

Nilsson A, Englesson O (2013) Inconsistent awards in investment treaty arbitration: is an appeals court needed? JOIA 30(5):561–580

Nolan M, Caivano FG (2010) Limits of consent - arbitration without privity and beyond. In: Fernandez-Ballester MA, Aris D (eds) Liber Amicorum Bernardo Cremades. Kluwer - La Ley, Madrid, pp 873–911

Orecki M (2013) State-to-state arbitration pursuant to bilateral investment treaties: the Ecuador-US Dispute. http://www.youngicca-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/State_to_State_Marcin_Orecki_10_02_201.pdf. Accessed 24 Mar 2020

Papadaki M (2014) Compromissory clauses as the gatekeepers of the law to be ‘Used’ in the ICJ and the PCIJ. JIDS 5(3):560–604

Perez VJT (2012) Diplomatic protection revival for failure to comply with investment arbitration awards. JIDS 3(2):445–475

Pfaff C (2007) Investment protection by other mechanisms: the role of human rights institutions and the WTO. In: Hofmann R, Tams CJ (eds) The International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)-taking stock after 40 years. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 267–321CrossRef

Posner TR, Walter MC (2015) The abiding role of state-state engagement in the resolution of investor-state disputes. In: Kalicki JE, Joubin-Bret A (eds) Reshaping the Investor-State Dispute Settlement system: journeys for the 21st century. Brill, Leiden, pp 381–393

Potesta M (2013) State to state dispute settlement pursuant to bilateral investment treaties: is there potential? In: Boschiero N, Scovazzi T, Pitea C, Ragni C (eds) International courts and the development of international law. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 753–768CrossRef

Price DM (2005) Some observations on the role of the state in Investor-State Dispute Settlement. In: Cremades BM, Lew JDM (eds) Parallel state and arbitral procedures in international arbitration. ICC Publishing, Paris, pp 73–77

Puig S, Kinnear M (2010) NAFTA chapter eleven at fifteen: contributions to a systemic approach in investment arbitration. ICSID Rev - FILJ 25(2):225–267CrossRef

Pyka M (2016) State intervention in international investment arbitration – a return to diplomatic protection? Studia Prawnicze i Administracyjne 15(1):81–86

Reinisch A (2013a) The future shape of EU investment agreements. ICSID Rev 28(1):179–196CrossRef

Reinisch A (2016a) The rule of law in international investment arbitration. In: Pazartis P, Gavouneli M (eds) Reconceptualising the rule of law in global governance, resources, investment and trade. Hart Publishing, Oregon, pp 291–308

Reinisch A (2016b) The European Union and Investor-State Dispute Settlement: from investor-state arbitration to a Permanent Investment Court. CIGI Investor-State Arbitration Series, Paper No. 2

Roberts A (2014) State-to-state investment treaty arbitration: a hybrid theory of interdependent rights and shared interpretive authority. Harv Int Law J 55(1):1–70

Rosenfeld F (2016a) Abstract interpretations in international investment law. In: Pazartis P, Gavouneli M (eds) Reconceptualising the rule of law in global governance, resources, investment and trade. Hart Publishing, Oregon, pp 331–344

Sarkinovic TB (2012) Umbrella clauses and their policy implications. Hague YBIL 25:313–358

Schill SW (2011) System-building in investment treaty arbitration and lawmaking. German Law J 12(5):1083–1110CrossRef

Schill SW (2013) The relation of the European Union and its Member States in investor-state arbitration. In: Trakman LE, Ranieri NW (eds) Regionalism in international investment law. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 374–399CrossRef

Schill SW (2015) The overlooked role of arbitration in international adjudication theory. ESIL Reflections 4(2):1–6

Schill SW (2016) In defense of international law. In: Bungenberg M et al (eds) European yearbook international economic law. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 309–342

Schreuer C (1997) Commentary on the ICSID Convention: Article 27. ICSID Rev-FILJ 12(1):205–224CrossRef

Schreuer C (2007) Investment protection and international relations. In: Reinisch A, Kriebaum U (eds) The law of international relations. Eleven International Publishing, Utrecht, pp 345–358

Schreuer C (2008) Preliminary rulings in investment arbitration. In: Sauvant KP (ed) Appeals mechanism in international investment disputes. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 207–212

Schreuer C (2013) Coherence and consistency in international investment law. In: Echandi R, Sauvé P (eds) Prospects in international investment law and policy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 391–402

Shqarri F (2015) Reservations to treaties, prohibited reservations and some unsolved issued related to them. Mediterranean J Soc Sci 6(2):97–101

Subcommittee on Unfair Trade Policies and Measures (2015) METI, Settlement of Disputes between States, Improvement of Business Environment. In: 2015 Report on Compliance by Major Trading Partners with Trade Agreements - WTO, FTA/EPA and IIA, METI, Tokyo

Titi C (2017) Non-adjudicatory state-state mechanisms in investment dispute prevention and dispute settlement: joint interpretations, filters and focal points. Brazilian J Int Law 14(2):36–48

Trevino CJ (2014) State-to-state investment treaty arbitration and the interplay with investor-state arbitration under the same treaty. JIDS 5(1):199–233

UNCTAD (2003a) Dispute settlement: regional approaches – NAFTA. United Nations, Geneva

UNCTAD (2003b) Dispute settlement: state-state. United Nations, Geneva

UNCTAD (2011) IIA issue note, interpretation of IIAs: what states can do. No. 3, December 2011

United Nations (2012) Treaty handbook. Treaty Section of the Office of Legal Affairs, Geneva

Van Damme I (2010) Treaty interpretation by the WTO Appellate Body. EJIL 21(3):605–648CrossRef

Van den Bossche P, Zdouc W (2013) The law and policy of the World Trade Organization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Vandevelde KJ (1992) Discussion. ASIL Proc 86:556–557

Vannieuwenhuyse G (2009) Bringing a dispute concerning ICSID cases and the ICSID Convention before the International Court of Justice. LPICT 8(1):115–142

Vicuna FO (2005) Lis pendens arbitralis. In: Cremades BM, Lew JDM (eds) Parallel state and arbitral procedures in international arbitration. ICC Publishing, Paris, pp 207–218

Wehland H (2013) The coordination of multiple proceedings in investment treaty arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Weiniger M, Sewlikar A (2018) Arbitrating WTO disputes. http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2018/07/03/arbitrating-wto-disputes/. Accessed 24 Mar 2020

Weiss F, Kaupa C (2014) European Union internal market law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef

Wong J (2014) The subversion of state-to-state investment treaty arbitration. Columbia J Trans Law 53:6–47

Wouters J, Vidal M (2006) Domestic courts and treaty interpretation. Working paper no. 103, Institute for International Law

High Level Committee (2017) Report of the high level committee to review the institutionalisation of arbitration mechanism in India. Law Ministry, Government of India

Law Commission of India (2015) Report no. 260-analysis of the 2015 draft model Indian bilateral investment treaty. Government of India

Titel: Coexistence of State-to-State Arbitration Under IIAs with Other Forums of Dispute Resolution and Treaty Interpretation
verfasst von: Angshuman Hazarika
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: State-to-state Arbitration based on International Investment Agreements
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-50034-4

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-50035-1

Copyright-Jahr: 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50035-1_5