Top

Published in:

2016 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

12. Jus Cogens in International Investment Law and Arbitration

Author : Valentina Vadi

Published in: Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2015

Publisher: T.M.C. Asser Press

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Despite growing reference to jus cogens in the jurisprudence of international courts and scholarly writings, the concept remains vague. What is jus cogens? Why does it matter? What are its effects? These questions remain unsettled, and the time is ripe for further in-depth investigation. This chapter aims at addressing this set of questions, focusing on the role of jus cogens in international investment law and arbitration. Jus cogens has played an important role in the evolution of international investment law, and illuminating the trajectory of this concept is important for the future of the field. In fact, not only can the study contribute to further clarifying the concept of jus cogens but it can also reinforce the perceived legitimacy of the international investment law system. These developments can be significant for international investment lawyers, international law scholars and other interested audiences.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

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!

inform now

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!

inform now

previous chapter Improving Compliance: Jus Cogens and International Economic Law

next chapter Immunities of International Organizations Before Domestic Courts: Reflections on the Collective Labour Case Against the European Patent Organization

There is considerable literature on jus cogens in international law. See, inter alia, Verdross 1937, at 571–577; Rolin 1960, at 441–462; Schwarzenberger 1964–1965, at 455–78; Schwarzenberger 1965, at 191–214; Verdross 1966, at 55–63; Ronzitti 1984, at 209–272; Saulle 1987, at 385–396; Janis 1987a–1988 1987–1988a; Orakhelashvili 2006; Bianchi 2008, at 491–508.

Verdross 1966, at 58.

Article 53 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 UNTS 331 (VCLT).

Ibid.

Sztucki 1974, at 4.

Verdross 1937.

See generally Kadelbach 2016.

Janis 1987a–1988 1987–1988b.

Glennon 2006, at 529.

D’Amato 1990–1991, at 1.

Koskenniemi 2005, at 113.

Schwarzenberger 1965, at 213.

Paulus 2005, at 309.

Dupuy 2005, at 136.

Criddle and Fox-Decent 2009, at 331; Brownlie 1998, at 517.

Case Concerning the Delimitation of Maritime Boundary Between Guinea-Bissau and Senegal, Arbitral Award, 31 July 1989, vol. XX UNRIAA, 119 at para 44 (highlighting that a jus cogens norm can develop as either custom or general principle of law); Kadelbach 2016, at 167 (noting that jus cogens norms can be ‘found in many if not all sources of international law’); Weil 1983, at 425 (noting that ‘peremptory norms may originate in any of the formal sources of international law: conventions, customs and general principles of law’).

International Law Commission, Reports on the second part of its 17th session and on its 18th session, 17^th and 18^th session of the ILC, UN Doc. A/6309/Rev.1, 1966, at 248. The report states that ‘[i]t is not the form of a general rule of international law, but the particular nature of the subject matter with which it deals that … may give it the character of jus cogens’.

Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Congo v Rwanda), ICJ, Judgment of 3 February 2006, para 64.

Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro), ICJ, Judgment of 26 February 2007, para 161.

Ibid., para 320.

Ibid., para 344.

Ibid.

Ibid., para 161.

Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v Senegal), ICJ, Judgment of 20 July 2012, para 99.

Ibid.

See sect. 12.4 below.

The literature on the VCLT is extensive. See, e.g., Cannizzaro 2011; Villiger 2009; Dörr and Schmalenbach 2012.

Article 53 VCLT.

Marceau 2002, at 778.

Article 44(5) VCLT.

The literature on treaty interpretation is extensive. See, for instance, Gardiner 2008; Orakhelashvili 2008; MacLachlan 2005.

Sinclair 1984, at 139.

Sands 1999, at 49.

This expression is borrowed from United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline (US – Gasoline), Appellate Body Report, WT/DS2/AB/R, 20 May 1996, at 18.

1965 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of other States, 575 UNTS 159 (the ICSID or Washington Convention).

1992 North American Free Trade Agreement, 32 ILM 289 (NAFTA).

Dupuy 2009, at 60.

See, for instance, Cordero Moss 2006, at 13.

Paulsson 2006, at 888–889.

Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), ICJ, Judgment of 25 September 1997, para 76.

Orakhelashvili 2006, at 498.

Ibid.

Schwarzenberger 1964–1965, at 477 (internal citations omitted).

Verdross 1966, at 62.

Casanovas 2001, at 77.

In his separate opinion to the ruling on jurisdiction in the case Armed Activities in the Territory of the Congo between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda, Judge Dugard affirmed: ‘norms of jus cogens advance both principles and policy … they must inevitably play a dominant role in the process of judicial choice’. Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Rwanda), ICJ, Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment of 3 February 2006, Separate Opinion of Judge ad hoc Dugard, para 10.

Schwarzenberger 1964–1965, at 455.

Zemanek 2011, 383 (noting that ‘[t]his public order explanation has attracted the widest following amongst scholars’). See also Meyer 1994, at 140; Lalive 1986, at 329–373; Schwelb 1967, at 949.

Hameed 2014, at 66.

Hunter and Conde e Silva 2003, at 367.

Sheppard 2004, at 1.

Hameed 2014, at 67.

Virally 1966, at 7.

Ibid., at 7.

Ibid., at 8.

Lalive 1987, at 266 (noting that ‘the international public policy of the forum has no reason to intervene, properly speaking, whenever public international law applies by reason of its priority’).

Linderfalk 2012, at 11.

World Duty Free v. Republic of Kenya, ICSID, Award, Case No. ARB/00/7, 4 October 2006, para 141.

Orakhelashvili 2006, at 492; and Dupuy 2009, at 25.

Rubino-Sammartano 2001, at 507; and Arfazadeh 2005, at 178.

Orakhelashvili 2006, at 493; and Gaillard and Savage 1999, at 861.

Gaillard and Savage 1999, at 861.

Kreindler 2003, at 244.

Lew, Mistelis and Kröll 2003, at 93–94.

Rubino-Sammartano 2001, at 504.

See, for instance, Article 35 of the 1997 International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules of Arbitration, 36 ILM 1604: ‘the Arbitral Tribunal shall act in the spirit of these rules and shall make every effort to make sure that the Award is enforceable at law.’

Menaker 2010, at 72.

The grounds for setting aside arbitral awards are set out in the lex loci arbitri or the law of the seat which establishes the link between an arbitration procedure and a certain legal order. See Giovannini 2001, at 115.

1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 330 UNTS 38 (New York Convention).

Article V.2 New York Convention.

United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), Model law on international commercial arbitration, UN Doc. A/40/17 Annex 1 and A/61/17 Annex I, 21 June 1985, amended on 7 July 2006 (UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration).

Article 36(1)(b)(ii) UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.

Arfazadeh 2002, at 1–10.

1965 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States, 575 UNTS 159 (ICSID Convention).

Article 54(1) of the ICSID Convention requires Contracting States to enforce an ICSID award ‘as if it were a final judgment of a court in that State’.

The ICSID Convention provides for the following remedies: interpretation of the award (Article 50), rectification of the award (Article 51), and annulment of the award (Article 52).

Article 53(1), ICSID Convention.

Schreuer 2001, at 1129.

Ibid.

Giardina 2007, at 29–39.

Baldwin, Kantor and Nolan 2006, at 8.

Case Concerning Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia, PCIJ, Merits, Judgment of 25 May 1926, at 167.

Seraglini 2001, at 533.

Orakhelashvili 2006, at 27.

Methanex v. United States of America, UNCITRAL (NAFTA), Final Award of the Tribunal on Jurisdiction and Merits, 3 August 2005, 44 ILM 1345, Part IV, ch. C, para 24.

Ibid., Part IV, ch. C, para 24.

Ibid.

Biloune and Marine Drive Complex Ltd v. Ghana Investments Centre and the Government of Ghana, UNCITRAL, Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, 27 October 1989, 95 ILR 184.

Ibid., at 203.

Spyridon Roussalis v. Romania, ICSID, Award, Case No. ARB/06/1, 7 December 2011.

Article 10 of the Greece-Romania BIT provided: ‘[i]f the provisions of law of either Contracting Party or obligations under international law existing at present or established hereafter between the Contracting Parties in addition to this Agreement, contain a regulation, whether general or specific, entitling investments by investors of the other Contracting Party to a treatment more favourable than is provided for by this Agreement, such regulation shall to the extent that it is more favourable, prevail over this Agreement’. Spyridon Roussalis v. Romania, para 310.

In casu the claimant referred to the right to property and the right to fair proceedings as protected under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and of Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the European Convention. Ibid., para 10.

Ibid., para 312.

Ibid.

Maria Luz Arbitration, award rendered by the Czar of Russia, 17–19 May 1875, quoted by Lalive 1986, at 49.

For a detailed account of the case, see Botsman 2006.

Saveliev 2002, at 75–78.

100

Ibid.

101

Keene 2002, at 216–218.

102

Saveliev 2002, at 75–78.

103

‘Unequal treaties’ refer to a series of treaties signed during the 19th and early 20th centuries by European countries on the one hand and China, Korea and Japan on the other hand, after the latter suffered military defeat or a threat of military action by the former. See, generally, Auslin 2006.

104

See The Government of Kuwait v. The American Independent Oil Co (Kuwait v. Aminoil), Ad Hoc Arbitral Tribunal, 24 March 1982, 21 ILM 976.

105

Ibid., para 90.2.

106

Texaco Overseas Petroleum Company and California Asiatic Oil Company v. The Government of the Libyan Arab Republic, International Arbitral Tribunal, Award on the Merits, 19 January 1977, 17 ILM 11.

107

Ibid., para 78.

108

Cantegreil 2011, at 441.

109

Verdross 1937, at 575 (arguing that ‘a state cannot be bound to close its schools, universities or courts, to abolish its police or to reduce its public services in such a way as to expose the population to the dangers of disorder and anarchy, in order to obtain the necessary funds for the satisfaction of foreign creditors’).

110

EDF International, SAUR international, and Léon Participationes Argentinas v. Argentina, ICSID, Award, Case No. ARB/03/23, 11 June 2012.

111

Ibid., para 192 (quoting the Respondent’s Rejoinder: ‘it was necessary to enact the Emergency Tariff measures in order to guarantee the free enjoyment of certain basic human rights such as, inter alia, the right to life, health, personal integrity, education, the rights of children and political rights which were directly threatened by the socio-economic institutional collapse suffered by the Argentine Republic’).

112

Ibid., para 193 (stating that ‘the non-derogable nature of such rights is said to be conclusive evidence that they are tantamount to jus cogens’).

113

Ibid., paras 909–911.

114

Ibid., paras 912–914.

115

Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. and Vivendi Universal, S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID, Decision on Liability, Case No. ARB/03/19, 30 July 2010, para 262.

116

Azurix v. Argentine Republic, ICSID, Award, Case No. ARB/01/12, 14 July 2006, para 254.

117

Ibid., para 261.

118

Siemens v. Argentina, ICSID, Award, Case No. ARB/02/8, 6 February 2007, para 75.

119

Ibid., para 79.

120

Ibid., para 114.

121

CMS Gas Transmission Co. v. Argentina, ICSID, Award, Case No. ARB/01/08, 12 May 2005, at para 121.

122

Reiner and Schreuer 2009, at 90.

123

Glamis Gold, Ltd. v. United States of America, ICSID/UNCITRAL, Award, 8 June 2009, 48 ILM 1038, para 654.

124

Boisson de Chazournes 2010, at 310.

125

Sempra Energy International v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID, Award, Case No. ARB/02/16, 28 September 2007, para 332.

126

Continental Casualty v. Argentine Republic, ICSID, Award, Case No. ARB/03/9, 5 September 2008, para 192.

127

Ibid., para 227.

128

See, generally, Boersma 2012.

129

Criddle and Fox-Decent 2009 at 327.

130

Argentine Engineer v. British Company, ICC, Award, Case No. 1110, Yearbook of Commercial Arbitration 47, at 61.

131

Ibid. For commentary, see Tirado, Page and Meagher 2014, at 495.

132

World Duty Free v. Republic of Kenya, ICSID, Award, Case No ARB/00/7, 4 October 2006, para 157.

Ibid., para 157.

Ibid.

Ibid., para 188.

Ibid., para 181.

Inceysa Vallisoletana SL v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID, Award, Case No. ARB/03/26, 2 August 2006, paras 263–4.

138

Phoenix Action Ltd. v. The Czech Republic, ICSID, Award, Case No. ARB/06/5, 15 April 2009, para 78.

139

Metal-Tech Ltd. v. The Republic of Uzbekistan, ICSID, Award, Case No. ARB/10/3, 4 October 2013.

140

Ibid., para 422.

141

Hunter and Conde e Silva 2003, at 372.

142

Ibid., at 374.

143

Douglas 2014, at 180.

144

Ibid., at 181.

145

Ibid.

146

Trari-Tani 2011, at 89.

147

Vadi 2012, at 42–43; Madalena and Pereira 2012, at 5; and Douglas 2014, at 181.

148

Trari-Tani 2011, at 96.

149

This dynamism is acknowledged by the VCLT which admits that new peremptory norms may emerge, causing the voidness or termination of any treaty which is in conflict with that norm (Article 64) and that newly arisen peremptory norms can modify previous norms having the same character (Article 53).

150

Linderfalk 2016.

151

Weil 1983, at 421.

152

Virally 1966, at 6 (noting that ‘Son admission sur une large échelle aurait des conséquences qu’il n’est pas exagéré de qualifier révolutionnaires’).

153

Weil 1983, at 422.

154

d’Aspremont 2016, at 94.

155

d’Aspremont 2016.

156

Janis 1987a–1988, at 361; Criddle and Fox-Decent 2009; and Gould 2011, at 271.

157

Gould 2011, at 271.

158

Ibid., at 272 (quoting Mr. Cole, representative from Sierra Leone at the Vienna Conference).

159

Weil 1983, at 422.

160

Cassese, 2005, at 202.

161

Gould 2011, at 272 (quoting Mr. Dons, representative from Norway at the Vienna Conference).

162

Virally 1966, at 10.

163

Paulus 2005, at 299–300.

164

Gould 2011, at 264.

165

Due to space limits, this chapter does not discusses amicus curiae briefs or third party/NGO jus cogens arguments. For an interesting case study, see Vadi 2015.

166

Linderfalk 2012, at 11.

167

Bianchi 2008, at 493.

168

Paulus 2005, at 297.

169

Ibid., at 299.

170

Ruiz Fabri 2012, at 1050.

171

Ibid.

172

Paulus 2005, at 332.

173

Bassiouni 1990, at 808–809.

174

Ruiz Fabri 2012, at 1052.

175

Paulus 2005, at 332.

176

Cassese 2012, at 166.

177

Zemanek 2011, at 388 (arguing that the closest is the ICJ). See also Ford 1994–1995, at 145.

178

Paulus 2005, at 331.

179

Saul 2015, at 28.

180

Focarelli 2008, at 429.

181

Linderfalk 2008, at 855.

182

Ibid., at 868.

183

Weatherall 2015.

Arfazadeh H (2002) In the shadow of the unruly horse: international arbitration and the public policy exception. Am Rev Int Arbitr 13:1–10

Arfazadeh H (2005) Ordre public et arbitrage international à l’épreuve de la mondialisation. Bruylant, Bruxelles

Auslin MR (2006) Negotiating with imperialism: the unequal treaties and the culture of Japanese diplomacy. Harvard University Press, Boston, MA

Bassiouni MC (1990) A functional approach to ‘general principles of international law’. Mich J Int Law 11:768–818

Bianchi A (2008) Human rights and the magic of jus cogens. Eur J Int Law 19:491–508CrossRef

Boersma M (ed) (2012) Corruption and human rights: interdisciplinary perspectives. Intersentia, Antwerp

Boisson de Chazournes L (2010) Fundamental rights and international arbitration: arbitral awards and constitutional law. In: ICCA Congress series no. 15, International arbitration conference Rio de Janeiro, 23–26 May 2010, Wolters Kluwer Law, pp 309–324

Botsman D (2006) Freedom without slavery? The case of the Maria Luz and the question of emancipation in nineteenth century Japan. Paper presented at the Conference on Trans-Pacific Relations, Princeton University

Brownlie I (1998) Principles of public international law, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Cannizzaro E (2011) The Law of Treaties beyond the Vienna Convention. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef

Cantegreil J (2011) The audacity of the Texaco/Calasiatic award: René-Jean Dupuy and the internationalization of foreign investment law. Eur J Int Law 22:441–458CrossRef

Casanovas O (2001) Unity and pluralism in public international law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague

Cassese A (2005) International law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Cassese A (2012) For an enhanced role of jus cogens. In: Cassese A (ed) Realizing utopia: the future of international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 158–171CrossRef

Cordero Moss G (2006) Is the arbitral tribunal bound by the parties’ factual and legal pleadings? Stockh Int Arbitr Rev 3:1–31

Criddle EJ, Fox-Decent E (2009) A fiduciary theory of jus cogens. Yale J Int Law 34:331–387

D’Amato A (1990–1991) It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s jus cogens! Conn J Int Law 6:1–6

d’Aspremont (2016) Jus cogens as a social construct without pedigree. Neth Yearb Int Law 46:85–114

Dörr O, Schmalenbach K (2012) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. A commentary. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRef

Douglas Z (2014) The plea of illegality in investment treaty arbitration. ICSID Rev Foreign Investment Law J 29:155–186CrossRef

Dupuy P-M (2005) Some reflections on contemporary international law and the appeal to universal values: a response to Martti Koskenniemi. Eur J Int Law 16:131–137CrossRef

Dupuy P-M (2009) Unification rather than fragmentation of international law? The case of international investment law and human rights law. In: Petersmann E-U, Francioni F, Dupuy P-M (eds) Human rights in international investment law and arbitration. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef

Focarelli C (2008) Promotional jus cogens: a critical appraisal of jus cogens’ legal effects. Nord J Int Law 77:429–459CrossRef

Ford CA (1994–1995) Adjudicating jus cogens. Wis Int Law J 13:145–181

Gaillard E, Savage J (1999) Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldmann on international commercial arbitration. Kluwer Law Int, The Hague

Gardiner R (2008) Treaty interpretation. Oxford University Press, New York

Giardina A (2007) International investment arbitration: recent developments as to the applicable law and unilateral recourse. Law Pract Int Courts Tribunals 5:29–39CrossRef

Giovannini T (2001) The making and enforcement of the arbitral award: what are the grounds on which awards are most often set aside? Bus Lawyer Int 1:115–127

Glennon MJ (2006) De l’absurdité du droit impératif (jus cogens). Rev Gén Droit Int Public 3:529–536

Gould H (2011) Categorical obligation in international law. Int Theor 3:254–285CrossRef

Hameed A (2014) Unravelling the mystery of jus cogens in international law. Br Yearb Int Law 84:52–102CrossRef

Hunter M, Conde e Silva G (2003) Transnational public policy and its application in investment arbitrations. J World Investment and Trade 4:367–378

Janis MW (1987a–1988) The nature of jus cogens. Conn J Int Law 3:359–363

Janis MW (1987b–1988) Jus cogens: an artful not a scientific reality. Conn J Int Law 3:370

Kadelbach S (2016) Genesis function and identification of jus cogens norms. Neth Yearb Int Law 46:147–172

Kantor E, Baldwin M, Nolan M (2006) Limits to enforcement of ICSID awards. J Int Arbitr 23:1–24

Keene D (2002) Emperor of Japan: Meiji and his world 1852–1912. Columbia University Press, New York

Koskenniemi M (2005) International law in Europe: between tradition and renewal. Eur J Int Law 16:113–124CrossRef

Kreindler RH (2003) Approaches to the application of transnational public policy by arbitrators. J World Investment Trade 4:239–250CrossRef

Lalive P (1986) Ordre public transnational (ou réellement international) et arbitrage international. Revue de l’Arbitrage 329–373

Lalive P (1987) Transnational (or truly international) public policy and international arbitration. In: Sanders P (ed) Comparative arbitration practice and public policy in arbitration, ICCA Congress Series, 1986 New York, vol 3. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 258–318

Lew JDM, Mistelis LA, Kröll SM (2003) Comparative international commercial arbitration. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

Linderfalk U (2008) The effect of jus cogens norms: whoever opened Pandora’s box, did you ever think about the consequences? Eur J Int Law 18:853–871CrossRef

Linderfalk U (2012) What is so special about jus cogens? On the difference between the ordinary and the peremptory international law. Int Community Law Rev 14:3–18CrossRef

Linderfalk (2016) Understanding the jus cogens debate: the pervasive influence of legal positivism and legal idealism. Neth Yearb Int Law 46:51–84

MacLachlan C (2005) The principle of systemic integration and article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention. Int Comp Law Q 54:279–320CrossRef

Madalena I, Pereira D (2012) Human rights as a defence in investor-state arbitration. Advocates for International Development

Marceau G (2002) WTO dispute settlement and human rights. Eur J Int Law 13:753–814CrossRef

Menaker A (2010) The determinative impact of fraud and corruption on investment arbitrations. ICSID Rev Foreign Investment Law J 25:67–75CrossRef

Meyer P (1994) Droit international privé. Montchrestien, Paris

Orakhelashvili A (2006) Peremptory norms in international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Orakhelashvili A (2008) The interpretation of acts and rules in public international law. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef

Paulsson J (2006) International arbitration and the generation of legal norms: treaty arbitration and international law. ICCA Congress Series. Kluwer Law, The Hague, pp 888–889

Paulus AL (2005) Jus cogens in a time of hegemony and fragmentation. Nord J Int Law 74:297–334CrossRef

Reiner C, Schreuer C (2009) Human rights and international investment arbitration. In: Petersmann E-U, Francioni F, Dupuy P-M (eds) Human rights in international investment law and arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 82–96

Rolin H (1960) Vers un ordre public rèellement international. Hommage d’une génération de juristes au Président Basdevant. Pedone, Paris, pp 441–462

Ronzitti N (1984) Trattati contrari a norme imperative del diritto internazionale. Studi in onore di Giuseppe Sperduti. Giuffré, Milano, pp 209–272

Rubino-Sammartano M (2001) International arbitration law and practice. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

Ruiz Fabri H (2012) Enhancing the rhetoric of jus cogens. Eur J Int Law 23:1049–1058CrossRef

Sands P (1999) Sustainable development: treaty, custom and the cross-fertilization of international law. In: Boyle A, Freestone D (eds) International law and sustainable development. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Saul M (2015) Identifying jus cogens norms: the interaction of scholars and international judges. Asian J Int Law 5:26–54CrossRef

Saulle MR (1987) Jus cogens and human rights. Le droit international à l’heure de sa codification. Giuffré, Milan, pp 385–396

Saveliev I (2002) Rescuing the prisoners of the Maria Luz: the Meji Government and the ‘Coolie Trade’. In: Edström B (ed) Turning points in Japanese history. Routledge Curzon, London

Schreuer C (2001) The ICSID Convention: a commentary. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Schwarzenberger G (1964–1965) International jus cogens? Texas Law Rev 43:455–478

Schwarzenberger G (1965) The problem of international public policy. Curr Legal Probl 18:191–214

Schwelb E (1967) Some aspects of international jus cogens as formulated by the international law commission. Am J Int Law 61:946–975CrossRef

Seraglini C (2001) Lois de police et justice arbitrale internationale. Dalloz, Paris

Sheppard A (2004) Public policy and the enforcement of arbitral awards: should there be a global standard? Transnational Dispute Management 1, www.transnational-dispute-management.com. Accessed 20 Sept 2015

Sinclair I (1984) The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Manchester University Press, Manchester

Sztucki J (1974) Jus cogens and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Springer, Wien/New YorkCrossRef

Tirado J, Page M, Meagher D (2014) Corruption investigations by governmental authorities and investment arbitration: an uneasy relationship. ICSID Rev Foreign Investment Law J 29:493–513CrossRef

Trari-Tani M (2011) L’ordre public transnational devant l’arbitre international. Arab Law Q 25:89–102CrossRef

Vadi V (2012) Public health in international investment law and arbitration. Routledge, Abingdon

Vadi V (2015) Crossed destinies: international economic courts and the protection of cultural heritage. J Int Econ Law 18:51–77CrossRef

Verdross A (1937) Forbidden treaties in international law. Am J Int Law 31:571–577CrossRef

Verdross A (1966) Jus dispositivum and jus cogens in international law. Am J Int Law 60:55–63CrossRef

Villiger ME (2009) Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Brill, Leiden

Virally M (1966) Réflexions sur le jus cogens. Annuaire Fr Droit Int 12:5–7CrossRef

Weatherall T (2015) Jus cogens: international law and social contract. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef

Weil P (1983) Towards relative normativity in international law? Am J Int Law 77:413–442CrossRef

Zemanek K (2011) The metamorphosis of jus cogens: from an institution of treaty law to the bedrock of the international legal order. In: Cannizzaro E (ed) The Law of Treaties beyond the Vienna Convention. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Title: Jus Cogens in International Investment Law and Arbitration
Author: Valentina Vadi
Publisher: T.M.C. Asser Press
Book: Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2015
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-113-5

Electronic ISBN: 978-94-6265-114-2

Copyright Year: 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-114-2_12

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"