Top

Published in:

2021 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

4. Resolution of Procedural Hurdles in Utilising State-to-State Arbitration Under IIAs

Author : Angshuman Hazarika

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

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

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

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Even with the handful of state-to-state arbitration cases arising from international investment agreements, several procedural hurdles have been identified which may affect the acceptance of state-to-state arbitration as a viable alternative. The key hurdles relate to lack of clarity on the relationship between state-to-state arbitration and investor-state arbitration and potential parallel proceedings in the two forums, the uncertainty over the procedure of enforcement of state-to-state arbitration awards and the possibility to challenge state-to-state arbitration awards to stall enforcement. In this chapter, proposals have been made to resolve these hurdles based on a review of international investment agreements, state practice, past cases, and academic literature. It is expected state-to-state arbitration would invite greater acceptance when these issues are resolved.

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 Utilisation of State-to-State Arbitration Based on the Compromissory Clause in Practice

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

Franck (2014), p. 15 et seqq.; Schultz and Dupont (2014), p. 1147.

Gazzini (2018), p. 255.

Lubambo (2017), p. 82 et seqq.

Lazo (2015), p. 436; Posner and Walter (2015), p. 381; Lubambo (2016), p. 230; Lubambo (2017), p. 87.

Schill and Vidigal (2018), p. 17 et seqq.

Cheng (2007), p. 1023.

Malintoppi (2006), p. 162.

Cisar and Halla (2012), p. 25; Malintoppi (2006), p. 158.

Cisar and Halla (2012), p. 26.

O’Connell (1990), p. 897.

Office of Legal Affairs (1992), p. 55; Nodeh (2003–2004), p. 125; See also, Art. 81, Hague II Convention; Art. 32 (2), PCA Optional Rules for Arbitrating Disputes between Two States (1992); Chapter V, C. 6. f, Draft Multilateral Agreement on Investment; Art. 30 and 32, Model Rules on Arbitral Procedure with a general commentary 1958, International Law Commission, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1958, vol. II, pp. 83–88; Haersolte-van Hof and Koppe (2015), p. 39.

For an explicit declaration of this undertaking see, Art. VIII(2), Denmark-Indonesia BIT, 1968; See also, Fox (1988), p. 8; UNCTAD (2003b), p. 21; For a historical declaration of the existence of this principle in international law, See, Dumas (1911), p. 936 et seqq. See also, Art. 26, Draft Convention on Arbitral Procedure in United Nations (1955), p. 91.

Cisar and Halla (2012), p. 26 et seqq.

Bungenberg and Reinisch (2018), p. 143.

UNCTAD (2003b), p. 48 et seq.; See also, Art. 26, Draft Convention on Arbitral Procedure in United Nations (1955), p. 90.

Potesta (2015), p. 266; Macias (2016b), p. 311; UNCTAD (2003b), p. 74; Bungenberg and Reinisch (2018), p. 72; Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 14, 17; See also, Annex 2, No. 7 and 14, Draft Multilateral Agreement on Investment; Potesta (2013), p. 762.

See, Art. 24(4), Argentina-Japan BIT, 2018; Art. 6(5), Netherlands-Bulgaria BIT, 1988; Art. 23(5) Israel-Japan BIT.

For near identical compromissory clauses for state-to-state arbitration in BITs with investor-state arbitration and without investor-state arbitration, See Art. X, Netherlands-Malta BIT, 1984 (without investor-state arbitration) and Art. 11, Netherlands-Yemen BIT, 1985 (with investor-state arbitration). Similarly, See, Art. 8, Switzerland-South Korea BIT, 1971, Art. 11, Switzerland-Uganda BIT, 1971 and Art. 10, Switzerland-Sudan BIT, 1974 (without investor-state arbitration) and Art. 9, Switzerland-Turkey BIT, 1988 (with investor-state arbitration).

Based on the principle of effective interpretation which states that an interpretation of a treaty should give meaning to the text, On this see, Ishikawa (2015a), p. 274 et seqq.

On this and opposing views, see, Sect. 4.2.1 of this book. See also, Potesta (2015), p. 267; Lourie (2017), p. 201 et seq.; See also, Oellers-Frahm (2012), p. 93; Kulick (2015), p. 455 et seqq.

Art. 20(2)(c), Canada-China BIT, 2012, Art. 22(4) Canada-Hong Kong BIT; See also, Kidane (2016), p. 161; Comella (2014), p. 21; Rosenfeld (2016a), p. 340.

PCA Case No. 2012-5, Republic of Ecuador v. United States of America, Expert Opinion of C.F. Amerasinghe (English), 23 May, 2012, para 28 et seq.; Lubambo (2017), p. 88.

ILC (2013), p. 31.

ILC (2013), p. 31; Johnson and Razbaeva (2014), p. 4.

ILC (2013), p. 20; Johnson and Razbaeva (2014), p. 3; Preamble, Joint Interpretative Declaration between India and Colombia regarding the Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investments between India and Colombia executed on 4 October, 2018.

Titi (2017), p. 39.

ICJ, Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana v. Namibia), ICJ Reports 1999, p. 1045, 1075, paras. 49 et seq., quoting ILC, Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with Commentaries, Yearbook of the International Law Commission 18 (1966), Vol. 2, 187 (221). See also, Berner (2016), p. 865.

Lubambo (2016), p. 231. The ILC does not use the terms “authentic interpretation” or “authoritative interpretation” since these concepts are often understood to mean a necessarily conclusive, or binding, agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of a treaty. ILC (2013), p. 23.

Broches (1995), p. 218.

Clodfelter (2014), p. 188.

Hambro (1953), p. 235.

ILC (2013), p. 23; Kaufmann-Kohler (2011), p. 176; Gaukrodger (2016a), p. 10; Titi (2017), p. 39; Johnson and Razbaeva (2014), p. 5.

ILC (2013), p. 23.

Wehland (2013), p. 15; Clodfelter (2014), p. 188.

ILC (2013), p. 45.

ILC (2013), p. 41.

PCA Case No. 2016-3, Resolute Forest Products Inc. v. Canada, Second Submission of the United States of America, 20 April 2020, para. 5; PCA Case No. 2016-3, Resolute Forest Products Inc. v. Canada, Second Submission of the United Mexican States, 23 April 2020, para. 14; Sharpe (2014), p. 194; ILC (2013), p. 35; See also. Puig and Kinnear (2010), p. 260. Also for further discussion on the issue: Submissions for arbitration may also demonstrate subsequent agreement, See, Moloo (2013), p. 73.

Trevino (2014), p. 233.

Berner (2016), p. 845; See also, Hernandez (2015), p. 173.

Kammerhofer (2008), p. 171.

Berner (2016), p. 876.

Hernandez (2015), p. 174 et seqq.; Kammerhofer (2008), p. 172.

PCIJ, Question of Jaworzina, Advisory Opinion, 1923 P.C.I.J. (ser. B) No. 8 (Dec. 6), p. 37 et. seqq.; See also, Johnstone (1991), p. 380 et seqq.; For a contrary view on authoritative interpretation by SSATs, see, Rosenfeld (2016a), p. 334.

Zamora (2001), p. 268; See also, Titi (2017), p. 39; For a contrary view, See, Rosenfeld (2016a), p. 339.

Cisar (2010), p. 1514.

Wouters and Vidal (2006), p. 8; Kulick (2015), p. 456 et seqq.; Price (2005), p. 74; Wehland (2013), p. 15; Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 13; Johnstone (1991), p. 380 et seqq.; For a contrary view, See, Rosenfeld (2016a), p. 339.

ILC (1964), para 34, 66; Van Damme (2010), p. 611; Committees on Research in International Law (1935), p. 976; For a contrary view, particularly for Commercial arbitration and ISATs see, Zamora (2001), p. 272.

On this see, Cisar (2010), p. 1505.

IUSCT, Full Tribunal, Request for interpretation: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal with respect to claims by the Islamic Republic of Iran against nationals of the United States of America, Case No. A/2, Filed January 26, 1982, Published in 1-Iran.U.S.C.T.R. p. 101; Shamsasei (1992), p. 81.

Committees on Research in International Law (1935), p. 976.

Kulick (2015), p. 452 et seq.

Bungenberg and Reinisch (2018), p. 72; Orecki (2013), p. 14; Trevino (2014), p. 221; Lubambo (2017), p. 86; Comella (2014), p. 20 et seqq. On the fact that states normally refrain from handing over power of decision making to third parties without explicit reason, see, Gent (2013), p. 69 et seqq.

Kulick (2015), p. 456 et seqq.; Committees on Research in International Law (1935), p. 976.

Trevino (2014), p. 212.

Feldman (2016), p. 27.

Broches (1972), p. 377; Broches (1995), p. 218; See also, Schwebel (1995), p. ix; Parra (2016). For supporting views, See, Bungenberg and Reinisch (2018), p. 72; Orecki (2013), p. 20; Comella (2014), p. 21.

Broches (1995), p. 218; Institut de droit international (2013), para 19; Alschner (2015), p. 326 et seq.; See also, Kulick (2015), p. 456 et seqq.; Kulick (2016), p. 151.

Rosenfeld (2016a), p. 338 et seq.

Berner (2016), p. 875; Gazzini (2008), p. 178; Ewing-Chow and Losari (2015), p. 110 et seq. See also, Bungenberg and Reinisch (2018), p. 122 et seqq.

Lourie (2017), p. 212.

Howard (2017), p. 33 et seq.; Lubambo (2016), p. 236; Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 12; Schreuer (2008), p. 207.

UNCTAD (2017a), p. 5; See also, Gorywoda (2017).

Lubambo (2017), p. 88; Also, the PCIJ has indirectly accepted the authoritative interpretations issued by a delegated institution authorised for this purpose. On this see, PCIJ, Question of Jaworzina, Advisory Opinion, 1923 P.C.I.J. (ser. B) No. 8 (Dec. 6), p. 37 et. seqq.; See also, Committees on Research in International Law (1935), p. 969; Gazzini (2008), p. 178; See also, Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 12.

Trevino (2014), p. 212; Comella (2014), p. 21. See also, Oellers-Frahm (2012), p. 92 et seqq.

Price (2005), p. 74; Wehland (2013), p. 15; UNCTAD (2003b), p. 23; See also, Van Damme (2010), p. 619 et seqq.

Cohen (2013), p. 1032.

Hindelang (2014), p. 81.

Kulick (2015), p. 456 et seq.; Trevino (2014), p. 221; Johnstone (1991), p. 380 et seqq.

Lubambo (2017), p. 86; Kulick (2016), p. 142. On the possibility of including an explicit provision to consider them as highly persuasive, see, Hansen (2010), p. 548 et seq.; See also, the principle of effective interpretation at, Ishikawa (2015a), p. 274 et seqq.

Berner (2016), p. 872; Trevino (2014), p. 229.

Gaukrodger (2016a), p. 14.

Jacobs (2015), p. 44 et seq.; Lubambo (2017), p. 86; In case, the award of an SSAT is considered as an authoritative interpretation, it may even be considered as a ‘subsequent agreement’ between the parties which may be binding for future interpretations of the treaty under the VCLT, On this see Rosenfeld (2016a), p. 338.

Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 14.

Polanco (2019), p. 264.

Lubambo (2016), p. 236.

Lourie (2017), p. 212.

Cohen (2013), p. 1034.

Hindelang (2014), p. 70.

Venice Commission, Rule of Law Checklist, Council of Europe, 2016, p. 26.

Art. 20(2)(a), Canada-China BIT, 2012, Art. 22(3), Canada-Hong Kong BIT; Titi (2017), p. 44. See also, Kidane (2016), p. 161.

Chase (2015), p. 226.

ILC (2013), p. 22.

Linderfalk (2007), p. 162.

Gaukrodger (2016a), p. 7; Johnson and Razbaeva (2014), p. 3.

On the possibility of parties agreeing to a specific meaning, see, Lubambo (2016), p. 231; Roberts (2010), p. 201; See, Rosenfeld (2016a), p. 340.

Broches (1995), p. 218; Wehland (2013), p. 15; Johnson and Razbaeva (2014), p. 5; See also, Ewing-Chow and Losari (2015), p. 101 et seqq.

For use of a ‘subsequent agreement’ to set the binding nature of interpretations by parties on ISAT see, 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, p. 7. For explicit binding nature of SSAT decisions on ISATs see, Art. 20(2)(c), Canada-China BIT, 2012 and Art. 22(4) of the Canada-Hong Kong BIT.

Cohen (2015), p. 272.

PCA Case No. 2012-5, Republic of Ecuador v. United States of America, Tomuschat, Christian, Opinion issued on “The Construction of Article VII of the Bilateral Investment Treaty between the United States and Ecuador”, Ecuador v. USA, 24 April, 2012, para 29.

Cohen (2015), p. 269.

Cohen (2015), p. 269; Comella (2014), p. 21.

Johnson and Sachs (2014), p. 249.

Cohen (2013), p. 1027.

Kolse-Patil (2010), p. 40 et seqq.

See, Hernandez (2015), p. 180; See also, Cohen (2015), p. 272; Comella (2014), p. 21.

Cohen (2013), p. 1031; Van Damme (2010), p. 605 et seqq.; WTO, Japan—Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, Appellate Body Report, WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, 4 October 1996, p. 14; Art. 19, Treaty on European Union, OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 13; Szabdos (2015), p. 127; See also, Bjorge (2011), p. 6 et seqq.

Cremades and Madalena (2008), p. 526.

Cohen (2015), p. 277.

Bjorklund (2008), p. 270.

100

Committees on Research in International Law (1935), p. 975.

101

Rothwell (2005), p. 339.

102

Cate (2013), p. 442. For a proposal on use of precedents from an international dispute resolution mechanism, see, Bungenberg and Reinisch (2018), p. 196.

103

Hober (2004), p. 157.

104

Cohen (2013), p. 1035.

105

Dobbins (2010), p. 1460 et seqq.

106

Bjorklund (2008), p. 271. See also, UK, Constitutional Reform Act 2005, Explanatory Notes, Section 41, para 162 et seqq.

107

Bintliff (2001), p. 83 et seqq.; Shatz and Petrossian (2013), p. 16.

108

Bjorklund (2008), p. 272.

109

ICSID, Case No. ARB/03/15, El Paso Energy International Co. v. Argentine Republic, Decision on Jurisdiction, 27 April 2006, para 39; ICSID, Case No. ARB/81/1, Amco Asia and others v. Republic of Indonesia, Annulment Decision, 16 May 1986, para 44, 1 ICSID Rep. 509, 521 (1993); See also, Commission JP (2007), p. 132; Sheppard (2005), p. 222; Reinisch (2010), p. 124 et seqq.

110

Blackmore (2003), p. 501.

111

Guillaume (2011), p. 15.

112

For discussion on use of de facto precedents, see, See also, Bungenberg and Reinisch (2018), p. 102.

113

Commission JP (2007), p. 132; Reinisch (2010), p. 125 et seq.; Bjorklund (2008), p. 272; See also, Cate (2013), p. 438; Reinisch (2016a), p. 303 et seq.; Chatinakrob (2018), p. 198; For a rare instance when persuasive precedent has been sought to be differentiated from jurisprudence constante, See, Karton (2014), p. 21.

114

Bjorklund (2008), p. 272.

115

Van Damme (2010), p. 614.

116

Bungenberg and Titi (2015), p. 1512.

117

Cate (2013), p. 445; Bungenberg and Titi (2015), p. 1509 et seq.; Guillaume (2011), p. 23; For a contrary view, See, Douglas (2010), p. 107 et seqq.; Schill (2011), p. 1100 et seqq.

118

Bungenberg and Titi (2015), p. 1509.

119

Bjorklund (2008), p. 275.

120

Kidane (2017), p. 139; Reinisch (2016a), p. 302 et seq.

121

Bjorklund (2008), p. 265.

122

Chatinakrob (2018), p. 190; Bjorklund (2008), p. 273.

123

ICSID, Case No. ARB/03/16, ADC v. Hungary, Award, 2 October 2006, para 293.

124

Kolse-Patil (2010), p. 45.

125

Cate (2013), p. 425; Chen (2019), p. 55.

126

Chen (2019), p. 83 et seqq.

127

See Art. 53, ICSID Convention, See also, Chen (2019), p. 54.

128

Bentolila (2018).

129

Celik (2012–2013), p. 52.

130

Celik (2012–2013), p. 57.

131

Bentolila (2018).

132

For an example, please see, Part Six of the TFEU.

133

Zamora (2001), p. 268.

134

Bjorklund (2008), p. 270.

135

Bentolila (2018).

136

Roberts (2013), p. 77.

137

Schill (2010), p. 82.

138

Bjorklund (2008), p. 271.

139

Bjorklund (2008), p. 270.

140

Alford (2000), p. 160.

141

Alford (2000), p. 161.

142

Alford (2000), p. 161.

143

Chen (2019), p. 92 et seq.

144

Cheng (2007), p. 1016.

145

Bentolila (2018).

146

Bentolila (2018).

147

On this see, Langford et al. (2017), p. 301–332.

148

Schill (2012), p. 295 et seqq.

149

Bungenberg and Titi (2015), p. 1506; Kolse-Patil (2010), p. 38.

150

UNCITRAL Working Group III (2018), p. 8 et seq.

151

Gal-Or (2008), p. 61.

152

Cheng (2007), p. 1030; Mitchell and Munro (2013), p. 175; Bungenberg and Titi (2015), p. 1514.

153

Lew (2005), p. 311. For a similar conclusion on the issue relating to use of ICJ interpretations of the ICSID Convention by ICSID ISATs, see, Vannieuwenhuyse (2009), p. 123 et seq.

154

Cohen (2015), p. 272.

155

Cheng (2007), p. 1047.

156

Cohen (2015), p. 283.

157

Cohen (2013), p. 1027.

158

Mitchell and Munro (2013), p. 175.

159

Cohen (2015), p. 282.

160

On this, See also, Jacob (2012), p. 51.

161

Cohen (2013), p. 1038.

162

ICSID, Case No. ARB/04/13, Jan de Nul N.V., Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Decision on Jurisdiction, 16 June 2006, para 64; Commission JP (2007), p. 147.

163

de Chazournes and McGarry (2014), p. 887.

164

Kolse-Patil (2010), p. 56.

165

de Chazournes and McGarry (2014), p. 885.

166

Commission JP (2007), p. 142.

167

See also, Schreuer (1996), p. 457.

332

Schreuer (2007), p. 351.

333

Juratowitch (2008), p. 16; For a detailed discussion on the issue, See, Crivellaro (2005), p. 90 et seqq.

334

Schreuer et al. (2013), p. 187.

335

ICSID, Case No. ARB/98/7, Banro American Resources, Inc. and Société Aurifère du Kivu et du Maniema S.A.R.L. v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, Award of the Tribunal, 1 September 2000, para 19, Excerpts (2002) ICSID Review—FILJ 17(2):382–392.

336

Wong (2014), p. 21.

337

Pyka (2016), p. 85; See also, Schreuer (2007), p. 350.

338

Art. 13.4(ii), Belarus-India BIT, 2018.

339

Art. VIII (9), USA-Cameroon BIT; For non-ICSID Arbitration see, Art. VIII (9), USA-Haiti BIT.

340

Juratowitch (2008), p. 21.

341

Trevino (2014), p. 226; Macias (2016b), p. 311; For further discussion on the power of an arbitral tribunal to stay proceedings if it considers the other arbitration to have a persuasive effect see, Hober (2005), p. 256.

342

Art. 13.4(ii), Belarus-India BIT, 2018.

343

Trevino (2014), p. 226.

344

D’Agostino and Jones (2007), p. 236.

345

Wehland (2013), p. 15; Kulick (2016), p. 151; See also, Gazzini (2008), p. 178; Lubambo (2017), p. 86; Price (2005), p. 74; Comella (2014), p. 21.

346

Wong (2014), p. 23; Schreuer (2007), p. 351.

347

Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 14.

348

Law Commission of India (2015), para 5.8.3; Trevino (2014), p. 228; Lourie (2017), p. 209; For a contrary view stating that putting the proceedings on hold might not be permitted, See, Schreuer (2007), p. 351.

349

Lubambo (2017), p. 86; Trevino (2014), p. 229.

350

Kulick (2016), p. 151; See also, Trevino (2014), p. 229.

351

Broches (1972), p. 376; Kaufmann-Kohler (2006), p. 76 et seq.; Broches (1972), p. 376; Potesta (2013), p. 761 et seq.

352

Malanczuk (2000), p. 436; Potesta (2013), p. 761 et seq.

353

Kaufmann-Kohler (2006), p. 76; Vicuna (2005), p. 214; Hober (2005), p. 251.

354

Art. VI(7), USA-Turkey BIT; Art. 12(8), Uzbekistan-Turkey BIT, 2017.

355

Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 14.

356

ICSID, Case No. ARB/01/13, SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan; ICSID, Case No. ARB/02/3, Aguas del Tunari v Bolivia, Decision on Respondent’s Objections to Jurisdiction, 21 October 2005, para 258 et. seqq.

357

Wehland (2013), p. 15; Price (2005), p. 74; Comella (2014), p. 21.

358

Titi (2015), p. 287; Wong (2014), p. 18 and 23; Lubambo (2017), p. 83.

359

ICSID, Case No. ARB/03/4, Empresas Lucchetti, S.A. and Lucchetti Peru, S.A. v. The Republic of Peru, Award, 7 February 2005, para 9; Schreuer (2007), p. 348 et. seqq.; Lourie (2017), p. 209.

360

Vicuna (2005), p. 214.

361

Malanczuk (2000), p. 436; See also, Kulick (2016), p. 149.

362

Kulick (2016), p. 151.

363

Broches (1972), p. 377; Kulick (2016), p. 152; Schreuer (1997), p. 211 et seqq.

364

Kulick (2016), p. 142.

365

Wehland (2013), p. 15.

366

Brower and Blanchard (2014a), p. 768.

367

Broches (1995), p. 218; Macias (2016b), p. 312; See also, Houde and Yannaca-Small (2004), p. 13.

368

Macias (2016b), p. 312.

369

Wong (2014), p. 11 and 18.

370

Broches (1995), p. 218; Institut de droit international (2013), para 19; Kulick (2015), p. 456 et seqq.; Roberts (2014), p. 62.

371

Roberts (2014), p. 29; Berner (2016), p. 873.

372

Berner (2016), p. 871.

373

Berner (2016), p. 873.

374

Art. 27 (1), ICSID Convention.

375

Schreuer (1997), p. 222; See also, Steingruber (2012), para 14.87.

376

Juratowitch (2008), p. 15; Schreuer (1997), p. 223; Perez (2012), p. 467.

377

Broches (1995), p. 214; Juratowitch (2008), p. 15; See also, Art. 10(6), Germany-Palestine BIT, 2000.

378

Schreuer (1997), p. 223.

379

Schreuer (1997), p. 218; Juratowitch (2008), p. 32; UNCTAD (2003b), p. 59.

380

See Art. 17 (2), Libya-Austria BIT; Art. 19(2), Austria-Macedonia BIT.

381

Trevino (2014), p. 215.

382

Macias (2016b), p. 311.

383

Gallo and Nicola (2015–2016), p. 1143; Macias (2016b), p. 311.

384

Lubambo (2016), p. 237.

385

Kaldunski (2011), p. 122 et seq.

386

Titi (2015), p. 286; Macias (2016a), p. 645; Kulick (2016), p. 139; See also, Trevino (2014), p. 229.

387

Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 22.

388

Ivanov and Manassyan (2016), p. 444; Korobeinikov (2017), p. 283.

389

Kulick (2016), p. 152.

390

Trevino (2014), p. 215.

391

Schreuer (2007), p. 347 et. seqq.; Trevino (2014), p. 215.

392

Reinhold (2013), p. 53; Juratowitch (2008), p. 34; Price (2005), p. 76; Sheppard (2005), p. 224 et seqq.; See also, Gaillard (2017), p. 17 et seqq.

393

Examples can be seen in Art. 13.4(ii), Belarus-India BIT, 2018 and in Art. 10, Chile-New Zealand BIT.

394

Potesta (2013), p. 762; Kulick (2015), p. 456 et seqq.; See also, Broches (1995), p. 218; Lubambo (2017), p. 86; Price (2005), p. 74.

395

Broches (1995), p. 218; Comella (2014), p. 21.

396

Trevino (2014), p. 226.

397

Broches (1995), p. 218; Schreuer (1997), p. 211 et seqq.

398

Hober (2005), p. 248.

399

Art. 13.4(ii), Belarus-India BIT, 2018.

400

Lourie (2017), p. 211.

401

Wong (2014), p. 12.

402

Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 13.

403

Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 13; For practical usage of an interpretative decision to challenge an ISAT award see, Ivanov and Manassyan (2016), p. 444.

404

Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 13.

405

Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 13.

406

Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 13.

407

Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 15.

408

Alford (2000), p. 161.

409

Alford (2000), p. 162.

410

Jacob (2014).

411

Art. 14, Draft articles on Diplomatic Protection, 2006; Lo (2013), p. 6.

412

Lo (2013), p. 15; See also, Cremades and Madalena (2008), p. 508; Atai (2011), p. 144.

413

Hamida (2009), p. 72 et seqq.

414

Ly and Sheppard (2004), p. 19; Crivellaro (2005), p. 93 et seqq.

415

Juratowitch (2008), p. 34.

416

ICJ, Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947, Advisory Opinion of 26 April, 1988, I.C.J. Reports 1988, p. 12, para 57.

417

Nový (2017), p. 541; Crivellaro (2005), p. 95 et seqq.; See also, ICSID, Case No. ARB/81/1, Amco Asia Corporation and others v. Republic of Indonesia, Award, 20 November 1984, para 177.

418

Nový (2017), p. 542.

419

Mitchell and Munro (2013), p. 166; See also, Potesta (2015), p. 264 et seqq.

420

For an innovative solution regarding appointment of same arbitrators in parallel proceedings based on the same factual backgrounds see, Art. 9(3), Chapter 17, AANZFTA Agreement; Crivellaro (2005), p. 89; D’Agostino and Jones (2007), p. 237.

421

Bernasconi-Osterwalder (2016), p. 260; Gallo and Nicola (2015–2016), p. 1142; Macias (2016a), p. 647; Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 14.

422

Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 14.

423

Art. 13.4(ii), Belarus-India BIT, 2018.

424

UNCTAD (2003b), p. 15. For an example, see, Art. VII(5), Cuba-Turkey BIT, 1997.

425

Cremades and Madalena (2008), p. 509.

426

Reinisch (2004), p. 48 et seq.

427

Lo (2013), p. 15; Cremades and Madalena (2008), p. 509; For a contrary view which suggests Lis pendens may be applicable, see, Juratowitch (2008), p. 34.

428

Lubambo (2017), p. 83.

429

Lo (2013), p. 16.

430

Nový (2017), p. 541; Lew (2005), p. 311; Cremades and Madalena (2008), p. 509 et seq. See also, Gaillard (2017), p. 12; Kim and Ahn (2018), p. 74.

431

PCIJ, German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Germ. v. Pol.), 1925 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 6 (Aug. 25), para 54–55. See also, Oellers-Frahm (2001), p. 77.

432

Cremades and Madalena (2008), p. 515, 533 and 539.

433

Martinez-Fraga and Samra (2012), p. 420.

434

Berner (2016), p. 873; Reinisch (2004), p. 44 et seq.; Ly and Sheppard (2004), p. 18 et. seqq.; Martinez-Fraga and Samra (2012), p. 420; See also, Gunes (2015); Cremades and Madalena (2008), p. 520. For an explicit recognition of the principle in Arbitral Rules, see, Section 9, Annex, Collection of detailed rules of arbitral procedure, in United Nations (1955), p. 250 et seq.

435

Ly and Sheppard (2004), p. 19; A ‘triple identity test’ is also prescribed which excludes the element of ‘same relief’, but it also leads to the same conclusion. On this see, Martinez-Fraga and Samra (2012), p. 420.

436

Cremades and Madalena (2008), p. 522 and 538. For a partly contrary view on Res judicata with only one common party see, Sheppard (2005), p. 220; See also, Lew (2005), p. 312.

437

Lo (2013), p. 24; Cremades and Madalena (2008), p. 523. For a discussion on exceptional situations, where the courts or tribunals have sought to ignore the different identity of parties in the interest of justice, See, Reinisch (2004), p. 51 et seqq.

438

Gazzini (2008), p. 178.

439

Cremades and Madalena (2008), p. 532.

440

Art. 29, Morocco-Nigeria BIT, 2016.

441

See Art. 29(1), Morocco Nigeria BIT, 2016.

442

See Art. 29(2) and Art. 4, Morocco-Nigeria BIT, 2016.

443

For example, see Art. 28(7) of the Morocco-Nigeria BIT, 2016 which states that: “It shall not be permitted to submit a dispute to an Arbitral Tribunal pursuant to the provisions of this Article, if the same dispute was submitted to another Arbitral Tribunal which is still under hearing by that Tribunal save where there is consolidation.” As per this provision, submission of a state-to-state arbitration dispute on the same issue should not be possible if there is an existing ongoing arbitration, but interestingly it provides that this might be a possibility where there is consolidation. Now, when a state-to-state arbitration claim on the same dispute cannot be filed to begin with, it would be interesting to know, how it could be foreseen that a consolidation may be required. On a bare reading of all the provisions of the treaty taken together, as of now prima facie, the only possible situation when a situation for consolidation may emerge is when a state-to-state arbitration precedes an investor-state arbitration claim on the same dispute.

444

Hansen (2010), p. 548.

445

On this see, Schreuer (1997), p. 222.

446

For such a provision which prohibits state-to-state arbitration proceedings on the same dispute temporarily, See, Art. VIII(8), Turkey-Turkmenistan BIT; Art. X(9), Qatar-Turkey BIT; Art. 9(6) Qatar-Montenegro BIT, 2009, Art. 9(7), Mongolia-Qatar BIT, 2007; Art. 11(6), Qatar-Macedonia BIT, 2011.

447

For such a provision which prohibits state-to-state arbitration proceedings on the same dispute permanently, See, Art. 15(6), Argentina-Qatar BIT. On how this provision may be argued in practice with a view to bypass the restriction see, Lubambo (2017), p. 83.

448

Art. 20(2)(a), Canada-China BIT, 2012; Art. 22(3), Canada-Hong Kong BIT; See also, Titi (2017), p. 44. See also, Kidane (2016), p. 161.

449

Price (2005), p. 75.

450

Art. 1414 NAFTA; Art. 12.17, US-Chile FTA, 2003; Art 12.18, CAFTA-DR; Price (2005), p. 75.

451

Art. 1401(2) NAFTA; Art. 12.1(2) US-Chile FTA, 2003; Art 12.1(2)(b), CAFTA-DR.

452

For a discussion on fork in the road clauses in investor-state arbitration see, Crivellaro (2005), p. 96.

453

Art. 10(8), Turkey-Cambodia BIT. Article 9 here refers to Investor state arbitration. Similar provision is also seen in Art. VII(8), Cuba-Turkey BIT, 1997.

454

For an example, See, Art. VIII(7) USA-Senegal BIT.

455

Art. 13.4(ii), Belarus-India BIT, 2018.

456

Titi (2017), p. 40.

457

Art. 10.25(2), KNZFTA.

458

See Art. 49 of Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of September 30, 2016 No. 992; See also, Titi (2017), p. 40.

459

Art. 9(1), Israel-Myanmar BIT; Art. 9(1), Israel-Azerbaijan BIT.

460

For example, See, Art. 8 (2), Korea-Mauritania BIT; Art. 11(2), Romania-Kazakhstan BIT, 2010.

461

For example, See, Art. 13(2), China-New Zealand BIT, 1988.

462

For examples of an IIA which does not provide for recourse to domestic courts see, Kazakhstan-Netherlands BIT, 2002; Countries where IIAs standards have been used to provide protection by domestic courts include Venezuela and Argentina. On this see, Hamida (2009), p. 73 et seqq.

463

See, Art. 10, Chile-New Zealand BIT; Art. 25(13)(b) Brazil-UAE CFIA.

464

Reinhold (2013), p. 61 et seqq.; Ly and Sheppard (2004), p. 22; Lo (2013), p. 18; Petrochilos (2016), p. 311 et seq.; Georgilas (2016), p. 321; Sanja (2012), p. 208.

465

Kulick (2016), p. 149; Lo (2013), p. 17; Sheppard (2005), p. 236.

466

Hober (2005), p. 260 et seqq.; For a discussion on the uncertainty on the existence of an international public policy in arbitration, See, Petrochilos (2016), p. 311 et seq.

467

Gaillard (2017), p. 17 et seqq.

468

Reinhold (2013), p. 49.

469

Peters (2003), p. 12; Lo (2013), p. 20; Reinhold (2013), p. 41.

470

Lo (2013), p. 19.

471

Lo (2013), p. 19.

472

Price (2005), p. 76; Juratowitch (2008), p. 34; On the close relation between estoppel and good faith, see, Sanja (2012), p. 215 et seqq.; Reinhold (2013), p. 53.

473

Lo (2013), p. 21.

474

Lo (2013), p. 21.

475

Reinhold (2013), p. 49.

476

Gaillard (2017), p. 17 et seqq.

477

Sanja (2012), p. 209 et seqq.; Sheppard (2005), p. 236.

478

Gaillard (2017), p. 8.

479

Gaillard (2017), p. 18.

480

Sheppard (2005), p. 236 et seq.

481

See, Art. 31.1, Belarus-India BIT, 2018.

Abedian H (2011) Judicial review of arbitral awards in international arbitration. JOIA 28(6):553–590CrossRef

Alford RP (2000) The proliferation of international courts and tribunals: international adjudication in ascendance. ASIL Proc 94:160–165

Allen BE, Soave T (2014) Jurisdictional overlap in WTO dispute settlement and investment arbitration. Arbitr Int 30(1):1–58CrossRef

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

Amerasinghe CF (2009) Jurisdiction of specific international tribunals. Martinus Nijhoff, LeidenCrossRef

Atai A (2011) Arbitration of investment disputes under Iranian investment treaties. J Money Laundering Control 14(2):130–157CrossRef

Atkey RG (1968) Foreign investment disputes: jurisdiction of international tribunals. West Ont Law Rev 7:111–142

Basaran HR (2015) Is international arbitration universal. ILSA J Int Comp Law 21(3):497–534

Bentolila D (2018) Towards a doctrine of jurisprudence in treaty-based investment arbitration. https://edisciplinas.usp.br/mod/resource/view.php?id=193429. Accessed 24 Mar 2020

Bernasconi-Osterwalder N (2016) State-state dispute settlement in investment treaties. In: Singh K, Ilge B (eds) Rethinking bilateral investment treaties. Both Ends, Amsterdam, pp 253–262

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

Bintliff B (2001) Mandatory v. Persuasive cases. Perspect: Teaching Leg Res Writing 9:83–85

Bjorge E (2011) National supreme courts and the development of ECHR rights. Int J Constitutional Law 9(1):5–11CrossRef

Bjorklund AK (2008) Investment treaty arbitral decisions as jurisprudence constante. In: Picker CB, Bunn ID, Arner DW (eds) International economic law: the state and future of the discipline. Hart Publishing, Oregon, pp 265–280

Bjorklund AK (2009) State immunity and the enforcement of investor-state arbitral awards. Paper presented at UGA International Law Colloquium, University of Georgia, 20 March 2009

Blackmore DT (2003) Eradicating the long standing existence of a no-precedent rule in international trade law - looking toward Stare Decisis in WTO Dispute Settlement. N C J Int Law Commercial Regul 29(3):487–519

Bockstiegel KH (1986) States in the international arbitral process. Arbitr Int 2(1):22–32CrossRef

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

Brower CN, Blanchard S (2014a) What’s in a meme? The truth about investor state arbitration: why it need not, and must not, be repossessed by states. Columbia J Trans Law 52:689–777

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

Bungenberg M, Titi C (2015) Precedents in international investment law. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law - a handbook. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 1505–1516CrossRef

Caron DD (1990) The nature of the Iran-United States claims tribunal and the evolving structure of international dispute resolution. AJIL 84(1):104–156CrossRef

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

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

Chatinakrob T (2018) Justifying jurisprudence Constante as interpretative instrument of investment treaty arbitration. J Leg Stud Res 4(2):188–198

Chen RC (2019) Precedent and dialogue in investment treaty arbitration. Harv Int Law J 60(1):47–94

Cheng TH (2007) Precedent and control in investment treaty arbitration. Fordham Int Law J 30(4):1014–1049

Cisar I (2010) Legal status of the arbitration tribunal under the international law: can the arbitration tribunal be an international legal person? In: COFOLA 2010: the Conference Proceedings, 1st edn. Masaryk University Brno, pp 1499–1518

Cisar I, Halla S (2012) The finality of arbitral awards in international law. GRANT J 1(1):25–31

Clodfelter M (2014) Do states have a duty to cooperate in the interpretation of investment treaties? ASIL Proc 108:188–190

Cohen HG (2013) Lawyers and precedent. Vanderbilt J Trans Law 46:1025–1040

Cohen HG (2015) Theorizing precedent in international law. In: Bianchi A, Peat D, Windsor M (eds) Interpretation in international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 268–289CrossRef

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

Copeland CS (1999) The use of arbitration to settle territorial disputes. Fordham Law Rev 67(6):3073–3108

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

Crivellaro A (2005) Consolidation of arbitral and court proceedings in investment disputes. In: Cremades BM, Lew JDM (eds) Parallel state and arbitral procedures in international arbitration. ICC Publishing, Paris, pp 79–126

Crook JR (1989) Applicable law in international arbitration: the Iran-US claims tribunal experience. AJIL 83(2):278–311CrossRef

Crook JR (2012) U.S. Senate approves investment treaty with Rwanda and mutual legal assistance treaty with Bermuda, addressing both treaties’ domestic implementation. AJIL 106(1):141–145

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, Angelini A (2012) After “The Court Rose”: the rise of diplomatic means to implement the pronouncements of the International Court of Justice. LPICT 11:1–46

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

Delaume GR (1981) State contracts and transnational arbitration. AJIL 75(4):784–819CrossRef

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

Dobbins JC (2010) Structure and precedent. Mich Law Rev 108:1453–1496

Douglas Z (2010) Can a doctrine of precedent be justified in investment treaty arbitration? ICSID Rev-FILJ 25(1):104–110CrossRef

Dumas J (1911) Sanctions of international arbitration. AJIL 5(4):934–957CrossRef

Edmunds GF (1897) International arbitration. Proc Am Philos Soc 36(155):320–323

Escobar A (1997) An overview of the International Legal Framework governing investment. ASIL Proc 91:488–499

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 (2016) State-owned enterprises as claimants in international investment arbitration. ICSID Rev 31(1):24–35CrossRef

Fox H (1988) States and the undertaking to arbitrate. ICLQ 37(1):1–29CrossRef

Franck SD (2014) Conflating politics and development? Examining investment treaty arbitration outcomes. Virginia J Int Law 55(1):13–71

Gaillard E (2017) Abuse of process in international arbitration. ICSID Rev 32(1):1–21CrossRef

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

Gal-Or N (2008) The concept of appeal in international dispute settlement. EJIL 19(1):43–65CrossRef

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

Gazzini T (2018) Travelling the national route: South Africa’s Protection of Investment Act 2015. African J Int Comp Law 26(2):242–263CrossRef

Gent SE (2013) The politics of international arbitration and adjudication. Penn State J Law Int Aff 2(1):66–77

Georgilas SG (2016) Abuse of rights in modern international investment arbitration: the rule of law revisited? The practitioner’s view. In: Pazartis P, Gavouneli M (eds) Reconceptualising the rule of law in global governance, resources, investment and trade. Hart Publishing, Oregon, pp 319–330

Gorywoda L (2017) How states manage their obligations under bilateral investment treaties: opportunistically changing the rules of the game or legitimately exercising their sovereign rights? Kluwer Arbitration Blog. http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2017/08/28/part-states-manage-obligations-bilateral-investment-treaties-opportunistically-changing-rules-game-legitimately-exercising-sovereign-rights/. Accessed 24 Mar 2020

Guillaume G (2011) The use of precedent by international judges and arbitrators. JIDS 2(1):5–23

Gunes BS (2015) Res Judicata in international arbitration: to what extent does an arbitral award prevent the re-litigation of issues? TDM 12(6)

Haersolte-van Hof JJ, Koppe EV (2015) International arbitration and lex arbitri. Arbitr Int 31(1):27–62CrossRef

Hambro E (1953) The interpretation of multilateral treaties by the International Court of Justice. Trans Grotius Soc 39:235–255

Hamida WB (2009) Investment treaties and domestic courts: a transnational mosaic reviving Thomas Wälde’s Legacy. In: Werner J, Ali AH (eds) A Liber Amicorum: Thomas Wälde law beyond conventional thought. CMP Publishing, London, pp 69–86

Hansen RF (2010) Parallel proceedings in investor-state treaty arbitration: responses for treaty-drafters, arbitrators and parties. Mod Law Rev 73(4):523–550CrossRef

Hernandez G (2015) Interpretative authority and the international judiciary. In: Bianchi A, Peat D, Windsor M (eds) Interpretation in international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 166–185CrossRef

Herz D (1995–1996) Effects of international arbitral tribunals in national courts. N Y Univ J Int Law Polit 28:217–274

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 (2004) Arbitration involving states. In: Newman L, Hill R (eds) The leading arbitrators’ guide to international arbitration, 2nd edn. Juris Publishing, New York, pp 139–162

Hober K (2005) Parallel arbitration proceedings - duties of the arbitrators. In: Cremades BM, Lew JDM (eds) Parallel state and arbitral procedures in international arbitration. ICC Publishing, Paris, pp 243–267

Houde M, Yannaca-Small K (2004) Relationships between International Investment Agreements, OECD Working Papers on International Investment, 2004/01. OECD Publishing, Paris

Howard DM (2017) Creating consistency through a World Investment Court. Fordham Int Law J 41(1):1–52

ILC (1964) Summary record of the 765th Meeting of the International Law Commission held on 14 July 1964, Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1964, vol I, pp 275–282

ILC (2006) Commentaries to the Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection. Report of the International Law Commission, Fifty-eighth session (1 May-9 June and 3 July-11 August 2006). General Assembly Official Records, Sixty-first Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/61/10)

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

Institut de droit international (2013) Report-Tokyo Session 2013, 18th Commission, Legal aspects of recourse to arbitration by an investor against the authorities of the host state under inter-state treaties

Ishikawa T (2015a) The principle of effective interpretation in the World Trade Organization and investment arbitration: difference in parameters. Contemp Asia Arbitr J 8(2):267–298

Ivanov M, Manassyan I (2016) Russia. In: Carter JH (ed) The international arbitration review, 7th edn. Law Business Research, London, pp 431–445

Jacob M (2012) Precedents: lawmaking through international adjudication. In: von Bogdandy A, Venzke I (eds) International judicial lawmaking. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 35–68CrossRef

Jacob M (2014) Investments, bilateral treaties, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1061. Accessed 24 Mar 2020

Jacobs BL (2015) A perplexing paradox: “De-statification” of “Investor-state” Dispute Settlement. Emory Int Law Rev 30:17–49

Janecková P (2017) Lis Pendens before national and arbitration courts. Int J Multidisciplinary Thought 6(1):291–300

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

Johnson L, Sachs L (2014) International Investment Agreements, 2011–2012: a review of trends and new approaches. In: Bjorklund A (ed) Yearbook on international investment law & policy 2012–2013. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 219–261

Johnstone I (1991) Treaty interpretation: the authority of interpretive communities. Mich J Int Law 2(2):371–419

Juratowitch B (2008) The relationship between diplomatic protection and investment treaties. ICSID Rev - FILJ 23(1):10–35CrossRef

Kaldunski M (2011) The element of risk in international investment arbitration. Int Community Law Rev 13:111–124CrossRef

Kammerhofer J (2008) Systemic integration, legal theory and the International Law Commission. In: Klabbers J (ed) Finnish YBIL 19:157–182

Karton J (2014) Reform of Investor-State Dispute Settlement: lessons from international uniform law. TDM 11(1)

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 et al (2006) Consolidation of proceedings in investment arbitration: how can multiple proceedings arising from the same or related situations be handled efficiently? Final report on the Geneva Colloquium held on 22 April 2006. ICSID Rev 21(1):59–125CrossRef

Keohane RO, Moravcsik A, Slaughter AM (2000) Legalized dispute resolution: interstate and transnational. Int Org 54(3):457–488CrossRef

Kidane WL (2016) China’s bilateral investment treaties with African states in comparative context. Cornell Int Law J 49:141–177

Kidane WL (2017) The culture of international arbitration. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef

Kim SY, Ahn TJ (2018) Investment arbitration and parallel proceedings. In: Legum B (ed) The investment treaty arbitration review. Law Business Research Ltd., London, pp 67–78

Kolse-Patil A (2010) Precedents in investor state arbitration. Ind J Int Econ Law 3(1):37–64

Korobeinikov A (2017) Kyrgyzstan. In: The Baker McKenzie international arbitration yearbook 2017, 10th edn. Baker McKenzie, London, pp 275–284

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

Lalive P (1980) The first ‘World Bank’ arbitration (Holiday Inns v. Morocco)—some legal problems. Br YBIL 51(1):123–162

Langford M, Behn D, Lie RH (2017) The revolving door in international investment arbitration. JIEL 20(2):301–332CrossRef

Lazo RP (2015) The changing role of the home and the host state in investor-state arbitration. In: Lalani S, Lazo RP (eds) The role of the state in investor-state arbitration. Brill, Leiden, pp 430–436

Lew JDM (2005) Concluding remarks. In: Cremades BM, Lew JDM (eds) Parallel state and arbitral procedures in international arbitration. ICC Publishing, Paris, pp 305–312

Linderfalk U (2007) On the interpretation of treaties: the modern international law as expressed in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the law of treaties. Springer, DordrechtCrossRef

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

Ly FD, Sheppard A (2004) Interim report: “Res judicata” and arbitration. International Law Association, Berlin Conference

Macias MJSL (2016a) Inter-State Investment Dispute Settlement in Latin America: is there space for transparency? JWIT 17(4):634–657CrossRef

Macias MJSL (2016b) Reliance on alternate methods for investment protection through national laws, investment contracts and regional institutions in Latin America. In: Hindelang S, Krajewski M (eds) Shifting paradigms in international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 291–315CrossRef

Malanczuk P (2000) State-state and Investor-State Dispute Settlement in the OECD Draft Multilateral Investment Agreement. JIEL 3(3):417–439CrossRef

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

Mann FA (1967) State contracts and international arbitration. Br YBIL 42:1–37

Martinez-Fraga PJ, Samra HJ (2012) The role of precedent in defining Res Judicata in investor-state arbitration. Northwestern J Int Law Bus 32(3):419–450

Merrills JG (2017) International dispute settlement, 6th edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef

Mitchell A, Munro J (2013) State-state dispute settlement under the trans-pacific partnership agreement. In: Voon T (ed) Trade liberalisation and international co-operation - a legal analysis of the trans-pacific partnership agreement. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 156–178

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

Nodeh MC (2003–2004) International arbitration and enforcement of arbitral awards. Banaras Law J 32–33:119–136

Nový Z (2017) Lis Pendens between international investment tribunals and national courts. Czech Yrbk Pub Pvt Int Law 8:536–549

O’Connell ME (1990) The prospects for enforcing monetary judgments of the International Court of Justice: a study of Nicaragua’s Judgment against the United States. Virginia J Int Law 30:891–940

Oellers-Frahm K (2001) Multiplication of international courts and tribunals and conflicting jurisdiction - problems and possible solutions. In: Frowein JA, Wolfrum R (eds) Max Planck Year Book of United Nations Law, vol 5. Martinus Nijhoff, Netherlands, pp 67–104

Oellers-Frahm K (2012) Lawmaking through advisory opinion. In: von Bogdandy A, Venzke I (eds) International judicial lawmaking. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 69–98CrossRef

Oellers-Frahm K (2019) Judicial and arbitral decisions, validity and nullity, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e53. Accessed 24 Mar 2020

Office of Legal Affairs (1992) Handbook on the peaceful settlement of disputes between states. United Nations, New York

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

Parra AR (2016) Remembering Aron Broches. Investment Claims, Oxford University Press. http://oxia.ouplaw.com/page/icsid-aron-broches Accessed 24 Mar 2020

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

Peters A (2003) International dispute settlement: a network of cooperational duties. EJIL 14(1):1–34CrossRef

Petrochilos G (2016) Three pillars of international public policy. In: Pazartis P, Gavouneli M (eds) Reconceptualising the rule of law in global governance, resources, investment and trade. Hart Publishing, Oregon, pp 309–318

Polanco R (2019) The return of the home state to investor-state disputes: bringing back diplomatic protection. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef

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

Potesta M (2015) Towards a greater role for state-to-state arbitration in the architecture of investment treaties. In: Lalani S, Lazo RP (eds) The role of the state in investor-state arbitration. Brill, Leiden, pp 249–273

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

Reinhold S (2013) Good faith in international law. UCL J Law Juris 2:40–63

Reinisch A (2004) The use and limits of Res Judicata and Lis Pendens as procedural tools to avoid conflicting dispute settlement outcomes. LPICT 3:37–77

Reinisch A (2010) The issues raised by parallel proceedings and possible solutions. In: Waibel M et al (eds) The backlash against investment arbitration. Wolters Kluwer, The Netherlands, pp 113–126

Reinisch A (2013b) Austria. In: Brown C (ed) Commentaries on selected model investment treaties. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 15–52

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

Reisman WM (1996) The supervisory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice: international arbitration and international adjudication. Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, vol 258. Martinus Nijhoff, Boston

Roberts A (2010) Power and persuasion in investment treaty interpretation: the dual role of states. AJIL 104(2):179–225CrossRef

Roberts A (2013) Clash of paradigms: actors and analogies shaping the investment treaty system. AJIL 107(1):45–94CrossRef

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

Rosenne S (2007) Interpretation, revision and other recourse from international judgments and awards. Martinus Nijhoff, LeidenCrossRef

Rothwell DR (2005) Anticipatory self-defence in age of international terrorism. Univ Queensland Law J 24(2):337–353

Sanja D (2012) Mapping the good faith principle in international investment arbitration: assessment of its substantive and procedural value. Proc Law Faculty Novi Sad 46(3):207–233

Saunder M, Salomon C (2007) Enforcement of arbitral awards against states and state entities. Arbitr Int 23(3):467–476CrossRef

Schill SW (2010) The multilateralization of international investment law: emergence of a multilateral system of investment protection on bilateral grounds. Trade Law Dev II(1):59–86

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

Schill SW (2012) International arbitration as system - builders. ASIL Proc 106:295–297

Schill SW, Vidigal G (2018) Cutting the Gordian Knot: Investment Dispute Settlement a la Carte. Think Piece, RTA Exchange

Schreuer C (1996) Commentary on the ICSID Convention - Article 25. ICSID Rev-FILJ 11(2):318–492CrossRef

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 (2015) Do we need investment arbitration? In: Kalicki JE, Joubin-Bret A (eds) Reshaping the Investor-State Dispute Settlement system: journeys for the 21st century. Brill, Leiden, pp 879–889

Schreuer C, Malintoppi L, Reinisch A, Sinclair A (2013) The ICSID Convention: a commentary, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Schultz T, Dupont C (2014) Investment arbitration: promoting the rule of law or over-empowering investors?-a quantitative empirical study. EJIL 25(4):1147–1168CrossRef

Schwebel SM (1995) Foreword. In: Selected essays: World Bank, ICSID, and other subjects of public and private international law. Martinus Nijhoff, AD Dordrecht, pp ix–x

Seifi J (1992) Procedural remedies against awards of Iran-United States claims tribunal. Arbitr Int 8(1):41–72CrossRef

Sharpe JK (2014) Possible paradigmatic changes in the settlement of international investment disputes. ASIL Proc 108:193–196

Shatz BG, Petrossian E (2013) To cite or not to cite? That is the question. California Litigation 26(1):15–20

Sheppard A (2005) Res judicata and estoppel. In: Cremades BM, Lew JDM (eds) Parallel state and arbitral procedures in international arbitration. ICC Publishing, Paris, pp 219–242

Shihata IFI (1984) Editorial. News from ICSID 1(2):2–3

Small DH (1997) An overview of the International Legal Framework Governing Investment. ASIL Proc 91:488–499

Steingruber AM (2012) Consent in international arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Szabdos T (2015) ‘Precedents’ in EU law — the problem of overruling. ELTE Law J 2015(1):125–146

Tanaka Y (2018) The peaceful settlement of international disputes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Titi C (2015) Are investment tribunals adjudicating political disputes? JOIA 32(3):261–288CrossRef

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

Tzeng P (2017) The annulment of interstate arbitral awards. Kluwer Arbitration Blog. http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2017/07/01/the-annulment-of-interstate-arbitral-awards/. Accessed 24 Mar 2020

UNCITRAL Working Group III (2018) Possible reform of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). Note by the Secretariat. 5 September 2018, Doc No. A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.149

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

UNCTAD (2017a) Trade and Development Board, reform of the International Investment Agreement regime: Phase 2. 31 July 2017, Doc No. TD/B/C.II/MEM.4/14

United Nations (1955) Commentary on the draft convention on arbitral procedure. United Nations, New York. Doc No. A/CN.4/92

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

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

Vázquez CM (1995) The four doctrines of self-executing treaties. AJIL 89(1):695–723CrossRef

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

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

Wood M (2017) Choosing between arbitration and a permanent court: lessons from inter-state cases. ICSID Rev 32(1):1–16CrossRef

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

Zamora S (2001) Economic relations and development. In: Joyner CC (ed) The United Nations and international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 232–286

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

Shamsasei M (1992) Compensation for expropriation and nationalization of foreign investment – the contribution of the Iran-U.S. claims tribunal. PhD Dissertation, Sheffield University

Title: Resolution of Procedural Hurdles in Utilising State-to-State Arbitration Under IIAs
Author: Angshuman Hazarika
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Book: State-to-state Arbitration based on International Investment Agreements
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-50034-4

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

Copyright Year: 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50035-1_4

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"