Top

Published in:

2021 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

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

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

A large variety of disputes can possibly be covered under the scope of ‘interpretation’ or ‘application’ of an international investment agreement by a state-to-state arbitration tribunal. However, in the absence of cases, the exact nature of disputes which could emerge from the compromissory clause in international investment agreements in a state-to-state arbitration has not been explored in detail. Through an evaluation of the international investment agreements, existing literature and the few cases of state-to-state arbitration, this chapter enumerates the disputes which may emerge for consideration. A key finding of this chapter is that while an attempt may be made to classify disputes under the umbrella of ‘interpretation’ or ‘application’ of a treaty, such classification may be inadequate and it is a distinct possibility that tribunals may deal with mixed questions in practical situations.

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 Framework for State-to-State Arbitration Under the Compromissory Clause in an IIA

next chapter Resolution of Procedural Hurdles in Utilising State-to-State Arbitration Under IIAs

The state-to-state arbitration provision is very rarely not present as seen inter alia in the case of the Austria-Kazakhstan BIT; UAE-Montenegro BIT. The IIA Mapping project of UNCTAD as on 24 March 2020 states that 17 out of 2577 mapped treaties do not have a state-to-state arbitration provision (Information available on https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements/iia-mapping, Accessed 24 Mar 2020). On this also see, Potesta (2013), p. 753; Potesta (2015), p. 250; Lourie (2015), p. 512.

Lubambo (2016), p. 226.

Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 7.

Peters (1991), p. 111; Subcommittee on Unfair Trade Policies and Measures (2015), p. 1190; Polanco (2019), p. 267; Lo (2013), p. 12; UNCTAD (2003b), p. 14, 66; Charney (1987), p. 883 et seqq.; See also, Cannizzaro and Bonafe (2005), p. 494 et seq.; For a comment on the board coverage of a similar clause in the ECT, see, Baltag (2018), p. 366.

The powers of an international tribunal to deal with the interpretation or application of the so called ‘standard compromissory clauses’ was discussed in the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement. In the given case, there was no dispute about the interpretation of the treaty, but about the application of the treaty. The ICJ has also determined the wide jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunals in ICJ, Interpretation of Peace Treaties, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 65 at 73 et seqq. and ICJ, Ambatielos case (merits: obligation to arbitrate), Judgment of May 19th, 1953: I.C.J. Reports 1953, p. 10.

UNCTAD (2003b), p. 14; For further discussion on this wide mandate distinguishing it from investor-state arbitration, see, Roberts (2010), p. 189.

Lo (2012), p. 9.

UNCTAD (2003b), p. 40.

UNCTAD (2003b), p. 4.

Recanati (2014), p. 436; See also, Gazzini (2018), p. 255.

USA v. Mexico, Cross-Border Trucking Services, Secretariat File No. USA-MEX-98-2008-01, February 6, 2001.

Hindelang (2014), p. 81.

UNCTAD (2003b), p. 14.

Berman (2004), p. 321.

Methymaki and Tzanakopoulos (2016), p. 159 et seqq.; Committees on Research in International Law (1935), p. 975 et seqq.

Lubambo (2017), p. 83.

Johnson and Razbaeva (2014), p. 1.

Vandevelde (2017), p. 531.

Methymaki and Tzanakopoulos (2016), p. 159 et seqq.; Berner (2016), p. 850.

Berner (2016), p. 850.

Hernandez (2015), p. 167; Lauterpacht (1935), p. 549; Morse (1960), p. 38.

Art. 28, Paris Convention.

Art. 33, Berne Convention.

Art. XV, UCC.

Art. 59, PCT.

Foltea (2012), p. 143 et. seqq.; Zamora (2001), p. 269; Pickert (1976), p. 217.

Art. 64, ICSID Convention; Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 14.

Hague I Convention.

Hague II Convention.

Art. 1, GTIAA.

Art. 13, Covenant of the League of Nations.

Committees on Research in International Law (1935), p. 974.

Only provision in Art. 10, MARPOL; One of the alternatives in Art. 20, Basel Convention; Art. XVIII, CITES; Art. 27 ECT.

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

Macias (2016a), p. 643; Kaufmann-Kohler (2006), p. 76.

Brower and Blanchard (2014a), p. 694.

Potesta (2015), p. 250.

An example of an IIA which provides all these modes of interpretations is the India-Mexico BIT, 2007.

Kulick (2016), p. 143; Comella (2014), p. 21.

Hindelang (2014), p. 81.

Roberts (2014), p. 52 et seqq.

Polanco (2019), p. 268; Lourie (2015), p. 513; Macias (2016b), p. 308; Kulick (2016), p. 135; Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 8; Gallo and Nicola (2015–2016), p. 1137 et seq.; For an indirect mention of the possibility, See, Kaufmann-Kohler (2006), p. 76. For a contrary view, See, Rosenfeld (2016a), p. 339.

PCA Case No. 2012-5, Republic of Ecuador v. United States of America, Expert Opinion of Prof. Alain Pellet (English), 23 May, 2012, para 16; PCA Case No. 2012-5, Republic of Ecuador v. United States of America, Expert Opinion of Stephen C. McCaffrey (English), 23 May, 2012, para 40; Potesta (2015), p. 254 et seqq.

PCA Case No. 2012-5, Republic of Ecuador v. United States of America, Expert Opinion of C.F. Amerasinghe (English), 23 May, 2012, para 25 et seq.; Gallo and Nicola (2015–2016), p. 1138.

UNCTAD (2003b), p. 6; Parra (1997), p. 339.

Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 18.

Potesta (2013), p. 755; UNCTAD (2003b), p. 6; Brazilian investment agreements including the Brazil-Mexico Agreement, 2015 and the Brazil-Peru Economic and Trade Expansion Agreement, 2016 contain provisions which allow for an interpretative award without any affected investor. On this see, Lubambo (2017), p. 91.

Art. 2004 NAFTA. See also, Art. 2006 (1) NAFTA.

UNCTAD (2003b), p. 6.

Castillo-Laborde (2008), p. 314.

Trevino (2014), p. 204.

ICJ, Admission of a State to the United Nations (Charter, Art. 4), Advisory Opinion: I.C.J. Reports 1948, p. 57, 61.

ICJ, Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009, p. 213, 240, paras. 57–70.

ICJ, Case concerning rights of nationals of the United States of America in Morocco, Judgment of August 27th, 1952: I.C.J. Reports 1952, p. 176, 179.

PCIJ, German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Germ. v. Pol.), 1926 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 7 (May 25), p. 18–19—“There seems to be no reason why States should not be able to ask the Court to give an abstract interpretation of a treaty; rather would it appear that this is one of the most important functions which it can fulfil”; See also, Committees on Research in International Law (1935), p. 939.

The Question whether the re-evaluation of the German Mark in 1961 and 1969 constitutes a case for application of the clause in article 2 (e) of Annex I A of the 1953 Agreement on German External Debts, 16 May 1980, RIAA, Vol. XIX, pp. 67–145, 84 et seqq.; See also, Trevino (2014), p. 204 for a detailed study on abstract treaty interpretation.

Klucka (2020), mn. 6.1.2.

UNCTAD (2003b), p. 75.

Schreuer (2001), p. 102.

Kolb (2013), p. 428.

On this debate see, Macias (2016a), p. 643 et seqq.; Roberts (2014), p. 55 et seqq.

Schreuer (2009), p. 961; Potesta (2013), p. 756.

Lubambo (2017), p. 84. See also, Castillo-Laborde (2008), p. 314.

ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004, p. 136.

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 22 et seq.; Mayr and Mayr-Singer (2016), p. 427 et seqq.; Kulick (2016), p. 135.

Kulick (2016), p. 137.

Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 8; UNCTAD (2003b), p. 6 et seq.

Kaufmann-Kohler (2006), p. 76; See also, Hindelang (2014), p. 81.

UNCTAD (2003b), p. 6; Comella (2014), p. 21; Lourie (2017), p. 143 et seqq.

For a situation when a ‘proposed measure’ has been removed from the scope of review by an arbitral tribunal, See, Art. 20.6(1) CAFTA-DR.

Recanati (2014), p. 436.

PCA Case No. 2012-5, Republic of Ecuador v. United States of America, Award, 29 September, 2012, para 198.

Rosenfeld (2016a), p. 335.

PCA Case No. 2007-2: Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Company v. The Republic of Ecuador, Referred to in PCA Case No. 2012-5, Republic of Ecuador v. United States of America, Award, 29 September, 2012, para 40.

PCA Case No. 2012-5, Republic of Ecuador v. United States of America, Award, 29 September, 2012, para 98; Akande (2012).

Kopela (2010), p. 134. For a general discussion on the issue of silence as acceptance, see also: US District Court for the District of South Dakota, McGlone v. Lacey, 288 F. Supp. 662 (D.S.D. 1968), September 12, 1968.

PCA Case No. 2012-5, Republic of Ecuador v. United States of America, Award, 29 September, 2012, para 208 et seqq.

Cisar (2010), p. 1514.

On this issue, see discussion in, Bungenberg and Reinisch (2018), p. 196.

Committees on Research in International Law (1935), p. 939.

Trevino (2014), p. 205.

Trevino (2014), p. 206.

Schreuer (1997), p. 211 et seqq.

Alschner (2015), p. 331.

Kulick (2016), p. 139; Rosenfeld (2016a), p. 333; See also, Macias (2016b), p. 308.

Lubambo (2016), p. 229; Kulick (2016), p. 139.

Kulick (2016), p. 139 et. seqq.

Jacobs (2015), p. 45; Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 10; Comella (2014), p. 21; See also, Oellers-Frahm (2012), p. 93.

Kulick (2016), p. 140. IIAs may provide for fixed time period for completion of state-to-state arbitration, for examples on this, see, Art. 9(5), Israel-Myanmar BIT; Art. 9(5), Israel-Azerbaijan BIT.

Lubambo (2017), p. 85.

Posner and Walter (2015), p. 391.

Gallo and Nicola (2015–2016), p. 1141.

Kulick (2016), p. 140.

Ivanov and Manassyan (2016), p. 444.

Hindelang (2014), p. 70.

Kulick (2016), p. 141 et. seqq.

Posner and Walter (2015), p. 388.

Lubambo (2017), p. 85.

See, Exchange of letters between Switzerland and Sudan on the same date as the signing of the BIT (17 February, 1974) which are attached to the treaty and are an integral part of the BIT as per Art. 11 of the Switzerland-Sudan BIT, 1974.

Oellers-Frahm (2012), p. 93.

100

Rosenfeld (2016a), p. 333; Jacobs (2015), p. 45.

101

Roberts (2014), p. 62 et seqq.; Jacobs (2015), p. 45; Alschner (2015), p. 330.

102

Brower and Blanchard (2014b), p. 50.

103

UNCTAD (2003b), p. 64.

104

Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 16; Lubambo (2016), p. 241.

105

Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 6.

106

Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 16.

107

Lubambo (2016), p. 242; Wisner and Campbell (2018), p. 17 et seqq.

108

Celik (2012–2013), p. 57.

109

For a discussion on the procedure of an Opt-in Convention, See, Kaufmann-Kohler and Potesta (2016), p. 97. For a discussion on possibility of consensual amendment of IIAs to provide jurisdiction to a dispute resolution forum, see, Bungenberg and Reinisch (2018), p. 64.

110

Kaufmann-Kohler and Potesta (2016), p. 48.

111

Art. 267 TFEU; See also, Schreuer (2008), p. 211.

112

See Art. XIV, CCJ Agreement; Art. 34, EAC Agreement governing the East African Court of Justice; Art. 30, COMESA Agreement governing the COMESA Court of Justice; Art. 32, ACJ Treaty; For a discussion on preliminary reference and advisory procedure in arbitration, See, Butler (2015), p. 379 et seq.

113

Discussions on a Preliminary Ruling Mechanism for investor-state arbitration has been made inter alia in: UNCITRAL Working Group III (2018), p. 9; Hindelang (2014), p. 70; Tams (2007), p. 249; Potesta (2015), p. 271 et seqq.; Del-Gligor (2017), p. 391 et seqq.; Schreuer (2008), p. 211; Jacobs (2015), p. 45; Schreuer (2013), p. 400; Reinisch (2010), p. 118.

114

Law Commission of India (2015), para. 5.8.3; Del-Gligor (2017), p. 442 et seqq.; Schreuer (2008), p. 211. A requirement to temporarily halt the proceedings is seen in the preliminary ruling procedure of international courts. On this see, Guidelines on a Reference for Preliminary Ruling of the East African Court of Justice, Available at http://eacj.org//wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Guidelines-Reference-for-Preliminary-Ruling.pdf (Accessed 24 Mar 2020); See also, Art. 33, ACJ Treaty.

115

Schreuer (2010), p. 150 et seq.

116

Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 16.

117

On the inferences which could be derived from state submission, See, Alvarez (2009), p. 47.

118

Schreuer (2008), p. 209.

119

Art. 10.25, KNZFTA; See also, Titi (2017), p. 39.

120

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

121

Schreuer (2008), p. 211; Schreuer (2013), p. 400; Schreuer and Melendez (2018), p. 6.

122

On this see also, Kaufmann-Kohler (2006), p. 77.

123

Art. 1415, NAFTA; Clause I, Annex II, Canada-Costa Rica BIT; Art. 20(2), Canada-China BIT, 2012.

124

Titi (2017), p. 43.

125

Johnson et al. (2016), p. 44.

126

Titi (2017), p. 43; Roberts (2013), p. 82; See also, Johnson et al. (2016), p. 45; See also, UNCTAD (2007), p. 128; UNCITRAL Working Group III (2018), p. 8.

127

UNCITRAL (2018), p. 15.

128

See, Art. 20(2), Canada-China BIT, 2012; See also, Titi (2017), p. 44.

129

For such provisions, See Art. 20(2)(c), Canada-China BIT, 2012 and Art. 22(4) of the Canada-Hong Kong BIT; See also, Polanco (2019), p. 117. On the binding nature of the SSAT decision for the ISAT see, Kidane (2016), p. 161.

130

Titi (2017), p. 43.

131

For a discussion on preliminary rulings for an ISAT, see, Schreuer and Melendez (2018), p. 6.

132

Kulick (2016), p. 147 et. seqq.

133

Lubambo (2017), p. 85.

134

Kulick (2016), p. 148.

135

For examples, see, Art. 41, Canada-Jordan BIT; Art. 23(3), Canada-Serbia BIT; Art. 25(3), Canada-Benin BIT; Art. 10.25, KNZFTA; Art. 40(2), ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement, 2009.

136

A possibility for a non-disputing party submission is seen in many IIAs, inter alia Art. 22, Canada-Benin BIT; Art. 39, Canada-Jordan BIT.

137

For a treaties with binding time period for replying to such a joint interpretation request, see, Art. 40(2), ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement, 2009; Art. 10.25, KNZFTA; Art. 41, Canada-Jordan BIT.

138

Art. 3.32, EU-Singapore IPA, 2018.

139

For discussion on inter partes amendments, See, Bungenberg and Reinisch (2018), p. 66 et seqq. See also, Chaudhri (1984), p. 23.

140

Schreuer (2008), p. 212; Schreuer and Melendez (2018), p. 6; Schreuer (2013), p. 401.

141

Schreuer (2008), p. 212.

142

Howard (2017), p. 47 et seq.

143

See, Art. 25, Canada-Benin BIT.

144

See, Art. 41, Canada-Jordan BIT.

145

Binding time periods for resolution of state-to-state disputes are already seen in a number of IIAs including, inter alia Turkey-Gambia BIT, 2013 and the Israel-Azerbaijan BIT.

146

Delaume (1983), p. 795.

147

For a brief mention on the possibility of such a system, see, Butler (2015), p. 379 et seq.

148

Art. XIII, CCJ Agreement.

149

See Art. 65(1), Statute of the ICJ which states: “The Court may give an advisory opinion on any legal question…”

150

A similar provision providing a limited scope of an advisory opinion is seen in Chapter IV, Art. 46 and 47, Statute of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union.

151

On this, See also, Oellers-Frahm (2012), p. 93.

152

UNCTAD (2003b), p. 56.

153

On this, See the Badinter Commission formed under the ‘Statement by an extraordinary EPC Ministerial Meeting concerning Yugoslavia’ issued on 27 August, 1991, published in 91/252 (Declaration), European Political Cooperation Documentation Bulletin, Vol. 7-1991, European University Institute, Florence, 1994, p. 389 et seq. See also, Fitzmaurice (2010); Oellers-Frahm (2012), p. 85 et seq.

154

Institut de droit international (2013), para 19.

155

On the power of an SSAT to determine coverage as an investment, See, UNCTAD (2003b), p. 56; The SSAT may not be able to directly issue an advisory opinion owing to lack of an explicit power provided in the treaties. For a detailed discussion on possibility of advisory opinions from arbitral tribunals, see, Sohn (1983), p. 188 et seq.

156

Advisory opinions of the ICJ are not considered binding, on this See, Mayr and Mayr-Singer (2016), p. 429 et seqq.; For a clause which provides explicit binding force to the interpretation of a treaty or international convention by an International Court based on a voluntary consultation by a State Party see, Art. 24, Statute of the Central American Court of Justice, 1992.

157

See Art. 4.9, Chapter 4, EUVFTA; Art. 6.5, Chapter 6, EUSINGFTA; Art. 6.6, Chapter 6, EUROKFTA; Art. 4.7, Chapter 4 EU-Japan EPA.

158

Such a provision is seen in Art. XXII(3), GATS.

159

Coe Jr (2007), p. 457; See also, Howard (2017), p. 32 et seq.

160

Schreuer (2013), p. 400.

161

ICSID, Case No. ARB/04/6, Oko Pankki Oyj and Ors. v Estonia, Award, 19 November 2007, para 201 et seqq.; Malik (2009), p. 4.

162

Butler (2013), p. 626; Katz (2016), p. 181 et seqq.; See also, Schreuer (2013), p. 399.

163

Subedi (2008), p. 196. For further supporting views, See, Price (1997), p. 494; Lee (2018), p. 33 et seq.; For views opposing such a treaty, See, Alvarez (2009), p. 79 et seq.

164

Butler (2013), p. 626.

165

Malanczuk (2000), p. 417; See also, Coe Jr (2007), p. 456.

166

Hambro (1953), p. 237.

167

The Economic Court of the Commonwealth of Independent States has dealt with interpretation of the Moscow Convention under Art. 28 of the Convention; Also see, Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 18.

168

Chapter V, C. 1, Draft Multilateral Agreement on Investment; Malanczuk (2000), p. 423. In the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement, 2009, the dispute resolution proceedings are undertaken through Art. 4 and 5, 2004 ASEAN DSM Protocol.

169

Sohn (1983), p. 176 et seqq.

170

Such a possibility can be seen under Art. 8, ASEAN-India Dispute Settlement Mechanism Agreement, 2009 which permits formation of multiple arbitration tribunals for resolution of disputes among state parties regarding the ASEAN-India Investment Agreement, 2014.

171

Reinisch (2004), p. 76; For a discussion on possibility of claims by the state of the shareholders, see, Broches (1972), p. 379.

172

On this, See also, Institute of International Law (1999), para 4.

173

For rare IIAs which contain such a provision, See, Art. 43(1), CEFTA; Art. 33 (2), Albania-EFTA FTA, 2009; Art. 9(1), Chapter 17, AANZFTA Agreement. For an extremely rare occurrence when an IIA explicitly bars formation of two SSATs on the same dispute, see, Art. VII(8), India-Turkey BIT, 1998.

174

Art. 15, India-Mexico BIT, 2007, Art. 33, US-Rwanda BIT; Art. 1126 NAFTA; Art. 32, 2004 Canadian Model BIT; See also, Hanotiau (2005); Crivellaro (2005), p. 103 et seqq.

175

Art. 9, Dispute Settlement Understanding.

176

For a discussion on the possibility of such interventions, see, Wood (2017), p. 7.

177

Alschner (2015), p. 327.

178

Pyka (2016), p. 82.

179

For an example of an explicit inclusion of a clause providing permissibility for Amicus Curiae submissions, see, Art. 43(2), CEFTA; Art. 28.11, 2012 SADC Model BIT; The possibility for submissions by a third state in a Panel proceeding can be seen through Art. 11 of the 2004 ASEAN DSM Protocol which governs the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement, 2009; See also, Franck (2005), p. 1617.

180

Art. 2008(3) NAFTA; Art. 20.6(3) CAFTA-DR.

181

Art. 2008(4) NAFTA; Art. 20.6(4) CAFTA-DR; See also, Canela (1993), p. 9.

182

Art, 19, ASEAN-India Investment Agreement, 2014 refers to resolution of disputes between state parties under the ASEAN-India Dispute Settlement Mechanism Agreement, 2009 which provides for Third State Party participation under Art. 8.

183

Small (1997), p. 497.

184

See Art. 8.38(2) CETA, Art. 10.20, CAFTA-DR; Art. 1128, NAFTA. See also, Onwuamaegbu (2009), p. 80. On its use in the NAFTA, see, Dumberry (2002), p. 78.

185

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.; See also, Wood (2017), p. 7.

186

Kulick (2016), p. 150.

187

UNCTAD (2003b), p. 74.

188

For such a treaty provision where the decision of the SSAT binds the ‘Contracting Parties’ instead of the disputing parties, see, Art. 10(4), ECO IA.

189

The binding effect of the award only on the disputing parties has been explicitly specified in Art. 17(5), China-Japan-ROK Trilateral Investment Agreement, 2012.

190

Art. 36, Revised General Act; Art. 84, Hague II Convention; See also, Institute of International Law (1999), para 7 et seqq.

191

Institute of International Law (1999), para 7 et seqq.

192

Art. 25.3, Dispute Settlement Understanding; Art. 37 (2), Revised General Act; Art. 84, Hague II Convention; Art. 56, Hague I Convention. A similar provision is found in Art. 63, Statute of the International Court of Justice, and in Art. XVIII(3), CCJ Agreement; See also, Hambro (1953), p. 240 et seqq.

193

Report of the International Law Commission Sixty-fifth session (6 May–7 June and 8 July–9 August 2013), UN Doc. A/68/10, p. 16.

194

Oellers-Frahm (2012), p. 93.

195

Bungenberg (2012), p. 13.

196

Alschner (2014), p. 274 et seqq. For examples of actual situations of coexistence between two different investment agreements see, UNCTAD evaluation of the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement, 2009 at https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements/treaties/treaties-with-investment-provisions/3273/asean-comprehensive-investment-agreement-2009- (Accessed 24 Mar 2020); See also, UNCTAD evaluation of the SADC Protocol on Finance and Investment, 2006, https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements/treaties/treaties-with-investment-provisions/3383/sadc-investment-protocol (Accessed 24 Mar 2020); Crockett (2015), p. 447.

197

Rolland (2017), p. 399 et seqq.; Peinhardt and Welhausen (2016), p. 572.

198

Crockett (2015), p. 448; UNCTAD (2003b), p. 5; Alschner (2014), p. 275 et seqq.; Hepburn (2016), p. 2 et seqq.; A possibility for overlap and inconsistency was deemed to be possible and a method for resolution of the same was seen in Art. 34, Belarus-India BIT, 2018.

199

Mitchell and Munro (2013), p. 157.

200

Art. 6, Argentina-Japan BIT, 2018.

201

Alschner (2014), p. 296 et seqq.; See also, Borgen (2005), p. 606 et seqq.

202

Alschner (2014), p. 296 et seqq.; For a practical situation when this issue is discussed, see, ICSID AF, Case No. ARB(AF)/16/3, B-Mex LLC and others v United Mexican States, Procedural Order No. 7, 23 November, 2018. For a discussion on investment agreements as Customary International Law or General Principles of Law, see, Salacuse and Sullivan (2005), p. 112 et seqq.

203

For such a treaty provision, See, Art. 9(4), Mauritius-Egypt BIT; See also, Hepburn (2016), p. 3.

204

Such a treaty provision is seen in Art. 8(5), Egypt-Cyprus BIT. Similar clauses can also be seen inter alia in Art. 11(5), Mexico-France BIT; Art. 12(5), Netherlands-Nigeria BIT.

205

See also, Etinski (2016), p. 12 et seq.; For a discussion on such a possibility also in investor-state arbitration based on similar clauses governing ISATs, see, Crockett (2015), p. 447.

206

Mitchell and Munro (2013), p. 158; See also, Borgen (2005), p. 575 et seqq.; Kurtz (2014).

207

Houde and Yannaca-Small (2004), p. 4; Hober (2005), p. 246; Mitchell and Munro (2013), p. 166; Gallo and Nicola (2015–2016), p. 1140; Franck (2005), p. 1545 et seqq. For further discussion on parallel claims from multiple investment treaties through an ISAT, see, Cremades and Madalena (2008), p. 538. Such a situation may also occur when states seek to enforce their rights through multiple treaties through multiple SSATs or other dispute resolution forums provided in the treaties.

208

Houde and Yannaca-Small (2004), p. 4.

209

See, Art. 2(5), ASEAN-India Dispute Settlement Mechanism Agreement, 2009; Art. 20.5, MAFTA; Art. 5(1), Chapter 17, AANZFTA Agreement; Chapter V, C. 1. c., Draft Multilateral Agreement on Investment.

210

Art. 326 (5), EU-Central America Association Agreement.

211

On this, see, Art. 30(3), CEFTA.

212

UNCTAD (2017), p. 9.

213

On the presence of state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism in almost all agreements, See, Houde and Yannaca-Small (2004), p. 10.

214

Hepburn (2016), p. 5 et seqq.

215

ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7, Emilio Agustín Maffezini v. The Kingdom of Spain, Award, 13 November, 2000; Coe Jr. (2007), p. 456.

216

ICSID Case No. ARB/07/17, Impregilo S.p.A. v. Argentine Republic, Award, June 21, 2011, para 101.

217

ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8, Siemens A.G. v. Argentine Republic, Decision on Jurisdiction, August 3, 2004; Schreuer (2008), p. 208.

218

ICSID, Case No. ARB/01/3, Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentine Republic, Decision on Jurisdiction, 14 January 2004, para 47.

219

ICSID, Case No. ARB/10/1, Kilic v. Turkmenistan, Decision on Art. VII.2 of The Turkey-Turkmenistan Bilateral Investment Treaty, 7 May 2012, para 9.18 et seqq.; Mbengue (2016), p. 395.

220

National Grid Plc. v. Argentine Republic, UNCITRAL Arbitration, Decision on Jurisdiction, 20 June 2006, para 85; See also, Titi (2017), p. 42.

221

Coe Jr (2007), p. 456.

222

Arvind (2010), p. 81.

223

Arvind (2010), p. 87.

224

See, CME Czech Republic B.V. v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award, 14 March, 2003 and Ronald S. Lauder v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award, 3 September, 2001.

225

An exception to the use of the word ‘application’ is seen in the Art. 11, Belgium-Indonesia BIT, 1970 and Art. VIII(1), Denmark-Indonesia BIT, 1968, where the word ‘implementation’ is used instead of ‘application’.

226

UNCTAD (2003b), p. 14.

227

Part III, Section 2: Application of treaties, VCLT; Linderfalk (2007), p. 165.

228

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 30; Orecki (2013), p. 17.

229

Steingruber (2012), para 14.86.

230

Roberts (2010), p. 203.

231

Polanco (2019), p. 267; Dolzer and Schreuer (2012), p. 234; Macias (2016b), p. 309; Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 9.

232

An example can be seen in Art. 24(1) and 25 of the Brazil-UAE CFIA.

233

An explicit mention of a possibility for such a claim is provided under Art. 15.2 of the Australia-China FTA, 2015.

234

Italy v Cuba, Final Award, January 15, 2008, para 222; Milano (2012), p. 502.

235

Lourie (2015), p. 515; Lubambo (2016), p. 239.

236

Gallo and Nicola (2015–2016), p. 1138.

237

An explicit mention of a possibility for such a claim is provided under Art. 15.2 (a) of the Australia-China FTA, 2015; Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 10; Lourie (2017), p. 24; Lubambo (2017), p. 84; Fox (1988), p. 9.

238

Lubambo (2017), p. 84.

239

Lubambo (2017), p. 84.

240

Posner and Walter (2015), p. 391.

241

Oellers-Frahm (2012), p. 93.

242

Art. 30.1 and 31.1, Belarus-India BIT, 2018.

243

Lourie (2015), p. 532.

244

Wong (2014), p. 37.

245

Vermeer-Künzli (2007), p. 39.

246

Broches (1995), p. 214.

247

Lourie (2015), p. 538.

248

Lourie (2015), p. 540.

249

Vermeer-Künzli (2007), p. 39.

250

Dolzer and Schreuer (2012), p. 233; Juratowitch (2008), p. 121.

251

Alschner (2015), p. 325 et seq.; Lourie (2015), p. 512; Kulick (2016), p. 132; Potesta (2013), p. 756; Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 9.

252

Vandevelde (1992), p. 538.

253

Lillich (1975), p. 360.

254

Berman (2007), p. 68; For a discussion on this subject, See, Lourie (2015), p. 511.

255

Art. 1, Draft articles on Diplomatic Protection, 2006.

256

On this, see information on Taiwanese BITs which have been entered into by governmental agencies in Sect. 1.3.1.2 of this book.

257

Hindelang (2014), p. 81; Recanati (2014), p. 425. The various forms of diplomatic protection include, inter alia, consular action, negotiation, mediation, reprisals and economic pressures. On this, see, Supreme Court of Appeal, South Africa, Van Zyl v Government of RSA, [2007] SCA 109 (RSA), para 1. See also, Art. 10(6), Germany-Palestine BIT, 2000.

258

Milano (2012), p. 503; Trevino (2014), p. 206.

259

Alvarez-Jimenez (2008), p. 438; UNCTAD (2003b), p. 52.

260

ICJ, Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 582, 615, para 90; Lo (2013), p. 5; Berman (2007), p. 71; UNCTAD (2003b), p. 5; Schreuer (2007), p. 357.

261

Schreuer (2015), p. 882.

262

See, Art. 10(6), Germany-Palestine BIT, 2000.

263

Rolland (2017), p. 395; Vannieuwenhuyse (2009), p. 121; Wong (2014), p. 16; Schreuer (2007), p. 345; UNCTAD (2003b), p. 52; Ghouri (2011), p. 191 et seq.

264

Broches (1972), p. 374; Albornoz (2006), p. 399.

265

Alvarez-Jimenez (2008), p. 439.

266

De Vattel (1867), p. 161.

267

Albornoz (2006), p. 378; Pyka (2016), p. 82; Alvarez-Jimenez (2008), p. 438; Juratowitch (2008), p. 12.

268

Bruno (1997).

269

Pyka (2016), p. 82.

270

PCIJ, Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (Greece v. U.K.), 1924 P.C.I.J. (ser. B) No. 3 (Aug. 30) p. 12, para 22.

271

Bruno (1997).

272

Bruno (1997).

273

Schreuer (2015), p. 881.

274

Wong (2014), p. 9; Juratowitch (2008), p. 13; See also, Schreuer (2015), p. 883.

275

Parlett (2007), p. 535; For a slightly contradictory view, see Lourie (2015), p. 520.

276

Kulick (2016), p. 132.

277

Lourie (2015), p. 513.

278

Recanati (2014), p. 440; Bruno (1997); Lourie (2015), p. 515.

279

Dolzer and Schreuer (2012), p. 232; Schreuer (1996), p. 397.

280

Milano (2012), p. 503; Kulick (2016), p. 132; Lubambo (2016), p. 227; Schreuer (2007), p. 345.

281

On this see, Sect. 2.2.5.1.1 of this book.

282

Draft articles on Diplomatic Protection, 2006.

283

Art. 1, Draft articles on Diplomatic Protection, 2006.

284

Art. 2, 3, 7 and 8, Draft articles on Diplomatic Protection, 2006.

285

Art. 5, Draft articles on Diplomatic Protection, 2006.

286

Lubambo (2016), p. 227.

287

ICJ, Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1970, p. 3. See also, Perez (2012), p. 456; Trevino (2014), p. 207; Lourie (2015), p. 516.

288

ICJ, Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1970, p. 3, 42, para 70.

289

ICJ, Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 582.

290

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

291

Bruno (1997); Duggard (2009), para 34; Lourie (2015), p. 516.

292

Art. 9, 11 and 13, Draft articles on Diplomatic Protection, 2006; See also, Bottini (2008), p. 564 et seq.; ICJ, Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1970, p. 3, 47, para 90.

293

Bruno (1997).

294

ICJ, Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 582, 605, para 61; Alvarez-Jimenez (2008), p. 452 et seqq.

295

Art. 9, Draft articles on Diplomatic Protection, 2006.

296

Gerlich (2015), p. 90 et seqq. For further support on using the incorporation theory for determining nationality for claims under IIAs, see, Inbavijayan and Jayakumar (2013), p. 38 et seqq.

297

Italy v Cuba, Final Award, January 15, 2008, para 200–211. See also, Milano (2012), p. 505 et seq.; Trevino (2014), p. 208.

298

Italy v Cuba, Dissenting Opinion of Prof. Antilla Tanzi, para 31 et seqq.; See also, Lourie (2015), p. 518.

299

Trevino (2014), p. 208.

300

ICJ, Elettronica Sicula S.P.A. (ELSI), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1989, p. 15, 81.

301

See, Exchange of letters between Switzerland and Sudan on the same date as the signing of the Switzerland-Sudan BIT, 1974 (17 February, 1974) which are attached to the treaty and are an integral part of the BIT as per Art. 11 of the BIT. See also, Clause 3, Annex to Art. 10 para 2, UAE-Mexico BIT.

302

Trevino (2014), p. 208; Lourie (2015), p. 519; Polanco (2019), p. 255.

303

Art. III (3), Claims Settlement Declaration.

304

Caron (1990), p. 135.

305

Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 9.

306

US Department of State, Bilateral Investments, Other Bilateral Claims and Arbitrations, https://www.state.gov/bilateral-investments-other-bilateral-claims-and-arbitrations/ (Accessed 24 Mar 2020).

307

Art. 48(7), Canada-Jordan BIT; Art. VII, USA-Ecuador BIT, 1993.

308

Seatzu and Vargiu (2015), p. 13.

309

Art. 28.4, 2012 SADC Model BIT.

310

Pyka (2016), p. 82; Juratowitch (2008), p. 14.

311

Office of Legal Affairs (1992), p. 55; Juratowitch (2008), p. 27.

312

Juratowitch (2008), p. 27.

313

Titi (2017), p. 45; See also, Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 17.

314

Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 17.

315

Posner and Walter (2015), p. 384.

316

Lo (2013), p. 25; Kulick (2016), p. 131; See also, Wong (2014), p. 37; Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 9; Schreuer (2007), p. 347. For a situation where it was not clarified whether non-enforcement falls within interpretation or application, see, Ecuador v. USA, Opinion With Respect To Jurisdiction In The Interstate Arbitration Initiated By Ecuador Against The United States, W. Michael Reisman, April 24, 2012, para 30.

317

Polanco (2019), p. 200.

318

Lo (2013), p. 25; Juratowitch (2008), p. 33.

319

Shihata (1984), p. 2; Schreuer (2007), p. 347; Delaume (1983), p. 801 et seq.; Huseynli (2017), p. 65.

320

Huseynli (2017), p. 65.

321

On this see, Art. 10(6), Germany-Palestine BIT, 2000. See also, Berman (2007), p. 71; Lo (2013), p. 25; Posner and Walter (2015), p. 387; Gerlich (2015), p. 92; Perez (2012), p. 466.

322

Gerlich (2015), p. 90; Juratowitch (2008), p. 33.

323

On this see, Gerlich (2015), p. 90; Huseynli (2017), p. 65.

324

Perez (2012), p. 457 et seqq.

325

Gerlich (2015), p. 91.

326

Gerlich (2015), p. 91; See also Perez (2012), p. 460 et seq.

327

Art. 19.2, India-Brazil ICFT.

328

Art. 25(2), Brazil-Suriname CFIA; Macias (2016b), p. 310.

329

Art. 25(13), Brazil-Suriname CFIA.

330

Art. 25(13)(b), Brazil-Suriname CFIA.

331

Art. 25(11), Brazil-Suriname CFIA.

332

Art. 25(11), Brazil-Suriname CFIA.

333

Lubambo (2016), p. 237; Naon (2000), p. 70; Lubambo (2017), p. 86.

334

Lubambo (2017), p. 86. Such a request could possibly be made under provisions such as Art. 19.2, India-Brazil ICFT.

335

Lourie (2015), p. 514; Lubambo (2017), p. 86.

336

Lourie (2015), p. 514.

337

Lubambo (2017), p. 86 et seqq.; Comella (2014), p. 21.

338

Roberts (2014), p. 67.

339

Roberts (2014), p. 67.

340

USA v. Mexico, Cross-Border Trucking Services, Secretariat File No. USA-MEX-98-2008-01, February 6, 2001, para 295.

341

Notice of Arbitration, CANACAR v. USA, April 2, 2009. Available for download at https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw8676.pdf (Accessed 24 Mar 2020).

342

CANACAR v. USA, Available at https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement/cases/348/canacar-v-usa (Accessed 24 Mar 2020).

343

Trevino (2014), p. 210.

344

Trevino (2014), p. 210.

345

Hernandez (2015), p. 176; Kulick (2016), p. 130; UNCTAD (2003b), p. 14.

346

Okawa (2014), p. 502.

347

Murphy et al. (2013), p. 40.

348

Committees on Research in International Law (1935), p. 939.

349

Posner and Walter (2015), p. 392.

350

UNCTAD (2003b), p. 5.

351

Malanczuk (2000), p. 423.

352

ICJ, Elettronica Sicula S.P.A. (ELSI), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1989, p. 15, 43, para 52; Trevino (2014), p. 210.

353

ICJ, Elettronica Sicula S.P.A. (ELSI), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1989, p. 15, 42, para 51.

354

ICJ, Interhandel Case, Judgment of March 21st, 1959: I.C.J. Reports 1959, p. 6, 28 et seq.; Okawa (2014), p. 502.

355

ILC (2004), p. 72 et seqq.

356

Ziegler and Baumgartner (2015), p. 16 et seq.

357

Ziegler and Baumgartner (2015), p. 16 et seq.

358

Art. 31.1, 2015 Indian Model BIT; Obligation to consult arising from a compromissory clause in an IIA has been identified in ICSID, Case No. ARB/07/25, Trans-Global Petroleum, Inc. v. Jordan, Tribunal’s decision on the Respondent’s Objection under Rule 41(5) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules, 12 May 2008, para. 118.

359

Art. 31.1, Belarus-India BIT, 2018.

360

Art. 29.1(b), India-Taiwan BIA, 2018.

361

Art. 31.1 (ii), 2015 Indian Model BIT.

362

Art. 31.1 (i), 2015 Indian Model BIT.

363

Among other IIAs which contain a rare reference to an obligation to consult in good faith include Japan-Vietnam BIT, 2003 and Iraq-Japan BIT.

364

Art. 4.3, Dispute Settlement Understanding.

365

Art. 6(2), Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989; See also, Sergent (1998), p. 482.

366

Rio Declaration, Principle 19; See also, Craik (2008), p. 80.

367

Hill (2001), p. 51.

368

ICJ, Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2010, p. 14.

369

WTO, European Communities—Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, Report of the Panel, WT/DS27/R/ECU, 22 May 1997.

370

Sergent (1998), p. 481; Rose-Ackerman and Billa (2007), p. 9.

371

Hutchison (2006), p. 141 et seqq.

372

Hutchison (2006), p. 135.

373

Lake Lanoux Arbitration (France v. Spain), Award, November 16, 1957, para 1.

374

WTO, European Communities—Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, Report of the Panel, WT/DS27/R/ECU, 22 May 1997, para 7.19.

375

For an illustration of the list of specific situations, See, Art. 36, 2015 Indian Model BIT; Art. 35, India-Taiwan BIA, 2018.

376

The WTO Panel in the Korea—Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, Report of the Panel has stated that: “10.19 … .. We do not wish to imply that we consider consultations unimportant. Quite the contrary, consultations are a critical and integral part of the DSU. But, we have no mandate to investigate the adequacy of the consultation process that took place between the parties and we decline to do so in the present case.” WTO, Korea—Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS75/R WT/DS84/R, 17 September, 1998.

377

PCA Case No. 2012-5, Republic of Ecuador v. United States of America, Award, 29 September, 2012.

378

On this, See also, Jaime (2014–2015), p. 299 et seqq.

379

PCA Case No. 2012-5, Republic of Ecuador v. United States of America, Award, 29 September, 2012, para 225.

380

Lubambo (2017), p. 84.

381

UNCTAD (2003b), p. 6.

382

Tzeng (2016), p. 466 et seqq.

383

Art. 24(13)(c), Brazil-Ethiopia ICFA and Art. 25(13)(c), Brazil-Suriname CFIA; Lubambo (2016), p. 240.

384

Wong (2014), p. 34.

385

Art. 9 and 10, Italy-Cuba BIT, 1993.

386

Lubambo (2016), p. 241.

387

Art. 3.32, EU-Singapore IPA, 2018.

388

Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 13.

389

Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 8.

390

Schreuer (2007), p. 350.

391

Schreuer (2007), p. 352.

392

Johnson et al. (2018), p. 9.

393

On the use of the Compromissory clause for resolution of disputes regarding termination of a treaty, see, ICJ, Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1972, p. 46, 64, para 32. See also, Ecuador v. USA, Opinion With Respect To Jurisdiction In The Interstate Arbitration Initiated By Ecuador Against The United States, W. Michael Reisman, April 24, 2012, para 30; Cannizzaro and Bonafe (2005), p. 487.

394

Lubambo (2016), p. 229; UNCTAD (2003b), p. 59.

395

Kolb (2009), p. 423.

396

ICJ, Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1972, p. 46, 64, para 32.

397

Naon (2000), p. 69.

398

Art. 10(5), Germany-Botswana BIT.

399

On the possibility for request to an SSAT for interpretation of an award see, Art. 11 (5), France-Latvia BIT; See also, Art. 9(7), Switzerland-Qatar BIT; On the possibility to seek a clarification see, Art. 10(6), Hong Kong-Austria BIT, 1996.

400

On the possibility to seek interpretations or clarifications, see, Art. 11 (5), France-Latvia BIT; Art. 12(5), China-BLEU BIT, 1984 and Art. 10(6), Hong Kong-Austria BIT, 1996.

401

Art. 82, Hague II Convention; Art. XLVII, Pact of Bogota; Only interpretation requests: Art. 33 (1), 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; Art. 35 (1), PCA Optional Rules for Arbitrating Disputes between Two States (1992); Office of Legal Affairs (1992), p. 65; Malintoppi (2006), p. 160.

402

Posner and Walter (2015), p. 391. For such a treaty which explicitly provides the possibility for pursuing claims of investors even in the presence of ISDS, see, Art. 28.3, 2012 SADC Model BIT.

403

Heiskanen (2016), p. 614; Sczczudlik (2014), p. 98; Kaufmann-Kohler (2006), p. 77; Price (2005), p. 74.

404

Posner and Walter (2015), p. 384; UNCTAD (2003b), p. 59.

405

Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 9.

406

Posner and Walter (2015), p. 392; Gallo and Nicola (2015–2016), p. 1140; Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 9; Juratowitch (2008), p. 32.

407

Lubambo (2016), p. 229.

408

Chi (2013), p. 27.

409

Juratowitch (2008), p. 33.

410

Lubambo (2017), p. 84; Bernasconi-Osterwalder (2016), p. 255; Lubambo (2016), p. 229; Bronckers (2015), p. 659 et. seqq.; Moul (2015), p. 888.

411

Bronckers (2015), p. 660.

412

Kaufmann-Kohler (2006), p. 77.

413

European Parliament, Question for written answer E-011275/12, OJ C 321/E, 7.11.2013, p. 202.

414

Lubambo (2016), p. 230.

415

Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 10.

416

Roberts (2014), p. 50; Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 10; See also, Wisner and Campbell (2018), p. 18 et seq.

417

Posner and Walter (2015), p. 392.

418

Art. 24(13)(c), Brazil-Ethiopia ICFA and Art. 25(13)(c) Brazil-Suriname CFIA; Art. 24, Austria-Kyrgyz Republic BIT; Art. 24(1)(c), Austria-Tajikistan BIT, 2010.

419

For an example of an old FCN treaty under which investors had no specified mode of dispute resolution, see, Liberia-Switzerland FCN Treaty.

420

Bangladesh-Thailand BIT, 1988.

421

Example, See Brazil-UAE CFIA; See also, Macias (2016a), p. 648 et seqq.; Morosini (2016), p. 61; Gaukrodger (2016b), p. 7.

422

Section 13(5), Protection of Investment Act, 2015, Act No. 22 of 2015, South Africa; See also, Gazzini (2018), p. 254.

423

Juratowitch (2008), p. 33.

424

On this see, UNCTAD (2003b), p. 65 et seqq.

425

On this see, European Parliament, Question for written answer E-011275/12, OJ C 321/E, 7.11.2013, p. 202.

426

UNCTAD (2003b), p. 56.

427

Liberti (2009), p. 587.

428

Juratowitch (2008), p. 29; Liberti (2009), p. 587.

429

ILC (2000), para 31; Juratowitch (2008), p. 29.

430

Juratowitch (2008), p. 29. See also, UNCTAD (2003b), p. 52.

431

Juratowitch (2008), p. 34.

432

CILC, The Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights Arbitration, December, 2019.

433

UNCTAD (2003b), p. 59.

434

Art. 8(4), Guyana-Switzerland BIT; Art. 9(5), Bosnia and Herzegovina-India BIT; Polanco (2019), p. 267.

435

UNCTAD (2003b), p. 59; Juratowitch (2008), p. 30 et seq.

436

Art. 25(1), ICSID Convention.

437

Art. 25(4), ICSID Convention.

438

Schreuer (1996), p. 355 et seqq.; Juratowitch (2008), p. 31; See also ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4, ICSID, Case No. ARB/00/4, Salini Costruttori SpA and another v. Kingdom of Morocco, Decision on Jurisdiction, 23 July 2001, 42 ILM 609 (2003) 622.

439

On the necessity of ‘consent’ for an ISAT, see, Potesta (2011), p. 151.

440

Rolland (2017), p. 399 et seqq.; For a discussion on the duration of protection of investment under ‘sunset clauses’, see, Titi (2016), p. 434 et seqq.

441

For an IIA which explicitly provides this, see, Art. 11(5)(b), Netherlands-Chile BIT, 1998; See also, Juratowitch (2008), p. 31 et seq.

442

On this See Sect. 4.5.1.1 and 4.5.1.2 of this book; See also, Juratowitch (2008), p. 32.

443

Norton (2012), p. 313 et seq.

444

Art. 22, Chapter 8, SAFTA; Art. 29.5 CPTPP.

445

A recourse to state-to-state arbitration is also prohibited for tobacco control measures under Art. 13(2), Singapore-Kazakhstan BIT, 2018.

446

See, ICSID, Case No. ARB/97/4, Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka, A.S. v. The Slovak Republic, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, 24 May, 1999, para 17; Feldman (2016), p. 33 et seq.; See also, Feldman (2012), p. 616 et seqq.

447

Feldman (2016), p. 34; ICSID, Case No. ARB/97/7, Emilio Agustín Maffezini v Kingdom of Spain, Decision on Jurisdiction, 25 January 2000, para. 74.

Akande D (2012) Ecuador v. United States Inter-State Arbitration under a BIT: how to interpret the word “Interpretation”? www.ejiltalk.org/ecuador-v-united-states-inter-state-arbitration-under-a-bit-how-to-interpret-the-word-interpretation/. Accessed 24 Mar 2020

Albornoz MS (2006) Legal nature and legal consequences of diplomatic protection contemporary challenges. Anuario Mex de Derecho Int VI:377–417

Alschner W (2014) Regionalism and overlap in investment treaty law – towards consolidation or contradiction? JIEL 17(2):271–298CrossRef

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

Alvarez JE (2009) A bit on custom. N Y Univ J Int Law Polit 42:17–80

Alvarez-Jimenez A (2008) Foreign investors, diplomatic protection and the International Court of Justice’s decision on preliminary objections in the Diallo Case. N C J Int Law Commercial Regul 33(3):437–454

Arvind TT (2010) The ‘Transplant Effect’ in harmonization. ICLQ 59(1):65–88CrossRef

Baltag C (2018) Art. 27 - settlement of disputes between contracting parties. In: Leal-Arcas R (ed) Commentary on the energy charter treaty. Edward-Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 359–384CrossRef

Berman F (2004) Treaty “Interpretation” in a judicial context. Yale J Int Law 29(2):315–322

Berman F (2007) The relevance of the law on diplomatic protection in investment arbitration. In: Ortino F, Liberti L, Sheppard A, Warner H (eds) Investment treaty law - current issues II. British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London, pp 67–72

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

Borgen CJ (2005) Resolving treaty conflicts. George Washington Int Law Rev 37:573–648

Bottini G (2008) Indirect claims under the ICSID Convention. Univ Pa J Int Law 29(3):563–639

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

Bronckers M (2015) Is Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) superior to litigation before domestic courts? An EU view on bilateral trade agreements. JIEL 18(3):655–657CrossRef

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

Brower CN, Blanchard S (2014b) From “Dealing in Virtue” to “Profiting from Injustice”: the case against “Re-Statification” of investment dispute settlement. Harv Int Law J Online 55:45–59

Bruno R (1997) Part II: Diplomatic Protection v. Delocalization, The Jean Monnet Center for International and Regional Economic Law & Justice. http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/archive/papers/97/97-13-Part-2.html. Accessed 24 Mar 2020

Bungenberg M (2012) Preferential trade and investment agreements and regionalism, Working Paper 2012/03, Universitat Siegen

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

Butler N (2013) Possible improvements to the framework of international investment arbitration. JWIT 14(3):613–637CrossRef

Butler N (2015) In search of a model for the reform of International Investment Dispute Resolution: an analysis of existing international and regional dispute settlement mechanisms. In: Kalicki JE, Joubin-Bret A (eds) Reshaping the Investor-State Dispute Settlement system: journeys for the 21st century. Brill, Leiden, pp 353–380

Canela JA (1993) New trends in international dispute settlement. ASIL Proc 87:6–10

Cannizzaro E, Bonafe B (2005) Fragmenting international law through compromissory clauses? Some remarks on the decision of the ICJ in the oil platforms case. EJIL 16(3):481–497CrossRef

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

Castillo-Laborde LD (2008) The Río de la Plata and its maritime front legal regime. Martinus-Nijhoff, LeidenCrossRef

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

Chaudhri MA (1984) Arbitral procedure. Pakistan Horizon 37(2):22–41

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

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

Coe JJ Jr (2007) Developments in investor-state arbitration—reflections from the classroom. ASIL Proc 101:454–458

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

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

Craik N (2008) The international law of environmental impact assessment: process, substance and integration. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef

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

Crockett A (2015) Indonesia’s bilateral investment treaties: between generations? ICSID Rev 30(2):437–448CrossRef

De Vattel E (1867) The law of nations: or, principles of the law of nature applied to the conduct and affairs of nations and sovereigns. T. & J. W. Johnson & Co., Philadelphia

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

Del-Gligor K (2017) Towards consistency in international investment jurisprudence - a preliminary ruling system for ICSID arbitration. Brill, Leiden

Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef

Duggard J (2009) Diplomatic Protection, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1028. Accessed 24 Mar 2020

Dumberry P (2002) The NAFTA investment dispute settlement mechanism and the admissibility of amicus curiae briefs by NGOs. Estudios Socio-Jurídicos 4(1):58–79

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

Feldman M (2012) The standing of state-owned entities under investment treaties. In: Sauvant KP (ed) Yearbook on international investment law & policy 2010–2011. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 615–637

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

Fitzmaurice M (2010) Badinter Commission (for the Former Yugoslavia), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e13. Accessed 24 Mar 2020

Foltea M (2012) International organisations in WTO dispute settlement. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

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

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

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 (2018) Travelling the national route: South Africa’s Protection of Investment Act 2015. African J Int Comp Law 26(2):242–263CrossRef

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

Ghouri AA (2011) The evolution of bilateral investment treaties, investment treaty arbitration and international investment law. Int Arbit Law Rev 14(6):189–204

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

Hanotiau B (2005) NAFTA consolidation decision under Art. 1126 of the NAFTA. TDM 2(5) 2005

Heiskanen V (2016) And others: mass claims in ICSID arbitration. In: Kinnear M et al (eds) Building international investment law. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 613–626

Hepburn J (2016) Applicable law in TPP investment disputes. Melbourne J Int Law 17:1–20

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

Hill CA (2001) A comment on language and norms in complex business contracting. Chicago-Kent Law Rev 77(1):29–57

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 (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

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

Hutchison C (2006) The duty to negotiate international environmental disputes in good faith. McGill Int J Sus Dev Law Policy 2(2):117–153

ILC (2000) First report on diplomatic protection, by Mr John R. Dugard, Special Rapporteur. Doc No. A/CN.4/506 and Add. 1, 7 March and 20 April 2000

ILC (2004) First Reading of the Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection, Report of the International Law Commission, Fifty-sixth Session, A/59/10

Inbavijayan V, Jayakumar K (2013) Arbitration and investments - initial focus. Ind J Arbitr Law II(1):33–54

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

Institute of International Law (1999) Resolution: judicial and arbitral settlement of international disputes involving more than two states, Session of Berlin - 1999

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

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

Jaime ML (2014–2015) Relying upon parties interpretation in treaty-based Investor-State Dispute Settlement: filling the gaps in International Investment Agreements. Georgetown J Int Law 46(1):261–314

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

Johnson L, Sachs L, Coleman J (2016) International Investment Agreements, 2014: a review of trends and new approaches. In: Bjorklund A (ed) Yearbook on international investment law & policy 2014–2015. Oxford University Press, 2016, pp 15–64

Johnson L, Coleman J, Guven B (2018) Withdrawal of consent to investor-state arbitration and termination of investment treaties. ITN 9(1):7–10

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

Katz RL (2016) Modeling an International Investment Court after the World Trade Organization dispute settlement body. Harvard Negot Law Rev 22:163–188

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

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

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

Klucka J (2020) Regionalism in international law. Routledge, London

Kolb R (2009) The compromissory clause of the convention. In: Gaeta P (ed) The UN Genocide Convention: a commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 407–424

Kolb R (2013) The International Court of Justice. Hart Publishing, Oxford

Kopela S (2010) The legal value of silence as state conduct in the jurisprudence of international tribunals. Australian YBIL 29:87–134

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

Kurtz J (2014) WTO norms as “Relevant” rules of international law in investor-state arbitration. ASIL Proc 108:243–246

Lauterpacht H (1935) Some observations on preparatory work in the interpretation of treaties. Harv Law Rev 48(4):549–591CrossRef

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

Lee J (2018) Mending the wound or pulling it apart? New proposals for international investment courts and fragmentation of international investment law. Northwestern J Int Law Bus 39(1):1–35

Liberti L (2009) The relevance of non-investment treaty obligations in assessing compensation. In: Dupuy PM, Francioni F, Petersmann EU (eds) Human rights in international investment law and arbitration. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 557–564CrossRef

Lillich RB (1975) The diplomatic protection of nationals abroad: an elementary principle of international law under attack. AJIL 69(2):359–365CrossRef

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 (2012) The difference between treaty interpretation and treaty application and the possibility to account for non-WTO treaties during WTO Treaty Interpretation. Indiana Int Comp Law Rev 22(1):1–25CrossRef

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 (2015) Diplomatic protection under the state-to-state arbitration clauses of investment treaties. In: Klausegger C et al (eds) Austrian yearbook on international arbitration 2015. Manz Verlag, Vienna, pp 511–542

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

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

Malik M (2009) Definition of investment in International Investment Agreements, International Institute for Sustainable Development - Bulletin 1. Manitoba, August 2009

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

Mayr TF, Mayr-Singer J (2016) Keep the wheels spinning: the contributions of advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice to the development of international law. ZaöRV 76:425–449

Mbengue MM (2016) Rules of interpretation (Article 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties). ICSID Rev 31(2):388–412CrossRef

Methymaki E, Tzanakopoulos A (2016) Masters of Puppets? Reassertion of control through joint investment treaty interpretation. In: Kulick A (ed) Reassertion of control over the investment treaty regime. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2016, pp 155-186.

Milano E (2012) The investment arbitration between Italy and Cuba: the application of customary international law under scrutiny. LPICT 11:499–524

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

Morosini F (2016) A testimony from the global south. ASIL Proc 110:59–62

Morse O (1960) Schools of approach to the interpretation of treaties. Catholic Univ Law Rev 9(1):36–51

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

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

Naon HAG (2000) The settlement of investment disputes between states and private parties. J World Invest 1(1):59–102CrossRef

Norton E (2012) International investment arbitration and the European debt crisis. Chic J Int Law 13(1):291–316

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

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

Okawa P (2014) Issues of admissibility and the law on international responsibility. In: Evans MD (ed) International law, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 477–508CrossRef

Onwuamaegbu UO (2009) Using treaties to define rules of procedure in investor-state arbitration, the CAFTA example. In: Rogers CA, Alford RP (eds) The future of investment arbitration. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 69–88

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

Parlett K (2007) Role of diplomatic protection in the protection of foreign investments. Camb Law J 66(3):533–535CrossRef

Parra AR (1997) Provisions on the settlement of investment disputes in modern investment laws, bilateral investment treaties and multilateral instruments on investment. ICSID Rev 12(2):287–367CrossRef

Peinhardt C, Welhausen RL (2016) Withdrawing from investment treaties but protecting investment. Global Policy 7(4):571–576CrossRef

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

Peters P (1991) Dispute settlement arrangements in investment treaties, subcommittee on unfair trade policies and measures. Netherlands YBIL 22:91–161

Pickert PL (1976) Draft articles for the expansion of authoritative interpretation of United States Treaties. Brooklyn J Int Law 2(2):205–227

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 (2011) The interpretation of consent to ICSID arbitration contained in domestic investment laws. Arbitr Int 27(2):149–169CrossRef

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

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

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

Recanati M (2014) Diplomatic intervention and state-to-state arbitration as alternative means for the protection of foreign investments and host States’ general interests: the Italian experience. In: Sacredoti G et al (eds) General interests of host states in international investment law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 422–444CrossRef

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

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

Rolland SE (2017) The return of state remedies in Investor-State Dispute Settlement: trends in developing countries. Loyola Univ Chic Law J 49:387–404

Rose-Ackerman S, Billa B (2007) Treaties and national security exceptions. Yale Law School

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

Salacuse JW, Sullivan NP (2005) Do BITs really work? An evaluation of bilateral investment treaties and their grand bargain. Harv Int Law J 46(1):67–130

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

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 (2009) What is a legal dispute? In: Buffard I, Crawford J, Pellet A, Wittich S (eds) International law between universalism and fragmentation. Brill, Hague, pp 959–980

Schreuer C (2010) Diversity and harmonization of treaty interpretation in investment arbitration. In: Fitzmaurice M, Elias O, Merkouris P (eds) Treaty interpretation and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: 30 years on. Martinus Nijhoff, Hague, pp 129–151

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, Melendez AB (2018) Does ISDS need an appeals mechanism. TDM. https://www.transnational-dispute-management.com/article.asp?key=2719. Accessed 24 Mar 2020

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

Sczczudlik KB (2014) Mass claims under ICSID. Wroclaw Rev Law Admin Econ 4(2):70–102CrossRef

Seatzu F, Vargiu P (2015) Africanizing Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs): state practice and future prospects of a pro-active African approach to international investment. State Pract Int Law J 2(1):1–22

Sergent L (1998) The indigenous peoples of Bolivia’s Amazon Basin Region and ILO Convention No. 169: real rights or rhetoric? Univ Miami Inter-Am Law Rev 29(3):451–524

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

Sohn LB (1983) The role of arbitration in recent international multilateral treaties. Virginia J Int Law 23:171–189

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

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

Subedi SP (2008) International investment law: reconciling policy and principle. Bloomsbury, New York

Tams CJ (2007) Is there a need for an ICSID Appellate Structure. 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 223–250CrossRef

Titi C (2016) Most-favoured-nation treatment: survival clauses and reform of international investment law. JOIA 33(5):425–440CrossRef

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 (2016) Sovereignty over Crimea: a case for state-to-state investment arbitration. Yale J Int Law 41(2):459–468

UNCITRAL (2018) Report of Working Group III (Investor-State Dispute Settlement reform) on the work of its thirty-fifth session (New York, 23–27 April 2018). 14 May 2018, Doc No. A/CN.9/935

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 (2007) Bilateral investment treaties 1995–2006: trends in investment rulemaking. United Nations, Geneva

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

Vandevelde KJ (2017) The first bilateral investment treaties. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRef

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

Vermeer-Künzli A (2007) As if: the legal fiction in diplomatic protection. EJIL 18(1):37–68CrossRef

Wisner R, Campbell N (2018) Bringing the home state back in: the case for home state control in Investor-State Dispute Settlement. Bus Law Int 19(1):5–22

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

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

Ziegler AR, Baumgartner J (2015) Good faith as a general principle of (international) law. In: Mitchell AD, Sornarajah M, Voon T (eds) Good faith and international economic law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 9–36CrossRef

Title: Utilisation of State-to-State Arbitration Based on the Compromissory Clause in Practice
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_3

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"