nach oben

Erschienen in:

2021 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Stakeholders of Investment Arbitration: Establishing a Dialogue Among Arbitrators, States, Investors, Academics and Other Actors in International Investment Law

verfasst von : Paolo Vargiu

Erschienen in: Private Actors in International Investment Law

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

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

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

It is generally accepted that any arbitral award extends its effects solely on the parties to the dispute in which is rendered. In light of this, and the lack of either a system of precedent or a jurisprudence constante, investment arbitral awards should be considered as operating in a vacuum, outside of which the award and its substantive content are non-existent. However, the investment arbitral regime has over the years developed a de facto precedent system; moreover, the scholarship on investment arbitration addresses virtually all questions of investment law considering how such questions have been answered to by arbitral tribunals. Therefore, it is arguable that the duties of investment arbitral tribunals are not limited to merely addressing the questions posed to them by the parties, as they address matters for a much broader audience than the parties—an audience that includes other states, current and prospective investors, academics, NGOs and associations, and the taxpayers of each state acting as respondent before an arbitral tribunal. All these subjects are stakeholders of investment arbitration, as they all have a tangible interest in how investment treaties are interpreted and applied, and how international investment law is developed. There is, however, no international law instrument vesting investment tribunals with the responsibility to take all these concerns into account when deciding on a claim brought by an investor. This chapter is therefore aimed at framing the role and functions of investment arbitrators with regard to stakeholders beyond claimants and respondent. The analysis addresses how such roles and functions can be theorised in isolation from formalistic approaches to investment arbitration that would call for positive actions, and in light of existing multilateral approaches that have contributed to the development of the field of international investment law.

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

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

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

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

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

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

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

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Introduction

Nächstes Kapitel Investment Arbitration Counsel’s Role in the Progressive Development of International Law

See e.g. Article 53 of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes [ICSID]) 575 UNTS 159; Article 46 of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) Arbitration Rules, available at https://sccinstitute.com/media/293614/arbitration_rules_eng_17_web.pdf; Article 35 of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Arbitration Rules, available at https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution-services/arbitration/rules-of-arbitration/; Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, UN Doc A/31/98, 31st Session Supp No 17, available at https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/uncitral-arbitration-rules-2013-e.pdf.

Gaillard and Banifatemi (2016), p. 104; Bjorklund (2008), p. 266; Vargiu (2009), p. 757; Kaufmann-Kohler (2007), p. 358; Schreuer and Weiniger (2008), p. 1189.

See a.o. Brower et al. (2009), p. 843; Kaufmann-Kohler (2007), p. 357; Ten Cate (2013), p. 418; Douglas (2010), p. 104; Reed (2010), p. 95; Gill (2010), p. 87; Paulsson (2010), p. 699; Commission J (2007), p. 129.

See a.o. Böckstiegel (2012), p. 581; Schreuer et al. (2009), p. 626.

See e.g. Article 48(3) of the ICSID Convention; Article 41 of the SCC Arbitration Rules; Article 32 of the ICC Arbitration Rules; Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.

Bonnitcha et al. (2017), pp. 6 and 223; Langford and Behn (2018), p. 557.

Bennaim-Selvi (2005), p.774; Viñuales (2006), p. 235; Mourre (2006), p. 258; Fach Gómez (2012), p. 511; Kaufmann-Kohler (2013), p. 309.

On January 4th, 2020, the total number of bilateral investment treaties was 2896, of which 2337 currently in force; furthermore, there are 389 plurilateral treaties with provisions on investment protection, of which 314 are currently in force. Source: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) International Investment Agreement Navigator, at https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements.

Originally published in the American multimedia magazine Aspen, issue 5-6 (1967), and later reprinted in Barthes (1977a), p. 142.

In the interest of conciseness, and because of its field-specific relevance, I will address this first category from the perspective of the ICSID Convention; the powers of ad hoc arbitral tribunals do not differ from those of ICSID tribunals significantly.

Article 41 of the ICSID Convention. See generally Heiskanen (2014); Kreindler (2013); Steingruber (2013).

See e.g. Art. 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, 18 April 1946, available at https://www.icj-cij.org/en/statute.

See a.o. Article 21 of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and Article 16 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law [UNCITRAL]) UN Doc A/40/17, Annex I, available at https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/ml-arb/06-54671_Ebook.pdf.

Article 42 of the ICSID Convention. See generally Di Pietro (2005), p. 225; Gaillard (2004), p. 192; Parra (2001), p. 22.

Article 43 of the ICSID Convention. See generally Böckstiegel (2001), p. 1.

Article 45 of the ICSID Convention. See generally Alexandrov (1995), p. 41.

Article 46 of the ICSID Convention. See Mann (1988), p. 577; Schwebel (2005), p. 1; Veenstra-Kjos (2007), p. 1.

Article 47 of the ICSID Convention. See Brower and Goodman (1991), p. 431; Friedland (1986), p. 335; Rueda Garcia (2009), p. 1.

Article 44 of the ICSID Convention. See a.o. Boralessa (2004), p. 258; Cordero Moss (2008), p. 1210; Parra (2007), p. 58.

Schreuer et al. (2009), p. 688.

Bonnitcha et al. (2017), pp. 7 and 59–65.

Kinnear (2010), p. 81.

Ten Cate (2013), p. 420; Commission J (2007), p. 129; Grabowski (2014), p. 302.

The chief example of arbitral jurisprudence that has filled a gap in the ICSID Convention is the one that dealt with the definition of the term ‘investment’ in Article 25: Salini Costruttori SpA and Italstrade SpA v Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4, Decision on Jurisdiction of 31 July 2001, https://www.italaw.com/cases/958; Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka, A.S. (CSOB) v The Slovak Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/4, Decision on Jurisdiction, 24 May 1999, https://www.italaw.com/cases/238; Mr. Patrick Mitchell v Democratic Republic of the Congo, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/7, Decision on Annulment, 1 November 2006, https://www.italaw.com/cases/709; Malaysian Historical Salvors, SDN, BHD v The Government of Malaysia, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/10, Award, 17 May 2007, https://www.italaw.com/cases/646. Examples of decisions that have not been used as persuasive precedent may be found especially in the earlier annulment case-law, such as Klöckner Industrie-Anlagen GmbH and others v United Republic of Cameroon and Société Camerounaise des Engrais, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/2, Ad hoc Committee Decision on Annulment of May 3, 1985, https://www.italaw.com/cases/3373; Amco Asia Corporation and others v Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Decision on the Application for Annulment on May 16, 1986, https://www.italaw.com/cases/3475.

Fach Gómez (2019), pp. 25–190.

Rule 6 of the ICSID Arbitration Rules.

Comparable provisions can be found a.o. in Article 13 of the ICC Arbitration Rules; Articles 17 and 18 of the SCC Arbitration Rules; Article 11 of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.

Article 14 of the ICSID Convention. While the provision refers to the qualities required to be part of the Panel of Arbitrators, Article 40 of the ICSID Convention requires arbitrators appointed from outside the Panel of Arbitrators to possess the qualities stated in Article 14.

Fach Gómez (2019), pp. 123–125.

Fach Gómez (2019), p. 123.

UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration, available at https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/rules-on-transparency/Rules-on-Transparency-E.pdf. See also Petrochilos (2018), p. 19; Hong-Lin (2018), p. 94; Fry and Repousis (2016), p. 795; Boisson de Chazournes (2004), p. 333; Knahr (2007) p. 327; Mourre (2006) p. 257; Knahr and Reinisch (2007), p. 97; Mistelis (2005), p. 211.

For future perspectives on confidentiality in investment arbitration see Fach Gómez (2019), pp. 169–170.

Article 7 of the the IBA Rules of Ethics for International Arbitrators (1987), available at https://www.trans-lex.org/701100/_/iba-rules-of-ethics-for-international-arbitrators-1987/.

Bondar (2016), p. 48.

Fach Gómez (2019), pp. 177–178.

Toope (1990).

See a.o. Schill (2012).

Shaw (2014), p. 4.

See in the vast corpus of literature on the topic Amerasinghe (1967); Sornarajah (1986); Hobe (2015), p. 7; Hofmann (2015), p. 49.

Schill (2018), p. 934.

The first bilateral investment treaty was signed by Germany and Pakistan in 1959. See Vandevelde (2017).

Barthes (1977b), p. 190.

Barthes (1977b), p. 195.

Barthes (1977b), p. 197.

Article 25 of the ICSID Convention.

See above, Sect. 2 of this chapter.

Referred to above in Sect. 2 of this chapter.

Reference is made to the bilateral investment treaties drafted according to the dominant model prior to 2004, when the release of first US Model Bilateral Investment Treaty, characterised by detailed and comprehensive provisions, showed a radical shift from the previous tradition of short, vague and similarly worded investment treaties used by virtually all the state actors in international investment law. 2004 US Model Bilateral Investment Treaty, available at https://ustr.gov/archive/assets/Trade_Sectors/Investment/Model_BIT/asset_upload_file847_6897.pdf.

Salini Costruttori SpA and Italstrade SpA v Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4, Decision on Jurisdiction of 31 July 2001, https://www.italaw.com/cases/958. See also Vargiu (2009), Grabowski (2014) and Gaillard and Banifatemi (2016).

Batifort and Benton Heath (2017), Schill (2018) and Dumberry (2017).

Schreuer et al. (2009), p. 820.

Documents Concerning the Origin and the Formulation of the [ICSID] Convention (1968)—ICSID History, Vol. II., pp. 664, 816.

See above, Sect. 2 of this chapter.

Nowrot and Sipiorski (2018).

Salini Costruttori SpA and Italstrade SpA v Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4, Decision on Jurisdiction of 31 July 2001, https://www.italaw.com/cases/958; Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka, A.S. (CSOB) v The Slovak Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/4, Decision on Jurisdiction, 24 May 1999, https://www.italaw.com/cases/238; Fedax N.V. v. The Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/96/3, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, 11 July 1997, https://www.italaw.com/cases/432.

Schreuer (2016) and Schill and Tvede (2015).

Alexandrov S (1995) Non-appearance before the international court of justice. Columb J Transnational Law 33(1):41–72

Amerasinghe C (1967) State responsibility for injuries to aliens. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Barthes R (1977a) The death of the author. In: Image music text. Fontana Press, London, pp 142–148

Barthes R (1977b) Writers, intellectuals, teachers. In: Image music text. Fontana Press, London, pp 190–215

Batifort S, Benton Heath J (2017) The new debate on the interpretation of MFN clauses in investment treaties: putting the brakes on multilateralization. Am J Int Law 111(4):873–913CrossRef

Bennaim-Selvi O (2005) Third parties in international investment arbitrations: a trend in motion. J World Invest Trade 6(5):773–807

Bjorklund A (2008) Investment treaty arbitral decisions as “jurisprudence constante”. In: Picker B, Bunn I, Arner D (eds) International economic law: the state and future of the discipline. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 265–280

Böckstiegel KH (2001) Presenting evidence in international arbitration. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 16(1):1–9CrossRef

Böckstiegel KH (2012) Commercial and investment arbitration: how different are they today?: The Lalive lecture 2012. Arbitr Int 28(4):577–590CrossRef

Boisson de Chazournes L (2004) Transparency and amicus curiae briefs. J World Invest Trade 5(2):333–336CrossRef

Bondar K (2016) Allocation of costs in investor-state and commercial arbitration: towards a harmonized approach. Arbitr Int 32(1):45–58CrossRef

Bonnitcha J, Poulsen L, Waibel M (2017) The political economy of the investment treaty regime. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Boralessa A (2004) The limitations of party autonomy in ICSID arbitration. Am Rev Int Arbitr 15(2):253–311

Brower C, Goodman R (1991) Provisional measures and the protection of ICSID jurisdictional exclusivity against municipal proceedings. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 6(2):431–461CrossRef

Brower C, Ottolenghi M, Prows P (2009) The saga of CMS: res judicata, precedent and the legitimacy of ICSID arbitration. In: Binder C, Kriebaum U, Reinisch A, Wittich S (eds) International investment law for the 21st century – essays in honour of Christoph Schreuer. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 843–864CrossRef

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

Cordero Moss G (2008) Tribunal’s power versus party autonomy. In: Muchlinski P, Ortino F, Schreuer C (eds) The Oxford handbook of international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1207–1244

Di Pietro D (2005) Applicable law under Article 42 of the ICSID Convention – the case of Amco v. Indonesia. In: Weiler T (ed) International investment law and arbitration – leading cases from the ICSID, NAFTA, bilateral treaties and customary international law. Cameron May, London, pp 223–279

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

Dumberry P (2017) Shopping for a better deal: the use of MFN clauses to get ‘better’ fair and equitable treatment protection. Arbitr Int 33(1):1–16

Fach Gómez K (2012) Rethinking the role of amicus curiae in international investment arbitration: how to draw the line favorably for the public interest. Fordham Int Law J 35(2):510–564

Fach Gómez K (2019) Key duties of international investment arbitrators. A transnational study of legal and ethical dilemmas. Springer, ChamCrossRef

Friedland P (1986) Provisional measures and ICSID arbitration. Arbitr Int 4(1):335–357CrossRef

Fry J, Repousis O (2016) Towards a new world for investor-state arbitration through transparency. New York Univ J Int Law Politics 48(3):795–865

Gaillard E (2004) The extent of review of the applicable law in investment treaty arbitration. In: Gaillard E, Banifatemi Y (eds) Annulment of ICSID awards. Juris Publishing, New York, pp 190–205

Gaillard E, Banifatemi Y (2016) The long march towards a jurisprudence constante on the notion of investment: Salini v. Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4. In: Kinnear M, Fischer G, Minguez Almeida J, Torres L, Bidegain M (eds) Building international investment law: the first 50 years of ICSID. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 97–125

Gill J (2010) Is there a special role for precedent in investment arbitration? ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 25(1):87–94CrossRef

Grabowski A (2014) The definition of investment under the ICSID Convention: a defense of Salini. Chicago J Int Law 15(1):287–309

Heiskanen V (2014) Ménage à trois? Jurisdiction, admissibility and competence in investment treaty arbitration. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 29(1):231–246CrossRef

Hobe S (2015) The development of the law of aliens and the emergence of general principles of protection under public international law. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 6–22CrossRef

Hofmann R (2015) The protection of individuals under public international law. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 46–63CrossRef

Hong-Lin Y (2018) Transparency issue in the amendment of ICSID arbitration rules: public right to information vs public confidence? Int Arbitr Law Rev 21(4):94–105

Kaufmann-Kohler G (2007) Arbitral precedent: dream, necessity or excuse? Arbitr Int 23(3):357–378CrossRef

Kaufmann-Kohler G (2013) Non-disputing state submissions in investment arbitration: resurgence of diplomatic protection? In: Boisson de Chazournes L, Kohen M, Viñuales J (eds) Diplomatic and judicial means of dispute settlement. Brill Academic Publishing, The Hague, pp 307–326

Kinnear M (2010) ICSID: its role and possibilities. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 25(2):79–83CrossRef

Knahr C (2007) Transparency, third party participation and access to documents in international investment arbitration. Arbitr Int 23(3):327–355CrossRef

Knahr C, Reinisch A (2007) Transparency versus confidentiality in international investment arbitration – the Biwater Gauff compromise. Law Practice Int Courts Tribunals 6(1):97–118CrossRef

Kreindler R (2013) Competence – competence in the face of illegality in contracts and arbitration agreements. Brill Academic Publishing, The HagueCrossRef

Langford M, Behn D (2018) Managing backlash: the evolving investment treaty arbitrator? Eur J Int Law 29(2):551–580CrossRef

Mann F (1988) Compound interest as an item of damage in international law. U.C. Davis Law Rev 21(3):577–586

Mistelis L (2005) Confidentiality and third party participation: UPS v. Canada and Methanex Corp. v. United States. Arbitr Int 21(2):211–231CrossRef

Mourre A (2006) Are amici curiae the proper response to the public’s concerns on transparency in investment arbitration? Law Practice Int Courts Tribunals Pract J 5(2):257–271CrossRef

Nowrot K, Sipiorski E (2018) Approaches to arbitrator intimidation in investor-state dispute settlement: impartiality, independence, and the challenge of regulating behaviour. Law Practice Int Courts Tribunals Pract J 17(1):178–196CrossRef

Parra A (2001) Applicable substantive law in ICSID arbitrations initiated under investment treaties. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 25(1):20–24CrossRef

Parra A (2007) The development of the regulations and rules of the international centre for settlement of investment disputes. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 22(1):55–68CrossRef

Paulsson J (2010) The role of precedent in investment arbitration. In: Yannaca-Small K (ed) Arbitration under international investment agreements: a guide to the key issues. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 699–718

Petrochilos G (2018) Transparency in commercial arbitrations involving states. Les Cahiers de l’Arbitrage 1:19–24

Reed L (2010) The “de facto” precedent regime in investment arbitration: a case for proactive case management. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 25(1):95–103CrossRef

Rueda Garcia J (2009) Provisional measures in investment arbitration: recent experiences in oil arbitrations against the Republic of Ecuador. Transnational Dispute Management 6(4)

Schill S (2012) System-building in investment treaty arbitration and lawmaking. In: Venzke I, Von Bogdandy A (eds) International judicial lawmaking: on public authority and democratic legitimation in global governance. Springer, Cham, pp 133–177CrossRef

Schill S (2018) MFN clauses as bilateral commitments to multilateralism: a reply to Simon Batifort and J. Benton Heath. Am J Int Law 111(4):915–935

Schill S, Tvede K (2015) Mainstreaming investment treaty jurisprudence: the contribution of investment treaty tribunals to the consolidation and development of general international law. Law Practice Int Courts Tribunals Pract J 14(1):94–129CrossRef

Schreuer C (2016) The development of international law by ICSID tribunals. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 31(3):728–739CrossRef

Schreuer C, Weiniger M (2008) A doctrine of precedent? In: Muchlinski P, Ortino F, Schreuer C (eds) The Oxford handbook of international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1188–1206

Schreuer C, Malintoppi L, Reinisch S, Sinclair A (2009) The ICSID Convention: a commentary. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef

Schwebel S (2005) Compound interest in international law. Transnational Dispute Manag 2(5)

Shaw M (2014) International law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Sornarajah M (1986) State responsibility and bilateral investment treaties. J World Trade Law 20:79CrossRef

Steingruber A (2013) Antoine Goetz and others v Republic of Burundi: consent and arbitral tribunal competence to hear counterclaims in treaty-based ICSID arbitrations. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 28(2):291–300CrossRef

Ten Cate I (2013) The costs of consistency: precedent in investment treaty arbitration. Columb J Transnational Law 51(2):418–478

Toope S (1990) Mixed international arbitration: studies in arbitration between states and private persons. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Vandevelde K (2017) The first bilateral investment treaties – U.S. postwar friendship, commerce, and navigation treaties. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef

Vargiu P (2009) Beyond hallmarks and formal requirements: a “jurisprudence constante” on the notion of investment in the ICSID Convention. J World Invest Trade 10(5):753–768CrossRef

Veenstra-Kjos H (2007) Counterclaims by host states in investment treaty arbitration. Transnational Dispute Manag 4(4)

Viñuales J (2006) Human rights and investment arbitration: the role of amici curiae. Int Law Revista Colombiana de Derecho Internacional 8:231–273

Titel: Stakeholders of Investment Arbitration: Establishing a Dialogue Among Arbitrators, States, Investors, Academics and Other Actors in International Investment Law
verfasst von: Paolo Vargiu
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Private Actors in International Investment Law
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-48392-0

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-48393-7

Copyright-Jahr: 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48393-7_2

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

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

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Premium Partner