Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Institutional Developments in Investor–State Dispute Settlement and Arbitration Under the Auspices of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes

  • Chapter
European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2015

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((EUROYEAR,volume 6))

Abstract

One of the seminal characteristics of most modern–day international investment agreements (IIAs) is the provision for access to investor–State dispute settlement (ISDS), through which an investor alleging a violation of the agreement may directly claim against its host State in international arbitration. Protection standards offered to investors through these international law instruments, such as fair and equitable treatment, full protection and security, and a guarantee of ‘prompt, adequate and effective’ compensation in case of expropriation, have been tested when their provisions came to be interpreted by arbitral tribunals. And it is so that investor–State arbitration evolved into the centrepiece and guarantor of this system of investment protection and was placed in a unique position from which to formulate international investment law. This privileged position of investment arbitration, evident in the proliferation and growing importance of arbitral tribunals and exponential recourse to dispute settlement, has acted as a catalyst bringing to the fore the uncomfortable tension between investment protections and host State regulatory interests, and, by the same token, it has revealed arbitration as part of a problem. It should then not be astonishing that the much–publicised discussion on the need for reform of international investment law started with and focused on the reform of the investor–State dispute settlement mechanism. The debate has recently intensified, and reform is currently underway. Institutional developments that will lead in the long run to systemic changes are reflected in both novel investment treaty provisions and collective efforts made at various international fora.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    On this dictum of the Hull doctrine, see OECD (2004), p. 2, ft. 1; Newcombe and Paradell (2009), p. 18; Sornarajah (2011), pp. 414 et seq.; Kuokkanen (2002), pp. 180 et seq.

  2. 2.

    Titi (2014a), p. 67. See also Lavranos (2010), p. 2.

  3. 3.

    See UNCTAD (2013), p. 110; UNCTAD (2012), p. 86; ICSID (2011), pp. 25 et seq.; OECD (2006), p. 184; Reinisch (2008); Lavranos (2006), p. 223, with further references.

  4. 4.

    Titi (2014a), pp. 67–68.

  5. 5.

    UNCTAD, Recent Developments in Investor–State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), IIA Issues Note, No. 1, April 2014, UNCTAD/WEB/DIAE/PCB/2014/3, p. 7, available at: http://unctad.org/en/pages/publications/Intl-Investment-Agreements---Issues-Note.aspx.

  6. 6.

    UNCTAD, Recent Developments in Investor–State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), IIA Issues Note, No. 1, April 2014, UNCTAD/WEB/DIAE/PCB/2014/3, p. 2, available at: http://unctad.org/en/pages/publications/Intl-Investment-Agreements---Issues-Note.aspx.

  7. 7.

    Titi (2013a), p. 829 (845); Titi (2014a), p. 21.

  8. 8.

    Banifatemi and von Walter (2013), pp. 247–251.

  9. 9.

    Convention entre le Gouvernement de la République française et le Gouvernement de la République tunisienne sur la protection des investissements, 1972, Preamble (translation of the author).

  10. 10.

    European Commission Fact sheet, Investment Protection and Investor-to-State Dispute Settlement in EU agreements, 2013, p. 5. See also UNCTAD, Recent Developments in Investor–State Dispute Settlement, updated for the Multilateral Dialogue on Investment, 28–29 May 2013, IIA Issues Note, No. 1, May 2013, UNCTAD/WEB/DIAE/PCB/2013/3/REV, p. 4.

  11. 11.

    UNCTAD, Recent Developments in Investor–State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), IIA Issues, No. 1, April 2014, UNCTAD/WEB/DIAE/PCB/2014/3, p. 2, available at: http://unctad.org/en/pages/publications/Intl-Investment-Agreements---Issues-Note.aspx.

  12. 12.

    UNCTAD, Recent Developments in Investor–State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), IIA Issues Note, No. 1, April 2014, UNCTAD/WEB/DIAE/PCB/2014/3, p. 1, available at: http://unctad.org/en/pages/publications/Intl-Investment-Agreements---Issues-Note.aspx.

  13. 13.

    ICSID, ARB/13/22, Erbil Serter v. France, registered 10 September 2013.

  14. 14.

    ICSID, ARB/12/29, Ping An Life Insurance Company of China, Limited and Ping An Insurance (Group) Company of China, Limited v. Belgium, registered 19 September 2012.

  15. 15.

    ICSID, ARB/13/27, Marfin Investment Group Holdings S.A., Alexandros Bakatselos and others v. Cyprus, registered 27 September 2013.

  16. 16.

    ICSID, ARB/13/8, Poštová banka, a.s. and ISTROKAPITAL SE v. Greece, registered 20 May 2013.

  17. 17.

    UNCTAD, Recent Developments in Investor–State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), IIA Issues Note, No. 1, April 2014, UNCTAD/WEB/DIAE/PCB/2014/3, p. 9, available at: http://unctad.org/en/pages/publications/Intl-Investment-Agreements---Issues-Note.aspx.

  18. 18.

    UNCTAD, Recent Developments in Investor–State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), IIA Issues Note, No. 1, April 2014, UNCTAD/WEB/DIAE/PCB/2014/3, 2014, p. 10, available at: http://unctad.org/en/pages/publications/Intl-Investment-Agreements---Issues-Note.aspx.

  19. 19.

    Juillard (2009), p. 274 (280); see also Titi (2014a), p. 70. At the time of writing, less than five State–investor arbitrations are known to have been initiated; see ibid.

  20. 20.

    UNCTAD, Recent Developments in Investor–State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), IIA Issues Note, No. 1, April 2014, UNCTAD/WEB/DIAE/PCB/2014/3, p. 9, available at: http://unctad.org/en/pages/publications/Intl-Investment-Agreements---Issues-Note.aspx.

  21. 21.

    Thirty–eight of these cases were registered under the ICSID Convention and two of them under the ICSID Additional Facility Rules.

  22. 22.

    ICSID (2014), p. 7.

  23. 23.

    ICSID (2014), p. 8.

  24. 24.

    ICSID (2014), p. 10.

  25. 25.

    ICSID (2014), p. 11.

  26. 26.

    ICSID (2014), p. 14.

  27. 27.

    ICSID (2014), p. 17.

  28. 28.

    ICSID (2014), p. 23.

  29. 29.

    Latin America, and especially Argentina, has had the sad privilege of heading investment disputes as a respondent, inviting in one case the comment that Argentina has been ICSID’s best client. Christakis (2007), p. 879 (881). See further Titi (2014b), p. 357.

  30. 30.

    ICSID, The ICSID Caseload—Statistics, Issue 2014–1, p. 24.

  31. 31.

    ICSID, The ICSID Caseload—Statistics, Issue 2014–1, p. 28.

  32. 32.

    See https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=ShowHome&pageName=MemberStates_Home.

  33. 33.

    Montenegro Ratifies the ICSID Convention, ICSID News Release, 11 April 2013.

  34. 34.

    Sao Tome and Principe Ratifies the ICSID Convention, ICSID News Release, 21 May 2013.

  35. 35.

    Canada Ratifies the ICSID Convention, ICSID News Release, 1 November 2013.

  36. 36.

    See Titi (2013b), p. 14.

  37. 37.

    Article 27(1)(a) Canadian Model BIT of 2004 and Article 24(1)(a) Canadian Model BIT of 2012.

  38. 38.

    See, e.g., Alvarez (2011), pp. 75–93, 257–263, 352–406; Franck (2005), p. 1521; Van Harten (2007), pp. 152–184; see also Public Statement on the International Investment Regime, 31 August 2010, Osgoode Hall Law School, available at: http://www.osgoode.yorku.ca/public_statement. For further bibliography on the topic, see Titi (2014a), p. 70.

  39. 39.

    Government of Australia, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Gillard Government Trade Policy Statement: Trading our way to more jobs and prosperity, 2011, available at: http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/trade/trading-our-way-to-more-jobs-and-prosperity.pdf, p. 14. On the Australian Government’s rejection of investor–State dispute settlement, see further Kurtz (2012), p. 9; Kurtz (2011); Nottage (2011). See also Titi (2014a), pp. 25, 45 et seq.

  40. 40.

    This is the 2014 Korea–Australia FTA (KAFTA), see Section B of Chapter 11 (Articles 11.15 et seq.).

  41. 41.

    See further Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Frequently Asked Questions on Investor–State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), available at: https://www.dfat.gov.au/fta/isds-faq.html and Nottage (2013).

  42. 42.

    See Titi (2014b), p. 357.

  43. 43.

    Titi (2014b), p. 357 (364–365).

  44. 44.

    See also UNCTAD, Recent Developments in Investor–State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), IIA Issues Note, No. 1, April 2014, UNCTAD/WEB/DIAE/PCB/2014/3, p. 24, available at: http://unctad.org/en/pages/publications/Intl-Investment-Agreements---Issues-Note.aspx.

  45. 45.

    For a more detailed analysis of some of these issues, see Bungenberg and Titi (2014).

  46. 46.

    European Commission, Communication, Towards a comprehensive European international investment policy, COM(2010) 343 final, 7 July 2010, pp. 9–10; European Council, Conclusions on a comprehensive European international investment policy, 25 October 2010, para. 18; European Parliament, Resolution of 6 April 2011 on the future European international investment policy, 2010/2203 (INI), 2 October 2012, paras. 31–35.

  47. 47.

    European Commission, Communication, Towards a comprehensive European international investment policy, COM(2010) 343 final, 7 July 2010, p. 10.

  48. 48.

    European Commission, Communication, Towards a comprehensive European international investment policy, COM(2010) 343 final, 7 July 2010, pp. 9–10, recital 18, see also 14.

  49. 49.

    European Parliament Resolution of 6 April 2011 on the future European international investment policy, 2010/2203 (INI), 2 October 2012, paras. 31–35.

  50. 50.

    European Parliament, Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for managing financial responsibility linked to investor–state dispute settlement tribunals established by international agreements to which the European Union is party, COM(2012) 0335-C70155/2012–2012/0163(COD), 26 March 2013, Amendment 2, Justification.

  51. 51.

    European Parliament, Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for managing financial responsibility linked to investor–state dispute settlement tribunals established by international agreements to which the European Union is party, COM(2012) 0335-C70155/2012–2012/0163(COD), 26 March 2013, Amendment 2, Justification.

  52. 52.

    Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 16 April 2014 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No…/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for managing financial responsibility linked to investor-to-state dispute settlement tribunals established by international agreements to which the European Union is party, P7_TC1-COD(2012)0163, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=−//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2014-0419+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.

  53. 53.

    European Parliament legislative resolution of 16 April 2014 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for managing financial responsibility linked to investor–state dispute settlement tribunals established by international agreements to which the European Union is party, COM(2012) 0335-C7-0155/2012-2012/0163.

  54. 54.

    Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 16 April 2014 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No…/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for managing financial responsibility linked to investor-to-state dispute settlement tribunals established by international agreements to which the European Union is party, P7_TC1-COD(2012)0163, recital 2, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=−//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2014-0419+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN. See also recital 4 of the same document that requires EU investment agreements to provide the same high level of protection as Union law but not higher, raising the question of whether this phrasing could eventually also relate to procedural standards of investment protection. The oxymoron is that this statement is included in a document that in fact explains how ISDS is to function with respect to financial liability.

  55. 55.

    See Bungenberg and Titi (2014).

  56. 56.

    On these issues, see also Bungenberg and Titi (2014).

  57. 57.

    European Commission, Communication, Towards a comprehensive European international investment policy, COM(2010)343 final, 7 July 2010, p. 10.

  58. 58.

    European Commission, Communication, Towards a comprehensive European international investment policy, COM(2010)343 final, 7 July 2010, p. 10.

  59. 59.

    European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing transitional arrangements for bilateral investment agreements between Member States and third countries, COM(2010) 344 final, 7 July 2010, see Article 13.

  60. 60.

    Council of the European Union, Conclusions on a comprehensive European international investment policy, 25 October 2010, recital 18, available at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/117328.pdf.

  61. 61.

    European Parliament Resolution of 6 April 2011 on the future European international investment policy, 2010/2203 (INI), 2 October 2012, para. 35.

  62. 62.

    European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation establishing a framework for managing financial responsibility linked to investor–state dispute settlement tribunals established by international agreements to which the European Union is party, COM(2012)335 final, 2012/0163 (COD), 21 June 2012.

  63. 63.

    European Commission, p. 2. See further Bungenberg and Titi (2014).

  64. 64.

    European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation establishing a framework for managing financial responsibility linked to investor–state dispute settlement tribunals established by international agreements to which the European Union is party, COM(2012)335 final, 2012/0163 (COD), 21 June 2012, p. 2.

  65. 65.

    European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation establishing a framework for managing financial responsibility linked to investor–state dispute settlement tribunals established by international agreements to which the European Union is party, COM(2012)335 final, 2012/0163 (COD), 21 June 2012. See further Bungenberg and Titi (2014).

  66. 66.

    E.g., see Article 3 stating, inter alia, that ‘the Union shall bear the financial responsibility arising from treatment afforded by the institutions, bodies or agencies of the Union; […] the Member State concerned shall bear the financial responsibility arising from treatment afforded by that Member State; […] the Union shall bear the financial responsibility arising from treatment afforded by a Member State where such treatment was required by the law of the Union’.

  67. 67.

    Bungenberg and Titi (2014). See also Schill (2011), pp. 133 et seq.

  68. 68.

    Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 16 April 2014 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No…/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for managing financial responsibility linked to investor-to-state dispute settlement tribunals established by international agreements to which the European Union is party, P7_TC1-COD(2012)0163, recital 3, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=−//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2014-0419+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.

  69. 69.

    E.g., see Bungenberg et al. (2011).

  70. 70.

    European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation establishing a framework for managing financial responsibility linked to investor–state dispute settlement tribunals established by international agreements to which the European Union is party, COM(2012) 335 final, 2012/0163 (COD), 21 June 2012, p. 3. See also the Joint declaration by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, annexed to the European Parliament’s legislative resolution of 16 April 2014 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for managing financial responsibility linked to investor–state dispute settlement tribunals established by international agreements to which the European Union is party, COM(2012) 0335-C7-0155/2012-2012/0163, which attempts to ensure that the adoption of the regulation in question ‘shall not be interpreted as an exercise of shared competence by the Union in areas where the Union’s competence has not been exercised’.

  71. 71.

    European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation establishing a framework for managing financial responsibility linked to investor–state dispute settlement tribunals established by international agreements to which the European Union is party, COM(2012) 335 final, 2012/0163 (COD), 21 June 2012.

  72. 72.

    European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation establishing a framework for managing financial responsibility linked to investor–state dispute settlement tribunals established by international agreements to which the European Union is party, COM(2012) 335 final, 2012/0163 (COD), 21 June 2012, p. 5.

  73. 73.

    European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation establishing a framework for managing financial responsibility linked to investor–state dispute settlement tribunals established by international agreements to which the European Union is party, COM(2012) 335 final, 2012/0163 (COD), 21 June 2012, p. 6. See also Bungenberg and Titi (2014).

  74. 74.

    Bungenberg and Titi (2014).

  75. 75.

    European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation establishing a framework for managing financial responsibility linked to investor–state dispute settlement tribunals established by international agreements to which the European Union is party, COM(2012) 335 final, 2012/0163 (COD), 21 June 2012, p. 17; Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 16 April 2014 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No…/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for managing financial responsibility linked to investor-to-state dispute settlement tribunals established by international agreements to which the European Union is party, P7_TC1-COD(2012)0163, recital. 18, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=−//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2014-0419+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.

  76. 76.

    Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 16 April 2014 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No…/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for managing financial responsibility linked to investor-to-state dispute settlement tribunals established by international agreements to which the European Union is party, P7_TC1-COD(2012)0163, recital 18, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=−//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2014-0419+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.

  77. 77.

    European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation establishing a framework for managing financial responsibility linked to investor–state dispute settlement tribunals established by international agreements to which the European Union is party, COM(2012) 335 final, 2012/0163 (COD), 21 June 2012, p. 6. The Commission’s Proposal for a Regulation has been commented in a study prepared by Tietje et al. (2013); Article 20 Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 16 April 2014 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No…/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for managing financial responsibility linked to investor-to-state dispute settlement tribunals established by international agreements to which the European Union is party, P7_TC1-COD(2012)0163, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=−//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2014-0419+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN. See also Bungenberg and Titi (2014).

  78. 78.

    ICSID, ARB/07/5, Abaclat and Others v. Argentina, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 4 August 2011.

  79. 79.

    ICSID, ARB/08/9, Ambiente Ufficio S.P.A. and Others (Case formerly known as Giordano Alpi and Others) v. Argentina, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 8 February 2013.

  80. 80.

    ICSID, ARB/07/8, Giovanni Alemanni and others v. Argentina, registered 27 March 2007.

  81. 81.

    International Monetary Fund, Sovereign Debt Restructuring—Recent Developments and Implications for the Fund’s Legal and Policy Framework, 26 April 2013, p. 6.

  82. 82.

    E.g., see Article 1 of the US Model BIT (2012).

  83. 83.

    ICSID, ARB/07/5, Abaclat and Others v. Argentina, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 4 August 2011, paras. 362 et seq.

  84. 84.

    ICSID, ARB/07/5, Abaclat and Others v. Argentina, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 4 August 2011, para. 387.

  85. 85.

    ICSID, ARB/08/9, Ambiente Ufficio S.P.A. and Others (Case formerly known as Giordano Alpi and Others) v. Argentina, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Dissenting Opinion of Santiago Torres Bernárdez, paras. 262–263.

  86. 86.

    ICSID, ARB/08/9, Ambiente Ufficio S.P.A. and Others (Case formerly known as Giordano Alpi and Others) v. Argentina, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 8 February 2013, para. 146.

  87. 87.

    ICSID, ARB/08/9, Ambiente Ufficio S.P.A. and Others (Case formerly known as Giordano Alpi and Others) v. Argentina, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Dissenting Opinion of Santiago Torres Bernárdez, para. 81. See further UNCTAD, Recent Developments in Investor–State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), IIA Issues Note, No. 1, April 2014, UNCTAD/WEB/DIAE/PCB/2014/3, p. 18, available at: http://unctad.org/en/pages/publications/Intl-Investment-Agreements---Issues-Note.aspx.

  88. 88.

    Article 1(1)(b) Denmark–Poland BIT (1990).

  89. 89.

    Article 838, ft 11, Canada–Colombia FTA, Article I Colombia–UK BIT (2010), Article I Colombian Model BIT (2007). For a relevant discussion, see also República de Colombia, Departamento Nacional de Planeación, 2002, Documento Conpes 3197, ‘Manejo de los Flujos de Endeudamiento en los Acuerdos Internacionales de Inversión Extranjera’, 26 August 2002, available at: https://www.dnp.gov.co/Portals/0/archivos/documentos/Subdireccion/Conpes/3197.PDF. See also Rivas (2013), p. 203.

  90. 90.

    Annex 10–A US-DR-CAFTA.

  91. 91.

    See Annex 10–F US–Colombia FTA.

  92. 92.

    See also Gallagher (2011), p. 27; Gallagher (2012).

  93. 93.

    Strong (2014).

  94. 94.

    Titi (2014c).

  95. 95.

    European Commission, Communication, COM(2010) 343 final, 7 July 2010, p. 10.

  96. 96.

    E.g., see European Commission (Trade), Fact sheet: Investment Protection and Investor-to-State Dispute Settlement in EU agreements, November 2013, available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/november/tradoc_151916.pdf; European Commission, Public consultation on modalities for investment protection and ISDS in TTIP 2014, http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms/dispatch?form=ISDS.

  97. 97.

    Titi (2014c).

  98. 98.

    Article 48(5) ICSID Convention.

  99. 99.

    E.g., see Article 53(3) Schedule C, Arbitration (Additional Facility) Rules; Article 6 of Appendix I: Statutes of the International Court of Arbitration annexed to the ICC Arbitration Rules; Article 46 SCC Arbitration Rules (2010); Article 30(1) (LCIA) Arbitration Rules (1998).

  100. 100.

    UNCITRAL, Rules on Transparency in Treaty–Based Investor–State Arbitration, available at: http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/rules-on-transparency/Rules-on-Transparency-E.pdf.

  101. 101.

    Article 3 UNCITRAL Transparency Rules. See also Titi (2014c).

  102. 102.

    Article 6 UNCITRAL Transparency Rules.

  103. 103.

    Article 1(1) UNCITRAL Transparency Rules.

  104. 104.

    Article 1(2) UNCITRAL Transparency Rules.

  105. 105.

    See for example Article x–33 of the Draft CETA text of March 2014, annexed to the European Commission’s Public consultation on modalities for investment protection and ISDS in TTIP (Consultation document) 2014, available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/march/tradoc_152280.pdf.

  106. 106.

    Article 41(3) Schedule C, Arbitration (Additional Facility) Rules.

  107. 107.

    Article 4 UNCITRAL Transparency Rules.

  108. 108.

    Article 5 UNCITRAL Transparency Rules.

  109. 109.

    NAFTA Free Trade Commission Notes of Interpretation of Certain Chapter 11 Provisions, 31 July 2001, available at: http://www.sice.oas.org/tpd/nafta/Commission/CH11understanding_e.asp.

  110. 110.

    See NAFTA FTC, Joint Statement on ‘Decade of Achievement’, 16 July 2004, available at: http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/nafta-alena/JS-SanAntonio.aspx?lang=eng.

  111. 111.

    Ortino (2013), p. 124.

  112. 112.

    E.g., UNCITRAL, Methanex Corporation v. United States, Decision of the Tribunal on Petitions from Third Persons to Intervene as ‘amici curiae’, paras. 47 et seq.

  113. 113.

    Statement of the Free Trade Commission on non–disputing party participation, 7 October 2003, available at: www.naftaclaims.com/Papers/Nondisputing-en.pdf.

  114. 114.

    E.g., see Articles 28–29 US Model BIT (2012), Articles 31–32 Canadian Model BIT (2012), Article 10.20 US-Chile FTA, Article 10.21 US-DR-CAFTA.

  115. 115.

    Articles x–33 and x–35 of the Draft CETA text of March 2014, annexed to the European Commission’s Public consultation on modalities for investment protection and ISDS in TTIP (Consultation document) 2014, available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/march/tradoc_152280.pdf.

References

  • Alvarez JE (2011) The public international law regime governing international investment

    Google Scholar 

  • Banifatemi Y, von Walter A (2013) France. In: Brown C (ed) Commentaries on selected model investment treaties, p 247

    Google Scholar 

  • Bungenberg M, Titi C (2014) The Evolution of EU Investment Law and the Future of EU-China Investment Relations. In: Shan W, Su J (eds) China and International Investment Law: Twenty Years of ICSID Membership, Brill, 2014, p 297

    Google Scholar 

  • Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hindelang S (eds) (2011) European yearbook of international economic law 2011. Special issue: international investment law and EU law. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Christakis T (2007) Quel remède à l’éclatement de la jurisprudence CIRDI sur les investissements en Argentine ? La décision du Comité ad hoc dans l’affaire CMS c. Argentine. Revue Générale de Droit International Public 111(4):879

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher KP (2011) The new vulture culture: sovereign debt restructuring and trade and investment treaties. IDEAs working paper series paper no 02/2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher KP (2012) Mission creep: international investment agreements and sovereign debt restructuring, Investment Treaty News, 12 January 2012. http://www.iisd.org/itn/2012/01/12/mission-creep-international-investment-agreements-and-sovereign-debt-restructuring-3/

  • ICSID (2011) ICSID 2011 annual report. https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=ICSIDPublicationsRH&actionVal=ViewAnnualReports&year=2011_Eng

  • ICSID (2014) The ICSID Caseload – Statistics, Issue 2014-1

    Google Scholar 

  • Juillard P (2009) The law of international investment: can the imbalance be redressed? In: Sauvant KP (ed) Yearbook on international law and policy 2008–2009, p 274

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuokkanen T (2002) International law and the environment: variations on a theme. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurtz J (2011) The Australian trade policy statement on investor-state dispute settlement. ASIL Insights 15(22)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurtz J (2012) Australia’s rejection of investor–state arbitration: causation, omission and implication. ICSID Rev 27(1):9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavranos N (2006) Current legal developments: the MOX Plant and IJzeren Rijn disputes: which court is the supreme arbiter? Leiden J Int Law 19(1):223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavranos N (2010) Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and EU law, ESIL conference 2010. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1683348

  • Newcombe A, Paradell L (2009) Law and practice of investment treaties. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Nottage L (2011) The rise and possible fall of investor–state arbitration in Asia: a skeptic’s view of Australia’s “Gillard Government Trade Policy Statement”. Sydney Law School legal studies research paper no 11/32

    Google Scholar 

  • Nottage L (2013) Investor–state dispute settlement back for Australia’s free trade agreements. http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/japaneselaw/2013/12/isds_back.html

  • OECD (2004) Indirect expropriation” and the “right to regulate” in international investment law. Working papers on international investment, no 2004/4. OECD Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2006) Improving the system of investor–state dispute settlement: an overview. In: OECD International investment perspectives 2006 edition. OECD Publishing, p 184

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortino F (2013) Transparency of investment awards: external and internal dimensions. In: Nakagawa J (ed) Transparency in international trade and investment dispute settlement, p 124

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinisch A (2008) The proliferation of international dispute settlement mechanisms: the threat of fragmentation vs. the promise of a more effective system? Some reflections from the perspective of investment arbitration. In: Buffard I, Crawford J, Pellet A, Wittich S (eds) International law between universalism and fragmentation – Festschrift in honour of Gerhard Hafner. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivas JA (2013) Colombia. In: Brown C (ed) Commentaries on selected model investment treaties, p 203

    Google Scholar 

  • Schill S (2011) Arbitration procedure: the role of the European Union and the member states in investor–state arbitration. In: Kessedjian C (ed) Le droit européen et l’arbitrage d’investissement – European law and investment arbitration, p 133

    Google Scholar 

  • Sornarajah M (2011) The international law on foreign investment, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Strong SI (2014) Rogue debtors and unanticipated risk. Univ Pa J Int Law 35(4):1139

    Google Scholar 

  • Tietje C, Sipiorski E, Töpfer G (2013) Responsibility in investor–state arbitration in the EU [for the European Parliament/INTA], 3 December 2012. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/fr/studiesdownload.html?languageDocument=EN&file=79450

  • Titi C (2013a) The arbitrator as a lawmaker: jurisgenerative processes in investment arbitration. J World Invest Trade 14(5):829

    Google Scholar 

  • Titi C (2013b) The evolving BIT: a commentary on Canada’s model agreement. Investment Treaty News 3(4):14

    Google Scholar 

  • Titi C (2014a) The right to regulate in international investment law. Nomos and Hart

    Google Scholar 

  • Titi C (2014b) Investment arbitration in Latin America: the uncertain veracity of preconceived ideas. Arbitr Int 30(2):357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Titi C (2014c) International investment law and good governance. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law: a handbook. Beck/Hart/Nomos, 2015, p 1768

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCTAD (2012) World investment report 2012. http://unctad.org/diae

  • UNCTAD (2013) World investment report 2013. http://unctad.org/diae

  • Van Harten G (2007) Investment treaty arbitration and public law

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Panthéon-Assas (Paris 2), Paris Center for Law and Economics (CRED), 19–21 Rue Valette, 75005, Paris, France

    Catharine Titi

Authors
  1. Catharine Titi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catharine Titi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Passau, Passau, Germany

    Christoph Herrmann

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany

    Markus Krajewski

  3. Competition and Regulation Institute, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany

    Jörg Philipp Terhechte

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Titi, C. (2015). Institutional Developments in Investor–State Dispute Settlement and Arbitration Under the Auspices of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. In: Herrmann, C., Krajewski, M., Terhechte, J. (eds) European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2015. European Yearbook of International Economic Law, vol 6. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46748-0_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation