Abstract
Investment treaties play a crucial role in attracting foreign investments, which are necessary to boost the steadily weak economies of many states. These treaties protect foreign investors and grant them – besides broad substantive protection – the right to bring claims against the host state before an arbitral tribunal. Due to the fact that investor-state arbitration insulates the foreign investor from domestic courts, which may be inefficient or hostile towards claims against the host state, it has become the generally recognized method for resolving disputes between foreign investors and states. Nonetheless, in recent years investor-state arbitration has been increasingly criticized for various reasons. The contribution will outline the major concerns associated with investor-state arbitration. Issues such as the “changing hat syndrome” between arbitrators and counsel as well as the lack of consistency and coherence in case-law are discussed. Further, the tension between confidentiality and transparency in investor-state arbitration is addressed. A special focus will be given to the situation in the European Union (EU): The Lisbon Treaty has transferred the competence to conclude investment treaties to the EU and has therewith caused many uncertainties. However, this contribution will not only put emphasis on the shortcomings of the current system, but will also have a look at possible ways forward by proposing a set of measures, which might have the effect of improving investor-state arbitration.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
UNCTAD (2015), p. 1, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaepcb2015d1_en.pdf. The term investment treaties refers to bilateral investment treaties as well as to other treaties containing chapters on foreign investments such as Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement, https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Legal-Texts/North-American-Free-Trade-Agreement. All accessed 12 May 2015.
- 2.
Cf. UNCTAD (2003), p. 3, http://unctad.org/en/Docs/iteiit20054_en.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015; see also Schill (2011), p. 249.
- 3.
Schill (2011), p. 252.
- 4.
See Pohl et al. (2012), p. 11, http://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/investment-policy/WP-2012_2.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 5.
Delaney and Magraw (2008), p. 723.
- 6.
Greenberg et al. (2011), paras 10.11 et seq.
- 7.
Barcelona Traction Light and Power Company Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Judgement, 1970 I.C.J., pp. 3 et seq. (5 February 1970); Dolzer and Bloch (2005), para 113.
- 8.
Plama Consortium Limited v. Republic of Bulgarien, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Decision on Jurisdiction, (8 February 2005), 20 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal, pp. 266 et seq. (2005).
- 9.
- 10.
UNCTAD (2015), p. 5, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaepcb2015d1_en.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 11.
Ripinsky (2012), http://www.iisd.org/itn/2012/04/13/venezuelas-withdrawal-from-icsid-what-it-does-and-does-not-achieve/#_ftn1. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 12.
Tienhaara and Ranald (2011), http://www.iisd.org/itn/2011/07/12/australias-rejection-of-investor-state-dispute-settlement-four-potential-contributing-factors/. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 13.
McKinnon (2015), p. 57, http://www.debevoise.com/~/media/files/insights/publications/2015/01/arbitration_quarterly_january2015.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 14.
Fritz (2015), p. 5, http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/files/download/iias_report_feb_2015.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015; Schill (2011), p. 247.
- 15.
Kaufmann-Kohler (2005), p. 1, www.transnational-dispute-management.com/article.asp?key=608. Accessed 16 June 2015.
- 16.
Cf. Teitelbaum (2010), p. 54.
- 17.
See e.g. Perry (2012), p. 2.
- 18.
See e.g. Bottini (2014), p. 1, www.transnational-dispute-management.com/article.asp?key=2075. Accessed 19 June 2015; Tams (2007), p. 223.
- 19.
Articles 87 and 94 Austrian Constitution, https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10000138. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 20.
Eberhardt (2012), pp. 34 et seq., http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/files/download/profitingfrominjustice.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 21.
- 22.
Bernasconi-Osterwalder and Rosert (2014), p. 13, http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2014/investment_treaty_arbitration.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 23.
For an overview see Bernasconi-Osterwalder and Rosert (2014), p. 13, http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2014/investment_treaty_arbitration.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 24.
Bernasconi-Osterwalder and Rosert (2014), p. 13, http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2014/investment_treaty_arbitration.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 25.
Blackaby et al. (2009), paras 4.30, 4.36; for further concerns regarding the appointment procedure see Bernasconi-Osterwalder and Rosert (2014), p. 12, http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2014/investment_treaty_arbitration.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 26.
Buergenthal (2006), p. 5, www.transnational-dispute-management.com/article.asp?key=820. Accessed 16 June 2015.
- 27.
Buergenthal (2006), p. 5, www.transnational-dispute-management.com/article.asp?key=820. Accessed 16 June 2015 and Bernasconi-Osterwalder et al. (2010), p. 4, https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/pdf/2011/dci_2010_arbitrator_independence.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 28.
Bernasconi-Osterwalder and Rosert (2014), p. 12, http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2014/investment_treaty_arbitration.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 29.
New York Times (2004), http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/27/opinion/27mon3.html?_r=0. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 30.
- 31.
Around 36 % (222 claims) of the known investor-state arbitrations were filed under arbitration rules, which were traditionally designed for commercial arbitration. UNCTAD (2014a), p. 4, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaepcb2014d3_en.pdf; UNCTAD (2015), p. 7, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaepcb2015d1_en.pdf. All accessed 12 May 2015.
- 32.
Mistelis (2005), p. 213.
- 33.
Mistelis (2005), p. 221.
- 34.
- 35.
Reith (2015a), pp. 66 et seq.
- 36.
Schill (2011), p. 263.
- 37.
Greenberg et al. (2011), para 10.1.
- 38.
Cf. Greenberg et al. (2011), para 10.1.
- 39.
UNCITRAL Secretariat, Note Settlement of commercial disputes: Preparation of rules of uniform law on transparency in treaty-based investor-State dispute settlement, para 9, U.N. Doc. A/CN.9/WG.II/WP.160/Add.1, (5 August 2010); Blackaby (2003), pp. 358 et seq. and Delaney and Magraw (2008), pp. 723 et seq.
- 40.
Aguas Argentinas S.A., Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, Order in Response to a Petition for Transparency and Participation as Amicus Curiae, (19 May 2005), 21 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal, pp. 342 et seq (2006).
- 41.
UNCTAD (2015), p. 1, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaepcb2015d1_en.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 42.
UNCTAD (2015), p. 8 footnote 20, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaepcb2015d1_en.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 43.
Cf. Blackaby (2003), p. 356.
- 44.
Orellana (2011), pp. 61 et seq.
- 45.
See Orellana (2011), pp. 61 et seq., http://www.right2info.org/access-to-information-laws. Accessed 12 May 2015; UNCITRAL Secretariat, Note on Comments received from Mexico on transparency in treaty-based investor-State arbitration, p. 7, U.N. Doc. A/CN.9/WG.II/LIII/CRP.2, (1 October 2010).
- 46.
Human Rights Committee General comment No. 34, 102nd Sess., June 11-July 29, 2011, para 19, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34; Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v. Hungary, Eur. Ct. H.R. case no. 37374/05, paras 26 et seq. (2009); Claude-Reyes et al. v. Chile, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. case no. 151, para 77 (2006).
- 47.
Cf. Reith (2015a), pp. 61 et seq.
- 48.
Franck (2005), p. 1521.
- 49.
Schill (2011), p. 260.
- 50.
Franck (2005), p. 1521.
- 51.
Lauder v. Czech Republic, Final Award, (3 September 2001), http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0451.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 52.
CME Czech Republic v. Czech Republic, Final Award, (14 September 2003), http://www.italaw.com/documents/CME-2003-Final_001.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 53.
Lauder v. Czech Republic, Final Award, para 309, (3 September 2001), http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0451.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 54.
CME Czech Republic v. Czech Republic, Partial Award, para 624, (13 September 2001), http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0178.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 55.
Cf. Dimsey (2008), p. 39.
- 56.
Kaufmann-Kohler (2007), p. 368.
- 57.
See Schreuer and Weininger (2008), p. 1196.
- 58.
Greenberg et al. (2011), paras 1.83 et seq.
- 59.
Article 52 ICSID Convention, I.L.M. 1965, pp. 524–544; Reed et al. (2011), pp. 162 et seq.
- 60.
Article V New York Convention, U.N.T.S. 1959, pp. 3–82.
- 61.
Cf. Spoorenberrg and Viñuales (2009), p. 100.
- 62.
Schill (2011), p. 255.
- 63.
Article 3 BIT between Austrian and Guatemala 2006, http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/3316. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 64.
Weininger and Naish (2014), http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=2f28b3cd-ff72-4829-9a54-3536b0561c24. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 65.
For a list see Blackaby (2003), pp. 358 et seq.
- 66.
See e.g. Methanex Corporation v. U.S.A, Statement of Claim, 3 December 1999, http://www.naftaclaims.com/disputes/usa/Methanex/MethanexStatementOfClaim.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 67.
Schreuer (2012), p. 2.
- 68.
Buergenthal (2006), p. 5.
- 69.
Bernasconi-Osterwalder et al. (2010), p. 42, https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/pdf/2011/dci_2010_arbitrator_independence.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 70.
Section 18 Statutes of the Bodies Working for the Settlement of Sports-Related Disputes, http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Code20201320corrections20finales20_en_.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 71.
Sinclair et al. (2009), p. 1, http://www.goldreserveinc.com/documents/ICSID%20arbitration%20%20How%20long%20does%20it%20take.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 72.
- 73.
ICSID Secretariat (2004), paras 20 et seq., https://icsid.worldbank.org/apps/ICSIDWEB/resources/Documents/Possible%20Improvements%20of%20the%20Framework%20of%20ICSID%20Arbitration.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 74.
Schreuer (2012), p. 6.
- 75.
Kaufmann-Kohler (2008), p. 146.
- 76.
Wälde (2008), p. 113.
- 77.
Cf. Kaufmann-Kohler (2008), p. 147.
- 78.
See Wälde (2008), p. 113.
- 79.
Cf. Schreuer and Weininger (2008), p. 1204.
- 80.
Cf. Basedow (2014), http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/wirtschaftspolitik/freihandelsabkommen-das-problem-mit-den-geheimgerichten-13173663-p5.html. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 81.
Bernasconi-Osterwalder and Rosert (2014), p. 12, http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2014/investment_treaty_arbitration.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 82.
Weininger and Naish (2014), http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=2f28b3cd-ff72-4829-9a54-3536b0561c24. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 83.
UNCTAD (2015), p. 3, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaepcb2015d1_en.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 84.
UNCTAD (2015), p. 8, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaepcb2015d1_en.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 85.
Harrison (2011), p. 3.
- 86.
UNCTAD (2014a), p. 4, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaepcb2014d3_en.pdf; UNCTAD (2015), p. 7, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaepcb2015d1_en.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 87.
Greenberg et al. (2011), paras 1.35 et seq.
- 88.
- 89.
See e.g. Rule 48 para 4 ICSID Arbitration Rules, which allows the Centre to include in its publication excerpts of the legal rules applied by the Tribunal, even if it was prohibited from publishing the award without the consent of the parties. Further, the Secretary General has to publish some information about the operation of the Centre, including the registration of arbitration claims, https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/StaticFiles/basicdoc/CRR_English-final.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 90.
Mistelis (2005), pp. 218, 231.
- 91.
- 92.
Rule 48 para 4 ICSID Arbitration Rules 2006.
- 93.
Rule 32 para 3 ICSID Arbitration Rules 2006.
- 94.
- 95.
Cf. Tuck (2007), p. 913.
- 96.
Cf. Rep. of the U.N. Comm. on Int’l Trade Law, 43rd Sess., June 21-July 9, 2008, U.N. Doc. A/65/17, para 87.
- 97.
Rep. of the Working Group II, 57th Sess., Oct. 1–5, 2013, U.N. Doc. A/CN.9/760; Rep. of the Working Group II, 58th Sess., Feb. 4–8, 2013, U.N. Doc. A/CN.9/765; Rep. of the U.N. Comm. on Int’l Trade Law, 46th Sess., July 8–26, 2013, U.N. Doc. A/68/17, para 128.
- 98.
Article 2 UNCITRAL Transparency Rules, http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/rules-on-transparency/Rules-on-Transparency-E.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 99.
Articles 3–5 UNCITRAL Transparency Rules.
- 100.
See Reith (2015b), p. 131.
- 101.
Reith (2015b), pp. 138 et seq.
- 102.
Article 1 para 2 UNCITRAL Transparency Rules.
- 103.
http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/2014Transparency_Convention_status.html. Accessed 28 October 2015.
- 104.
Article 1 para 1 UNCITRAL Transparency Rules.
- 105.
Article 1 para 9 UNCITRAL Transparency Rules.
- 106.
See e.g. Article 1120 para 1 NAFTA; Article 10.15 para 5 Central American Free Trade Agreement https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/agreements/cafta/asset_upload_file328_4718.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 107.
Article 10.21 CAFTA; Singh (2004), pp. 335 et seq.
- 108.
See Reith (2015a), pp. 185 et seq.
- 109.
For the legal situation before 2009 see Maydell (2008), pp. 73 et seq.
- 110.
Burgstaller (2012), p. 207; http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/january/tradoc_153046.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 111.
European Parliament (2010), p. 9, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/studiesdownload.html?languageDocument=EN&file=33990. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 112.
Article 207 in connection with Article 3 para 1 lit e Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, pp. 1–390.
- 113.
European Commission (2010), p. 5, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/july/tradoc_146307.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 114.
Cf. Maes (2010), p. 12.
- 115.
European Commission (2010) 343 final, p. 11, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/july/tradoc_146307.pdf . Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 116.
European Commission (2010), p. 11, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/july/tradoc_146307.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 117.
European Commission (2010), p. 11.
- 118.
Council of the European Union (2010), paras 4, 18, http://italaw.com/documents/CouncilofEUConclusions.pdf; European Parliament (2011), http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2011-141; European Parliament (2010), pp. 45 et seq., http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/studiesdownload.html?languageDocument=EN&file=33990. All accessed 12 May 2015.
- 119.
Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/ceta-aecg/text-texte/10.aspx?lang=eng. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 120.
European Commission (2015), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:d11c207e-a7b8-11e4-8e01-01aa75ed71a1.0005.01/DOC_1&format=PDF. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 121.
- 122.
Burgstaller (2012), pp. 216 et seq.
- 123.
For possible solutions see Lavranos (2011), pp. 13 et seq.
- 124.
Regulation (EU) No 1219/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 establishing transitional arrangements for bilateral investment agreements between Member States and third countries, OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, pp. 40–46.
- 125.
Recital 7, Article 3 Regulation (EU) No 1219/2012.
- 126.
Recital 8, Articles 2, 5 and 9 Regulation (EU) No 1219/2012.
- 127.
Article 13 lit b Regulation (EU) No 1219/2012.
- 128.
Cf. Kendra and Kozyreff (2013), p. 255.
- 129.
Regulation (EU) No 912/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 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, OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, pp. 121–134.
- 130.
Article 1 Regulation (EU) No 912/2014.
- 131.
Article 2 lit g, Article 3 Regulation (EU) No 912/2014.
- 132.
Article 3 para 1 Regulation (EU) No 912/2014.
- 133.
Articles 5–8 Regulation (EU) No 912/2014.
- 134.
Articles 10 et seq. Regulation (EU) No 912/2014.
- 135.
Article 4 Regulation (EU) No 912/2014.
- 136.
Articles 13 et seq. Regulation (EU) No 912/2014.
- 137.
European Commission (2015), http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/december/tradoc_118238.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 138.
European Commission (2015), http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/january/tradoc_153046.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 139.
Schreuer (2014), http://derstandard.at/1395364339465/Jurist-Frueher-fuehrte-das-zu-Krieg. Accessed 12 May 2015.
- 140.
See e.g., UNCTAD (2014b), http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaepcb2014d6_en.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2015.
References
Bagner H (2001) Confidentiality – a fundamental principle in international commercial arbitration? J Int Arbitr 18(2):243–249
Basedow R (2014) Das Problem mit den Geheimgerichten. http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/wirtschaftspolitik/freihandelsabkommen-das-problem-mit-den-geheimgerichten-13173663-p5.html
Bernasconi-Osterwalder N, Rosert D (2014) Investment treaty arbitration: opportunities to reform arbitral rules and processes. http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2014/investment_treaty_arbitration.pdf
Bernasconi-Osterwalder N, Johnson L, Marshall F (2010) Arbitrator independence and impartiality: examining the dual role of arbitrator and counsel. https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/pdf/2011/dci_2010_arbitrator_independence.pdf
Blackaby N (2003) Public interest and investment treaty arbitration. In: Van den Berg J (ed) International commercial arbitration: important contemporary questions. Kluwer Law International, Den Haag, pp 355–365
Blackaby N, Partasides C, Redfern A, Hunter M (2009) Redfern and Hunter on international arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Bottini G (2014) Reform of the investor-State arbitration regime: the appeal proposal. Transnational dispute management. www.transnational-dispute-management.com/article.asp?key=2075
Buergenthal T (2006) The proliferation of disputes, dispute settlement procedures and respect for the rule of law. Transnational Dispute Management. www.transnational-dispute-management.com/article.asp?key=820
Burgstaller M (2012) Investor-state arbitration in EU international investment agreements with third states. Leg Issues Econ Integr 39(2):207–222
Council of the European Union (2010) Conclusions on a comprehensive European investment policy. http://italaw.com/documents/CouncilofEUConclusions.pdf
Delaney J, Magraw DB (2008) Procedural transparency. In: Muchlinski P, Ortino F, Schreuer CH (eds) The Oxford handbook of international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 721–788
Dimsey M (2008) The resolution of international investment disputes, vol I. Eleven International Publishing, Utrecht
Dolzer R, Stevens M (1995) Bilateral investment treaties. Martinus Nijhoff Publisher, The Hague
Dolzer R, Bloch F (2005) Der rechtliche Schutz ausländischer Investitionen. In: Kronke H, Melis W, Schnyder AR (eds) Handbuch Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht. Dr. Otto Schmidt, Köln, pp 1044–1127
Eberhardt P (2012) Who guards the guardians? The conflicting interests of investment arbitrators. In: Burley H (ed) Profiting from injustice. Corporate Europe Observatory, Transnational Institute, Brussels, pp 34–55. http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/files/download/profitingfrominjustice.pdf
European Commission (2010) Communication from the commission to the council, the European parliament, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/july/tradoc_146307.pdf
European Commission (2015) Investor-to-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/january/tradoc_153046.pdf
European Parliament (2010) The EU approach to international investment policy after the Lisbon treaty. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/studiesdownload.html?languageDocument=EN&file=33990
European Parliament (2011) European parliament resolution of 6 April 2011 on the future European international investment policy. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2011-141
Franck S (2005) The legitimacy crisis in investment treaty arbitration: privatizing public international law through inconsistent decisions. Fordham Law Rev 73:1521–1625
Fritz T (2015) International investment agreements under scrutiny. http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/files/download/iias_report_feb_2015.pdf
Greenberg S, Kee C, Weeramantry R (2011) International commercial arbitration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Harrison J (2011) Recent developments to promote transparency and public participation in investment treaty arbitration. University of Edinburgh Working Paper Series 2011(1):1–23
ICSID Secretariat (2004) Possible improvements of the framework for ICSID arbitration.https://icsid.worldbank.org/apps/ICSIDWEB/resources/Documents/Possible%20Improvements%20of%20the%20Framework%20of%20ICSID%20Arbitration.pdf
Kaufmann-Kohler G (2004) Annulment of ICSID Awards in contract and treaty arbitrations: are there differences? In: Gaillard E, Banifatemi Y (eds) Annulment of ICSID awards. Juris Publishing, New York, pp 189–221
Kaufmann-Kohler G (2005) In search of transparency and consistency: ICSID reform proposal. Transnational Dispute Management. www.transnational-dispute-management.com/article.asp?key=608
Kaufmann-Kohler G (2007) Arbitral precedent: dream, necessity or excuse? Arbitr Int 23(3):357–378
Kaufmann-Kohler G (2008) Is consistency a myth? In: Gaillard E, Banifatemi J (eds) Precedent in international arbitration. Juris Publishing, New York, pp 137–147
Kendra T, Kozyreff L (2013) The future of investment protection in Europe – the EU takes control. In: Roth M, Geistlinger M (eds) Yearbook on international arbitration, vol III. NWV Verlag, Vienna, pp 239–260
Knahr C (2007) Transparency, third party participation and access to documents in international investment arbitration. Arbitr Int 23(2):327–355
Kouris S (2005) Confidentiality: is international arbitration losing one of its major benefits? J Int Arbitr 22(2):127–140
Lavranos N (2011) Member states’ Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs): lost in transition? In: Lavranos N, Kok R (eds) Hague yearbook of international law. Koninklijke Brill, Den Haag, pp 281–311
Maes M (2010) The Lisbon Treaty and the new EU investment competence. In: Transnational Institute (ed) EU investment agreements in the Lisbon Treaty Era: a reader. Amsterdam, pp 12–14. http://somo.nl/publications-en/Publication_3558
Maydell N (2008) The European community’s minimum platform on investment or the Trojan horse of investment competence. In: Reinisch A, Knahr C (eds) International investment law in context. Eleven International Publishing, AJ Utrecht, pp 73–92
McKinnon A (2015) Arbitration round up. Arbitr Q (6):57–59. http://www.debevoise.com/~/media/files/insights/publications/2015/01/arbitration_quarterly_january2015.pdf
Mistelis LA (2005) Confidentiality and third party participation UPS v. Canada and Methanex Corporation v. United States. Arbitr Int 21(2):211–231
New York Times (2004) The secret trade courts. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/27/opinion/27mon3.html?_r=0
Orellana MA (2011) The right of access to information and investment arbitration. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 26(2):59–106
Perry S (2012) STOCKHOLM: Arbitrator and counsel: the double-hat syndrome. Glob Arbitration Rev 7(2). http://globalarbitrationreview.com/journal/article/30399/stockholm-arbitrator-counsel-double-hat-syndrome
Pohl J, Mashigo K, Nohen A (2012) Dispute settlement provisions in international investment agreements: a large sample survey. http://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/investment-policy/WP-2012_2.pdf
Reed L, Paulsson J, Blackaby N (2011) Guide to ICSID Arbitration, 2nd edn. Kluwer Law International, Austin
Reith C (2015a) Prozessuale Transparenz in der Investitionsschiedsgerichtsbarkeit. Verlag Dr. Kovač, Hamburg
Reith C (2015b) The new UNCITRAL rules on transparency 2014 – significant breakthrough or a regime full of empty formula? In: Roth M, Geistlinger M (eds) Yearbook on international arbitration, vol IV. NWV Verlag, Vienna, pp 121–147
Ripinsky S (2012) Venezuela’s withdrawal from ICSID: what it does and does not achieve. http://www.iisd.org/itn/2012/04/13/venezuelas-withdrawal-from-icsid-what-it-does-and-does-not-achieve/#_ftn1
Schill SW (2011) Internationales Investitionsschutzrecht und Vergleichendes Öffentliches Recht: Grundlagen und Methode eines öffentlich-rechtlichen Leitbildes für die Investitionsschiedsgerichtsbarkeit. ZaöRV 71:247–289
Schreuer CH (2012) Why still ICSID? Transnational Dispute Management (3)
Schreuer CH (2014) Früher führte das zu Krieg. http://derstandard.at/1395364339465/Jurist-Frueher-fuehrte-das-zu-Krieg
Schreuer CH, Weininger A (2008) A doctrine of precedent? In: Muchlinski P, Ortino F, Schreuer CH (eds) The Oxford handbook of international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1188–1206
Sinclair A, Fisher L, Macrory S (2009) ICSID arbitration: how long does it take?. http://www.goldreserveinc.com/documents/ICSID%20arbitration%20%20How%20long%20does%20it%20take.pdf
Singh R (2004) The impact of the Central American Free Trade Agreement on investment treaty arbitrations: a mouse that roars? J Int Arbitr 21(4):329–340
Spoorenberrg F, Viñuales JE (2009) Conflicting decisions in international arbitration. Law Pract Int Courts Tribunals 8:91–113
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: taking stock after 40 years. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 223–250
Teitelbaum R (2010) A look at the public interest in investment arbitration. Berkeley J Int Law 5:54–62
Tienhaara K, Ranald P (2011) Australia’s rejection of investor-state dispute settlement: four potential contributing factors. http://www.iisd.org/itn/2011/07/12/australias-rejection-of-investor-state-dispute-settlement-four-potential-contributing-factors/
Tuck AP (2007) Investor-state arbitration revised: a critical analysis of the revisions and proposed reforms to the ICSID and UNCITRAL arbitration rules. Law Bus Rev Am 13:885–922
UNCTAD (2003) Investor-state disputes arising from investment treaties: a review. UNCTAD series on international investment policies for development. http://unctad.org/en/Docs/iteiit20054_en.pdf
UNCTAD (2014a) Recent developments in Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). IIA issues note (1). http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaepcb2014d3_en.pdf
UNCTAD (2014b) Reform of the IIA regime: four paths of action and a way forward. IIA issues note (3). http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaepcb2014d6_en.pdf
UNCTAD (2015) Recent trends in IIAs and ISDS. IIA issues note (1). http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaepcb2015d1_en.pdf
Wälde T (2008) Confidential awards as precedent in arbitration: dynamics and implication of award publication. In: Gaillard E, Banifatemi J (eds) Precedent in international arbitration. Juris Publishing, New York, pp 113–146
Weininger M, Naish V (2014) The future of investor-state arbitration. http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=2f28b3cd-ff72-4829-9a54-3536b0561c24
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Japan
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Reith, C. (2016). Investor-State Arbitration: A Tale of Endless Obstacles?. In: Fenwick, M., Wrbka, S. (eds) Flexibility in Modern Business Law. Springer, Tokyo. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55787-6_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55787-6_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Tokyo
Print ISBN: 978-4-431-55786-9
Online ISBN: 978-4-431-55787-6
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)