Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Public Participation: Amicus Curiae in International Investment Arbitration

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy

  • 213 Accesses

Abstract

Amicus curiae is a developing feature of modern international investment arbitration. This chapter starts by describing how investment arbitration shifted from a confidentiality-based practice to a model that is more open to the participation of civil society. It then proceeds to discuss the potential benefits and drawbacks of allowing the participation of non-disputing parties in investment arbitration. Amicus curiae is a useful tool to increase the transparency of the dispute settlement mechanism and serves as a fundamental gateway for public participation in the arbitration process. However, its benefits need to be weighed against potential disadvantages, such as the risk of politicization of disputes, an increase in the costs and length of the proceedings, and a negative impact on party equality. Arbitral tribunals must ensure that amicus curiae participation creates added value and does not undermine the purposes of the dispute settlement mechanism. In order to strike this balance, tribunals should only accept submissions from individuals or organizations who offer guarantees of independence, autonomy, and credibility.

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 549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 649.99
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.

    Born G, Forrest S (2019) Amicus curiae participation in investment arbitration. ICSID Rev 34:626–665, 626

  2. 2.

    See, for example, Kinnear M (2005) Transparency and third party participation in investor-State dispute settlement. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, pp 1–2. http://www.oecd.org/investment/internationalinvestmentagreements/36979626.pdf. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2005) Transparency and third party participation in investor-state dispute settlement procedures. p 3. https://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/investment-policy/WP-2005_1.pdf.

  3. 3.

    See Stern B (2007) Civil Society’s voice in the settlement of international economic disputes. ICSID Rev 22:280–348, 280.

  4. 4.

    Schill S (2010) International investment law and comparative public law – an introduction. In: Schill S (ed) International investment law and comparative public law. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 3–37, 15

  5. 5.

    North American Free Trade Agreement, art. 1128, https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Texts-of-the-Agreement/North-American-Free-Trade-Agreement

  6. 6.

    UNCITRAL, UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (1976), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/arb-rules/arb-rules.pdf

  7. 7.

    Methanex Corp. v. United States, see http://www.italaw.com/cases/683

  8. 8.

    United Parcel Service of America Inc. v. Canada, see http://www.italaw.com/cases/1138

  9. 9.

    See Methanex Corp. v. United States, Decision of the Tribunal on Petitions from Third Persons to Intervene as “Amici Curiae,” 47–53 (15 January 2001), http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0517_0.pdf; United Parcel Service of America Inc. v. Canada, Decision of the Tribunal on Petitions for Intervention and Participation as Amici Curiae, 73 (17 October 2001), http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0883.pdf. For an in-depth analysis of the evolution of amicus curiae in investment arbitration, see Born G, Forrest S (2019) Amicus curiae participation in investment arbitration. ICSID Rev 34:626–665, 630 ff.

  10. 10.

    NAFTA art. 1131(2).

  11. 11.

    NAFTA Free Trade Commission, Statement of the Free Trade Commission on Non-Disputing Party Participation (7 October 2003), http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/38791.pdf

  12. 12.

    Aguas del Tunari, S.A. v. Republic of Bol., ICSID Case No. ARB/02/3 (2002), https://icsid.worldbank.org/apps/icsidweb/cases/pages/casedetail.aspx?CaseNo=ARB/02/3

  13. 13.

    Petition of La Coordinadora para la Defensa del Agua y Vida, La Federación Departamental Cochabambina de Organizaciones Regantes, Semapa Sur, Friends of the Earth–Netherlands, Oscar Olivera, Omar Fernandez, Father Luis Sánchez, and Congressman Jorge Alvarado to the Arbitral Tribunal, Aguas del Tunari S.A. v. Republic of Bol., ICSID Case No. ARB/02/3, 2 (29 August 2002), http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0018.pdf

  14. 14.

    Letter from David D. Caron, President of the Tribunal, to J. Martin Wagner, Amicus Petitioner, in re Aguas del Tunari vs. The Republic of Bolivia (29 January 2003), http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0019_0.pdf

  15. 15.

    Id.

  16. 16.

    See Urueña R (2012) No citizens here: global subjects and participation in international law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, p 191.

  17. 17.

    Mistelis L (2005) Confidentiality and third party participation: UPS v. Canada and Methanex Corp. v. United States. 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 169–199, 185

  18. 18.

    Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A., & Vivendi Universal, S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19 (2003), https://icsid.worldbank.org/apps/icsidweb/cases/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseno=ARB/03/19

  19. 19.

    Suez v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, Order in Response to a Petition for Transparency and Participation as Amicus Curiae, 15–16 (19 May 2005), https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=showDoc&docId=DC516_En&caseId=C19

  20. 20.

    Id. 19.

  21. 21.

    Id. 19.

  22. 22.

    Id. 22.

  23. 23.

    Id. 17–29. See also Suez v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, Order in Response to a Petition by Five Non-Governmental Organizations for Permission to Make an Amicus Curiae Submission, 2–3 (12 February 2007), https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=showDoc&docId=DC519_En&caseId=c19

  24. 24.

    See ICSID, Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings (Arbitration Rules), https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Documents/resources/2006%20CRR_English-final.pdf

  25. 25.

    ICSID Arbitration Rules, Rule 37(2).

  26. 26.

    Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Limited v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22 (2005), https://icsid.worldbank.org/apps/icsidweb/cases/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseno=ARB/05/22

  27. 27.

    Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Limited v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural Order No. 5, 50 (2 February 2007), https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=showDoc&docId=DC1584_En&caseId=C67

  28. 28.

    See the ICSID cases database, https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/cases/AdvancedSearch.aspx

  29. 29.

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

  30. 30.

    Id. art. 1.1. The UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules were amended in 2013, inserting Article 1(4) that expressly incorporates the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency.

  31. 31.

    Id. art. 1.2.

  32. 32.

    The text of the convention is available at http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/uncitral_texts/arbitration/2014Transparency_Convention.html

  33. 33.

    United Nations Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration, article 1.

  34. 34.

    See article 9(1) of the United Nations Convention on Transparency. On the status of the Convention, see UNCITRAL, ‘Status: United Nations Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration (New York, 2014)’ https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/conventions/transparency/status

  35. 35.

    UNCITRAL Transparency Rules, supra note 29, art. 1.9.

  36. 36.

    See e.g., the Dominican Republic-Central America FTA (CAFTA-DR), art. 10.20.3, https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/cafta-dr-dominican-republic-central-america-fta/final-text; the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement (Canada-Peru FTA), art. 836, https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/peru-perou/fta-ale/index.aspx?lang=eng; the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA), chapter 8, art. 28(2) and (3), https://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/in-force/safta/official-documents/Pages/default; Comprehensive and Economic Trade Agreement (CETA), Art. 8.38, https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ceta/ceta-chapter-by-chapter; EU-Singapore Investment Protection Agreement, chapter 4, Annex 8, art. 3, https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=961. See e.g., Chaisse J, Donde R (2018) ‘The state of investor-state arbitration – a reality check of the issues, trends, and directions in Asia-Pacific. The Int Lawyer 51(1):47–67.

  37. 37.

    See de Brabandere E (2014) Investment treaty arbitration as public international law: procedural aspects and implications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 171; Knahr C, Reinisch A (2007) Transparency versus confidentiality in international investment arbitration – the Biwater Gauff compromise. Law Pract Int Courts Trib 6:97–118, 97; Levine E (2011) Amicus curiae in international investment arbitration: the implications of an increase in third-party participation. Berkley J Int Law 29:200–224, 206–207.

  38. 38.

    See Choudhury B (2008) Recapturing public power: is investment Arbitration’s engagement of the public interest contributing to the democratic deficit? Vanderbilt J Transnatl Law 41:775–832, 782.

  39. 39.

    See Van Harten G (2007) Investment treaty arbitration and public law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 150–151.

  40. 40.

    Triantafilou E (2008) Amicus submissions in investor-State arbitration after Suez v. Argentina. Arbitr Int 24:571–586, 575

  41. 41.

    See Bastin L (2012) The amicus curiae in investor-State arbitration. Cambridge J Int Comp Law 1:208–234, 227; Kawharu A (2010) Participation of non-governmental organizations in investment arbitration as amici curiae. In: Waibel M et al (eds) The backlash against investment arbitration: perceptions and reality. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 275–295, 285–286; VanDuzer A (2007) Enhancing the procedural legitimacy of investor-State arbitration through transparency and amicus curiae participation. McGill Law J 52:681–723, 685.

  42. 42.

    VanDuzer A (2007) Enhancing the procedural legitimacy of investor-State arbitration through transparency and amicus curiae participation. McGill Law J 52:681–723, 684

  43. 43.

    Calamita J (2014) Dispute settlement transparency in Europe’s evolving investment treaty policy: adopting the UNCITRAL transparency rules approach. J World Invest Trade 15:645–678, 649

  44. 44.

    Blackaby N, Richard C (2010) Amicus curiae: a panacea for legitimacy in investment arbitration? In: Waibel M et al (eds) The backlash against investment arbitration: perceptions and reality. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 253–273, 255; Knahr C, Reinisch A (2007) Transparency versus confidentiality in international investment arbitration – the Biwater Gauff compromise. Law Pract Int Courts Trib 6:97–118, 113

  45. 45.

    See Blackaby N, Richard C (2010) Amicus curiae: a panacea for legitimacy in investment arbitration? In: Waibel M et al (eds) The backlash against investment arbitration: perceptions and reality. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 253–273, 255–257; Choudhury B (2008) Recapturing public power: is investment Arbitration’s engagement of the public interest contributing to the democratic deficit? Vanderbilt J Transnatl Law 41:775–832, 814–818; Ragni C (2014) The role of amicus curiae in investment disputes: striking a balance between confidentiality and broader policy considerations. In: Treves T, Seatzu F, Trevisanut S (eds) Foreign investment, international law and common concerns. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 86–98, 87; Triantafilou E (2008) Amicus submissions in investor-State arbitration after Suez v. Argentina. Arbitr Int 24:571–586, 575; Zoellner C (2007) Third-party participation (NGO’s and private persons) and transparency in ICSID proceedings. In: Hofmann R, Tams C (eds) The international convention on the settlement of investment disputes (ICSID): taking stock after 40 years. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 179–208, 200–201.

  46. 46.

    Dimsey M (2008) The resolution of international investment disputes: challenges and solutions. Eleven International Publishing, Utrecht, pp 111–12; de Brabandere E (2011b) Non-State actors in international dispute settlement: pragmatism in international law. In: d’Aspremont J (ed) Participants in the international legal system: multiple perspectives on non-state actors in international law. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 342–343, 353; Levine E (2011) Amicus curiae in international investment arbitration: the implications of an increase in third-party participation. Berkley J Int Law 29:200–224, 217

  47. 47.

    See Newcombe A, Lemaire A (2001) Should amici curiae participate in investment treaty arbitrations? Vindobona J Int Commer Law Arbitr 5:22–40, 40.

  48. 48.

    Alvarez G et al (2016) A response to the criticism against ISDS by EFILA. J Int Arbitr 33:1–36, 9–13; Triantafilou E (2008) Amicus submissions in investor-state arbitration after Suez v. Argentina. Arbitr Int 24:571–586, 575–576

  49. 49.

    Mourre A (2006) Are amici curiae the proper response to the Public’s concerns on transparency in investment arbitration? Law Pract Int Courts Tribu 5:257–271, 266

  50. 50.

    Magraw D, Amerasinghe N (2008) Transparency and public participation in investor-state arbitration. ILSA J I Comp Law 15:337–360, 343–345; Ragni C (2014) The role of amicus curiae in investment disputes: striking a balance between confidentiality and broader policy considerations. In: Treves T, Seatzu F, Trevisanut S (eds) Foreign investment, international law and common concerns. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 86–98, 87

  51. 51.

    American Law Institute and International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT), ALI/UNIDROIT Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure, Principle 13, comment P-13A: “[t]he ‘amicus curiae brief’ is a useful means by which a nonparty may supply the court with information and legal analysis that may be helpful to achieve a just and informed disposition of the case.” Also, the submission may concern “important legal issues in the proceeding and matters of background information.” – id., https://www.unidroit.org/instruments/transnational-civil-procedure

  52. 52.

    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 35:510–564, 544

  53. 53.

    See Knahr C (2011) The new rules on participation of non-disputing parties in ICSID arbitration: blessing or curse? In: Brown C, Miles K (eds) Evolution in investment treaty law and arbitration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 319–337, 335; Ishikawa T (2010) Third party participation in investment arbitration. Int Comp Law Q 59:373–412, 402–403; Tava V (2013) The role of non-governmental organisations, peoples and courts in implementing international environmental Laws. In: Alam S et al (eds) Routledge handbook of international environmental law. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 123–135, 126.

  54. 54.

    Boisson de Chazournes L (2004) Transparency and amicus curiae briefs. J World Invest Trade 5:333–336, 335; Magraw D, Amerasinghe N (2008) Transparency and public participation in investor-state arbitration. ILSA J I Comp Law 15:337–360, 346

  55. 55.

    See Bartholomeusz L (2005) The amicus curiae before international courts and tribunals. Non-State Actors Int Law 5:209–2, 211; de Brabandere E (2011a) NGOs and the “public interest”: the legality and rationale of amicus curiae interventions in international economic and investment disputes. Chic J Int Law 12:85–113, 106–107; Magraw D, Amerasinghe N (2008) Transparency and public participation in investor-state arbitration. ILSA J I Comp Law 15:337–360, 346–347; Shelton D (1994) The participation of nongovernmental organizations in international judicial proceedings. Am J Int Law 88:611–642, 640.

  56. 56.

    Ishikawa T (2010) Third party participation in investment arbitration. Int Comp Law Q 59:373–412, 402–403

  57. 57.

    Magraw D, Amerasinghe N (2008) Transparency and public participation in investor-state arbitration. ILSA J I Comp Law 15:337–360, 346–347. See also Steffek J, Ferretti M (2009) Accountability or “good decisions”? The competing goals of civil society participation in international governance. Glob Soc 23:37–57, 52.

  58. 58.

    Ishikawa T (2010) Third party participation in investment arbitration. Int Comp Law Q 59:373–412, 403; Shelton D (1994) The participation of nongovernmental organizations in international judicial proceedings. Am J Int Law 88:611–642, 618; Stern B (2011) The future of international investment law: a balance between the protection of investors and the states’ capacity to regulate. In: Alvarez J, Sauvant K (eds) The evolving international investment regime: expectations, realities, options. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 174–191, 188

  59. 59.

    Paparinskis M (2012) Inherent powers of ICSID tribunals: broad and rightly so. In: Laird I, Weiler T (eds) Investment treaty arbitration and international law. JurisNet, New York, pp 11–41, p 20

  60. 60.

    ALI/UNIDROIT Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure, supra note 51, Principle 13, comment P-13D: “[p]rinciple 13 does not authorize third persons to present written submissions concerning the facts in dispute. It permits only presentation of data, background information, remarks, legal analysis, and other considerations that may be useful for a fair and just decision of the case. For example, a trade organization might give notice of special trade customs to the court.”

  61. 61.

    Chinkin C, Mackenzie R (2002) Intergovernmental organizations as “friends of the court”. In: Boisson de Chazournes L, Romano C, Mackenzie R (eds) International organizations and international dispute settlement: trends and prospects. Transnational Publishers, New York, pp 135–162, 137; Ishikawa T (2010) Third party participation in investment arbitration. Int Comp Law Q 59:373–412, 393, 402; Shelton D (1994) The participation of nongovernmental organizations in international judicial proceedings. Am J Int Law 88:611–642, 614–615; Wong J, Yackee J (2010) The 2006 procedural and transparency-related amendments to the ICSID arbitration rules: model intentions, moderate proposals, and modest returns. In: Sauvant K (ed) Yearbook of international investment law and policy 2009–2010. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 233–273, 250–251.

  62. 62.

    Triantafilou E (2010) Is a connection to the “public interest” a meaningful prerequisite of third party participation in investment arbitration? Publicist 5:38–46, 42

  63. 63.

    Bastin L (2012) The amicus curiae in investor-state arbitration. Cambridge J Int Comp Law 1:208–234, 224; Newcombe A, Lemaire A (2001) Should amici curiae participate in investment treaty arbitrations? Vindobona J Int Commer Law Arbitr 5:22–40, 23

  64. 64.

    Viñuales J (2007) Amicus intervention in investor-state arbitration. Dispute Resolut J 61:72–81, 75

  65. 65.

    See Bastin L (2012) The amicus curiae in investor-state arbitration. Cambridge J Int Comp Law 1:208–234, 225; Buys C (2003) The tensions between confidentiality and transparency in international arbitration. Am Rev Int Arbitr 14:121–138, 134–135; Levine E (2011) Amicus curiae in international investment arbitration: the implications of an increase in third-party participation. Berkley J Int Law 29:200–224, 220.

  66. 66.

    Sabater A (2010) Towards transparency in arbitration (a cautious approach). Publicist 5:47–53, 51

  67. 67.

    Rubins N (2007) Opening the investment arbitration process: at what cost, for what benefit? In: Hofmann R, Tams C (eds) The international convention on the settlement of investment disputes (ICSID): taking stock after 40 years. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 213–231, 218

  68. 68.

    Triantafilou E (2008) Amicus submissions in investor-State arbitration after Suez v. Argentina. Arbitr Int 24:571–586, 576

  69. 69.

    See Bastin L (2012) The amicus curiae in investor-state arbitration. Cambridge J Int Comp Law 1:208–234, 225–226; Shihata I (1986) Towards a greater Depoliticization of investment disputes: the roles of ICSID and MIGA. ICSID Review 1:1–25, 4; Triantafilou E (2010) Is a connection to the “public interest” a meaningful prerequisite of third party participation in investment arbitration? Publicist 5:38–46, 43.

  70. 70.

    Tienhaara K (2007) Third party participation in investment-environment disputes: recent developments. Rev Eur Comp Int Environ Law 16:230–242, 240

  71. 71.

    Levine E (2011) Amicus curiae in international investment arbitration: the implications of an increase in third-party participation. Berkley J Int Law 29:200–224, 220–221

  72. 72.

    Tienhaara K (2007) Third party participation in investment-environment disputes: recent developments. Rev Eur Comp Int Environ Law 16:230–242, 240

  73. 73.

    Ishikawa T (2010) Third party participation in investment arbitration. Int Comp Law Q 59:373–412, 399

  74. 74.

    Tienhaara K (2007) Third party participation in investment-environment disputes: recent developments. Rev Eur Comp Int Environ Law 16:230–242, 240

  75. 75.

    Magraw D, Amerasinghe N (2008) Transparency and public participation in investor-state arbitration. ILSA J I Comp Law 15:337–360, 354–355

  76. 76.

    See Dias Simões F (2017) A Guardian and a friend? The European Commission’s participation in investment arbitration. Michigan State Int Law Rev 25:233–303.

  77. 77.

    Knahr C (2011) The new rules on participation of non-disputing parties in ICSID arbitration: blessing or curse? In: Brown C, Miles K (eds) Evolution in investment treaty law and arbitration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 319–337, 320

  78. 78.

    Bastin L (2014) Amici curiae in investor-state arbitration: eight recent trends. Arbitr Int 30:125–143, 130

  79. 79.

    Knahr C (2011) The new rules on participation of non-disputing parties in ICSID arbitration: blessing or curse? In: Brown C, Miles K (eds) Evolution in investment treaty law and arbitration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 319–337, 335–336

  80. 80.

    Tienhaara K (2007) Third party participation in investment-environment disputes: recent developments. Rev Eur Comp Int Environ Law 16:230–242, 240

  81. 81.

    Brower C (2010) The ethics of arbitration: perspectives from a practicing international arbitrator. Publicist 5:1–31, 28–29

  82. 82.

    Magraw D, Amerasinghe N (2008) Transparency and public participation in investor-state arbitration. ILSA J I Comp Law 15:337–360, 352

  83. 83.

    Rubins N (2007) Opening the investment arbitration process: at what cost, for what benefit? In: Hofmann R, Tams C (eds) The international convention on the settlement of investment disputes (ICSID): taking stock after 40 years. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 213–231, 218–219

  84. 84.

    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 35:510–564, 552; Newcombe A, Lemaire A (2001) Should amici curiae participate in investment treaty arbitrations? Vindobona J Int Commer Law Arbitr 5:22–40, 33

  85. 85.

    Balcerzak F (2012) Amicus curiae submissions in investor-state arbitrations. Common Law Rev 12:66–69, 66; Levine E (2011) Amicus curiae in international investment arbitration: the implications of an increase in third-party participation. Berkley J Int Law 29:200–224, 219

  86. 86.

    Hachez N, Wouters J (2013) International investment dispute settlement in the twenty-first century: does the preservation of the public interest require an alternative to the arbitral model? In: Baetens F (ed) Investment law within international law: integrationist perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 417–449, 439

  87. 87.

    See Friedland P (2006) The amicus role in international arbitration. In: Lew J, Mistelis L (eds) Pervasive problems in international arbitration. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 321–328, 328; Newcombe A, Lemaire A (2001) Should amici curiae participate in investment treaty arbitrations? Vindobona J Int Commer Law Arbitr 5:22–40, 33

  88. 88.

    Knahr C (2007) Transparency, third party participation and access to documents in international investment arbitration. Arbitr Int 23:327–356, 352

  89. 89.

    Rubins N (2007) Opening the investment arbitration process: at what cost, for what benefit? In: Hofmann R, Tams C (eds) The international convention on the settlement of investment disputes (ICSID): taking stock after 40 years. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 213–231, 218–219

  90. 90.

    Knahr C (2007) Transparency, third party participation and access to documents in international investment arbitration. Arbitr Int 23:327–356, 352

  91. 91.

    See Bjorklund A (2009) The emerging civilization of investment arbitration. Penn State Law Rev 113:1269–1300, 1293; 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 35:510–564, 553.

  92. 92.

    Hachez N, Wouters J (2013) International investment dispute settlement in the twenty-first century: does the preservation of the public interest require an alternative to the arbitral model? In: Baetens F (ed) Investment law within international law: integrationist perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 417–449, 439

  93. 93.

    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 35:510–564, 553; Levine E (2011) Amicus curiae in international investment arbitration: the implications of an increase in third-party participation. Berkley J Int Law 29:200–224, 220

  94. 94.

    Bastin L (2012) The amicus curiae in investor-state arbitration. Cambridge J Int Comp Law 1:208–234, 225

  95. 95.

    Supra note 13, 20 and Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. & InterAguas Servicios Integrales de Agua S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/17, Order in Response to a Petition for Participation as Amicus Curiae, 28 (17 March 2006), https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType5CasesRH&actionVal5showDoc&docId5DC512_ En&caseId5c18.

  96. 96.

    Tienhaara K (2007) Third party participation in investment-environment disputes: recent developments. Rev Eur Comp Int Environ Law 16:230–242, 240

  97. 97.

    See Bennaim-Selvi O (2005) Third parties in international investment arbitrations: a trend in motion. J World Invest Trade 6:773–807, 804; Tienhaara K (2007) Third party participation in investment-environment disputes: recent developments. Rev Eur Comp Int Environ Law 16:230–242, 240.

  98. 98.

    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 35:510–564, 556

  99. 99.

    See Kawharu A (2010) Participation of non-governmental organizations in investment arbitration as amici curiae. In: Waibel M et al (eds) The backlash against investment arbitration: perceptions and reality. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 275–295, 276, 281–282.

  100. 100.

    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 35:510–564, 556

  101. 101.

    Kawharu A (2010) Participation of non-governmental organizations in investment arbitration as amici curiae. In: Waibel M et al (eds) The backlash against investment arbitration: perceptions and reality. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 275–295, 276

  102. 102.

    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 35:510–564, 556

  103. 103.

    Ayad M (2012) The quest for the holy grail of social justice: substantive & procedural law provisions for amicus curiae in investor-state ICSID arbitration law & practice. Macquarie J Bus Law 9:17–29, 25

  104. 104.

    Mourre A (2006) Are amici curiae the proper response to the Public’s concerns on transparency in investment arbitration? Law Pract Int Courts Tribu 5:257–271, 266

  105. 105.

    See Bjorklund A (2009) The emerging civilization of investment arbitration. Penn State Law Rev 113:1269–1300, 1292–1293; Viñuales J (2006) Human rights and investment arbitration: the role of amici curiae. Int Law 8:231–274, 245

  106. 106.

    See, e.g., Lindblom A (2005) Non-governmental organisations in international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 36.

  107. 107.

    Knahr C (2007) Transparency, third party participation and access to documents in international investment arbitration. Arbitr Int 23:327–356, 337

  108. 108.

    See, e.g., Willetts P (2011) Non-governmental organizations in world politics: the construction of global governance. Routledge, Abingdon, p 31.

  109. 109.

    Magraw D, Amerasinghe N (2008) Transparency and public participation in investor-state arbitration. ILSA J I Comp Law 15:337–360, 355

  110. 110.

    Triantafilou E (2008) Amicus submissions in investor-state arbitration after Suez v. Argentina. Arbitr Int 24:571–586, 576

  111. 111.

    Knahr C (2007) Transparency, third party participation and access to documents in international investment arbitration. Arbitr Int 23:327–356, 328

  112. 112.

    Durling J, Hardin D (2005) Amicus curiae participation in WTO dispute settlement: reflections on the past decade. In: Yerxa R, Wilson B (eds) Key issues in WTO dispute settlement: the first ten years. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 221–231, 228

  113. 113.

    Kawharu A (2010) Participation of non-governmental organizations in investment arbitration as amici curiae. In: Waibel M et al (eds) The backlash against investment arbitration: perceptions and reality. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 275–295, 286

  114. 114.

    Triantafilou E (2010) Is a connection to the “public interest” a meaningful prerequisite of third party participation in investment arbitration? Publicist 5:38–46, 39

  115. 115.

    de Brabandere E (2011a) NGOs and the “public interest”: the legality and rationale of amicus curiae interventions in international economic and investment disputes. Chic J Int Law 12:85–113, 113

  116. 116.

    Kawharu A (2010) Participation of non-governmental organizations in investment arbitration as amici curiae. In: Waibel M et al (eds) The backlash against investment arbitration: perceptions and reality. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 275–295, 286–287

  117. 117.

    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 35:510–564, 558

  118. 118.

    Boisson de Chazournes L (2004) Transparency and amicus curiae briefs. J World Invest Trade 5:333–336, 334

  119. 119.

    Ishikawa T (2010) Third party participation in investment arbitration. Int Comp Law Q 59:373–412, 400

  120. 120.

    Ishikawa T (2010) Third party participation in investment arbitration. Int Comp Law Q 59:373–412, 400

  121. 121.

    See Buckley R, Blyschak P (2007) Guarding the open door: non-party participation before the international centre for settlement of investment disputes. Banking Financ Law Rev 22:353–376, 371; Chinkin C, Mackenzie R (2002) Intergovernmental organizations as “friends of the court”. In: Boisson de Chazournes L, Romano C, Mackenzie R (eds) International organizations and international dispute settlement: trends and prospects. Transnational Publishers, New York, pp 135–162, 154; Ishikawa T (2010) Third party participation in investment arbitration. Int Comp Law Q 59:373–412, 400–401.

  122. 122.

    Kawharu A (2010) Participation of non-governmental organizations in investment arbitration as amici curiae. In: Waibel M et al (eds) The backlash against investment arbitration: perceptions and reality. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 275–295, 285–287

  123. 123.

    See Boisson de Chazournes L (2004) Transparency and amicus curiae briefs. J World Invest Trade 5:333–336, 334; Kawharu A (2010) Participation of non-governmental organizations in investment arbitration as amici curiae. In: Waibel M et al (eds) The backlash against investment arbitration: perceptions and reality. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 275–295, 286–287; Viñuales J (2007) Amicus intervention in investor-state arbitration. Dispute Resolut J 61:72–81, 75.

  124. 124.

    ALI/UNIDROIT Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure, supra note 51, Principle 13, comment P-13B: “[t]he court may require a statement of the interest of the proposed amicus.”

  125. 125.

    See, e.g., Levine E (2011) Amicus curiae in international investment arbitration: the implications of an increase in third-party participation. Berkley J Int Law 29:200–224, 222.

  126. 126.

    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 35:510–564, 556

  127. 127.

    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 35:510–564, 556

  128. 128.

    Boisson de Chazournes L (2004) Transparency and amicus curiae briefs. J World Invest Trade 5:333–336, 334

  129. 129.

    Blackaby N, Richard C (2010) Amicus curiae: a panacea for legitimacy in investment arbitration? In: Waibel M et al (eds) The backlash against investment arbitration: perceptions and reality. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 253–273, 269

  130. 130.

    Kawharu A (2010) Participation of non-governmental organizations in investment arbitration as amici curiae. In: Waibel M et al (eds) The backlash against investment arbitration: perceptions and reality. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 275–295, 282

  131. 131.

    See Brower C (2003) Structure, legitimacy, and NAFTA’s investment chapter. Vanderbilt J Transnatl Law 36:37–94, 73; Boisson de Chazournes L (2004) Transparency and amicus curiae briefs. J World Invest Trade 5:333–336, 334.

  132. 132.

    Boisson de Chazournes L (2004) Transparency and amicus curiae briefs. J World Invest Trade 5:333–336, 334

  133. 133.

    Knahr C (2007) Transparency, third party participation and access to documents in international investment arbitration. Arbitr Int 23:327–356, 351

  134. 134.

    Mourre A (2006) Are amici curiae the proper response to the Public’s concerns on transparency in investment arbitration? Law Pract Int Courts Tribu 5:257–271, 267

  135. 135.

    Ishikawa T (2010) Third party participation in investment arbitration. Int Comp Law Q 59:373–412, 400–401

  136. 136.

    Bjorklund A (2009) The emerging civilization of investment arbitration. Penn State Law Rev 113:1269–1300, 1293

  137. 137.

    Brower C (2010) The ethics of arbitration: perspectives from a practicing international arbitrator. Publicist 5:1–31, 28–29

  138. 138.

    Triantafilou E (2010) Is a connection to the “public interest” a meaningful prerequisite of third party participation in investment arbitration? Publicist 5:38–46, 43

  139. 139.

    See Magraw D, Amerasinghe N (2008) Transparency and public participation in investor-state arbitration. ILSA J I Comp Law 15:337–360, 355; Rubins N (2007) Opening the investment arbitration process: at what cost, for what benefit? In: Hofmann R, Tams C (eds) The international convention on the settlement of investment disputes (ICSID): taking stock after 40 years. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 213–231, 216; Wälde T (2010) Procedural challenges in investment arbitration under the shadow of the dual role of the state: asymmetries and tribunals’ duty to ensure, pro-actively, the equality of arms. Arbitr Int 26:3–42, 33.

  140. 140.

    Tienhaara K (2007) Third party participation in investment-environment disputes: recent developments. Rev Eur Comp Int Environ Law 16:230–242, 240

  141. 141.

    Triantafilou E (2008) Amicus submissions in investor-state arbitration after Suez v. Argentina. Arbitr Int 24:571–586, 577; Viñuales J (2007) Amicus intervention in investor-state arbitration. Dispute Resolut J 61:72–81, 75

  142. 142.

    Wälde T (2010) Procedural challenges in investment arbitration under the shadow of the dual role of the state: asymmetries and tribunals’ duty to ensure, pro-actively, the equality of arms. Arbitr Int 26:3–42, 33–34

  143. 143.

    Tienhaara K (2007) Third party participation in investment-environment disputes: recent developments. Rev Eur Comp Int Environ Law 16:230–242, 241

  144. 144.

    Wälde T (2010) Procedural challenges in investment arbitration under the shadow of the dual role of the state: asymmetries and tribunals’ duty to ensure, pro-actively, the equality of arms. Arbitr Int 26:3–42, 33

  145. 145.

    Mackenzie R (2005) The amicus curiae in international courts: toward common procedural approaches? In: Treves T et al (eds) Civil society, international courts and compliance bodies. TMC Asser Press, The Hague, pp 295–314, 299

  146. 146.

    See ALI/UNIDROIT Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure, supra note 51, principle 13, comment P-13A.

  147. 147.

    Blackaby N, Richard C (2010) Amicus curiae: a panacea for legitimacy in investment arbitration? In: Waibel M et al (eds) The backlash against investment arbitration: perceptions and reality. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 253–273, 272–273

  148. 148.

    Crema L (2012) Testing amici curiae in international law: rules and practice. Italian Yearb Int Law 22:91–132, 114

  149. 149.

    See Bartholomeusz L (2005) The amicus curiae before international courts and tribunals. Non-State Actors Int Law 5:209–2, 280; Mourre A (2006) Are amici curiae the proper response to the Public’s concerns on transparency in investment arbitration? Law Pract Int Courts Tribu 5:257–271, 269.

  150. 150.

    See Blackaby N, Richard C (2010) Amicus curiae: a panacea for legitimacy in investment arbitration? In: Waibel M et al (eds) The backlash against investment arbitration: perceptions and reality. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 253–273, 273; Rubins N (2007) Opening the investment arbitration process: at what cost, for what benefit? In: Hofmann R, Tams C (eds) The international convention on the settlement of investment disputes (ICSID): taking stock after 40 years. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 213–231, 217–219; Triantafilou E (2008) Amicus submissions in investor-state arbitration after Suez v. Argentina. Arbitr Int 24:571–586, 576–577.

  151. 151.

    ALI/UNIDROIT Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure, supra note 51, principle 13, comment P-13B: “[a]n amicus curiae does not become a party to the case but is merely an active commentator.”

  152. 152.

    Mourre A (2006) Are amici curiae the proper response to the Public’s concerns on transparency in investment arbitration? Law Pract Int Courts Tribu 5:257–271, 269

  153. 153.

    A related question regards the existence of possible connections between those preparing or submitting amicus briefs and those connected in some way to the dispute such as lawyers, witnesses, judges, or staff. Since the field of international investment arbitration is very specialized, there are a limited number of professionals working in this area, causing the existence of connections between them to be more common than could be expected. See 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 35:510–564, 557.

  154. 154.

    Mourre A (2006) Are amici curiae the proper response to the Public’s concerns on transparency in investment arbitration? Law Pract Int Courts Tribu 5:257–271, 269

  155. 155.

    Sauvant K, Ortino F (2013) Improving the international investment law and policy regimes: options for the future. Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, p 45. http://ccsi.columbia.edu/files/2014/03/Improving-The-International-Investment-Law-and-Policy-Regime-Options-for-the-Future-Sept-2013.pdf.

  156. 156.

    Muchlinski P (2008) Policy issues. In: Muchlinski P, Ortino F, Schreuer C (eds) The Oxford handbook of international investment law. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 3–48, 8

  157. 157.

    de Brabandere E (2013) Human rights considerations in international investment arbitration. In: Fitzmaurice M, Merkouris P (eds) The interpretation and application of the European convention on human rights: legal and practical implications. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 183–215, 214

  158. 158.

    See Blackaby N, Richard C (2010) Amicus curiae: a panacea for legitimacy in investment arbitration? In: Waibel M et al (eds) The backlash against investment arbitration: perceptions and reality. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 253–273, 271; Schliemann C (2013) Requirements for amicus curiae participation in international investment arbitration: a deconstruction of the procedural wall erected in joint ICSID cases ARB/10/25 and ARB/10/15. Law Pract Int Courts Tribu 12:365–390, 389.

  159. 159.

    Levine E (2011) Amicus curiae in international investment arbitration: the implications of an increase in third-party participation. Berkley J Int Law 29:200–224, 217; Tava V (2013) The role of non-governmental organisations, peoples and courts in implementing international environmental Laws. In: Alam S et al (eds) Routledge handbook of international environmental law. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 123–135, 126; Kinnear M (2005) Transparency and third party participation in investor-state dispute settlement. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, p 7. http://www.oecd.org/investment/internationalinvestmentagreements/36979626.pdf.

  160. 160.

    Levine E (2011) Amicus curiae in international investment arbitration: the implications of an increase in third-party participation. Berkley J Int Law 29:200–224, 212

  161. 161.

    See Blackaby N, Richard C (2010) Amicus curiae: a panacea for legitimacy in investment arbitration? In: Waibel M et al (eds) The backlash against investment arbitration: perceptions and reality. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 253–273, 271; Ishikawa T (2010) Third party participation in investment arbitration. Int Comp Law Q 59:373–412, 408.

  162. 162.

    Schliemann C (2013) Requirements for amicus curiae participation in international investment arbitration: a deconstruction of the procedural wall erected in joint ICSID cases ARB/10/25 and ARB/10/15. Law Pract Int Courts Tribu 12:365–390, 389

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

    Fernando Dias Simões

Authors
  1. Fernando Dias Simões
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fernando Dias Simões .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong

    Julien Chaisse

  2. School of Business and Law, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK

    Leïla Choukroune

  3. Institute of Malaysian and International Studies, National University of Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

    Sufian Jusoh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Dias Simões, F. (2021). Public Participation: Amicus Curiae in International Investment Arbitration. In: Chaisse, J., Choukroune, L., Jusoh, S. (eds) Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3615-7_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation