Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Applicable Law in Investment Arbitration

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

  • 549 Accesses

Abstract

The law applicable to arbitral proceedings in general and to investor-state arbitral disputes in particular has always been a conundrum. This is for a simple reason: arbitral proceedings are detached from any national legal system. Given this, the question raised is how to let arbitrators determine the applicable law for the dispute. The solution provided by arbitral clauses enacted within arbitral rules of procedures, or investment treaties, is slightly different. Namely, the freedom conferred upon the arbitral tribunal to determine the applicable law, absent any party’s choice, has raised much debate among both academics and the jurisprudential praxis. This chapter aims to reopen the debate on the lex applicable in investor-state dispute settlements. After providing some historical background on arbitral proceedings, along with the interpretation and application given to ICSID Convention Art. 42(1), the analysis will then show that the recent arbitral praxis has had to tackle a third set of laws. Reference will be made to European Union law, questioning whether and how arbitral tribunals should apply European law in disputes arising out of the so-called intra-EU BITs or the Energy Charter Treaty. Some conclusions on the relationship between international and European law will then be attempted.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Rubino-Sammartano M (2001) International arbitration. Law and practice. Kluwer Law International, The Hague; Billiet J (2016) International investment arbitration, a practical handbook. Maklu Publishers, Antwerp; Chaisse J, Donde R (2018) The state of investor-state arbitration-- a reality check of the issues, trends, and directions in Asia-Pacific. Int Lawyer 51(1):47–67

  2. 2.

    See Brauch MD (2017) Exhaustion of local remedies in international investment law, IISD best practices Series, pp 1–28; Foster GK (2011) Striking a balance between investor protections and national sovereignty: the relevance of local remedies in investment treaty arbitration. Columbia J Transnational Law 49(2); Lewis and Clark Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2011–15; Chaisse J (2015) Investor-state arbitration in international tax dispute resolution – a cut above dedicated tax dispute resolution? Virginia Tax Rev 41(2):149–222; D’Ascoli S, Scherr KM (2007) The rule of prior exhaustion of local remedies in the international law doctrine and its application in the specific context of human rights protection, EUI working papers law 2007/02. European University Institute, Florence. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=964195; Klafter B (2005) International commercial arbitration as appellate review: NAFTA’s Chapter 11, Exhaustion of local remedies and rese judicata. UC Davis J Int Law Policy 12:409–437; and Cançado Trindade AA (1983) The application of the rule of exhaustion of local remedies in international law: its rationale in the international protection of individual rights. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

  3. 3.

    See Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Limited (Belgium v. Spain), I.C.J. Judge Morelli, separate opinion, 5 February 1970, Reports, 1970, 222, at 233.

  4. 4.

    See Chaisse J (2012) Promises and pitfalls of the European Union Policy on foreign investment – how will the new EU competence on FDI affect the emerging global regime? J Int Econ Law 15(1):51–84.

  5. 5.

    See 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 December 2012.

  6. 6.

    See Vienna Convention on the law of the treaties concluded in Vienna on 23 May 1969, UN doc. n. 18232, in United Nations Treaty series, at 331, available here: https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%201155/volume-1155-i-18232-english.pdf

  7. 7.

    The statement is available at the following link: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/191024-bilateral-investment-treaties_en.pdf; to get a leaked version of the agreement, see http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/48/2019/12/a-draft-agreement-has-been-leaked.pdf and Lavranos N (2019) The EU Plurilateral Draft Termination Agreement for all intra-EU BITs: an end of the Post-Achmea Saga and the Beginning of a new one, Kluwer arbitration blog, at http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2019/12/01/the-eu-plurilateral-draft-termination-agreement-for-all-intra-eu-bits-an-end-of-the-post-achmea-saga-and-the-beginning-of-a-new-one/.

  8. 8.

    See Ben Hamida W (2006) La clause relative au respect des engagements dans les traités d’investissement. In: Leben C, Nouvel Y, Nen Hamida W et al (eds) Le contentieux arbitral transnational relatif à l’investissement. Pedone, Paris, pp 53–106, p. 53 ss.; Wälde T (2005) The Umbrella clause in investment arbitration. A comment on original intentions and recent cases. J World Inv Trade 6:183–236, p. 183; Crespi RZ (2009) Diritto internazionale e diritto interno nelle controversie sottoposte ad arbitrato ICSID. RDIPP 1:5–44; Mauro MR (2004) ICSID-Comitato ad hoc di annullamento (K.D. Kerameus Pres., A. Bucher, F. Orrego Vicuūna); decision 5 febbraio 2002, Caso Arb. N. 98/4; nella controversia tra Wena Hotels LTD e Arab Republic of Egypt. Rivista dell’arbitrato 3:827–855; Alexandrov SA (2006) Breaches of contract and breaches of treaty. The jurisdiction of treaty-based arbitration tribunals to decide breach of contract claims in SGS v. Pakistan and SGS v. Philippines, TDM 5. https://www.transnational-dispute-management.com/article.asp?key=851. See Sinclair AC (2004) The origins of the Umbrella clause in the international law of investment protection. Arb Int 4:411–434, p. 411; Gaillard E, Banifatemi Y (2010) The law applicable in investment treaty. In: Yannaca-Small K (ed) Arbitration under international investment agreements: a guide to the key issues. OUP, Oxford, pp 191–210. See also Moshe H. (1993), Gaillard (E.), 1991. To some case law praxis, see Asian Agricultural Products Ltd. v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID case n. ARB/87/3, award of 27 June 1990; Generation Ukraine Inc. v. Ukraine, ICSID case n. ARB/00/9 award of 16 September 2003; CMS Gas Transmission Co. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID case ARB/01/8, award of 12 May 2005; and Vivendi Universal v. Argentine Republic, ICSID case n. ARB97/3, award of 21 November 2000.

  9. 9.

    United Nation Commission on International Trade Law, UNCITRAL Arbitration rules, 15 August 2010 (revised)

  10. 10.

    Boschiero N (2005) La lex mercatoria nell’era della globalizzazione. Considerazioni di diritto internazionale pubblico e privato. Sociologia del diritto 2–3:85–158; Konradi W, Fix-Fierro H (2005) Lex mercatoria in the mirror of empirical research. Sociologia del diritto 2–3:205–228; Marrella F. (2003)

  11. 11.

    See the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Convention Arbitration Rules, 1 January 1968, Art. 42(1).

  12. 12.

    ICC Rules of Arbitration, ICC, 1 March 2017 (revised)

  13. 13.

    Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, Arbitration Rules, 2017 (revised)

  14. 14.

    Kadi e Al Baraakat International Foundation v. the Council and the Commission, ECJ in cases C-402/05 & C-425/05, Opionion of AG P. Maduro, 16 January 2008, ECLI:EU:C:2008:11, para. 21. Cfr. D. Alland D (2001) Le juge français et le droit d’origine international. In: Dupuy J-M (ed) Droit international et droit interne dans la jurisprudence comparée du Conseil constitutionnel et du Conseil d’État. Pedone, Paris, pp. 47–59

  15. 15.

    North America Free Trade Agreement, signed 17 December 1992, Ch. 11

  16. 16.

    Glenn P. (2001), p. 1789; Bauman Z (2000) Globalization, the human consequences. Columbia University Press, New York

  17. 17.

    See Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the European Union and its member states, signed on 16 October 2016, since 21 September 2017, under provisional application, available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/september/tradoc_152806.pdf

  18. 18.

    See Energy Charter Treaty of 17 December 1994, available at https://www.energycharter.org/fileadmin/DocumentsMedia/Legal/IEC_EN.pdf

  19. 19.

    Glenn P (2001), p. 1793

  20. 20.

    David R (1968) The methods of unification, and for further discussion of this theme. Am J Comp Law 16:13–27, p 15

  21. 21.

    Convention on the settlement of investment disputes between states and nationals of other states, documents concerning the origin and the formulation of the convention, Vol. II, Part 1, ICSID publication (2009), at. 570

  22. 22.

    The Spanish version repeats verbatim the English one, referring to aquellas normas de derecho international, while the French formulation raises confusion, referring to les principes de droit international en la matière.

  23. 23.

    Duke Energy Electroquil Partners & Electroquil S.A. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID case no. ARB/04/19, Award, 18 August 2008, par. 191

  24. 24.

    Gaillard E, Banifatemi Y (2003) The meaning of “and” in Article 42(1), Second Sentence, of the Washington Convention: the role of international law in the ICSID choice of law process. ICSID Rev 2:375–411

  25. 25.

    See the BITs of Argentina, Belgium, Luxembourg, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Spain (the BIT with Mexico is excluded).

  26. 26.

    See the BITs signed between Canada and Armenia, Barbados, Croatia, Ecuador, Egypt, Latvia, Lebanon, Panama, the Philippines, South Africa, Romania, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, and Venezuela.

  27. 27.

    See Duke Energy Electroquil Partners and Electroquil S.A. v. Republic of Ecuador, quoted, par. 196.

  28. 28.

    See Schreuer C (2011) Investment, International protection. Max Planck encyclopedia of international law, p1–112. Retrieved from https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1533, and Reinisch A (ed) (2008) Standards of Investment Protection. OUP, Oxford.

  29. 29.

    Working Paper in the form of a Draft Convention (5 June 1962) in Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States: Analysis of Documents Concerning the Origin and the Formulation of the Convention 19, 21 International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes 1968

  30. 30.

    See Broches A (1967) The convention on the settlement of investment disputes between states and nationals of other states: applicable law and default procedure in Sanders P (ed) International arbitration: Liber Amicorum for Martin Domke. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, pp 179–187, at 16.

  31. 31.

    See Klöckner v. United Republic of Cameroon, ICSID case ARB/81/2, decision of the ad hoc Committee in the annulment procedure, 21 October 1983, para 66.

  32. 32.

    Id. para 61

  33. 33.

    Id. para 69

  34. 34.

    Weil P (2000) The state, the foreign investor, and international law: the no longer stormy relationship of a Menage A Trois, ICSID Rev 15- FILJ401

  35. 35.

    Reisman WM (2000) The regime for Lacunae in the ICSID choice of law provision and the question of its threshold. ICSID Rev 15:362–382, p 371

  36. 36.

    See Qian X (2020) Rethinking judicial discretion in international adjudication. Connecticut J Int Law 35(2):251–310.

  37. 37.

    See the Summary Proceedings of the Legal Committee Meeting, 7 December, in 2 ICSID Documents, p. 804.

  38. 38.

    Villiger ME (2009) Peremptory Norm of general international law (Jus cogens). In: Villiger ME (ed) Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Brill, London, pp. 661–678, pp 661

  39. 39.

    Veedross A (1966) Jus dispositivum and jus cogens in international law. Am J Int Law 60:55–63. See Kolb R (2015) Peremptory international law. Jus cogens. A general inventory. Hart Publishing, Oxford; Villiger ME (2009) Peremptory Norm of general international law (Jus cogens). In: Villiger ME (ed) Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Brill, London, pp. 661–678;

  40. 40.

    See United Nations Conference on the Law of the Treaties, Official Records, Documents of the Conference, 67–68, UN Doc. A/CONF.39/11/Add.2 (1971).

  41. 41.

    See supra note 7. See Amco Asia Corporation and others v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Decision on the Application for Annulment, 16 May 1986.

  42. 42.

    Schreuer C, Weiniger M (2008) A doctrine of precedent. In: Muchlinski P, Ortino F, Schreuer C (eds) The Oxford handbook of international investment law. Oxford Handbooks, Oxford, pp 1189–1205, p 1191

  43. 43.

    See Letco v. Liberia, Awards, 31 March 1986, 2 ICSID Reports 1986, 352.

  44. 44.

    See supra note n. 7.

  45. 45.

    Siemens AG v. Argentine Republic, ICSID case n. ARB/02/8, award of 6 February 2007

  46. 46.

    Id. 78

  47. 47.

    Wena Hotels Ltd. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID case n. 98/4, award of 8 December 2000

  48. 48.

    See UN, Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts with commentaries, doc. A/56/10, in Yearbooks of the International Law Commission 2001, vol. II, Part Two. See Crawford J., p. 103 ss., and Ago R (1971) Troisieme rapport sur la responsabilite´ des Etats. Annuaire de la Commission du Droit International II, 1e’re partie: 209 ss, par. 60 ss. et 86 ss.

  49. 49.

    Crespi RZ (2009) Diritto internazionale e diritto interno nelle controversie sottoposte ad arbitrato ICSID. RDIPP 1:5–44, p. 24; Rigaux M (1982) Contrats d’Etat et arbitrage international in: Le droits des relations économiques international- Études offertes à Berthold Goldman, Litec, Paris, pp 269–290, p. 504

  50. 50.

    See Dr. G…. v. German Bundestag, Bundesverfassungsgericht, in case 2BvE 2/08, decision of 30 Jun 2009 (https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/2009/06/es20090630_2bve000208en.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1); Meunier S (2016) Integration by stealth: how the European Union gained competence over foreign direct investment, Paper from the 7th annual conference on the political economy of international organizations, Princeton; Mola L (2010) Which role for the EU in the development of international investment law? Paper presented at the society of international economic law, inaugural conference; Leczykiewicz D (2005) Common Commercial policy: the expanding competence of the European Union in the Area of international trade. German Law J 6:1673–1685; and Puig V (2013) The scope of the new exclusive competence of the European Union with Regard to ‘Foreign direct investment’. Legal Iss Econ Integr 2:133–162

  51. 51.

    Neframi E (2011) International responsibility and mixed agreements. In: Cannizzaro E (ed) The European union as an actor in international relations. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 193–206; Kujper PJ (1995) The conclusion and implementation of the Uruguay round results by the European Community. Eur J Int Law 1:222–244; Stein E (1990) External relations of the European community: structure and process. Collected Course Acad Eur Law 1:115–188, at 162

  52. 52.

    See supra note 6.

  53. 53.

    Tietje C (2008a) The status of International Law in the European legal order: the case of International Treaties and non-binding international instrument. In: Wouters J, Nollkaemper A, de Wet E (eds) The Europeanization of International Law: the status of international Law in the EU and its member states. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 55–85

  54. 54.

    Eeckhout P (2011) EU External Relations Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 435; von Bogdandy A, Kottman M, Antphöler C et al (2012) Reverse Solange – protecting the essence of fundamental rights against EU Member States. Common Market Law Rev 3:489–520

  55. 55.

    See Kadi e Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council and the Commission, ECJ in cases C-402/05 & C-425/05, judgement of 3 September 2008, ECLI:EU:C:2008:461, par. 285. See also Wessel RA (2011) General issues: monism, dualism and the European legal order reconsidering the relationship between international and EU Law. In: Cannizzaro E, Palchetti P, Wessel RA (eds) International law as law of the European union. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 5–33; Gaja G (2009) Are the effects of the UN Charter under the EC Law governed by article 307 of the EC Treaty?, EU Working Paper: 5–9; and Tietje C (2008b) The Applicability of the Energy Charter Treaty in ICSID Arbitration of EU Nationals vs. EU Member States, Institute of economic law, transnational economic law research center (TELC).

  56. 56.

    See the opinion delivered pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 228 (1) of the Treaty - draft agreement between the Community, on the one hand, and the countries of the European Free Trade Association, on the other, relating to the creation of the European Economic Area, ECJ Opinion delivered in case C-1/91on 14 December 1991, ECLI:EU:C:1991:490. See also ERT, ECJ decision in case C-260/89, of 18 June 1982, ECLI:EU:C:1991:254; Schmidberger, ECJ decision in case C-112/00 of 12 June 2003, ECLI:EU:C:2003:33; and Omega Spielhallen, ECJ decision in case C-36/02 of 14 October 2004, ECLI:EU:C:2004:614.

  57. 57.

    Von Bogdandy A (2008) Pluralism, direct effect, and the ultimate say: on the relationship between international and domestic constitutional law. Int J Constitut Law 3–4:397–413

  58. 58.

    See Bermann G (2016) Navigating EU law and the law of international arbitration. Arbitr Int 3:397–438 at 434. See also Klabbers J (2011) The validity of EU norms conflicting with international obligations. In: Cannizzaro E, Palchetti P, Wessel RA (eds) International law as law of the European union. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 111–131, and Flaminio Costa v. Enel, ECJ case C-6/64, judgment of 15 July 1964, ECLI:EU:C:1964:66.

  59. 59.

    Lavranos N (2010) Protecting European Law from international law. Eur Foreign Aff Rev 2:265–282; Lenaerts K (2010) Droit International de l’ordre juridique de l’Union. Revue de la faculté de droit de l’Université de Liége 4:505–519; Parra A (2009) Applicable law in investor state arbitration, TDM 1. Retrieved from https://www.transnational-dispute-management.com/article.asp?key=1344; See Lenaerts K (2015) Les Fondements constitutionnels de l’Unione européenne dans leur rapport avec le droit international. In: Tizzano A, Rosas A, Silva de Lapuerat R, Lanaerts et j. Kokott K (eds) La Cour de justice l’Union Européenne sous la présidence de Vassilios Skouris. Bruyalant, Bruxelles, pp 367–385

  60. 60.

    See U.N. ILC, doc. A/CN.4/L.682, Fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law, report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, Finalized by Martti Koskenniemi, 13 April 2006, paras. 243–250.

  61. 61.

    Electrabel S.A. v. Republic of Hungary, ICSID case No. ARB/07/19, Decision on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law and Liability, 30 November 2012, para 4.122

  62. 62.

    Achmea B.V. v. The Slovak Republic, PCA Case No. 2008–13 (formerly Eureko B.V. v. The Slovak Republic, Award on Jurisdiction, Arbitrability and Suspension, 26 October 2010, par. 289

  63. 63.

    Id. para. 229

  64. 64.

    Id. para 231

  65. 65.

    Aes Summit Generation Limited and Aes-Tisza Eromu Kft v. the Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22, award, 23 September 2010, para. 7.3.4

  66. 66.

    AES Summit Generation Limited and AES-Tisza Erömü kft v. The Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22, Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for annulment, 29 December 2012, para. 162

  67. 67.

    Id. para. 172

  68. 68.

    Electrabel v. Ungheria, quoted, par. 4.127 ss

  69. 69.

    See German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia v. Poland, Permanent Court of International Justice, judgement of 25 August 1925, PCIJ (ser. A) no. 6, p.19; see also India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products, WTO AB in case WT/DS50/AB/R decision of 16 April 1999, paras. 65–66

  70. 70.

    See supra note 57.

  71. 71.

    See Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskai Ur v. The argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26, award, 8 December 2016, par 1154. See Vadi V (2015) Analogies in international investment law and arbitration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; Crema L (2013) Investor rights and well-being remarks on the interpretation of investment treaties in light of other rights. In: Treves T, Seatzu F, Trevisanut C (eds) Foreign investment, international law and common concerns. Routledge, London, pp. 70–91; Crawford J (2013) A Consensualist Interpretation of Art. 31(3) of the Vienna convention on the law of the treaties. In: Nolte G (ed) Treaties and subsequent practice. Oxford Press, Oxford, pp 29–33; Sands C (1998) Treaty, custom and the cross-fertilization of international law. Yale Hum Rights Dev Law J 1:85–105.

  72. 72.

    See Eco Swiss, ECJ Judgement C-126/97 of 1 June 1999, ECLI:EU:C:1999:269, para. 31; De Lange R (2007) The European public order, constitutional principles and fundamental rights. Erasmus Law Rev 1:1–23; von Bogdandy A. (2006); and Weiler JHH (1999) The Constitution of Europe. Cambridge University Press, New York.

  73. 73.

    Castellarin E (2013) The Investment Chapters in the new generation of the EU’s Economic Agreements in TDM 2. Retrieved https://www.transnational-dispute-management.com/article.asp?key=1940; Peterson L (2011) EU Member-States approve negotiating guidelines for India, Singapore and Canada investment protection talks; some European governments fear “NAFTA-contamination,” Investment Arbitration Reporter. Retrieved from: https://www.iareporter.com/articles/eu-member-states-approve-negotiating-guidelines-for-india-singapore-and-canada-investment-protection-talks-some-european-governments-fear-nafta-contamination/

  74. 74.

    See https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/negotiations-and-agreements/#_pending

  75. 75.

    See Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula, S.C. European Food S.A., S.C., Starmill S.r.l. and Multipack S.r.l. v. Romania, ICSID case No. ARB/05/20, Award, 11 December 2013.

  76. 76.

    See the European Commission Letter to Romania on State Aid investigation, 1 October 2014 and the European Commission, decision of 30 March 2015 concerning the aid of State SA.38517 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) implemented by Romania – Arbitral award Micula v. Romania of 11 December 2013 in C- 2015/1470 in Eu. Un. Of. Jour. n. L. 232/43; see also the UKSC, Judgment, Micula and others v. Romania, [2020] UKSC 5, 19 February 2020, para 118.

  77. 77.

    Paschalidis P (2016) Arbitral tribunals and preliminary references to the EU court of justice. Arbitr Int 1:1–23; Szpunar M (2017) Referrals of preliminary questions by arbitral tribunals to the CJEU. In: Ferrari F (ed) The impact of EU La[w] on international commercial arbitration. New York University\Center for transnational Litigation, New York, pp 85–123, p 85 ss

  78. 78.

    Slovak Republic v. Achmea B.V., ECJ case C-284/16, 6 March 2018, ECLI:EU:C:2018;158, paras. 32–33 and 56

  79. 79.

    Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the European Union and its Member States, in OJ L. 11, 14.1.2017

  80. 80.

    Opinion 1/17 of the Court, ECJ 30 April 2019, ECLI:EU:C:2019:341

  81. 81.

    See Establishing a standing mechanism for the settlement of international investment disputes, Submission of the EU and Its Member States to UNCITRAL Working Group III, 18 January 2019. See http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/commission/working_groups/3Investor_State.html

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy

    Benedetta Cappiello

  2. Department of Italian and Supranational Public Law, University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    Benedetta Cappiello

Authors
  1. Benedetta Cappiello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benedetta Cappiello .

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 Malaysia and International Studies, National University of Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

    Sufian Jusoh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Cappiello, B. (2020). Applicable Law in Investment Arbitration. In: Chaisse, J., Choukroune, L., Jusoh, S. (eds) Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5744-2_63-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5744-2_63-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-5744-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-5744-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Law and CriminologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation