Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Empirically Mapping Investment Arbitration Scholarship: Networks, Authorities, and the Research Front

  • Chapter
Private Actors in International Investment Law

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((Spec. Issue))

  • 640 Accesses

Abstract

Scholarship on international investment arbitration is plentiful. Despite it being a relatively young field, it would be difficult to name one in which more books and articles have been published in recent years. The field is a dynamic one, attracting a diverse range of authors; the stakes are high, the knowledge is limited: scholarly work is necessary and to be welcome. The amount of available literature, however, also provides us for an opportunity to study its relationship with the field it purports to describe: in a nutshell, we do not study investment arbitration scholarship because we are naively surprised that it exists, or that there is so much of it. We know that there must be good reasons for it to do so, and to do so to this extent. It is precisely for these very good reasons that we can resolutely argue that investment arbitration scholarship is worth studying, and that studying investment arbitration scholarship can bring us a step closer to a better understanding of investment arbitration. Accordingly, this chapter seeks to provide a large-scale analysis of investment arbitration scholarship. By combining theoretical insights and big data empirical analysis, we seek to map the field, its actors, and, its dynamics, with a view to revealing latent patterns through citations, topics, and publication dynamics, but also through tribunals’ use of literature.

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 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    With reference to American scholarship see Tushnet (1980), p. 1205 (‘I cannot imagine, for example, an intellectual history of contemporary America in which legal thought would play an important part… [t…]he intellectual marginality of legal scholarship is all the more striking in light of 7 the immense role that law plays in American society’).

  2. 2.

    This is not to say that the demand for legal scholarship is low: as in a number of academic fields, it is not, and the business is profitable specifically because ‘demand has the elasticity of cast iron’. See EJIL: Talk! – What a Journal Makes: As we say goodbye to the European Law Journal. https://www.ejiltalk.org/what-a-journal-makes-as-we-say-goodbye-to-the-european-law-journal/. Accessed 6 February 2020.

  3. 3.

    Harrison and Mashburn (2015), pp. 46–47.

  4. 4.

    There is substantial literature on this topic, especially in American law. See, inter alia, Kopf (1997), Schwartz and Petherbridge (2010, 2011) and Harner and Cantone (2011).

  5. 5.

    For an exception see Schill (2011).

  6. 6.

    See inter alia Schill (2010), Roberts (2013), Brabandere (2014), Vadi (2016) and Alvarez (2016).

  7. 7.

    Brabandere (2014).

  8. 8.

    Fauchald (2008), Pellet (2013), Schill and Tvede (2015), Charlotin (2017) and Ridi (2018).

  9. 9.

    ICJ Statute, Article 38(1)(d).

  10. 10.

    For one such view expressed in a book which is very much on law-ascertainment, see d’Aspremont (2013), p. 209.

  11. 11.

    For the notion of Article 38 as an important ‘event’ see Skouteris (2010).

  12. 12.

    League of Nations. Advisory Committee of Jurists (1920); For an understanding of Article 38 as consolidating previous arbitral practice see Fitzmaurice M, History of Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, ID 2774354, 3 May 2016.

  13. 13.

    For some early reflections on judicialisation see Moore (1929).

  14. 14.

    Oppenheim (1908), p. 315.

  15. 15.

    Consider, for example, this passage from Pasquale Fiore’s treatise, which predates Oppenheim’s by about 40 years (our translation): ‘We observe, however, that the authority of publicists must be employed with a grain of salt, without ascribing to their opinion such weight capable of displacing the principles of reason’. See Fiore (1865), p. 42.

  16. 16.

    See also Kingsbury (2012).

  17. 17.

    Alter KJ, The Multiple Roles of International Courts and Tribunals: Enforcement, Dispute Settlement, Constitutional and Administrative Review, ID 2114310, 19 July 2012.

  18. 18.

    Schwarzenberger (1947), pp. 553–554.

  19. 19.

    See generally Peil (2012).

  20. 20.

    Helmersen (2016), p. 323; Oppenheim (1992), p. 42; Peil (2012), p. 144.

  21. 21.

    Jennings (1996), p. 9 (maintaining that ‘[t]he main reason for this convention is, one suspects, not so much based upon any principle concerning a source of law but, rather, to avoid invidious distinctions between publicists cited and publicists not cited’).

  22. 22.

    Consider for example the reliance on scholars in early American cases: The Paquete Habana 175 US 677, 700 (1900). Consider also EWHC (Admin), The Freedom And Justice Party & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs & Anor [2016] EWHC 2010 (Admin), Judgment of 5 August 2016.

  23. 23.

    Helmersen (2019).

  24. 24.

    For a case in which it did, see Waguih Elie George Siag & Clorinda Vecchi v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/15, Award, 1 June 2009, paras 498–499 (‘The Loewen decision has been the subject of intense scrutiny and criticism by international law scholars and investment arbitration practitioners… Commentators have also stigmatised the Tribunal’s application of a rule developed in one particular contex… Finally, academics and practitioners have questioned the relevance of the Loewen Tribunal’s conclusions’.).

  25. 25.

    Koskenniemi (2006), pp. 563 ff.

  26. 26.

    Hernández (2017).

  27. 27.

    Borges (2000).

  28. 28.

    Hernández (2017), p. 162; The author persuasively refers to Bourdieu (1986), p. 824 (arguing that academics ‘carry out the function of assimilation necessary to ensure the coherence and the permanence of a systematic set of principles and rules’).

  29. 29.

    Hernández (2017), p. 166.

  30. 30.

    The obvious example is Dezalay and Garth (1998); But one wonders whether the same could be said about other, more ‘juridical’ works. Consider, for example, Gaillard (2010).

  31. 31.

    The usual examples will suffice Paulsson (1981, 1983), Smit (1988) and Caron (1990).

  32. 32.

    Helmersen (2017).

  33. 33.

    Ibid.

  34. 34.

    We point to the excellent discussion in Michaels (2013); For examples of the oneiric language discussed by Michaels see Kaufmann-Kohler (2007) and Lew (2006).

  35. 35.

    See in particular Oppetit (1993, 1998).

  36. 36.

    Paulsson (2013), p. 256.

  37. 37.

    Ibid., p. 256.

  38. 38.

    Michaels (2013), p. 62.

  39. 39.

    Alex Mills, The Privatisation of Private (and) International Law, Inaugural Lecture, University College London, 6 February 2020, Current Legal Problems Lecture Series (still unpublished).

  40. 40.

    For some discussion of the point see Schill (2010), Roberts (2013) and Vadi (2016).

  41. 41.

    The usual example is the conflicting approaches to the role of the state Wälde (2010).

  42. 42.

    David Gaukrodger, Appointing Authorities and the Selection of Arbitrators in Investor-State Dispute Settlement: An Overview, OECD Consultation Paper, March 2018.

  43. 43.

    Similar approaches have been applied to the sociology of investment arbitration by Puig (2014) and Langford et al. (2017).

  44. 44.

    Analysis by Niccolò Ridi, based on data by Daniel Behn, Malcolm Langford, Ole Kristian Fauchald, Runar Lie, Maxim Usynin, Taylor St John, Laura Letourneau-Tremblay, Tarald Berge and Tori Loven Kirkebø, PITAD Investment Law and Arbitration Database: Version 1.0, Pluricourts Centre of Excellence, University of Oslo (31 January 2019). The network analysis has been carried out with the Gephi software. See Bastian et al. (2009).

  45. 45.

    Bjorklund (2008), p. 1272.

  46. 46.

    Newman (2006).

  47. 47.

    See, in particular, Puig (2014).

  48. 48.

    Although the network deals with arbitrators only, it is submitted that the reflection can be adapted to counsel as well for simple reasons of frequent identity. See Langford et al. (2017).

  49. 49.

    Schultz and Ridi (2020) (footnotes omitted).

  50. 50.

    See generally Bachelard (1938).

  51. 51.

    Latour and Woolgar (1979).

  52. 52.

    Leydesdorff and Milojević (2015), p. 2.

  53. 53.

    Mingers and Leydesdorff (2015), p. 1.

  54. 54.

    Chen (2006).

  55. 55.

    Mingers and Leydesdorff (2015), p. 1.

  56. 56.

    Feist (1997), p. 326.

  57. 57.

    Gingras and Wallace (2010).

  58. 58.

    For an overview, see Osareh (1996a, b) and White and McCain (1998).

  59. 59.

    Crane (1969), Schachter (1977) and Gmür (2003).

  60. 60.

    <http://webofknowledge.com>.

  61. 61.

    https://www.scopus.com/.

  62. 62.

    Just like arbitral awards are sometimes sent out to colleagues or mailing lists prior to their formal publishing, the world of academia knows.

  63. 63.

    Harzing and Van der Wal (2008) and Amara and Landry (2012).

  64. 64.

    Van Eck and Waltman (2014). The software (free, but not Open Source) can be downloaded from <http://www.vosviewer.com>.

  65. 65.

    Schultz (2014), pp. 153 ff.

  66. 66.

    See in general Tardy (2004).

  67. 67.

    For an early introduction to the concept of regular expressions (and their elegance) see Thompson (1968).

  68. 68.

    https://www.investorstatelawguide.com, accessed 8 February 2020.

  69. 69.

    We have made any effort to eliminate odd chapters that were parsed by overinclusive regular expressions. We decided to include, for the time being, works contained in the collected courses of the Hague Academy of International Law because of their specific type of publication cycle, and as a control variable.

  70. 70.

    VOSviewer applies some pre-processing, including part-of-speech tagging and removal of copyright statements, in order to identify keywords. See van Eck and Waltman (2011). Naturally, the algorithm cannot do much against instances of poetic license in titles.

  71. 71.

    Van Eck and Waltman (2013), p. 8.

  72. 72.

    As an example, see Voon (2018).

  73. 73.

    Schreuer and Disputes (2001) and Schreuer (2009).

  74. 74.

    Blackaby et al. (2015).

  75. 75.

    Van Harten and Loughlin (2006), Van Harten (2007), Schneiderman (2008) and Roberts (2013).

  76. 76.

    Franck (2004) and Waibel et al. (2010).

  77. 77.

    Puig (2014).

  78. 78.

    No list could be exhaustive, but the following may be seen as key publications Paulsson (1995, 2013), Schill (2009, 2010), van Aaken (2009) and Kurtz (2009, 2016).

  79. 79.

    Page L et al., The PageRank citation ranking: Bringing order to the web, 1999.

  80. 80.

    For a critique of certain applications of PageRank see Ghoshal and Barabási (2011).

  81. 81.

    Ding et al. (2009).

  82. 82.

    Ibid.

  83. 83.

    Fauchald (2008), Peil (2012), and Helmersen (2016, 2018).

  84. 84.

    The data on the use of precedent builds on prior work carried out with similar methodologies. See Ridi (2019a, b, c).

  85. 85.

    Helmersen (2016).

  86. 86.

    On the question of depreciation see, with reference to precedent, Landes and Posner (1976), p. 276.

  87. 87.

    See for example Mann (1982).

  88. 88.

    Ridi (2019b), p. 210.

  89. 89.

    Schwarz et al. (1991).

  90. 90.

    Rosalyn (1982).

  91. 91.

    Amerasinghe (1973, 1975, 1976, 1979).

  92. 92.

    For example, one may wonder if this is the case with regard to Paulsson (1995) and Kaufmann-Kohler (2007).

  93. 93.

    See Merritt and Putnam (1995).

References

  • Alvarez JE (2016) ‘Beware: Boundary Crossings’ – a critical appraisal of public law approaches to international investment law. J World Invest Trade 17:171–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amara N, Landry R (2012) Counting citations in the field of business and management: why use Google Scholar rather than the Web of Science. Scientometrics 93:553–581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amerasinghe CF (1973) Submissions to the jurisdiction of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. J Marit Law Commerce 5:211

    Google Scholar 

  • Amerasinghe CF (1975) Jurisdiction ratione personae under the convention on the settlement of investment disputes between states and nationals of other states. Br Yearb Int Law 47:227–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amerasinghe CF (1976) The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes and Development through the multinational corporation. Vand J Transnatl Law 9:793

    Google Scholar 

  • Amerasinghe CF (1979) The jurisdiction of the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes. Indian J Int Law 19:166

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachelard G (1938) La Formation de l’esprit scientifique. Contribution à une psychanalyse de la connaissance objective. Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastian M, Heymann S, Jacomy M et al (2009) Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. ICWSM 8:361–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjorklund AK (2008) The emerging civilization of investment arbitration symposium: building the civilization of arbitration. Penn St Law Rev 113:1269–1300

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackaby N, Partasides C, Hunter M, Redfern A (2015) Redfern and Hunter on international arbitration. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Borges JL (2000) The Library of Babel. David R. Godine

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu P (1986) Force of law: toward a sociology of the juridical field. Hastings Law J 38:805

    Google Scholar 

  • Brabandere ED (2014) Investment treaty arbitration as public international law. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Caron DD (1990) The nature of the Iran-United States claims tribunal and the evolving structure of International Dispute Resolution. Am J Int Law 84:104–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charlotin D (2017) The place of investment awards and WTO decisions in international law: a citation analysis. J Int Econ Law 20:279–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen C (2006) CiteSpace II: detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 57:359–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane D (1969) Social structure in a group of scientists: a test of the ‘Invisible College’ hypothesis. Am Soc Rev 34:335–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • d’Aspremont J (2013) Formalism and the sources of international law: a theory of the ascertainment of legal rules. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dezalay Y, Garth BG (1998) Dealing in virtue: International Commercial Arbitration and the construction of a transnational legal order. University of Chicago Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Ding Y, Yan E, Frazho A, Caverlee J (2009) PageRank for ranking authors in co-citation networks. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 60:2229–2243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fauchald OK (2008) The legal reasoning of ICSID Tribunals – an empirical analysis. Eur J Int Law 19:301–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feist GJ (1997) Quantity, quality, and depth of research as influences on scientific eminence: is quantity most important? Creativity Res J 10:325–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiore P (1865) Nuovo dritto internazionale pubblico : secondo i bisogni della civiltà moderna. Casa Editrice e Tipografia degli Autori-Editori, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Franck SD (2004) Legitimacy crisis in investment treaty arbitration: privatizing public international law through inconsistent decisions. Fordham Law Rev 73:1521

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaillard E (2010) Legal theory of international arbitration. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal G, Barabási A-L (2011) Ranking stability and super-stable nodes in complex networks. Nat Commun 2:394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gingras Y, Wallace ML (2010) Why it has become more difficult to predict Nobel Prize winners: a bibliometric analysis of nominees and winners of the chemistry and physics prizes (1901–2007). Scientometrics 82:401–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gmür M (2003) Co-citation analysis and the search for invisible colleges: a methodological evaluation. Scientometrics 57:27–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harner MM, Cantone JA (2011) Is legal scholarship out of touch - an empirical analysis of the use of scholarship in business law cases. Univ Miami Bus Law Rev:1–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison JL, Mashburn AR (2015) Citations, justifications, and the troubled state of legal scholarship: an empirical study. Tex A&M Law Rev 3:45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harzing A-WK, Van der Wal R (2008) Google Scholar as a new source for citation analysis. Ethics Sci Environ Polit 8:61–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helmersen ST (2016) The use of scholarship by the WTO Appellate Body. Goettingen J Int Law 7:309

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmersen ST (2017) ‘Delocalisation’ scholarship in ICC Arbitral Awards. Scandinavian Stud Law 62:261–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmersen ST (2018) The application of teachings by the International Court of Justice. University of Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmersen ST (2019) Finding ‘the Most Highly Qualified Publicists’: lessons from the International Court of Justice. Eur J Int Law 30:509–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernández G (2017) The responsibility of the international legal academic: situating the Grammarian within the ‘Invisible College’. In: d’Aspremont J, Gazzini T, Nollkaemper A, Werner W (eds) International law as a profession. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 160–188

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings RY (1996) The judiciary, international and national, and the development of international law. Int Comp Law Q 45:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingsbury B (2012) International courts: uneven judicialisation in global order. In: Crawford J, Koskenniemi M, Ranganathan S (eds) The Cambridge companion to international law. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopf R (1997) Do judges read the Review? A citation-counting study of the Nebraska Law Review and the Nebraska Supreme Court, 1972–1996. Nebraska Law Rev 76

    Google Scholar 

  • Koskenniemi M (2006) From apology to Utopia: the structure of international legal argument. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurtz J (2009) The use and abuse of WTO law in Investor-State Arbitration: competition and its discontents: a rejoinder to Robert Howse and Efraim Chalamish. Eur J Int Law 20:1095–1098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurtz J (2016) The WTO and international investment law: converging systems. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Landes WM, Posner RA (1976) Legal precedent: a theoretical and empirical analysis. J Law Econ 19:249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langford M, Behn D, Lie RH (2017) The revolving door in international investment arbitration. J Int Econ Law 20:301–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour B, Woolgar S (1979) Laboratory life: the social construction of scientific facts. SAGE

    Google Scholar 

  • League of Nations. Advisory Committee of Jurists (1920) Procès-verbaux of the proceedings of the Committee, June 16th–July 24th, 1920, with Annexes. The Hague, Van Langenhuysen

    Google Scholar 

  • Lew JDM (2006) Achieving the dream: autonomous arbitration. Arbitr Int 22:179–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff L, Milojević S (2015) Scientometrics

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann FA (1982) British treaties for the promotion and protection of investments. Br Yearb Int Law 52:241–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merritt DJ, Putnam M (1995) Judges and scholars: do courts and scholarly journals cite the same law review articles. Chic Kent Law Rev 71:871

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels R (2013) Dreaming law without a state: scholarship on autonomous international arbitration as utopian literature. London Rev Int Law 1:35–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers J, Leydesdorff L (2015) A review of theory and practice in scientometrics. Eur J Oper Res 246:1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore JB (1929) General introduction. In: Moore JB (ed) International adjudications: ancient and modern history and documents (Modern ser) 1, pp vii–xiv

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman ME (2006) Modularity and community structure in networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103:8577–8582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheim L (1908) The science of international law: its task and method. Am J Int Law 313–356

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheim L (1992) Oppenheim’s international law: peace. Longman

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppetit B (1993) Le droit international privé, droit savant. Recueil des cours

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppetit B (1998) Théorie de l’arbitrage, 1re éd. Presses universitaires de France, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Osareh F (1996a) Bibliometrics, citation analysis and co-citation analysis: a review of literature I. Libri 46:149–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Osareh F (1996b) Bibliometrics, citation analysis and co-citation analysis: a review of literature II. Libri 46:217–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulsson J (1981) Arbitration unbound: award detached from the law of its country of origin. Int Comp Law Q 30:358–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulsson J (1983) Delocalisation of international commercial arbitration: when and why it matters. Int Comp Law Q 32:53–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulsson J (1995) Arbitration without privity. ICSID Rev 10:232–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulsson J (2013) The idea of arbitration. Oxford University Press Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Peil M (2012) Scholarly writings as a source of law: a survey of the use of doctrine by the International Court of Justice. Camb J Int Comp Law 1:136–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pellet A (2013) The case law of the ICJ in investment arbitration. ICSID Rev 28:223–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puig S (2014) Social capital in the arbitration market. Eur J Int Law 25:387–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridi N (2018) Approaches to external precedent: invocation of international decisions in investment arbitration and WTO dispute settlement. In: Adjudicating international trade and investment disputes: between isolation and interaction. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridi N (2019a) ‘Mirages of an Intellectual Dreamland’? Ratio, obiter and the textualization of international precedent. J Int Disp Settlement 10:361–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridi N (2019b) The shape and structure of the ‘Usable Past’: an empirical analysis of the use of precedent in international adjudication. J Int Disp Settlement 10:200–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridi N (2019c) Doing things with international precedents: the use and authority of previous decisions in international adjudication. King’s College London

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts A (2013) Clash of paradigms: actors and analogies shaping the investment treaty system. Am J Int Law 107:45–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosalyn H (1982) The taking of property by the state: recent developments in international law. Recueil Des Cours 176:259 at 338–339

    Google Scholar 

  • Schachter O (1977) Invisible college of international lawyers. Northwest Univ Law Rev 72:217

    Google Scholar 

  • Schill SW (2009) The multilateralization of international investment law. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Schill SW (ed) (2010) International investment law and comparative public law. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Schill SW (2011) W(h)ither fragmentation? On the literature and sociology of international investment law. Eur J Int Law 22:875–908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schill SW, Tvede KR (2015) Mainstreaming investment treaty jurisprudence. Law Pract Int Courts Tribunals 14:94–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneiderman D (2008) Constitutionalizing economic globalization: investment rules and democracy’s promise. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreuer CH (2009) The ICSID Convention: a commentary. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreuer CH, Disputes IC for S of I (2001) The ICSID Convention: a commentary. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz T (2014) Transnational legality: stateless law and international arbitration. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz T, Ridi N (2020) Arbitration literature. In: Ortino F, Schultz T (eds) The Oxford handbook of international arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford, NY, pp 1–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz DL, Petherbridge L (2010) The use of legal scholarship by the Federal Courts of Appeals: an empirical study. Cornell Law Rev:1345–1374

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz DL, Petherbridge L (2011) Legal scholarship and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: an empirical study of a national circuit. Berkeley Technol Law J 1561–1602

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz N, Bless H, Strack F et al (1991) Ease of retrieval as information: another look at the availability heuristic. J Pers Soc Psychol 61:195–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzenberger G (1947) The inductive approach to international law. Harv Law Rev 60:539–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skouteris T (2010) The force of a doctrine Art. 38 of the PCIJ Statute and the sources of international law. In: Johns F, Joyce R, Pahuja S (eds) Events: the force of international law. Routledge-Cavendish, Abingdon, p 69

    Google Scholar 

  • Smit H (1988) A-national arbitration. Tul Law Rev 63:629–646

    Google Scholar 

  • Tardy C (2004) The role of English in scientific communication: lingua franca or Tyrannosaurus rex? J English Acad Purp 3:247–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson K (1968) Programming techniques: regular expression search algorithm. Commun ACM 11:419–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushnet M (1980) Legal scholarship: its causes and cure symposium on legal scholarship: its nature and purposes. Yale Law J 1205–1223

    Google Scholar 

  • Vadi V (2016) Analogies in international investment law and arbitration. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • van Aaken A (2009) International investment law between commitment and flexibility: a contract theory analysis. J Int Econ Law 12:507–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2011) Text mining and visualization using VOSviewer. arXiv:11092058 [cs]

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2013) VOSviewer manual, vol 1. Univeristeit Leiden, Leiden, pp 1–53

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2014) Visualizing bibliometric networks. In: Measuring scholarly impact. Springer, Cham, pp 285–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Harten G (2007) Investment treaty arbitration and public law. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Harten G, Loughlin M (2006) Investment treaty arbitration as a species of global administrative law. Eur J Int Law 17:121–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voon T (2018) Consolidating international investment law: the mega-regionals as a pathway towards multilateral rules. World Trade Rev 17:33–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waibel M, Kaushal A, Chung K-H, Balchin C (2010) The backlash against investment arbitration: perceptions and reality. Kluwer Law International

    Google Scholar 

  • Wälde TW (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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White HD, McCain KW (1998) Visualizing a discipline: an author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995. J Am Soc Inf Sci 49:327–355

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

    Niccolò Ridi

  2. The Dickson Poon School of Law, King’s College London, London, UK

    Niccolò Ridi & Thomas Schultz

  3. University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

    Thomas Schultz

Authors
  1. Niccolò Ridi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas Schultz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Niccolò Ridi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain

    Katia Fach Gómez

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ridi, N., Schultz, T. (2021). Empirically Mapping Investment Arbitration Scholarship: Networks, Authorities, and the Research Front. In: Fach Gómez, K. (eds) Private Actors in International Investment Law. European Yearbook of International Economic Law(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48393-7_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation