Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Domestic Courts as Transnational Actors in International Investment Law: A Canadian Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Transnational Actors in International Investment Law

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

  • 305 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter examines the role of domestic courts as transnational actors in international investment law. In particular, this chapter examines the approaches and perspectives of the Canadian courts in the process of setting aside arbitral awards. This chapter seeks to understand how the courts themselves perceive their roles in the context of international investment law, and how the courts interact with the arbitral tribunals by legitimizing and delegitimizing certain narratives on international investment law. It suggests that the framework of “exit, voice and loyalty” developed by Albert O. Hirschman is most helpful to understand the relationships between the national courts and arbitral tribunals in the context of international investment law.

I would like to thank all participants of the Colloquium “Actors in International Investment Law: Beyond Claimants, Respondents and Arbitrators”. I am also grateful to Gillian McNeil for her suggestions. Usual disclaimer applies.

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 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
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.

    Prieto G (2019) The Columbian Constitutional Court Judgement C-252/19: A New Frontier for Reform in International Investment Law. EJIL-Talk, https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-colombian-constitutional-court-judgment-c-252-19-a-new-frontier-for-reform-in-international-investment-law/ (last accessed 24 June 2020).

  2. 2.

    Prieto G (2019), The Columbian Constitutional Court judgement C-252/19: a new frontier for reform in international investment law. EJIL-Talk, https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-colombian-constitutional-court-judgment-c-252-19-a-new-frontier-for-reform-in-international-investment-law/ (last accessed 8 April 2020).

  3. 3.

    CJEU, Judgment, 6 March 2018, Case C-284/16, Slovak Republic v. Achmea, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158, para. 62.

  4. 4.

    CJEU, Judgment, 6 March 2018, Case C-284/16, Slovak Republic v. Achmea, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158, paras 57–59.

  5. 5.

    Pohl (2018), p. 767.

  6. 6.

    For example, Eskoqsol in Liquidation v. Italian Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/50, Decision on Italy’s Request for Immediate Termination and Italy’s Jurisdictional Objection Based on Inapplicability of the Energy Charter Treaty to Intra-EU Disputes, 7 May 2019, paras 230–231, 236.

  7. 7.

    Vattenfall v. Federal Republic of Germany, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12, Decision on the Achmea Issue, 31 August 2018, para. 232.

  8. 8.

    Schreuer (2012), p. 72.

  9. 9.

    Schreuer (2012), p. 73.

  10. 10.

    United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 10 June 1958, 330 UNTS 38 (entered into force 7 June 1959).

  11. 11.

    Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention), 18 March 1965, 575 UNTS 159; 4 ILM 524 (1965) (entered into force 14 October 1966).

  12. 12.

    For example, Onyema (2018), pp. 27–30 (on the roles of judges in the context of arbitration).

  13. 13.

    For example, Tucker (2018), p. 150.

  14. 14.

    Eberhardt P, Olivet C (2012), Profiting from Injustice: How law firms, arbitrators and financiers are fueling an investment arbitration boom, https://www.tni.org/files/download/profitingfrominjustice.pdf (last accessed 29 June 2020), p. 15.

  15. 15.

    Pasquet (2017), p. 476.

  16. 16.

    Bianchi (2016), p. 234.

  17. 17.

    Berman (2012), p. 154. Note: This process is by no means unique for the field of investment arbitration. Berman persuasively argues that margin of appreciation doctrine constitutes a pluralist device for managing the process of interaction between the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) and the national courts. Margin of appreciation gives a rise to “local variation”. Also Recall Nico Krisch scholarly findings on the interaction of the European Court of Human Rights and the national courts. Krisch (2008), p. 183.

  18. 18.

    Slaughter (2000), p. 1108; Kennedy (2007), p. 641.

  19. 19.

    Pasquet (2017), pp. 470–473.

  20. 20.

    Berman (2012), pp. 14, 11–12.

  21. 21.

    Lewis (2016), p. 143; Born (2009), p. 96 (“the Convention’s drafters sought to establish a single uniform set of international legal standards for the enforcement of arbitration agreements and arbitral awards”).

  22. 22.

    Bianchi A (2017) Epistemic communities in international arbitration, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3217633 (last accessed 24 June 2020), pp. 11, 20–21, 24–25. Also discussed in Dezalay and Garth (1996), p. 16; Lynch (2003), pp. 94–104.

  23. 23.

    For example, Krisch (2012), p. 145 (discussing the margin of appreciation doctrine as a “political tool in a pluralist order”); Kerr (2015), pp. 31–39.

  24. 24.

    Miles (2013), pp. 181–187 (Miles discusses a possibility of regulatory chill and explains the concept).

  25. 25.

    Canada (Attorney General) v. Clayton, 2018 FC 436, paras 198–199, https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2018/2018fc436/2018fc436.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQArQ2FuYWRhIChBdHRvcm5leSBHZW5lcmFsKSB2LiBDbGF5dG9uIEZDIDQzNgAAAAAB&resultIndex=1 (last accessed 13 April 2020).

  26. 26.

    Note: and it will yet to shift again as Canadian lawyers consider the implications of the Vavilov case rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada in December 2019. See: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov 2019 SCC 65. Daly (2018), The supreme court of Canada’s administrative law trilogy: what to expect, https://www.administrativelawmatters.com/blog/2018/11/26/the-supreme-court-of-canadas-administrative-law-trilogy-what-to-expect/, (last accessed 8 April 2020).

  27. 27.

    For example, Alschner and Skougarevskiy (2016), p. 561.

  28. 28.

    Dupont and Schultz (2016), p. 3.

  29. 29.

    Dupont and Schultz (2016), p. 5.

  30. 30.

    Paulsson (2008), p. 26.

  31. 31.

    Grisel (2017), p. 73.

  32. 32.

    Note: not surprisingly so, the initial ICC draft included the term “international arbitration award” as opposed to “foreign arbitration award”. The term reportedly invoked strong disagreement of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (“ECOSOC”).

  33. 33.

    Kidane (2017), p. 130.

  34. 34.

    Sanders (1999), pp. 3–4.

  35. 35.

    Sanders (1999), pp. 3–4.

  36. 36.

    Kidane (2017), p. 131.

  37. 37.

    Schill (2015), p. 120.

  38. 38.

    For example, International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, Status of Ontario (SO) 2017, c 2, Sch 5 (for Ontario).

  39. 39.

    Mestral and Morgan (2017), p. 159.

  40. 40.

    Interestingly, CJEU differentiated between commercial arbitration and investment arbitration. The Canadian court in Metaclad did not. See: United Mexican States v Metalclad, 2001 BCSC 664, para. 55, https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2001/2001bcsc664/2001bcsc664.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAxVW5pdGVkIE1leGljYW4gU3RhdGVzIHYgTWV0YWxjbGFkLCAyMDAxIEJDU0MgNjY0IAAAAAAB&resultIndex=1 (last accessed 13 April 2020). CJEU, Judgment, 6 March 2018, Case C-284/16, Slovak Republic v. Achmea, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158, para. 55 (“the latter originate in the freely expressed wishes of the parties, [while] the former derive from a treaty by which Member States agree to remove from the jurisdiction of their own courts, and hence from the system of judicial remedies which the second subparagraph of Article 19(1)TEU requires them to establish in the fields covered by EU law […], disputes which may concern the application or interpretation of EU law”).

  41. 41.

    Commercial Arbitration Act, Revised Statutes of Canada 1985, c.17 (2ndSupp), s. 5 and Commercial Arbitration Code in Schedule 1, Article 6.

  42. 42.

    Of course, there were challenges to non-investment arbitration awards on other grounds, for example, see: Casey (2012), p. 415.

  43. 43.

    United Mexican States v. Cargill, Inc, 2011 ONCA 622 para. 48, https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2011/2011onca622/2011onca622.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAmVW5pdGVkIE1leGljYW4gU3RhdGVzIHYuIENhcmdpbGwsIEluYy4AAAAAAQ&resultIndex=2 (last accessed 13 April 2020).

  44. 44.

    Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2019/2019scc65/2019scc65.html (last accessed 13 April 2020).

  45. 45.

    Shaun Fluker, Vavilov on Standard of Review in Canadian Administrative Law (6 February 2020), https://ablawg.ca/2020/02/06/vavilov-on-standard-of-review-in-canadian-administrative-law/ (last accessed 13 April 2020).

  46. 46.

    Shaun Fluker, Vavilov on Standard of Review in Canadian Administrative Law (6 February 2020), https://ablawg.ca/2020/02/06/vavilov-on-standard-of-review-in-canadian-administrative-law/ (last accessed 13 April 2020), paras 17, 33.

  47. 47.

    Note: Dunsmuir is a leading Canadian administrative law case that sets the scope and standard for judicial review of the domestic administrative tribunals.

  48. 48.

    Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, [2008] 1 SCR para. 190, https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2008/2008scc9/2008scc9.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAZRHVuc211aXIgdi4gTmV3IEJydW5zd2ljawAAAAAB&resultIndex=1 (last accessed 13 April 2020). Note: in the Canadian context, administrative tribunals are specialized agencies created under provincial or federal legislation. Some administrative tribunals fulfil adjudicative functions, their decisions usually can be reviewed by the domestic courts according to the applicable administrative standard of review. There is significant difference between administrative tribunals and arbitral tribunals. Administrative tribunals in Canada are creatures of Statute whereas arbitral tribunals are established on the basis of consent between the parties. For more information, see: Ellis (2013), pp. 2–7.

  49. 49.

    Danay (2019), at p. 3, 7. For historical perspective on Canadian standard of review, see Sossin and Flood (2007), p. 581.

  50. 50.

    Danay (2019), p. 3.

  51. 51.

    Canada (Attorney General) v. SD Myers, 2004 FC 368, paras 34, 36, 39, https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2004/2004fc38/2004fc38.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAxQ2FuYWRhIChBdHRvcm5leSBHZW5lcmFsKSB2IFNEIE15ZXJzLCAyMDA0IEZDIDM2OAAAAAAB&resultIndex=1 (last accessed 13 April 2020).

  52. 52.

    United Mexican States v. Feldman Karpa, 2005 ONCA 249, paras 34, 36, https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2005/2005canlii249/2005canlii249.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAmVW5pdGVkIE1leGljYW4gU3RhdGVzIHYuIEZlbGRtYW4gS2FycGEAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1 (last accessed 13 April 2020).

  53. 53.

    United Mexican States v. Feldman Karpa, 2005 ONCA 249, paras 34, 36, https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2005/2005canlii249/2005canlii249.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAmVW5pdGVkIE1leGljYW4gU3RhdGVzIHYuIEZlbGRtYW4gS2FycGEAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1 (last accessed 13 April 2020), paras 38–39.

  54. 54.

    United Mexican States v. Feldman Karpa, 2005 ONCA 249, paras 34, 36, https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2005/2005canlii249/2005canlii249.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAmVW5pdGVkIE1leGljYW4gU3RhdGVzIHYuIEZlbGRtYW4gS2FycGEAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1 (last accessed 13 April 2020), paras 66–69.

  55. 55.

    United Mexican States v. Cargill, Inc, 2011 ONCA 622 para. 48, https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2011/2011onca622/2011onca622.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAmVW5pdGVkIE1leGljYW4gU3RhdGVzIHYuIENhcmdpbGwsIEluYy4AAAAAAQ&resultIndex=2 (last accessed 13 April 2020), para. 35. Gold (2011), p. 721.

  56. 56.

    United Mexican States v. Cargill, Inc, 2011 ONCA 622 para. 48, https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2011/2011onca622/2011onca622.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAmVW5pdGVkIE1leGljYW4gU3RhdGVzIHYuIENhcmdpbGwsIEluYy4AAAAAAQ&resultIndex=2 (last accessed 13 April 2020), para. 42.

  57. 57.

    United Mexican States v. Cargill, Inc, 2011 ONCA 622 para. 48, https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2011/2011onca622/2011onca622.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAmVW5pdGVkIE1leGljYW4gU3RhdGVzIHYuIENhcmdpbGwsIEluYy4AAAAAAQ&resultIndex=2 (last accessed 13 April 2020), para. 44.

  58. 58.

    United Mexican States v. Cargill, Inc, 2011 ONCA 622 para. 48, https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2011/2011onca622/2011onca622.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAmVW5pdGVkIE1leGljYW4gU3RhdGVzIHYuIENhcmdpbGwsIEluYy4AAAAAAQ&resultIndex=2 (last accessed 13 April 2020), para. 52.

  59. 59.

    Attorney General of Canada v. Mobil Investments Canada Inc.et al., 2016 ONSC 790, paras 37, 129 OR (3d) 506, para. 37, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw7160.pdf (last accessed 13 April 2020).

  60. 60.

    Attorney General of Canada v. Mobil Investments Canada Inc.et al., 2016 ONSC 790, paras 37, 129 OR (3d) 506, para. 37, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw7160.pdf (last accessed 13 April 2020), para. 37.

  61. 61.

    Attorney General of Canada v. Mobil Investments Canada Inc.et al., 2016 ONSC 790, paras 37, 129 OR (3d) 506, para. 37, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw7160.pdf (last accessed 13 April 2020), para. 37.

  62. 62.

    Gold (2011), p. 725.

  63. 63.

    Bayview Irrigation District #11 v Mexico, 2008 CanLII 22120 (Ont Sup Ct J), para. 63, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0078_0.pdf (last accessed 13 April 2020).

  64. 64.

    United Mexican States v. Feldman Karpa, 2005 ONCA 249, paras 34, 36, https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2005/2005canlii249/2005canlii249.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAmVW5pdGVkIE1leGljYW4gU3RhdGVzIHYuIEZlbGRtYW4gS2FycGEAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1 (last accessed 13 April 2020), para. 66.

  65. 65.

    Canada (Attorney General) v. SD Myers, 2004 FC 368, paras 34, 36, 39, https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2004/2004fc38/2004fc38.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAxQ2FuYWRhIChBdHRvcm5leSBHZW5lcmFsKSB2IFNEIE15ZXJzLCAyMDA0IEZDIDM2OAAAAAAB&resultIndex=1 (last accessed 13 April 2020), para. 55.

  66. 66.

    Bayview Irrigation District #11 v Mexico, 2008 CanLII 22120 (Ont Sup Ct J), para. 63, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0078_0.pdf (last accessed 13 April 2020), para. 64.

  67. 67.

    Van Den Berg (2014), p. 287.

  68. 68.

    Note: This is perhaps not the step in the direction some provinces in Canada would like to take given that in 2018, Ontario adopted a new International Commercial Arbitration Act that gives the New York Convention direct effect.

  69. 69.

    Bilcon v. Government of Canada, PCA Case No 2009-04, Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, 17 March 2015, para. 5.

  70. 70.

    Bilcon v. Government of Canada, PCA Case No 2009-04, Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, 17 March 2015, para. 10.

  71. 71.

    Bilcon v. Government of Canada, PCA Case No 2009-04, Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, 17 March 2015, para. 21.

  72. 72.

    Canada (Attorney General) v. Clayton, 2018 FC 436, para. 18, https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2018/2018fc436/2018fc436.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAwQ2FuYWRhIChBdHRvcm5leSBHZW5lcmFsKSB2IENsYXl0b24sIDIwMTggRkMgNDM2AAAAAAE&resultIndex=1 (last accessed 13 April 2020).

  73. 73.

    Canada (Attorney General) v. Clayton, 2018 FC 436, para. 18, https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2018/2018fc436/2018fc436.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAwQ2FuYWRhIChBdHRvcm5leSBHZW5lcmFsKSB2IENsYXl0b24sIDIwMTggRkMgNDM2AAAAAAE&resultIndex=1 (last accessed 13 April 2020), paras 19–20.

  74. 74.

    Canada (Attorney General) v. Clayton, 2018 FC 436, para. 18, https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2018/2018fc436/2018fc436.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAwQ2FuYWRhIChBdHRvcm5leSBHZW5lcmFsKSB2IENsYXl0b24sIDIwMTggRkMgNDM2AAAAAAE&resultIndex=1 (last accessed 13 April 2020), para. 19.

  75. 75.

    Canada (Attorney General) v. Clayton, 2018 FC 436, para. 18, https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2018/2018fc436/2018fc436.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAwQ2FuYWRhIChBdHRvcm5leSBHZW5lcmFsKSB2IENsYXl0b24sIDIwMTggRkMgNDM2AAAAAAE&resultIndex=1 (last accessed 13 April 2020), paras 34–36.

  76. 76.

    Canada (Attorney General) v. Clayton, 2018 FC 436, para. 18, https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2018/2018fc436/2018fc436.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAwQ2FuYWRhIChBdHRvcm5leSBHZW5lcmFsKSB2IENsYXl0b24sIDIwMTggRkMgNDM2AAAAAAE&resultIndex=1 (last accessed 13 April 2020), paras 57, 60. See also Dissenting Opinion of Professor Donald McRae in the matter of an arbitration under chapter 11 of the NAFTA between Clayton & Bilcon and the Government of Canada, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw4213.pdf (last accessed 13 April 2020).

  77. 77.

    Canada (Attorney General) v. Clayton, 2018 FC 436, para. 18, https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2018/2018fc436/2018fc436.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAwQ2FuYWRhIChBdHRvcm5leSBHZW5lcmFsKSB2IENsYXl0b24sIDIwMTggRkMgNDM2AAAAAAE&resultIndex=1 (last accessed 13 April 2020), para. 154.

  78. 78.

    Canada (Attorney General) v. Clayton, 2018 FC 436, para. 18, https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2018/2018fc436/2018fc436.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAwQ2FuYWRhIChBdHRvcm5leSBHZW5lcmFsKSB2IENsYXl0b24sIDIwMTggRkMgNDM2AAAAAAE&resultIndex=1 (last accessed 13 April 2020), para. 156.

  79. 79.

    Canada (Attorney General) v. Clayton, 2018 FC 436, para. 18, https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2018/2018fc436/2018fc436.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAwQ2FuYWRhIChBdHRvcm5leSBHZW5lcmFsKSB2IENsYXl0b24sIDIwMTggRkMgNDM2AAAAAAE&resultIndex=1 (last accessed 13 April 2020), paras 139–147.

  80. 80.

    Canada (Attorney General) v. Clayton, 2018 FC 436, para. 18, https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2018/2018fc436/2018fc436.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAwQ2FuYWRhIChBdHRvcm5leSBHZW5lcmFsKSB2IENsYXl0b24sIDIwMTggRkMgNDM2AAAAAAE&resultIndex=1 (last accessed 13 April 2020), para. 198.

  81. 81.

    Hirschman (1970), pp. 3–15. Note: the theory got limited prominence in ISDS context however has not yet been applied to analysing the relationships between domestic courts and arbitral tribunals. Katselas (2015), p. 216; Welsh et al. (2014), p. 130.

  82. 82.

    For example, the members can stay loyal to the organization in principle, but use available means in the organization to introduce the changes. Shareholders can fully abandon a company by selling all their shares, or they can stay loyal to the company, but vote for new directors to ensure that the company changes course. The “exit” option means that the members lose a chance to “voice” their concerns in order to improve the organization.

  83. 83.

    Onyema (2018), p. 200.

  84. 84.

    Lauterpacht (1949), pp. 25, 33–38. Note: the term “faithful trustee” was first applied by Hersh Lauterpacht in relation to the relationships between the domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights. This term was later interpreted by Bjorje Eriik who explained that domestic courts should avoid any “friction” with the ECtHR. Bjorge (2015), pp. 245–246.

References

  • Alschner W, Skougarevskiy S (2016) Mapping the universe of international investment agreements. J Int Econ Law 19(3):561–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman P (2012) Global legal pluralism: a jurisprudence of law beyond borders. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi A (2016) International law theories: an inquiry into different ways of thinking. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bjorge E (2015) Domestic application of the ECHR: courts as faithful trustees. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Born G (2009) International commercial arbitration. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Casey B (2012) Arbitration law of Canada: practice and procedure. Juris Publishing, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Danay R (2019) A house divided: the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent jurisprudence on the standard of review. Univ Tor Law J 69(1):3–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dezalay Y, Garth B (1996) Dealing in virtue. International commercial arbitration and the construction of transnational legal order. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupont C, Schultz T (2016) Towards a new heuristic model: investment arbitration as a political system. J Int Dispute Settl 7:3–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis R (2013) Unjust by design: Canada’s administrative justice system. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver

    Google Scholar 

  • Gold M (2011) Judicial review of international arbitrations in Canada: notes on Mexico Cargill. Can Bar Rev 90(3):717–725

    Google Scholar 

  • Grisel F (2017) Treaty-making between public authority and private interests: the genealogy of the convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Eur J Int Law 28(1):73–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschman A (1970) Exit, voice, and loyalty: responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Katselas A (2015) Exit, voice, and loyalty in investment treaty arbitration. In: Lalani S, Lazo R (eds) The role of the state in investor-state arbitration. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, pp 211–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy D (2007) One, two, three. Many legal orders: legal pluralism and the cosmopolitan dream. N Y Univ Rev Law Soc Change 31(3):641–659

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr T (2015) The relationship between the Strasbourg court and the national courts - as seen from the UK Supreme Court. In: Ziegler K, Wicks E, Hodson L (eds) The UK and European human rights: a strained relationship? Bloomsbury, London, pp 31–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Kidane W (2017) The culture of international arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Krisch N (2008) The open architecture of European human rights law. Mod Law Rev 71(2):183–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krisch N (2012) Beyond constitutionalism: the pluralist structure of postnational law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauterpacht H (1949) The proposed European court of human rights. Trans Grotius Soc 35:25–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D (2016) The interpretation and uniformity of the UNCITRAL model law on international commercial arbitration: focusing on Australia, Hong Kong and Singapore. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch K (2003) The forces of economic globalization: challenges to the regime of international commercial arbitration. Kluwer Arbitration, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Mestral A, Morgan R (2017) Does Canadian law provide remedies equivalent to NAFTA chapter 11 arbitration? In: Mestral A (ed) Second thoughts: investor state arbitration between developed democracies. McGill-Queen’s Press, Montreal, pp 155–186

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Miles K (2013) The origins of international investment law. Empire, environment and the safeguard of capital. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Onyema E (2018) The role of African courts and judges in arbitration. In: Onyema E (ed) Rethinking the role of African national courts. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 1–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasquet L (2017) Dialogue or interaction? A non-cosmopolitan reading of transjudicial communication. In: Müller A, Kjos H (eds) Judicial dialogue and human rights. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 467–504

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulsson J (2008) Awards set aside at the place of arbitration in enforcing arbitration awards under the New York Convention experience and prospects. In: Enforcing arbitration awards under the New York Convention experience and prospects. United Nations, New York, pp 24–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Pohl J (2018) Intra-EU investment arbitration after the Achmea case: legal autonomy bounded by mutual trust. Eur Const Law Rev 14(4):767–791

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders P (1999) The making of the convention in enforcing arbitration awards under the New York Convention. United Nations, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Schill S (2015) Conceptions of legitimacy of international arbitration. In: Caron D (ed) Practising virtue: inside international arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 106–127

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schreuer C (2012) Interaction of international tribunals and domestic courts in investment law. In: Rovine A (ed) International arbitration and mediation: the fordham papers (2011). Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, pp 71–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter AM (2000) Judicial globalization. Virginia J Int Law 40

    Google Scholar 

  • Sossin L, Flood C (2007) The contextual turn: Iacobucci’s legacy and the standard of review. Univ Tor Law J 57(2):581–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker T (2018) Judge knot: politics and development in international investment law. Anthem Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Van Den Berg A (2014) Should the setting aside of the arbitral award be abolished? ICSID Rev 29(2):263–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welsh N, Schneider A, Rimpfel K (2014) Using the theories of exit, voice, loyalty, and procedural justice to reconceptualize Brazil’s rejection of bilateral investment treaties. Wash Univ J Law Policy 45(1):105–143

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Carleton University, Department of Law and Legal Studies, Ottawa, ON, Canada

    Ksenia Polonskaya

Authors
  1. Ksenia Polonskaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ksenia Polonskaya .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

    Anastasios Gourgourinis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Polonskaya, K. (2021). Domestic Courts as Transnational Actors in International Investment Law: A Canadian Perspective. In: Gourgourinis, A. (eds) Transnational Actors in International Investment Law. European Yearbook of International Economic Law(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60679-4_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60679-4_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-60678-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-60679-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation