Search

This article explores the role of domestic law in international adjudication, specifically in international investment arbitration. It argues that domestic law has been overlooked in international legal scholarship, but international adjudicators recognize its significance and actively shape its content. The article suggests that domestic law should be treated as law in international courts and tribunals, rather than as a mere fact. It presents three articles that examine different aspects of the role of domestic law in specific international courts and tribunals, highlighting its importance in filling gaps, aiding interpretation, and correcting applicable law. The article concludes by proposing further research on the relationship between domestic and international law in international adjudication. [Extracted from the article]

Over the past thirty years, arbitral tribunals tasked with determining their jurisdiction to adjudicate domestic law in investment disputes have frequently relied on one or a combination of two conventional approaches. The first approach interprets jurisdiction and applicable law provisions as serving separate functions and operating independently. The second approach contends that domestic law applies as a fact. However, these two approaches fall short in encompassing the distinct ways in which domestic law can apply in an investment dispute. This application of domestic law is contingent on the stipulations found within a jurisdiction provision – often referred to as the "arbitration agreement" – and the jurisdictional provisions that delineate a tribunal's personal, material, and temporal scope of jurisdiction. To comprehensively elucidate how domestic law operates in investment arbitration, this article outlines the sources of a tribunal's jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim and an incidental question grounded in domestic law. Firstly, the narrow or broad scope of a jurisdiction provision within an international investment agreement, domestic investment law, or investment contract determines whether a tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear a claim grounded in domestic law, pursuant to the severability doctrine. Secondly, the direct reference or lacuna in a jurisdictional provision determines whether a tribunal possesses jurisdiction to hear an incidental question grounded in domestic law, as a necessary and ancillary legal issue that a tribunal must preliminarily address to resolve the relevant claim, pursuant to the lex specialis principle. Given these considerations, tribunals and treaty drafters should not rely on the two conventional approaches, but should consider any stipulation within a jurisdiction provision and jurisdictional provisions concerning the application of domestic law as the legal foundation of a claim and an incidental question. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public interest litigation before the ICJ raises a host of important procedural questions, including not only standing, but also the specific requirements for the indication of provisional measures, issues of transparency and participation, and the process by which requests for advisory opinions reach the Court. But the other pending genocide case - I The Gambia v. Myanmar i - may be most revealing of the Court's contemporary stance on intervention in public interest cases. The International Court of Justice (ICJ or Court) has unmistakably opened its doors to public interest litigation, a term referring to litigation for the purpose of vindicating interests that are shared by the international community. [Extracted from the article]

This article focuses on human rights arguments raised in investment arbitration, and examines their role in the adjudication of investment disputes. It is indicated that the rejection of human rights arguments is not necessarily based on the inapplicability of human rights claims to the investment arbitration process. As shown in several cases, arbitral tribunals refused to accept human rights arguments, mainly because the parties to the dispute failed to demonstrate any relevance or impact of their claim on the investment at stake. Still, no solid legal reasoning can be noticed when tribunals rejected the relevance of human rights. Nevertheless, even if the current legal framework does not favour further involvement of human rights-based claims, we observe several developments in the treaty making practices. Such practices seek to "harmonize" human rights concerns with the international investment regime by introducing corporate social responsibility (CSR) standards or by including specific provisions relating to human rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Claims for compensation of material damages in investment arbitration are well known – they are part of every dispute. Tribunals deal extensively with such claims and do not accord much attention to another type of damages: moral damages. Until today, no uniform solution has been found. There seems to be stark disagreement between arbitral tribunals on how to deal with a claim for moral damages. This article sheds light on moral damages and proposes a possible solution under international law. To this end, it introduces the concept of moral damages and its history in international disputes. After having set out such general overview, it then applies the concept to investment arbitration by analysing five issues arbitral tribunals have been faced with when confronted by a claim for moral damages. Finally, it comments on the most prominent awards and provides an outlook for a possible solution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International courts and tribunals only enjoy jurisdiction to settle a 'dispute'. 'Dispute' requires disagreement. However, what if the parties disagree over whether there actually exists such disagreement? What if, before the International Court of Justice, the respondent argues that there is no 'dispute' because it declined to react to the applicant's contentions? In other words, can a disputing party avoid a dispute by playing dead? On the other hand, where does one draw the line in order to prevent the applicant from seizing an international court or tribunal where there is in fact no real disagreement between the parties? This article critically assesses the Court's case law on the 'dispute' requirement and argues for a fragmented approach to 'dispute' in international adjudication that carefully defines this jurisdictional requirement along the lines of the judicial function of the respective international judicial dispute settlement forum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the future viability of WTO dispute settlement being uncertain, states may be required to rely on the dispute settlement mechanisms of their FTAs to provide a forum for litigating international trade disputes. Given however that these mechanisms have historically been inefficient and ineffective, it would be judicious for states to consider delegating the administrative functions of FTA dispute settlement to a third-party arbitral institution in order to remedy these deficiencies. This article analyzes both the factors impelling states to consider contracting out the administrative function of FTA dispute settlement, as well as the potential benefits states can reap by pursuing this strategy. Assessing the strengths and potential drawbacks of delegating FTA dispute settlement administration to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in particular, this article argues that the PCA is well positioned to undertake effective and efficient administration of FTA trade disputes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the greatest challenges facing international courts and tribunals today is a State's decision not to participate in a proceeding. Ever since China refused to take part in the South China Sea arbitration in 2013, there have been no fewer than nine additional inter-State cases of non-participation. The existing literature views this growing phenomenon as a problem. This article, however, takes the perspective of the non-participating State, and thus views non-participation as a strategy. After examining the law and practice of non-participation, the article discusses a series of strategic considerations that States should take into account when deciding whether to participate in a proceeding. In doing so, the article hopes not only to advise States considering non-participation, but also to help others understand the reasons behind a State's decision of non-participation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding the "backlash" it is facing is a necessary condition for a successful reform of international investment law and arbitration. The article develops a typology of backlash in international investment law and arbitration, identifying three main tensions in the field: contractualism vs. unilateralism; economic rationality vs. political rationality; flat world view vs. diverse world view. The article claims that the reform discussion, including at the UNCITRAL level, should be informed by this backlash typology. Two main lessons may be learned, one at the methodological level and one at the substantive level: first, the reform discussion needs to be informed by the study of systems of domestic investment law and policy; second, the reform discussion needs to move beyond its Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) confines and also include reform of the substantive law and administrative procedures of States and of international treaties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The multilateral expression of the desire to reform investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) at the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) obscures the diverging preferences states have in respect of which future dispute settlement model to adopt. In order to garner broad acceptability, this article proposes that the reformed system could be designed as "dispute settlement à la carte", with a Multilateral Investment Court coexisting with other forms of dispute resolution under the umbrella of one multilateral institution. With a view to showing that such a system is feasible, this article draws on comparative institutional design analysis, that is, a comparative assessment of dispute settlement design features across different international dispute settlement systems. This approach helps to explore what institutional design features are a useful source of inspiration for a future investment dispute settlement system that preserves flexibility for states in the choice of their preferred means of adjudication, while safeguarding legal certainty and promoting coherence in investment dispute settlement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For over a decade, investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) has suffered a so-called legitimacy crisis.[1] Critics have argued that ISDS is pro-investor, biased against developing countries, beset by incoherent jurisprudence and plagued by a lack of transparency and excessive costs and compensation.[2] While the system has its defenders,[3]ISDS continues to attract controversy.[4] Nine out of ten of the over 2,600 international investment agreements[5] permit arbitral claims by foreign investors against states, and the number of cases has surged to well over one thousand with a significant number challenging directly the regulatory powers of states. Thus, states and scholars have also begun to identify how a single reform package might encompass all of the proposed reforms, a so-called Multilateral Convention on Procedural Reform, that would permit states to opt-in for their preferred options and accept bilateral obligations concerning investment disputes when their choices are matched by other states.[27] A minority of states, with South Africa and Brazil being the most visible, would accept models that may only allow access to some form of arbitration after the exhaustion of local remedies, or a form of arbitration that removes any direct right of action by investors to initiate claims, such as a system of state espousal under a state-state dispute settlement mechanism. Some scholars are engaged as experts on state, civil society, practitioner and investor delegations to UNCITRAL WGIII and some also act as arbitrators, counsel and state advisors in ISDS. [Extracted from the article]

Understanding the "backlash" it is facing is a necessary condition for a successful reform of international investment law and arbitration. The article develops a typology of backlash in international investment law and arbitration, identifying three main tensions in the field: contractualism vs. unilateralism; economic rationality vs. political rationality; flat world view vs. diverse world view. The article claims that the reform discussion, including at the UNCITRAL level, should be informed by this backlash typology. Two main lessons may be learned, one at the methodological level and one at the substantive level: first, the reform discussion needs to be informed by the study of systems of domestic investment law and policy; second, the reform discussion needs to move beyond its Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) confines and also include reform of the substantive law and administrative procedures of States and of international treaties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article deals with the ethical implications of arbitrator resignations. When an arbitrator resigns it can severely disrupt proceedings. Arbitrators have a positive duty to complete the mandate for which they have been appointed, and a corollary duty not to resign without justification. This article considers steps that can be taken at the outset of proceedings to minimise the likelihood of resignation. It then discusses ethical dilemmas associated with five common circumstances that can arise during the course of arbitral proceedings which might justify resignation. The article then recalls rare but disturbing instances when a resignation itself may be ethically dubious and sets out measures available to discourage such conduct. Ethical issues connected with resignation have traditionally been given less prominence than discussion of conflicts and challenges, but should not be overlooked in any new endeavors aimed at developing a code of conduct for international arbitration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the peculiarities and points of criticism of the execution of investment arbitral awards. It specifically addresses the potential obstacles to the execution of investment arbitral awards based on recent case law. First, the article focuses on the differences existing between the phases of enforcement and execution of investment arbitral awards, with special regard to the procedural frameworks of investment arbitration that are most commonly utilized. Secondly, the issue of the interrelation between these two phases is addressed in the light of national case law, given that enforcement of an arbitral award has a preliminary function for the purpose of its actual execution, in addition to representing an obstacle to the latter. Before focusing on the legal defenses to forcible execution that can undermine the entire efficacy of an arbitral award, the article explores those defenses raised to avoid an award's enforcement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of obligations erga omnes partes can be regarded as one of the key elements in the protection of common interests in international law. A particular issue that arises in this context is whether not directly injured States are entitled to institute proceedings against a State responsible for the breach of obligations erga omnes partes enshrined in a multilateral treaty. Two recent cases, i.e. the Whaling in the Antarctic and South China Sea cases, provide an interesting insight into this issue. Thus, this article seeks to examine issues of the locus standi of not directly injured States in response to a breach of obligations erga omnes partes by analysing the Whaling in the Antarctic and South China Sea cases. In so doing, this article considers the role of an international court or tribunal in effectuating obligations erga omnes partes and its limitations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In international arbitration, treaty standards, such as fair and equitable treatment (FET), general procedural norms, such as due process, and excuses for suspension of performance, such as the exceptio defense, draw on general principles of international law to clarify their interpretation and application. This article will (1) show what general principles of international law are, how they form and how they are distinct from general principles in domestic, public and private law systems; (2) illustrate their role with specific attention to their unique application in different international law contexts; (3) use the examples of FET, procedural norms and suspension of performance to show how general principles of international law are used in international arbitration; (4) warn against their inattentive, sloppy or haphazard use and application; and (5) ultimately highlight the benefits of incorporating general principles in international arbitration while proposing a precise methodology for their use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The problem with regard to the excess of power doctrine, one of the most controversial issues in the procedure of international courts and tribunals, was invoked in certain recent cases, such as the Bosnian Genocide case and the South China Sea case. To solve this problem, it is necessary to examine two relevant legal notions: the principle of competence-competence; and the principle of res judicata. First, the principle of competence-competence has been regarded as a relative power of arbitral tribunals in the sense that it is limited by the application of the rules of treaty interpretation. This means that there are possibilities, in the substantive sense, of an excess of power even when the principle of competence-competence is applied. Second, the international jurisprudence has shown that the force of res judicata can be excluded by a post-award agreement of the parties. Thus, it is possible, substantively and procedurally, to examine the possibility of an alleged excess of power having been committed by an arbitral tribunal and this understanding has been accepted by the ICJ in its jurisprudence. On the contrary, the ICJ has denied the possibility of an excess of power by itself, on the basis of the absolute power of competence-competence and the principle of res judicata. Here, several problems remain unsettled with regard to the difference between the possibility of an excess of power by ad hoc arbitral tribunals and the possibility of an excess of power by the ICJ. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ICSID arbitration is witnessing a debate over the competing spheres of application between host State and international law: Under the second sentence of Article 42(1) of the ICSID Convention (and under similarly worded applicable law provisions contained in investment contracts or bilateral investment treaties), arbitral tribunals possess large discretionary powers over the decision of which law to apply to which aspect of a dispute. However, the recent partial annulment of the Mobil v. Venezuela award, on the basis of the original tribunal’s manifest failure to apply domestic law to certain aspects of the case, redefines the contours of this discretion by requiring the application of domestic law to proprietary determinations of investments. This article reviews the different approaches to the dichotomy between domestic and international law and the tribunals’ discretionary powers in this respect, and analyzes the limits imposed in the field of property determinations by the case law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although dissents are not generally encouraged in international arbitration, they are a reality of investment treaty disputes. About one in five cases includes at least one separate or dissenting opinion. The ICSID Convention is rare among investment arbitration rules to expressly recognise the right of the arbitrator to attach his or her personal opinion to the award. Other investment arbitration rules are silent on the topic. And yet dissenting opinions are an established feature of several international courts and tribunals and their role is often viewed more benevolently than in investment arbitration. The article explores the perceived advantages and disadvantages of dissents as identified in different legal settings, including in public international courts and municipal legal systems, and critically applies them to investment arbitration. Normatively, it expects that dissents function in a broadly similar manner in investment arbitration and in other public international courts and tribunals. But it also recognises that this is nuanced by particularities of context and notably the terms of appointment of the adjudicator. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the sources, nature, and implications of an arbitrator’s duty to decide according to the governing law in investor-state arbitrations. It advances a contractarian conception of arbitral authority in investor-state arbitration, whereby the agreement of the states parties to the investment treaty is the source of both the arbitrator’s power to make decisions and the primary constraint on that power: the duty to apply the law. It argues that the choice of law provisions in investment treaties have a constitutional character for arbitral tribunals, such that a failure to apply the chosen law constitutes an excess of the tribunal’s powers which, if manifest, justifies annulment or non-enforcement of the award. The article concludes by considering the implications of this contractarian theory of arbitral powers and duties for arbitrators, disputing parties, and states seeking to reassert control over the investor-state dispute settlement system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since 2015, the European Commission (EC) has been advocating the establishment of an investment court system (ICS). A key aspect of the proposal is the creation of the strictest ethical standards ever seen in the field of investor-state arbitration. The exercise of functions as an arbitrator does not traditionally require exclusivity, and many lawyers offer their services in the market in other capacities. This situation is described as the “double hat” phenomenon and is seen as one of the most frequent moral hazards in investment arbitration. Both the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) and the Commission’s investment chapter proposal for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) prohibit adjudicators from acting as legal counsel in other investment dispute cases. This article discusses the potential advantages and drawbacks of the EC’s approach to the “multiple hat” problem and their potential impact on the investment arbitration system as a whole. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reviews two critical “tipping point” moments in the evolution of international economic law, so-called given the overwhelming response by the international economic law community in each instance suggesting that the moment ought not be repeated as it called into question foundational tenets of the dispute resolution system. In each instance, an adjudicator was dismissed on the basis of his past decision-making, bringing into sharper focus questions about the mandate of the adjudicator and the checks and balances in relation to the adjudicatory role. This article surveys the availability of ethical or other doctrines to guide arbitrators in this respect and calls for change in the interest of preserving the legitimacy of the international economic law adjudicatory systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As exemplified by the three ICSID cases brought by Italian bondholders against Argentina, arbitral tribunals have tended to interpret broadly the term 'investment' in applicable BITs. However, the tribunal in Poštová banka v. Greece came to the opposite conclusion: the series of Greek sovereign bonds in question did not constitute a protected 'investment'. Although the tribunal carefully scrutinized the specificity in phrasing in the applicable BITs so as to justify its divergent conclusion, some commentators still find inconsistencies with previous jurisprudence. This article examines the interpretative approach taken by the Poštová tribunal and compares it to previous jurisprudence involving disputes over Argentine sovereign bonds, by employing the concept of a two-level judicial dialogue: dialogue on treaty languages and dialogue on an interpretative assumption. It will explain both the apparent consistency between the two lines of jurisprudence as well as the divergence in their interpretative approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Questions concerning res judicata and Lis pendens in investment arbitration proceedings remain a subject of academic discussions, particularly with regard to the application of the "triple identity test". The necessity of a more coherent approach to the matter is a pressing issue amidst the criticisms of the investor-state arbitration system as a whole. Finding viable solutions to prevent multiple/parallel proceedings and contradicting decisions is crucial in further strengthening the rule of law in investment arbitration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The South China Sea dispute between the Philippines and China can be viewed as a mixed dispute that involves both territorial and maritime issues. In this regard, an issue arises concerning whether an Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea can adjudicate a mixed dispute. The Philippines/China arbitral award of 29 October 2015, along with the 2015 Mauritius/United Kingdom arbitration, sheds some light on this issue. Furthermore, with regard to Article 281 of the Convention, the Tribunal in the Philippines/China arbitration adopted an interpretation that is different from the interpretation adopted by the Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal in the 2000 Southern Bluefin Tuna arbitration. The Philippines/China arbitral award provides important insight into the interpretation of Article 281. In addition, the Tribunal's treatment of China's informal communications merits particular attention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article considers a recent case which illustrates overlapping and competing jurisdictions and resulted in multiple international dispute settlement proceedings. Topics covered include the potential application of jurisdiction-regulating principles in international adjudication, background to the Yukos affair and the multiple proceedings before international courts and tribunals, and the relationship between investment treaty tribunals and human rights courts.

The article discusses the risks of parallel jurisdiction between different courts for the very same dispute. Topics covered include the issue of jurisdiction in the arbitration between the Philippines and China in their United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) dispute, how international courts and tribunals ascertain their jurisdiction, and the element of jurisdiction ratione materiae.

Through the study of the Court's case law on dispute settlement, this article examines whether investor-State dispute resolution is compatible with eu law at all and, if so, under which conditions. It analyses the relevant Opinions delivered by the Court of Justice regarding external dispute settlement mechanisms and the autonomy of the eu legal order. The author then assesses the compatibility of investor-State dispute resolution within the system of legal protection guaranteed by the CJEU. It finally presents ways forward aiming at preserving the autonomy of the eu legal order. The author concludes that no realistic or viable propositions can be detected on the horizon. Therefore, as long as no veritable mechanism is found to render investor-State dispute resolution in line with the CJEU's jurisprudence, the insertion of an isds mechanism in those international agreements seems to be an ill-considered decision on the part of the European Commission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study deals with the question of whether Latin American states turned towards adjudication and away from arbitration at the beginning of the 20th century. Little has been researched concerning the reasons why Latin American states had a friendly attitude towards this instrument to settle international disputes. This article shall endeavour to find out more about why this was the case. The research focuses on an analysis of the conduct of Latin American countries at the Second Hague Peace Conference and at the Washington Conference (both in 1907). Ensuing developments are taken into consideration as well in order to arrive at the following conclusion: Although the idea of international adjudication was very well received by the Latin American states, and although they were the first to introduce a regional international court of law, they did not turn away from arbitration but continued to use it - in particular in inter-American relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of the ICSID case law review is to present and discuss all awards, decisions and orders published by ICSID arbitral tribunals during a given period of time. This ICSID case law review covers a selection of awards, decisions and orders published during the second, third and fourth trimester of 2012 with the analysis of a total of six awards, eleven decisions and one order. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article seeks to analyse the revocation and modification of provisional measures, as indicated by the International Court of justice, in light of the Court's recent order in the joint proceedings of Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area and the case concerning Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River. The request presented before the Court, by both parties, constitutes the first instance in which a request of this type has ever been submitted. Consequently, the order rendered by the Court, with regard to the procedural and substantive aspects concerning the indication of provisional measures, contains some points that are open to further analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In January 2013 the Philippines invoked the dispute settlement system under UNCLOS in order to resolve its long-standing dispute with the People's Republic of China over the South China Sea and more specifically concerning Scarborough Shoal and the Spratly Islands. The arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII UNCLOS, without the PRC taking part in the proceedings as of yet, faces a challenging task in deciding whether or not it has jurisdiction over the case submitted by the Philippines. This article therefore examines the dispute settlement system of UNCLOS with regard to the jurisdiction of the tribunal in the pending Philippines - PRC South China Sea dispute. While at first glance UNCLOS appears to provide for a comprehensive system of compulsory jurisdiction, a number of exceptions, either applicable ipso facto or by virtue of unilateral declarations made at the time of signature or ratification of UNCLOS, leave only a thin layer of jurisdictional grounds, if any at all, for the arbitral tribunal to deal with and eventually decide the South China Sea dispute between the Philippines and the PRC. This implies that the arbitral tribunal is facing intriguing legal questions in this highly political procedure, the relevance of which extends far beyond the case at hand. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The legal standard on amicus curiae participation in international investment arbitration has been forged by the judicial development of legal rules and, in parallel, the modification of normative sources, such as the ICSID Arbitration Rules. Current and future decisions by arbitral tribunals on the participation of amicus curiae in a given dispute must abide by this consolidated standard. In June 2012, the arbitral tribunal in Joint ICSID Cases No. ARB/10/15 and No. ARB/10/25 released a procedural order, rejecting an amicus petition. This Order contains various deviations from the applicable legal standard and severely restricts the options for amicus participation. The recent attempt to strengthen the legitimacy of international investment arbitration by allowing for greater amicus participation and the acknowledgement of the interdependence of investment law and other areas of international law is thereby put in peril. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on several court cases of international court of justice. It is stated that two contentious cases ended recently because the Court upheld the preliminary objections that was made by the Respondent and found lack of jurisdiction. Several cases were discussed including Georgia v. Russia, Italy v. Germany, and Belgium v. Switzerland.

Rule 41(5) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules essentially provides that an ICSID tribunal may dismiss a proceeding summarily if the respondent files an objection within 30 days of the constitution of the tribunal that the claim is 'manifestly without legal merit'. In the five years since the introduction of the Rule in April 2006, four ICSID tribunals have considered the provision, with two decisions being handed down in December 2010. In this article, the authors describe the cases decided by these tribunals, and examine the way in which they have interpreted and applied Rule 41(5). The authors' analysis highlights the large measure of consistency in the way that ICSID tribunals are handling objections under this provision, and sets out a useful and timely guide to counsel and arbitrators on the use of this procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In August 2010 the ILA Study Group on the Practice and Procedure of International Tribunals presented the 'Hague Principles on Ethical Standards for Counsel Appearing before International Courts and Tribunals'. Although these Principles are not intended as a comprehensive code, they represent a first step towards minimum and common ethical standards and principles for counsel and other representatives of parties before international courts and tribunals. The principals are intended to stimulate debate in the wider international community and contribute to future developments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On August 17, 2009, the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission issued its Final Awards on the claims of the two sides for injury and loss suffered during their 1998-2000 conflict. These Awards dealt with a number of important issues concerning the responsibility of states in armed conflict and the method by which the resulting damages are to be evaluated and compensated. This article reviews the main elements of these Awards and compares them to the results of other international claims processes in modern armed conflicts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

New Practice Directions III, VI and XIII, deal with the written pleadings and the oral pleadings and the relations between the two. This Note examines these new Practice Directions in light of relevant provisions of the Statute and the Rules of Court and suggests that the Court exercise its powers to give the parties suggestions regarding the content of the written pleadings in regular interlocutory stages. This is to meet the Court's desire to maintain succinctness of the written pleadings without prejudice to their adequacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been much discussion recently, both in academic and practitioner circles, about inconsistency in international arbitration. The debate has concentrated on specific topics such as contradictory arbitral awards, the precedential value of arbitral awards, the creation of an appeal system, or the need for increased transparency. The present study argues that such debate has overlooked the fact that some, and perhaps most, of the perceived problems are a reflection of the underlying values that make international arbitration appealing to international economic actors. Specifically, the authors argue that instead of concentrating on far-reaching reforms, commentators should focus on refining currently existing techniques to deal with conflicting decisions in international arbitration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the difficulties inherent to enforcing ICC awards and other commercial awards against sub-Saharan African States or parties, as well as the difficulties of bringing claims and enforcing ICSID (or other treaty-based awards) against sub-Saharan African States in the context of investor/State disputes. It concludes by summarizing potential means for sub-Saharan African States to improve their international arbitration regimes and the enforcement of international arbitral awards in the region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the arguments over the independence and impartiality of international arbitrators. The proliferation of investment treaty disputes has been affected by the landscape of international arbitration. The investment arbitrators have the responsibility an award given the political and economic implications.

The article focuses on the procedural issues of international law as well as the courts and tribunals to be considered. It discusses the problem of provisional measures or interim measures of protection. It addresses the jurisdictional question, including the competence ratione materiae, personae, loci and temporis of international courts and tribunals.

The article focuses on the arguments over the growth in the number of the international courts. The proliferation of international courts and the judicialisation of the international community are essential given the changes in international relations. The categorization of the different types of international courts is needed in order to pin-point the issues effectively.

The article reports on developments related to the International Court of Justice as of April 2007. Philippe Couvreur was reelected registrar of the court. The Court considered a new request on indication of provisionary measures in the case concerning pulp mills on the River Uruguay. The Court scheduled hearings on the cases ready for oral argument.

In the context of investment arbitration, amici curiae have for a long time been quite unheard of. This can easily be explained by the privacy of international arbitration, which implies that only directly involved parties can participate in the proceedings. Several recent decisions have, however, brought renewed attention to the issue of amici curiae intervention in investment arbitration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Without a doubt, the Court has demonstrated its ability to have the rapidity required in certain circumstances; but this is simply more discouraging for the States that have not been able to benefit from the same exceptions. They have the impression that the case that they have submitted to the Court has not been considered as urgent or important. Indeed, not all cases reflect the same degree of urgency; but, for the Parties, the cases they submit are always, or almost always, essential and represent situations where sovereignty is at stake a factor which the Judges perhaps are not always wary of. The author describes some procedural weaknesses of the I.C.J but concludes that they do not detract from the strength of the role of Justice on the international plane. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International arbitration relating to investments is a field in which important and rapid developments have taken place. Such developments have produced a noteworthy reinforcement of the procedural and substantive rights and positions of foreign investors vis-á-vis host States. Among the various items characterizing these new developments, two have been selected to be examined in this Article: (I) The compliance with international law by arbitral awards and their rationale; (II) The new form of arbitration which is apparently developing, the unilateral arbitration or arbitration without privity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]