Sovereign Choices and Sovereign Constraints: Judicial Restraint in Investment Treaty Arbitration
OUP Oxford, 3 okt. 2013 - 224 pagina's
Investment arbitrators rely on sovereignty for their legal status just as investor-state disputes usually stem from disagreements about the role of the state in society. As a result, investment arbitration is a vehicle for the exercise of sovereign authority and a site for contesting sovereign choices. This book investigates and evaluates the decision-making record and policy trajectory of international investment arbitration, from theoretical, doctrinal, and empirical perspectives. It analyses the extent to which the system used to resolve disputes impacts on the role of government, affecting diverse constituencies, as opposed to limiting itself to case-specific disputes between a single business enterprise and state entity. The book provides a comprehensive review of known awards in order to determine the types of government measures that have triggered disputes. It investigates how investment arbitrators have exercised their authority in recent case law. It provides a review of the approaches adopted in the reasoning of investment treaty tribunals on questions of judicial deference and respect for sovereign decision-makers. In doing so, it determines whether investment tribunals have taken a predominantly assertive approach to investor protection, without regard to their relative lack of accountability, capacity, or proximity in some cases. This approach does not sit comfortably with the relative restraint seen by domestic and international courts in similar contexts. The book argues that the unique characteristics of investment treaty arbitration make the experience of domestic judicial review more pertinent to international investment arbitration than to any other contexts for international adjudication. However, it argues that mediating devices in some form should be incorporated into the process in order to solve the tension between the extensive scope and potency of international investment arbitration as an important site of global governance, and the challenges of the review function in reviewing decisions which have strong claims to having comprehensive regulatory expertise, inclusive decision-making, electoral or other public accountability, or greater proximity to the underlying facts and context. Online Appendices
Wat mensen zeggen - Een review schrijven
We hebben geen reviews gevonden op de gebruikelijke plaatsen.
Overige edities - Alles weergeven
13 November abstention Administrative Law Annulment decision Arb Mat Argentina Award Argentine Republic Award August Azurix Canada Award Canfor clause context Continental Casualty contract contract-based forum Corpn Czech Republic Award December decision-making deference DFAIT discretion domestic courts Ecuador Ecuador Award Enron Enron v Argentina equitable treatment Eureko European Court example expropriation fair and equitable Forum Non Conveniens Glamis Gold Human Rights ICSID ICSID Rep in-built restraint Int’l International Investment Law investment treaty arbitration investor-state arbitration involved ITA Law Judicial Restraint judicial review June jurisdiction legislative LG&E March margin of appreciation measures Metalclad Methanex Mexico Award NAFTA November October paras Presumption of Constitutionality Public Law Oxford remedies restraint based role Romania Russia Award separate opinion September 2007 show restraint Standards of Review Trade and Arb treaty claim treaty standard tribunal’s turned up excerpts Ukraine Ukraine Award UNCITRAL UNCITRAL Rules United Mexican Vivendi v Argentina World Trade