SpringerLink
Log in

Adaptability of Investor-State Arbitration

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Rethinking Investor-State Arbitration

Part of the book series: Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation ((SEELR,volume 27))

  • 190 Accesses

Abstract

This Chapter focuses on the main reason for the widespread success of investment arbitration beyond neutrality: its adaptability. It discusses the active role of the disputing parties in determining the procedure, and the capacity of investment arbitration to adapt to technological progress, and tackle the social distancing measures taken against the Covid-19 pandemic. Moreover, this Chapter reflects on the flexibility of investment arbitration to respond to cultural changes and practically implement ethical considerations by increasing diversity in the appointment of arbitrators in terms of geographical origin, gender representation, and background in civil law or common law. It investigates the evolution of the case-law that increasingly demonstrates openness to human rights and corporate social responsibility. Finally, it emphasises the general role of international trade and investment in building and maintaining international ‘commercial peace’, and examines the adaptability of investor-State arbitration in response to geopolitical challenges such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Yiannibas (2018), p. 216.

  2. 2.

    Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v Solar Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 633 (1985).

  3. 3.

    Malanczuk (1997), p. 273.

  4. 4.

    This is provided for, for instance, by Article 18 of the ICC Arbitration Rules 2021.

  5. 5.

    For instance, Article 19 of the provides that “where the [ICC Arbitration Rules] are silent, the proceedings before the arbitral tribunal shall be governed (…) by any rules which the parties may settle on” ICC Arbitration Rules 2021.

  6. 6.

    This is provided for, for instance, by Article 20 of the ICC Arbitration Rules 2021.

  7. 7.

    This is provided for, for instance, by Article 20 of the ICC Arbitration Rules 2021.

  8. 8.

    Petrochilos (2004), para. 8.4.1.

  9. 9.

    Austrian ZPO, §594(1).

  10. 10.

    Belgian Judicial Code, Art. 1700(1).

  11. 11.

    UK Arbitration Act, 1996, §§1(b), 33, 34 (“parties should be free to agree how their disputes are resolved, subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the public interest”).

  12. 12.

    German ZPO, §1042(3).

  13. 13.

    Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance, 2013, §47(1).

  14. 14.

    Japanese Arbitration Law, Art. 26(1).

  15. 15.

    Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Art. 19(2).

  16. 16.

    Russian Arbitration Law, Art. 19(1).

  17. 17.

    Singapore International Arbitration Act, 2012, Schedule 1, Art. 19(1).

  18. 18.

    Waincymer (2012).

  19. 19.

    Malouche (1996), pp. 1, 7.

  20. 20.

    European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration, 1961, Art. IV(4)(d).

  21. 21.

    In the absence of agreement by the parties Articles V(1)(b) and V(1)(d) of the New York Convention provide grounds for non-recognition of an award that presuppose the tribunal’s power to determine arbitral procedures. New York Convention, Arts. V(1)(b), (d).

  22. 22.

    Swiss Law on Private International Law, Art. 182(2).

  23. 23.

    U.S. FAA, 9 U.S.C. §§2, 4; §1.04[B][1][e][ii].

  24. 24.

    UK Arbitration Act, 1996, §§1, 34(1).

  25. 25.

    2010 UNCITRAL Rules, Art. 1(1).

  26. 26.

    2020 LCIA Rules, Arts. 14, 16, 17.

  27. 27.

    2021 ICDR Rules, Arts. 19, 20, 22, 24.

  28. 28.

    2018 HKIAC Rules, Art. 13.

  29. 29.

    2017 SIAC Investment Rules, Arts. 16, 17, 18, 19.

  30. 30.

    2018 VIAC Rules, Arts. 28, 29, 30.

  31. 31.

    2017 SCC Arbitration Rules, Art. 23.

  32. 32.

    Piers and Aschauer (2018), p. 2.

  33. 33.

    Abdel Wahab and Katsh (2018), p. 28.

  34. 34.

    Abdel Wahab and Katsh (2018), p. 28.

  35. 35.

    Abdel Wahab and Katsh (2018), p. 29.

  36. 36.

    Abdel Wahab and Katsh (2018), p. 31.

  37. 37.

    Abdel Wahab and Katsh (2018), p. 33.

  38. 38.

    Abdel Wahab and Katsh (2018), p. 34.

  39. 39.

    Honey and Gare (2020).

  40. 40.

    Honey and Gare (2020).

  41. 41.

    Van Hooft and Kross-Lastochkina (2018), p. 124.

  42. 42.

    Scherer (2020).

  43. 43.

    Scherer (2020).

  44. 44.

    Piers and Aschauer (2018), p. 22.

  45. 45.

    Piers and Aschauer (2018), p. 18.

  46. 46.

    Piers and Aschauer (2018), p. 19.

  47. 47.

    Piers and Aschauer (2018), p. 19.

  48. 48.

    Honey and Gare (2020).

  49. 49.

    Piers and Aschauer (2018), p. 20.

  50. 50.

    Piers and Aschauer (2018), p. 22.

  51. 51.

    Piers and Aschauer (2018), p. 22.

  52. 52.

    Piers and Aschauer (2018), p. 22.

  53. 53.

    Piers and Aschauer (2018), p. 18.

  54. 54.

    WHO. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) situation report–54. March 14, 2020.

  55. 55.

    Flaxman et al. (2020).

  56. 56.

    European Commission, Joint European Roadmap towards lifting COVID-19 containment measures 2020/C 126/01.

  57. 57.

    Dean et al. (2020); Druon et al. (2020); Tertrais (2020).

  58. 58.

    See Pathirana (2020); Velàsquez-Ruiz (2020).

  59. 59.

    See Hailes (2020); Paddeu and Jephcott (2020); Paddeu and Parlett (2020).

  60. 60.

    See Paparinskis (2020); van der Marel and Guinea (2020); Deloitte (2020); Lacey (2020); Kituyi (2020).

  61. 61.

    See generally Petersmann (2021); Seif (2021).

  62. 62.

    See Marisi (2020).

  63. 63.

    See generally Chaisse and Polo (2015); Qian (2020); Qian (2018).

  64. 64.

    See generally Sheargold and Mitchell (2021); Chaisse (2013); Garcia Olmedo (2012).

  65. 65.

    Ji (2019).

  66. 66.

    See generally Morris (2012); Foty (2019); Blanke (2018).

  67. 67.

    Chaisse (2020).

  68. 68.

    Abdel Wahab and Katsh (2018), p. 32.

  69. 69.

    Abdel Wahab and Katsh (2018), p. 32.

  70. 70.

    Abdel Wahab and Katsh (2018), p. 33.

  71. 71.

    Abdel Wahab and Katsh (2018), p. 33.

  72. 72.

    Katsh and Rainey (2017), p. 260.

  73. 73.

    Abdel Wahab and Katsh (2018), p. 33.

  74. 74.

    Piers and Aschauer (2018), p. 3.

  75. 75.

    Homburger (1970), pp. 9–39.

  76. 76.

    Devlin (1979), p. 54.

  77. 77.

    ICC Guidance Note on Possible Measures Aimed at Mitigating the Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic, 2020.

  78. 78.

    Legg and Song (2021)

  79. 79.

    United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 10 June 1958).

  80. 80.

    UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 With amendments as adopted in 2006.

  81. 81.

    Seoul Protocol on Video Conference in International Arbitration is Released (18 March 2020).

  82. 82.

    ICCA-NYC Bar-CPR, Protocol on Cybersecurity for International Arbitration (Edition 2020).

  83. 83.

    Phillips (2014).

  84. 84.

    Bjorklund et al. (2020), p. 412.

  85. 85.

    Kidane (2017), pp. 145–147.

  86. 86.

    Bjorklund et al. (2020), p. 413.

  87. 87.

    Sommers (2006), p. 598.

  88. 88.

    Langford et al. (2017), p. 313.

  89. 89.

    McIlwrath and Savage (2010).

  90. 90.

    Greenwood (2019), p. 94.

  91. 91.

    UNCITRAL Working Group III (Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform), ‘Report of Working Group III (Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform) on the Work of Its Thirty-Fifth Session’ (New York, 23–27 April 2018) UN Doc AQ/CN.9/935, para. 70.

  92. 92.

    UNCITRAL Working Group III (Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform), ‘Report of Working Group III (Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform) on the Work of Its Thirty-Fifth Session’ (New York, 23–27 April 2018) UN Doc AQ/CN.9/935, para. M72.

  93. 93.

    Kidane (2017), p. 145 and fn 81 (collecting sources); 288–289.

  94. 94.

    Bjorklund et al. (2020), p. 415.

  95. 95.

    Bonnitcha et al. (2017), p. 255.

  96. 96.

    Puig (2014), pp. 404–405.

  97. 97.

    Franck et al. (2015), pp. 457–458.

  98. 98.

    Bjorklund et al. (2020), p. 428.

  99. 99.

    Franck et al. (2015), p. 452.

  100. 100.

    SIAC Annual Report 2016, 16.

  101. 101.

    SIAC Annual Report 2021, 24.

  102. 102.

    St John et al. (2018).

  103. 103.

    Berwin Leighton Paisner (2017), p. 3.

  104. 104.

    Peart et al. (2020).

  105. 105.

    Simson (2020).

  106. 106.

    Franck et al. (2015), p. 455.

  107. 107.

    Franck et al. (2015), p. 455.

  108. 108.

    Franck et al. (2015), p. 504.

  109. 109.

    Polonskaya (2018).

  110. 110.

    Karton and Polonskaya (2018).

  111. 111.

    Bjorklund et al. (2020), p. 429.

  112. 112.

    Braghetta (2015), p. 1257.

  113. 113.

    Moses (2017), p. 6.

  114. 114.

    Equal Representation in Arbitration, the Pledge, 2015.

  115. 115.

    CETA (n 88), art 8.27(2); Investment Protection Agreement Between the European Union and Its Member States, of the One Part, and the Republic of Singapore, of the Other Part, Arts 3.9(2), 3.10(2).

  116. 116.

    Joshi and Gurpur (2020).

  117. 117.

    Peterson (2009).

  118. 118.

    Feria-Tinta (2017), p. 601.

  119. 119.

    Polanco Lazo and Mella (2018), p. 42.

  120. 120.

    Petersmann (2009), p. 16.

  121. 121.

    Brown (2013), p. 303.

  122. 122.

    Muchlinski (2010), p. 180.

  123. 123.

    Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, statement at the Human Rights Council 30th Session, Geneva, 16 September 2015.

  124. 124.

    Simma (2011), pp. 583–584, 591.

  125. 125.

    Polanco Lazo and Mella (2018), p. 91.

  126. 126.

    Steininger (2018), p. 55.

  127. 127.

    Schill (2017), pp. 658–659.

  128. 128.

    Steininger (2018), p. 35.

  129. 129.

    Meshel (2015), pp. 279–284.

  130. 130.

    Copper Mesa Mining Corp v Ecuador, PCA 2012-2, Award of 15 March 2016, paras. 6.99–6.102.

  131. 131.

    Urbaser SA and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v Argentina, ICSID ARB/07/26, Award of 8 December 2016, paras. 1143–1155.

  132. 132.

    Kube and Petersmann (2016).

  133. 133.

    Joshi and Gurpur (2020), p. 579.

  134. 134.

    Kriebaum (2019), p. 14.

  135. 135.

    Kriebaum (2019), p. 14.

  136. 136.

    See for instance, Agreement on Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Argentine Republic (adopted 20 October 1992, entered into force 1 October 1994), art 10(7). Begic (2005); Schreuer et al. (2009), art 42.

  137. 137.

    Schreuer et al. (2009), pp. 169–203.

  138. 138.

    Kriebaum (2019), p. 15.

  139. 139.

    Dupuy (2009), pp. 59 ff.

  140. 140.

    ILC, ‘Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law’ (13 April 2006) UN Doc A/CN.4/L.682, para. 472.

  141. 141.

    Kriebaum (2019), p. 39.

  142. 142.

    Kriebaum (2019), p. 40.

  143. 143.

    Fry (2007), p. 148.

  144. 144.

    Polanco Lazo and Mella (2018), p. 92.

  145. 145.

    Fahner and Happold (2019), p. 750.

  146. 146.

    South American Silver Limited v The Plurinational State Of Bolivia, PCA Case No. 2013-15, Award, 22 November 2018, para. 216: “the Tribunal finds that the principle of systemic interpretation is part of the rules of interpretation of international treaties foreseen in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention. However, this principle must be applied in harmony with the rest of the provisions of the same article and cautiously, in order to prevent the tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction and applying rules to the dispute which the Parties have not agreed to.”

  147. 147.

    See South American Silver Limited v The Plurinational State Of Bolivia, PCA Case No. 2013-15, Award, 22 November 2018, para. 217.

  148. 148.

    Fahner and Happold (2019), p. 744.

  149. 149.

    International Law Commission, Fifty-eighth session, ‘Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law. Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission finalized by Marti Koskenniemi’, A/CN.4/L.682, 13 April 2006 para. 412.

  150. 150.

    Fahner and Happold (2019), p. 758.

  151. 151.

    Fahner and Happold (2019), p. 759.

  152. 152.

    van Aaken (2009), p. 493.

  153. 153.

    Desierto (2013), pp. 81–82; de Brabandere (2012).

  154. 154.

    International Law Association, ‘Interim Report on Public Policy as a Bar to Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards’ (2000) 6–7.

  155. 155.

    Kriebaum (2019), pp. 16–17 and 33–39.

  156. 156.

    Marcoux (2020), p. 22.

  157. 157.

    Lalive (1986), pp. 341 and 359.

  158. 158.

    Steininger (2018), p. 35.

  159. 159.

    Bernasconi-Osterwalder (2020).

  160. 160.

    See UNCTAD (2023) International Investment Agreements Navigator.

  161. 161.

    The Canadian BITs referred to here include Canada-Mongolia BIT (2016); Burkina Faso-Canada BIT (2015); Canada-Guinea BIT (2015); Cameroon-Canada BIT (2014); Canada-Senegal BIT (2014); Canada-Mali BIT (2014); Canada-Cote d’Ivoire BIT (2014); Canada-Serbia BIT (2014); Canada-Korea FTA (2014); Canada-Honduras FTA (2013); and Benin-Canada (2013).

  162. 162.

    Zhu (2017), p. 111.

  163. 163.

    See Art 16 of the 2013 Benin-Canada BIT.

  164. 164.

    See Art 14.17, USMCA. See also Article 9.17 of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (‘CPTPP’).

  165. 165.

    Bernasconi-Osterwalder (2020), p. 5.

  166. 166.

    Bernasconi-Osterwalder (2020), p. 5.

  167. 167.

    Acuerdo de Cooperación y de facilitación de las inversiones entre la Repùblica Federativa del Brasil y los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 2015, Article 13.2, translated by Bernasconi-Osterwalder (2020), p. 6.

  168. 168.

    Zhu (2017), p. 118.

  169. 169.

    Joseph (2003), p. 438.

  170. 170.

    De Brabandere and Hazelzet (2018), p. 235.

  171. 171.

    Zhu (2017), p. 112.

  172. 172.

    Investment Cooperation And Facilitation Agreement Between The Federative Republic Of Brazil And The Republic Of Malawi, 2015, Art. 9.1. See Dubin (2018).

  173. 173.

    One example thereof is the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), Art 8.1.

  174. 174.

    Bernasconi-Osterwalder (2020), p. 11.

  175. 175.

    India Model BIT (2015), Art 1.4.

  176. 176.

    Viñuales (2017), p. 367.

  177. 177.

    Bussmann (2010).

  178. 178.

    Bussmann (2010).

  179. 179.

    IIAs count 3266 at the time of writing, out of which 2583 in force, UNCTAD Investment Policy Hub, International Investment Agreements Navigator, August 2023.

  180. 180.

    Shaw (2008), p. 1010.

  181. 181.

    Kulesza (2022).

  182. 182.

    Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda, International Court of Justice, Judgment of 19 December 2005, para. 148, p. 59.

  183. 183.

    OECD (2022), International investment implications of Russia’s war against Ukraine, 4 May 2022.

  184. 184.

    UNCTAD (2023) Investment Policy Hub, Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator.

  185. 185.

    UNCTAD (2023) Investment Policy Hub, ISDS Cases.

  186. 186.

    UNCTAD (2023) Investment Policy Hub, Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator.

  187. 187.

    UNCTAD (2023) Investment Policy Hub, Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator.

  188. 188.

    Thomson Reuters (2021).

  189. 189.

    One example thereof is the Canada-Croatia BIT (1997).

  190. 190.

    Gambetta and Webb (2022).

  191. 191.

    Reuters (2022).

  192. 192.

    Plama Consortium Limited v Republic of Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 February 2005, para. 157.

References

  • Abdel Wahab MS, Katsh E (2018) Revolutionizing technologies and the use of technology in international arbitration: innovation, legitimacy, prospects and challenges. In: Piers M, Aschauer C (eds) Arbitration in the digital age. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 27–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Begic T (2005) Applicable Law in International Investment Disputes. Eleven International Publishing, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernasconi-Osterwalder N (2020) Inclusion of investor obligations and corporate accountability provisions in investment agreements. In: Chaisse J et al (eds) Handbook of international investment law and policy. Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd, Singapore, pp 1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Berwin Leighton Paisner (2017) Are we getting there? International arbitration survey: diversity on arbitral tribunals. Survey Report, 3

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjorklund AK, Behn D, Franck SD, Giorgetti C, Kidane W, de Nanteuil A, Onyema E (2020) The diversity deficit in international investment arbitration. J World Invest Trade 21:410–440

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanke G (2018) Investment arbitration in the Arab Spring: first lessons. Thomson Reuters, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonnitcha J, Skovgaard Poulsen LN, Waibel M (2017) The political economy of the investment treaty regime. Oxford University, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Braghetta A (2015) Diversity and regionalism in international commercial arbitration. VUWLR 46:1245–1258

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown C (2013) Introduction: the development and importance of the model bilateral investment treaty. In: Brown C (ed) Commentaries on selected model investment treaties. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Bussmann M (2010) Foreign direct investment and militarized international conflict. J Peace Res 47(2):143–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaisse J (2013) Exploring the confines of international investment and domestic health protections—general exceptions clause as a forced perspective. Am J Law Med 39:332

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaisse J (2020) Both possible and improbable—could Covid-19 measures give rise to investor-state disputes? Contemp Asia Arbitr J 13(1):99–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaisse J, Polo M (2015) Globalization of water privatization—ramifications of investor-state disputes in the “blue gold” economy. B C Int Comp Law Rev 38(1):1

    Google Scholar 

  • De Brabandere E (2012) Human rights considerations in international investment arbitration. In: Fitzmaurice M, Merkouris P (eds) The interpretation and application of the European Convention of Human Rights: legal and practical implications. Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 183–215

    Google Scholar 

  • De Brabandere E, Hazelzet M (2018) Corporate responsibility and human rights: navigating between international, domestic and self-regulation. In: Radi Y (ed) Research handbook on human rights and investment. Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 221–243

    Google Scholar 

  • de Zayas A-M (2015) Statement at the Human Rights Council 30th Session, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean B et al (2020) Extraordinary times, extraordinary measures. JDSUPRA

    Google Scholar 

  • Deloitte (2020) Impact of Covid-19 on Chinese Economy

    Google Scholar 

  • Desierto D (2013) Conflict of treaties, interpretation, and decision-making on human rights and investment during economic crises. TDM 10(1):81

    Google Scholar 

  • Devlin P (1979) The Judge. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Druon P et al (2020) Introduction of social measures in support of businesses facing the COVID-19 crisis. JDSUPRA

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubin L (2018) Corporate social responsibility clauses in investment treaties. Invest Treaty News 4(9):12–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupuy P-M (2009) Unification rather than fragmentation of international law? The case of international investment law and human rights law. In: Dupuy P-M, Petersmann E-U, Francioni F (eds) Human rights in international investment law and arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 45–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Equal Representation in Arbitration Pledge (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahner JH, Happold M (2019) The human rights defence in international investment arbitration: exploring the limits of systemic integration. ICLQ 68:741–759

    Google Scholar 

  • Feria-Tinta M (2017) Like oil and water? Human rights in investment arbitration in the wake of Philip Morris v Uruguay. J Int Arbitr 34:601

    Google Scholar 

  • Flaxman S et al (2020) Estimating the number of infections and the impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in 11 European countries. Imperial College London, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Foty C (2019) Impact of the Arab Spring on the International Arbitration Landscape. Kluwer Arbitration Blog

    Google Scholar 

  • Franck SD, Freda J, Lavin K, Lehmann T, Van Aaken A (2015) The diversity challenge: exploring the invisible college of international arbitration. Colum J Transnat Law 53:429–506

    Google Scholar 

  • Fry JD (2007) International human rights law in investment arbitration: evidence of international law’s unity. Duke J Comp Int Law 18(1):77–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Gambetta G, Webb D (2022) Russia divestment tracker: which asset owners are exiting – Updated, Responsible investor

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia Olmedo J (2012) The use of tobacco trademarks versus public health: a new trend in investor-state arbitration. Int Arb Law Rev 15:42

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood L (2019) Moving beyond diversity toward inclusion in international arbitration. In: Calissendorff A, Schöldström P (eds) Stockholm Arbitration Yearbook 2019. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 93–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Hailes O (2020) Epidemic sovereignty? Contesting investment treaty claims arising from coronavirus measures. EJIL:TALK!

    Google Scholar 

  • Homburger A (1970) Functions of orality. In: Austrian and American civil procedure. Buff Law Rev 20(9):9–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Honey D, Gare N (2020) Questions and answers on how best to deal with international arbitration in the face of Covid-19. Briefings

    Google Scholar 

  • ICC Guidance Note on Possible Measures Aimed at Mitigating the Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ji X (2019) The internationalisation of tax disputes—issues and options of a standing international tax court. Cardozo Int Comp Policy Ethics Law Rev 2(2):437

    Google Scholar 

  • Joseph S (2003) Pharmaceutical corporations and access to drugs: the “fourth wave” of corporate human rights scrutiny. Hum Rights Q 25:425

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi RD, Gurpur S (2020) The silent spring of human rights in investment arbitration: Jurisprudence Constante through case-law trajectory. Arbitr Int 36(4):557–570

    Google Scholar 

  • Karton J, Polonskaya K (2018) True diversity is intersectional: esca** the one-dimensional discourse on arbitrator diversity. Kluwer Arbitration Blog

    Google Scholar 

  • Katsh E, Rainey D (2017) ODR and government. In: Abdel Wahab MS, Katsh E, Rainy D (eds) Online dispute resolution: theory and practice. Eleven International Publishers, The Hague, p 249

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kituyi M (2020) G20 Extraordinary Trade and Investment Ministers Telecon on Covid-19, United Nations Conf. On Trade & Dev.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kriebaum U (2019) Human rights and international investment law. In: Radi Y (ed) Research handbook on human rights and investment. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 13–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Kube V, Petersmann E-U (2016) Human rights law in international investment arbitration. Law 2016/02 EUI Working Papers

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulesza J (2022) Peaceful settlement of interstate online disputes. Laws 11:49

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacey S (2020) COVID-19: offering us a glimpse into the future of work, the global economy and technology. University of Adelaide, Adelaide

    Google Scholar 

  • Lalive P (1986) Ordre public transnational (ou reellement international) et arbitrage international. Rev de arb 3:329–374

    Google Scholar 

  • Langford M, Behn D, Lie RH (2017) The revolving door in international investment arbitration. J Int Econ Law 20(2):328

    Google Scholar 

  • Legg M, Song A (2021) The Courts, The Remote Hearing And The Pandemic: From Action To Reflection. Unsw Law J 44(1):126–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Malanczuk P (1997) Akehurst’s modern introduction to international law. Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • Malouche MM (1996) National Report for Tunisia (1996). In: Paulsson J (ed) International handbook on commercial arbitration. Alphen aan den Rijn, Wolters Kluwer, p 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcoux J-M (2020) Transnational public policy as a vehicle to impose human rights obligations in international investment arbitration. J World Invest Trade:1–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Marisi F (2020) Environmental interests in investment arbitration: challenges and directions. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • McIlwrath M, Savage J (2010) International arbitration and mediation: a practical guide. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Meshel T (2015) Human rights in investor-state arbitration: the human right to water and beyond. J Int Dispute Settlement 6:277

    Google Scholar 

  • Moses M (2017) The principles and practice of international commercial arbitration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Muchlinski P (2010) Holistic approaches to development and international investment law: the role of international investment agreements. In: Faundez J, Tan C (eds) International economic law, globalization and develo** countries. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 180–204

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2022) International investment implications of Russia’s war against Ukraine, 4 May 2022

    Google Scholar 

  • Paddeu F, Jephcott F (2020) COVID-19 and defences in the law of state responsibility: Part I. Ejil:Talk!

    Google Scholar 

  • Paddeu F, Parlett K (2020) COVID-19 and investment treaty claims. Kluwer Arbitration Blog

    Google Scholar 

  • Paparinskis M (2020) COVID-19 Symposium: COVID-19 and the foundations of international law. Opinio Juris

    Google Scholar 

  • Pathirana D (2020) COVID-19, preventive measures and the investment treaty regime. Afronomics Law

    Google Scholar 

  • Peart N, Ivers J, Sklar H (2020) Cross-institutional task force releases groundbreaking report on gender diversity in arbitral appointments and proceedings. Kluwer Arbitration Blog

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersmann E-U (2009) Introduction and summary: “administration of justice” in international investment law and adjudication? In: Dupuy P-M et al (eds) Human rights in international investment law and arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersmann E-U (2021) Human rights in international investment law and adjudication: legal methodology questions. In: Chaisse J et al (eds) Handbook of international investment law and policy. Springer, Singapore, pp 1–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson LE (2009) Selected recent developments in IIA arbitration and human rights. IIA Monitor 2:4

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrochilos G (2004) Procedural law in international arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips KW (2014) How diversity makes us smarter. Sci Am

    Google Scholar 

  • Piers M, Aschauer C (eds) (2018) Arbitration in the digital age. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Plama Consortium Limited v Republic of Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 February 2005

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanco Lazo R, Mella R (2018) Investment arbitration and human rights cases in Latin America. In: Radi Y (ed) Research handbook on human rights and investment. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 41–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Polonskaya K (2018) Diversity in the investor-state arbitration: intersectionality must be part of the conversation. Melb J Int Law 9:259

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Qian X (2018) Challenges of water governance (and privatization) in China-Traps, Gaps, and Law. Ga J Int Comm Law 47(1):49

    Google Scholar 

  • Qian X (2020) Water disputes in international arbitration: reconsidering the nexus of investment protection, environment, and human rights. Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Reuters (2022) Russian central bank orders block on foreign clients’ bids to sell Russian securities – document, Investing.com, 27 February 2022

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer M (2020) Remote hearings in international arbitration: an analytical framework. Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 333/2020

    Google Scholar 

  • Schill SW (2017) Reforming investor–state dispute settlement: a (comparative and international) constitutional law framework. J Int Econ Law 20:649–672

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreuer CH, Malintoppi L, Reinisch A, Sinclair A (2009) The ICSID Convention: a commentary. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Seif I (2021) Business and human rights in international investment law: empirical evidence. In: Chaisse J et al (eds) Handbook of international investment law and policy. Springer, Singapore, pp 6–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Seoul Protocol on Video Conference in International Arbitration is Released (18 March 2020)

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw MN (2008) International law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheargold E, Mitchell AD (2021) Public health in international investment law and arbitration. In: Chaisse J et al (eds) Handbook of international investment law and policy. Springer, Singapore, pp 1–26

    Google Scholar 

  • SIAC (2016) Annual Report

    Google Scholar 

  • SIAC (2021) Annual Report

    Google Scholar 

  • Simma B (2011) Foreign investment arbitration: a place for human rights? Int Comp Law Q 60:573

    Google Scholar 

  • Simson C (2020) ICSID case stats show decreased gender diversity. Law 360

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommers SR (2006) On racial diversity and group decision making: identifying multiple effects of racial composition on jury deliberations. J Pers Soc Psychol 90(4):597

    Google Scholar 

  • St John T et al (2018) Glass ceilings and arbitral dealings: gender and investment arbitration. PluriCourts Working Paper

    Google Scholar 

  • Steininger S (2018) What’s human rights got to do with it? An empirical analysis of human rights references in investment arbitration. Leiden J Int Law 31:33–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Tertrais B (2020) Year of the rat. The strategic consequences of the coronavirus crisis. Fondation Pour La Recherche Stratégique

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson Reuters (2021) Enforcing arbitral awards globally: practical considerations

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 With amendments as adopted in 2006

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCTAD. International Investment Agreements Navigator, “Map** of IIA Content”

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 10 June 1958)

    Google Scholar 

  • van Aaken A (2009) Defragmentation of public international law through interpretation: a methodological proposal. Indiana J Global Leg Stud 16:483

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Marel E, Guinea O (2020) Globalization after Covid-19. ECIPE

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Hooft A, Kross-Lastochkina J (2018) Case study: the legislator’s perspective. In: Piers M, Aschauer C (eds) Arbitration in the digital age. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 99–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Velàsquez-Ruiz M (2020) El Covid-19 y las Posibles Controversias Internacionales de Inversión que Tendrá que Asumir Colombia

    Google Scholar 

  • Viñuales JE (2017) Investor diligence in investment arbitration: sources and arguments. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 32(2):346–370

    Google Scholar 

  • Waincymer J (2012) Procedure and evidence in international arbitration. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • WHO (2020) Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) situation report–54. March 14, 2020

    Google Scholar 

  • Yiannibas K (2018) The adaptability of international arbitration: reforming the arbitration mechanism to provide effective remedy for business-related human rights abuses. Neth Q Hum Rights 36(3):214–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu Y (2017) Corporate social responsibility and international investment law: tension and reconciliation. NJCL 1:90–119

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Brussels, Belgium

    Flavia Marisi

Authors
  1. Flavia Marisi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 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

Marisi, F. (2023). Adaptability of Investor-State Arbitration. In: Rethinking Investor-State Arbitration. Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, vol 27. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38184-3_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38184-3_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-38183-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-38184-3

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation