Vanishing Treaty Claims: Investors Trapped in a Temporal Twilight Zone

IF 1.1 3区 社会学 Q2 LAW Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal Pub Date : 2022-10-06 DOI:10.1093/icsidreview/siac023
Raphael Ren
{"title":"Vanishing Treaty Claims: Investors Trapped in a Temporal Twilight Zone","authors":"Raphael Ren","doi":"10.1093/icsidreview/siac023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The recent surge of arbitral awards forging new paths in the less-explored frontier of jurisdiction ratione temporis is laudable. Yet, if left unchecked, the trajectory of jurisdictional barriers expanding in depth and difficulty threatens to shrink the road of arbitration to the eye of a needle. Two emerging rules are especially worrisome: first, the right to claim under BITs vests exclusively with the investor holding the investment at the date of breach; second, the right is extinguished upon disposal of the investment. Concomitantly, once a pre-existing foreign investment is impaired by State measures, a temporal twilight zone is formed between the date of breach and date of institution of arbitration. The right to claim risks vanishing into a legal black hole along with the investment. Impecunious investors are left with a binary choice: litigate or mitigate. Ultimately, the broader lesson is for investment tribunals to avoid two common missteps when examining temporal objections: overreach of jurisdiction ratione temporis into areas more appropriately covered by the other jurisdictional dimensions (ratione materiae and ratione personae) and doctrine of abuse of process; and overreliance on principles transposed from private commercial arbitration (succession and separability).","PeriodicalId":44986,"journal":{"name":"Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siac023","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The recent surge of arbitral awards forging new paths in the less-explored frontier of jurisdiction ratione temporis is laudable. Yet, if left unchecked, the trajectory of jurisdictional barriers expanding in depth and difficulty threatens to shrink the road of arbitration to the eye of a needle. Two emerging rules are especially worrisome: first, the right to claim under BITs vests exclusively with the investor holding the investment at the date of breach; second, the right is extinguished upon disposal of the investment. Concomitantly, once a pre-existing foreign investment is impaired by State measures, a temporal twilight zone is formed between the date of breach and date of institution of arbitration. The right to claim risks vanishing into a legal black hole along with the investment. Impecunious investors are left with a binary choice: litigate or mitigate. Ultimately, the broader lesson is for investment tribunals to avoid two common missteps when examining temporal objections: overreach of jurisdiction ratione temporis into areas more appropriately covered by the other jurisdictional dimensions (ratione materiae and ratione personae) and doctrine of abuse of process; and overreliance on principles transposed from private commercial arbitration (succession and separability).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
消失的条约权利:投资者被困在时间的模糊地带
最近大量的仲裁裁决在探索较少的属时管辖权领域开辟了新的道路,这是值得称赞的。然而,如果任其发展,司法障碍的深度和难度不断扩大,可能会使仲裁之路缩小到针眼。两个新出现的规则尤其令人担忧:第一,根据双边投资协定,索赔权只属于违约之日持有投资的投资者;第二,该权利因投资处置而消灭。同时,一旦已有的外国投资受到国家措施的损害,在违约之日和提起仲裁之日之间就会形成一个暂时的模糊地带。索赔风险的权利随着投资一起消失在法律的黑洞中。身无分文的投资者面临着两种选择:提起诉讼或减轻负担。最后,更广泛的教训是,投资法庭在审查时间上的反对意见时应避免两种常见的失误:将属时管辖权过度扩展到其他管辖权层面(属事和属人)更适当涵盖的领域和滥用程序原则;以及过度依赖私人商业仲裁的原则(继承和可分性)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
27.30%
发文量
46
期刊最新文献
Australia’s Ambivalence Again Around Investor-State Arbitration: Comparisons with Europe and Implications for Asia The Duty of Arbitrators to Raise Suspected Corruption or to Investigate Poorly Particularized Allegations of Corruption Contextual Impartiality: A New Approach to Assessing Impartiality in Investor-State Dispute Settlement Does an Annulled Award Constitute Legal Authority in Investment Arbitration? Impartiality and the Construction of Trust in Investor-State Dispute Settlement
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1