The Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v Russia) case involves an unprecedented number of Article 63 declarations of intervention. We consider the specific arguments made in individual declarations, but also the mass nature of the declarations. In order to do this in a systematic manner, we employ empirical methods to identify those declarations and arguments that are more central and those that are more unique. Using citation network analysis, we identify the main and central arguments presented by states in their declarations. Moreover, we find evidence that states have co-operated in the preparation of their intervention declarations, using Article 63 as an opportunity to collectively condemn Russia as well as offer their joint interpretation of the Genocide Convention. But while all states come to support Ukraine, the interventions are not necessarily helpful to Ukraine’s case.
{"title":"Keeping score: an empirical analysis of the interventions in Ukraine v Russia","authors":"Kyra Wigard, Ori Pomson, J. McIntyre","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idad011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idad011","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v Russia) case involves an unprecedented number of Article 63 declarations of intervention. We consider the specific arguments made in individual declarations, but also the mass nature of the declarations. In order to do this in a systematic manner, we employ empirical methods to identify those declarations and arguments that are more central and those that are more unique. Using citation network analysis, we identify the main and central arguments presented by states in their declarations. Moreover, we find evidence that states have co-operated in the preparation of their intervention declarations, using Article 63 as an opportunity to collectively condemn Russia as well as offer their joint interpretation of the Genocide Convention. But while all states come to support Ukraine, the interventions are not necessarily helpful to Ukraine’s case.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"85 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82735404","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The regulatory landscape of professional tennis is scattered across several entities, each administering its own tournaments. This article focuses on disputes involving professional tennis players. In this context, it identifies two major areas of disputes, namely regulatory (encompassing disciplinary, doping and corruption offences) and contractual. The latter are chiefly resolved through litigation. Regulatory disputes are administered through distinct judicial and quasi-judicial institutions set up by the various tennis entities. The International Tennis Federation’s (ITF) international adjudication panel and its independent tribunal are the key institutions in this respect, with the independent tribunal possessing all the attributes of arbitral tribunals. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has been conferred a limited appellate jurisdiction over decisions of these two entities. Overall, the ITF’s dispute resolution architecture has been effective and has created a significant body of precedent, further supplemented by that of the CAS.
{"title":"The resolution of professional tennis disputes","authors":"I. Bantekas","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idad010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idad010","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The regulatory landscape of professional tennis is scattered across several entities, each administering its own tournaments. This article focuses on disputes involving professional tennis players. In this context, it identifies two major areas of disputes, namely regulatory (encompassing disciplinary, doping and corruption offences) and contractual. The latter are chiefly resolved through litigation. Regulatory disputes are administered through distinct judicial and quasi-judicial institutions set up by the various tennis entities. The International Tennis Federation’s (ITF) international adjudication panel and its independent tribunal are the key institutions in this respect, with the independent tribunal possessing all the attributes of arbitral tribunals. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has been conferred a limited appellate jurisdiction over decisions of these two entities. Overall, the ITF’s dispute resolution architecture has been effective and has created a significant body of precedent, further supplemented by that of the CAS.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88262977","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In April 2022, the ICJ pronounced its judgments on the merits in Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v Colombia). While the judgment makes interesting contributions to the law of the sea jurisprudence, the Court’s problematic finding on jurisdiction ratione temporis is the subject of this paper. Applying what it refers to as ‘continuity’ and ‘connexity’ criteria, it found that Colombia’s withdrawal from the Pact of Bogotá would not prevent it from considering facts submitted by Nicaragua which arose after the Pact ceased to be in force for Colombia. An in-depth analysis of the jurisprudence the judgment referred to reveals that the Court was building on convoluted cases, some of which have conflated questions of jurisdiction and admissibility. Based on the Court’s jurisprudence, this paper argues for a more systematic approach to dealing with preliminary issues arising from new claims and submissions.
{"title":"The ICJ judgment on Nicaragua v Colombia (2022): applying an established jurisdictional test or a problematic invention?","authors":"Pranav Ganesan, Laia Roxane Guardiola","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idad009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idad009","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In April 2022, the ICJ pronounced its judgments on the merits in Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v Colombia). While the judgment makes interesting contributions to the law of the sea jurisprudence, the Court’s problematic finding on jurisdiction ratione temporis is the subject of this paper. Applying what it refers to as ‘continuity’ and ‘connexity’ criteria, it found that Colombia’s withdrawal from the Pact of Bogotá would not prevent it from considering facts submitted by Nicaragua which arose after the Pact ceased to be in force for Colombia. An in-depth analysis of the jurisprudence the judgment referred to reveals that the Court was building on convoluted cases, some of which have conflated questions of jurisdiction and admissibility. Based on the Court’s jurisprudence, this paper argues for a more systematic approach to dealing with preliminary issues arising from new claims and submissions.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78006112","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Concern with the selection and appointment of arbitrators has been central in the ‘legitimacy crisis’ surrounding investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS). The regime has been criticized for the outsized role of litigating parties in appointment, absence of transparency in the appointment procedure, potential for conflicts of interests, lack of diversity, and little emphasis on public international law competence. However, attempts to reform the selection and appointment of adjudicators involve confronting dilemmas, requiring trade-offs between different normative values. We therefore introduce a quadrilemma that captures the underlying values of independence, accountability, diversity, and procedural fairness that actors often seek to realize through adjudicatory design. We then set out seven idealized selection and appointment reform options under discussion in the ISDS reform process at UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) (from incremental reform through to new permanent mechanisms and removal of ISDS). The quadrilemma is employed to analyse their advantages and disadvantages of each model. In light of empirical and doctrinal evidence, it is clear that some reform options are more likely than others to optimize the quadrilemma. However, the effects are often conditional and sometimes there is a need for accompanying mechanisms.
{"title":"The quadrilemma: appointing adjudicators in future investor–state dispute settlement","authors":"M. Langford, D. Behn, M. Malaguti","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idad006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idad006","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Concern with the selection and appointment of arbitrators has been central in the ‘legitimacy crisis’ surrounding investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS). The regime has been criticized for the outsized role of litigating parties in appointment, absence of transparency in the appointment procedure, potential for conflicts of interests, lack of diversity, and little emphasis on public international law competence. However, attempts to reform the selection and appointment of adjudicators involve confronting dilemmas, requiring trade-offs between different normative values. We therefore introduce a quadrilemma that captures the underlying values of independence, accountability, diversity, and procedural fairness that actors often seek to realize through adjudicatory design. We then set out seven idealized selection and appointment reform options under discussion in the ISDS reform process at UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) (from incremental reform through to new permanent mechanisms and removal of ISDS). The quadrilemma is employed to analyse their advantages and disadvantages of each model. In light of empirical and doctrinal evidence, it is clear that some reform options are more likely than others to optimize the quadrilemma. However, the effects are often conditional and sometimes there is a need for accompanying mechanisms.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82645196","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the past, conciliation mechanisms have scarcely been applied in an inter-state context. It is not surprising that there have been no publicly known environmental conciliations yet. However, in international environmental law, where different dispute settlement mechanisms are still evolving, conciliation might gain currency in the future. This article aims to promote international conciliation to resolve environmental disputes between (i) states, (ii) individuals and the state and (iii) individuals and corporations. At the outset, this article addresses the problem of international environmental accountability. It then discusses conciliation and why parties should resort to it when resolving environmental disputes. Before concluding, the article addresses the practical implementation of environmental conciliation and gives general tips for future conciliation proceedings. This article concludes that while conciliation has not been widespread, it has the potential to bridge the environmental accountability gap if the parties are willing to consent to it.
{"title":"Environmental accountability: a case for international conciliation?","authors":"Tensin Studer","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idad008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idad008","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In the past, conciliation mechanisms have scarcely been applied in an inter-state context. It is not surprising that there have been no publicly known environmental conciliations yet. However, in international environmental law, where different dispute settlement mechanisms are still evolving, conciliation might gain currency in the future. This article aims to promote international conciliation to resolve environmental disputes between (i) states, (ii) individuals and the state and (iii) individuals and corporations. At the outset, this article addresses the problem of international environmental accountability. It then discusses conciliation and why parties should resort to it when resolving environmental disputes. Before concluding, the article addresses the practical implementation of environmental conciliation and gives general tips for future conciliation proceedings. This article concludes that while conciliation has not been widespread, it has the potential to bridge the environmental accountability gap if the parties are willing to consent to it.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75468589","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This Special Issue takes the pulse of the UN Commission on International Trade Law process on reforming investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) at its midway point. It features contributions by members of the Academic Forum on ISDS, engaging with various topics on the negotiating table, as well as some that are off the table or hovering in-between. Together, these articles seek to address questions of design, dilemmas and discontent – especially how states negotiate the values and tradeoffs of reform, and engage (or not) with critics of the process. They do so from the perspectives of law, social science and public policy and they employ a range of methods, including computational approaches.
{"title":"The investor-state dispute settlement reform process: design, dilemmas and discontents","authors":"J. Arato, K. Claussen, M. Langford","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idad004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idad004","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This Special Issue takes the pulse of the UN Commission on International Trade Law process on reforming investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) at its midway point. It features contributions by members of the Academic Forum on ISDS, engaging with various topics on the negotiating table, as well as some that are off the table or hovering in-between. Together, these articles seek to address questions of design, dilemmas and discontent – especially how states negotiate the values and tradeoffs of reform, and engage (or not) with critics of the process. They do so from the perspectives of law, social science and public policy and they employ a range of methods, including computational approaches.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79930710","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
International commercial arbitration is the most preferred dispute resolution method in cross-border commercial disputes. It has been, however, claimed that arbitration has lost its flexibility by becoming increasingly formal and by incorporating litigation practices. In academic literature, this trend has been termed the ‘judicialization’ of international commercial arbitration. This article argues that while arbitration is becoming progressively judicialized, international commercial courts evidence an opposite, less studied trend; namely, the ‘arbitralization’ of courts. Through a comparative analysis of different international commercial courts, the article explores how the competition with arbitration has prompted the establishment of these courts, and how arbitration has served as the inspiration for some of their most innovative features. The article concludes that while the incorporation of arbitration features could improve court proceedings, some of international commercial courts’ arbitration features undermine procedural justice and the role of courts as public institutions and therefore hit the limits of arbitralization.
{"title":"The ‘Arbitralization’ of Courts: The Role of International Commercial Arbitration in the Establishment and the Procedural Design of International Commercial Courts","authors":"G. Antonopoulou","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idad007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idad007","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 International commercial arbitration is the most preferred dispute resolution method in cross-border commercial disputes. It has been, however, claimed that arbitration has lost its flexibility by becoming increasingly formal and by incorporating litigation practices. In academic literature, this trend has been termed the ‘judicialization’ of international commercial arbitration. This article argues that while arbitration is becoming progressively judicialized, international commercial courts evidence an opposite, less studied trend; namely, the ‘arbitralization’ of courts. Through a comparative analysis of different international commercial courts, the article explores how the competition with arbitration has prompted the establishment of these courts, and how arbitration has served as the inspiration for some of their most innovative features. The article concludes that while the incorporation of arbitration features could improve court proceedings, some of international commercial courts’ arbitration features undermine procedural justice and the role of courts as public institutions and therefore hit the limits of arbitralization.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82501059","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) stands alone in empowering shareholders to bring claims for shareholder reflective loss (SRL)—meaning claims over harms allegedly inflicted upon the company, but which somehow affect share value. National systems of corporate law and public international law regimes generally bar SRL claims for strong policy reasons bearing on the efficiency and fairness of the corporate form. However, ISDS tribunals allow shareholders broad and regular access to seek relief for reflective loss. The availability of SRL claims in ISDS ultimately harms States and investors alike, imposing surprise ex post costs on States and various corporate stakeholders (particularly creditors), and creating perverse incentives likely to raise the cost of doing business ex ante. The article sets out the harms caused by allowing ISDS claims for reflective loss, as well as the possible justifications for allowing such claims in this specific context. Concluding that any potential benefits of SRL can be realized through less invasive means, we then canvas a number of plausible reform options, with an eye to their trade-offs.
{"title":"Reforming shareholder claims in investor-state dispute settlement","authors":"J. Arato, K. Claussen, Jaemin Lee, G. Zarra","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idad005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idad005","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) stands alone in empowering shareholders to bring claims for shareholder reflective loss (SRL)—meaning claims over harms allegedly inflicted upon the company, but which somehow affect share value. National systems of corporate law and public international law regimes generally bar SRL claims for strong policy reasons bearing on the efficiency and fairness of the corporate form. However, ISDS tribunals allow shareholders broad and regular access to seek relief for reflective loss. The availability of SRL claims in ISDS ultimately harms States and investors alike, imposing surprise ex post costs on States and various corporate stakeholders (particularly creditors), and creating perverse incentives likely to raise the cost of doing business ex ante. The article sets out the harms caused by allowing ISDS claims for reflective loss, as well as the possible justifications for allowing such claims in this specific context. Concluding that any potential benefits of SRL can be realized through less invasive means, we then canvas a number of plausible reform options, with an eye to their trade-offs.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87140232","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Rachel Cahill-O’Callaghan, Anna Howard, Stavros Brekoulakis
Abstract Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) plays an increasingly important role in international trade resolution. The decisions have significant financial and in many cases policy implications, yet little is known about the formation of the ad-hoc panels and the decision-making process. Drawing on empirical evidence from interviews with key actors in the ISDS system, this article argues that influence plays a central role in both processes. The analysis further develops the framework for understanding influence in international decision-making to accommodate external factors (those visible to those appointing the decision-makers) and internal factors (those factors that become visible in the decision-making room). It draws our attention to the nuanced relationship and distinction between the characterization of influence in both contexts and poses a challenge to the traditional focus of appointments based on power and prestige which neglects the group decision-making context and the multifaceted construction of influence in this increasingly important method of adjudication.
{"title":"Influence in investor-state dispute settlement: a dynamic concept","authors":"Rachel Cahill-O’Callaghan, Anna Howard, Stavros Brekoulakis","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idac028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idac028","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) plays an increasingly important role in international trade resolution. The decisions have significant financial and in many cases policy implications, yet little is known about the formation of the ad-hoc panels and the decision-making process. Drawing on empirical evidence from interviews with key actors in the ISDS system, this article argues that influence plays a central role in both processes. The analysis further develops the framework for understanding influence in international decision-making to accommodate external factors (those visible to those appointing the decision-makers) and internal factors (those factors that become visible in the decision-making room). It draws our attention to the nuanced relationship and distinction between the characterization of influence in both contexts and poses a challenge to the traditional focus of appointments based on power and prestige which neglects the group decision-making context and the multifaceted construction of influence in this increasingly important method of adjudication.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136390105","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract With multiple proceedings in investment arbitration, various problems emerge. This article demonstrates they ultimately rest upon two pillars: a threat to the investor–state dispute settlement (‘ISDS’) system (i) and inequality of arms (ii). Since conventional instruments are insufficient to address these, the abuse of process doctrine is not only useful but also necessary to fill the gaps. However, the doctrine is prone to weaknesses. Therefore, guidance on the doctrine is desirable for it to reach its full potential as a successful mechanism to combat exploitative multiple proceedings. UNCITRAL’s current ISDS reform could serve this purpose. This articles’ analysis shows the reform efforts do recognize multiple proceedings as a problem. However, the path Working Group III is taking to address such is not clear but fades. That would be a lost opportunity. UNCITRAL’s ISDS reform should include guidance on unresolved issues of the abuse of process doctrine to help tackling exploitative multiple proceedings in investment arbitration.
{"title":"The two problem pillars of multiple proceedings in investment arbitration: why the abuse of process doctrine is a necessary remedy and requires focus in UNCITRAL’s ISDS reform","authors":"Julia Richter","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idad003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idad003","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract With multiple proceedings in investment arbitration, various problems emerge. This article demonstrates they ultimately rest upon two pillars: a threat to the investor–state dispute settlement (‘ISDS’) system (i) and inequality of arms (ii). Since conventional instruments are insufficient to address these, the abuse of process doctrine is not only useful but also necessary to fill the gaps. However, the doctrine is prone to weaknesses. Therefore, guidance on the doctrine is desirable for it to reach its full potential as a successful mechanism to combat exploitative multiple proceedings. UNCITRAL’s current ISDS reform could serve this purpose. This articles’ analysis shows the reform efforts do recognize multiple proceedings as a problem. However, the path Working Group III is taking to address such is not clear but fades. That would be a lost opportunity. UNCITRAL’s ISDS reform should include guidance on unresolved issues of the abuse of process doctrine to help tackling exploitative multiple proceedings in investment arbitration.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"236 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135677422","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：