{"title":"Erratum to: China and International Adjudication—Picking Up Steam?","authors":"Yayezi Hao, Ignacio de la Rasilla","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idab027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idab027","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"71 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86144935","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}
{"title":"Procedural Cross-Fertilization in International Commercial and Investment Arbitration: A Functional Approach","authors":"Tamar Meshel","doi":"10.1093/JNLIDS/IDAB024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JNLIDS/IDAB024","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81135777","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 article explores the dispute settlement elements of the UK–European Union Trade and Cooperation Agreement’s (TCA) novel Level Playing Field (LPF) rebalancing obligations, consisting of a requirement not to lower standards in areas of labour, the environment and subsidy policy such that an adverse material impact results to trade or investment flows between the parties. The test for violations of these provisions is narrowly framed, requiring strong evidence of significant harms and carefully calibrated retaliation. The system contemplates several avenues of dispute settlement including unilateral ex ante retaliation which may be levied against another sector. The article suggests that the substantive and procedural features of the TCA’s LPF mechanism affords reasonably wide opportunity for parties to practice regulatory divergence while evincing a commitment to shared values.
{"title":"Standing the Test of Time: The Level Playing Field and Rebalancing Mechanism in the UK–EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA)","authors":"D. Collins","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idab023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idab023","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article explores the dispute settlement elements of the UK–European Union Trade and Cooperation Agreement’s (TCA) novel Level Playing Field (LPF) rebalancing obligations, consisting of a requirement not to lower standards in areas of labour, the environment and subsidy policy such that an adverse material impact results to trade or investment flows between the parties. The test for violations of these provisions is narrowly framed, requiring strong evidence of significant harms and carefully calibrated retaliation. The system contemplates several avenues of dispute settlement including unilateral ex ante retaliation which may be levied against another sector. The article suggests that the substantive and procedural features of the TCA’s LPF mechanism affords reasonably wide opportunity for parties to practice regulatory divergence while evincing a commitment to shared values.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"81 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76014988","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}
{"title":"Erratum to: How are Disputes Resolved under Bilateral Air Services Agreements? A Typology","authors":"Luping Zhang","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idab014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idab014","url":null,"abstract":"<span>Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 12(1), 151–172, https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idab003</span>","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138538689","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}
Text of the corrigendum (and description of changes to be made).
勘误表的文本(以及对所作更改的说明)。
{"title":"Corrigendum to idab005 “Judicial Interactions and Human Rights Contestations in Latin America”","authors":"Contesse J.","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idab011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idab011","url":null,"abstract":"<span>Text of the corrigendum (and description of changes to be made).</span>","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138538674","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 legal consequence of the principle of sovereign equality is the fact that the jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals in inter-State disputes is contingent on consent of the disputing States. Consent to jurisdiction may be expressed in different forms but requires in each instance the demonstration of unequivocal acceptance of consent. The case law is abundant on and under which circumstances consent can be considered present. Interestingly, the criteria that are set forward in the case law appear to present two different standards for determining whether consent to jurisdiction has been expressed. This arises unequivocally in the English and French texts of the relevant judicial decisions.
{"title":"An Equivocal or Unequivocal Bar for Determining Consent to Jurisdiction","authors":"Bjørn Kunoy","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idab021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idab021","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The legal consequence of the principle of sovereign equality is the fact that the jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals in inter-State disputes is contingent on consent of the disputing States. Consent to jurisdiction may be expressed in different forms but requires in each instance the demonstration of unequivocal acceptance of consent. The case law is abundant on and under which circumstances consent can be considered present. Interestingly, the criteria that are set forward in the case law appear to present two different standards for determining whether consent to jurisdiction has been expressed. This arises unequivocally in the English and French texts of the relevant judicial decisions.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87222479","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 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) contains the inter-State communication procedure within which the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) received the following three communications in 2018: Qatar v Saudi Arabia, Qatar v the United Arab Emirates, and Palestine v Israel. In these cases, CERD characterized this procedure as relating to collective enforcement, analogous to the inter-State application procedure within the order/regime of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). However, unlike the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), ICERD does not refer to ‘collective enforcement’, but merely contains ad hoc conciliation, that is a bilateral means for reaching a mutually agreed solution to a dispute. This article aims, rather critically, to assess whether, and to which extent, it is justified to view the CERD ad hoc conciliation procedure as a means of collective enforcement.
{"title":"Inter-State Communication under ICERD: From ad hoc Conciliation to Collective Enforcement?","authors":"D. Tamada","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idab018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idab018","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) contains the inter-State communication procedure within which the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) received the following three communications in 2018: Qatar v Saudi Arabia, Qatar v the United Arab Emirates, and Palestine v Israel. In these cases, CERD characterized this procedure as relating to collective enforcement, analogous to the inter-State application procedure within the order/regime of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). However, unlike the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), ICERD does not refer to ‘collective enforcement’, but merely contains ad hoc conciliation, that is a bilateral means for reaching a mutually agreed solution to a dispute. This article aims, rather critically, to assess whether, and to which extent, it is justified to view the CERD ad hoc conciliation procedure as a means of collective enforcement.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"76 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75983775","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}
Edouard Fromageau, M. Kanetake, Stephan Wittich, Andrea Gattini
Domestic authorities, including national courts, at times, resist accepting the decisions of international courts and tribunals. The formal division between the national and international legal orders creates space for domestic authorities to contest or avoid international binding judicial decisions. The present special issue examines domestic contestations in multiple fields of international law, including human rights and investment law. In contesting some of the international decisions, domestic authorities invoke a wide range of legal bases in resisting the effect of international decisions. The contributions in the present issue examine various such argumentative bases of contestations. The contributions also consider whether domestic resistance could give rise to the opportunity for international courts and tribunals to critically reflect on their own decisions and underlying reasoning.
{"title":"Domestic Contestations against International Courts and Tribunals: Introduction to the Special Issue","authors":"Edouard Fromageau, M. Kanetake, Stephan Wittich, Andrea Gattini","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idab016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idab016","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Domestic authorities, including national courts, at times, resist accepting the decisions of international courts and tribunals. The formal division between the national and international legal orders creates space for domestic authorities to contest or avoid international binding judicial decisions. The present special issue examines domestic contestations in multiple fields of international law, including human rights and investment law. In contesting some of the international decisions, domestic authorities invoke a wide range of legal bases in resisting the effect of international decisions. The contributions in the present issue examine various such argumentative bases of contestations. The contributions also consider whether domestic resistance could give rise to the opportunity for international courts and tribunals to critically reflect on their own decisions and underlying reasoning.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91005309","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}
Third-party funding is a recent yet rapidly growing phenomenon in investment arbitration. While it enables investors lacking funds to pursue remedies against States, it exposes States to greater risk of inability to recover arbitration costs. Against this background, this article examines the legal principles on security for costs and, contrary to the view of several tribunals and commentators, it argues that in cases involving third-party funding and the funding agreement does not cover potential adverse costs, there is a presumption in favour of ordering security for costs. However, as revealed in recent decisions in Herzig, the current legal framework on security for costs, which is predicated on the bilateral investor–State relationship, is ill-suited to regulate the tripartite relationship involving third-party funders. Unfortunately, the discussions on Investor–State dispute settlement reform and the current proposal by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) on the ICSID Rules amendment have largely overlooked this problem. Thus, this article urges policy-makers to develop new rules to regulate the tripartite relationship involving third-party funders.
{"title":"Disrupt the Gambler’s Nirvana: Security for Costs in Investment Arbitration Supported by Third-Party Funding","authors":"Xu Shao","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idab019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idab019","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Third-party funding is a recent yet rapidly growing phenomenon in investment arbitration. While it enables investors lacking funds to pursue remedies against States, it exposes States to greater risk of inability to recover arbitration costs. Against this background, this article examines the legal principles on security for costs and, contrary to the view of several tribunals and commentators, it argues that in cases involving third-party funding and the funding agreement does not cover potential adverse costs, there is a presumption in favour of ordering security for costs. However, as revealed in recent decisions in Herzig, the current legal framework on security for costs, which is predicated on the bilateral investor–State relationship, is ill-suited to regulate the tripartite relationship involving third-party funders. Unfortunately, the discussions on Investor–State dispute settlement reform and the current proposal by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) on the ICSID Rules amendment have largely overlooked this problem. Thus, this article urges policy-makers to develop new rules to regulate the tripartite relationship involving third-party funders.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"144 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90112963","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 midst of a global pandemic, whose economic consequences are still unfolding, cross-border insolvencies loom closer. Besides the ripple effect cross-border insolvency cases might have on the economy, another cause of concern lies in the complexity of resolving such cases. Against this backdrop, this contribution posits that international arbitration may facilitate the resolution of some of the cross-border insolvency-related disputes as long as certain safeguards are put in place. Consequently, the perceived advantages of international arbitration may ease the already intricate cross-border insolvency proceedings, relieving insolvency courts around the world.
{"title":"International Arbitration and Cross-Border Insolvency—Friends or Foes? Revisiting the Role of Arbitration in Resolving Cross-border Insolvency-Related Disputes","authors":"Velislava Hristova, A. E. Alvarado Garzón","doi":"10.1093/jnlids/idab013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idab013","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In the midst of a global pandemic, whose economic consequences are still unfolding, cross-border insolvencies loom closer. Besides the ripple effect cross-border insolvency cases might have on the economy, another cause of concern lies in the complexity of resolving such cases. Against this backdrop, this contribution posits that international arbitration may facilitate the resolution of some of the cross-border insolvency-related disputes as long as certain safeguards are put in place. Consequently, the perceived advantages of international arbitration may ease the already intricate cross-border insolvency proceedings, relieving insolvency courts around the world.","PeriodicalId":44660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Dispute Settlement","volume":"78 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76737226","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：