Pub Date : 2024-09-05DOI: 10.1093/icsidreview/siae029
Luke Nottage
In late 2022 Australia’s new Labor government declared that it would no longer agree to investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) in future international investment agreements (IIAs). Section I reviews its previous anti-ISDS stance (governing with the Greens over 2011 to 2013) inspired by more articulated policy rationales but also the first claim against Australia, over tobacco plain packaging legislation. Then followed the centre-right coalition government’s return to including ISDS on a case-by-case assessment (2014–21) drawing partly on different arguments and evidence. Section II suggests that a new factor behind the latest policy shift comprises a second set of significant ISDS arbitration claims against Australia, from the Singaporean subsidiary of an Australian mining magnate and right-wing political leader. Section III draws parallels with the European Union (EU), whose developed economy member States reacted to inbound ISDS claims by replacing traditional ISDS from 2015 with an ‘investment court’ hybrid process, then influencing multilateral ISDS reform negotiations. Intra-EU ISDS claims are also being precluded by the Court of Justice of the EU, but in the context of European law and institutions providing an alternative pathway for European investors to hold other member States to account. Section IV considers the implications of Australia’s anti-ISDS stance for ongoing and potential IIA (re)negotiations with the EU and Asian States, including the feasibility of moving towards an EU-style investment court approach in Asia-Pacific IIAs. Section V concludes by linking these developments to ongoing debates about reforms to ISDS—locally, regionally and globally—as well as about incomplete investment IIAs.
{"title":"Australia’s Ambivalence Again Around Investor-State Arbitration: Comparisons with Europe and Implications for Asia","authors":"Luke Nottage","doi":"10.1093/icsidreview/siae029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siae029","url":null,"abstract":"In late 2022 Australia’s new Labor government declared that it would no longer agree to investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) in future international investment agreements (IIAs). Section I reviews its previous anti-ISDS stance (governing with the Greens over 2011 to 2013) inspired by more articulated policy rationales but also the first claim against Australia, over tobacco plain packaging legislation. Then followed the centre-right coalition government’s return to including ISDS on a case-by-case assessment (2014–21) drawing partly on different arguments and evidence. Section II suggests that a new factor behind the latest policy shift comprises a second set of significant ISDS arbitration claims against Australia, from the Singaporean subsidiary of an Australian mining magnate and right-wing political leader. Section III draws parallels with the European Union (EU), whose developed economy member States reacted to inbound ISDS claims by replacing traditional ISDS from 2015 with an ‘investment court’ hybrid process, then influencing multilateral ISDS reform negotiations. Intra-EU ISDS claims are also being precluded by the Court of Justice of the EU, but in the context of European law and institutions providing an alternative pathway for European investors to hold other member States to account. Section IV considers the implications of Australia’s anti-ISDS stance for ongoing and potential IIA (re)negotiations with the EU and Asian States, including the feasibility of moving towards an EU-style investment court approach in Asia-Pacific IIAs. Section V concludes by linking these developments to ongoing debates about reforms to ISDS—locally, regionally and globally—as well as about incomplete investment IIAs.","PeriodicalId":44986,"journal":{"name":"Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142202569","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}
Pub Date : 2024-05-09DOI: 10.1093/icsidreview/siae009
Margrit Trein
A question that continues to trouble and divide arbitral tribunals concerns the way in which they should or must conduct themselves in circumstances where they either suspect that the dispute before them is tainted by corruption, but neither party has raised allegations of corruption, or where a party simply asserts corruption, but does not attempt to particularize its allegations properly, let alone seek to substantiate them. These issues are not purely academic, they do arise in practice. The approaches that arbitral tribunals take in such situations vary greatly, with passive approaches eroding trust in the integrity and legitimacy of arbitration. This article seeks to contribute to the existing literature by providing an analytical framework by reference to applicable laws and rules to ascertain in what circumstances the duty of arbitral tribunals to raise or investigate their suspicions of corruption is triggered and explores the contours and content of the duty.
{"title":"The Duty of Arbitrators to Raise Suspected Corruption or to Investigate Poorly Particularized Allegations of Corruption","authors":"Margrit Trein","doi":"10.1093/icsidreview/siae009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siae009","url":null,"abstract":"A question that continues to trouble and divide arbitral tribunals concerns the way in which they should or must conduct themselves in circumstances where they either suspect that the dispute before them is tainted by corruption, but neither party has raised allegations of corruption, or where a party simply asserts corruption, but does not attempt to particularize its allegations properly, let alone seek to substantiate them. These issues are not purely academic, they do arise in practice. The approaches that arbitral tribunals take in such situations vary greatly, with passive approaches eroding trust in the integrity and legitimacy of arbitration. This article seeks to contribute to the existing literature by providing an analytical framework by reference to applicable laws and rules to ascertain in what circumstances the duty of arbitral tribunals to raise or investigate their suspicions of corruption is triggered and explores the contours and content of the duty.","PeriodicalId":44986,"journal":{"name":"Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140935952","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}
Pub Date : 2024-05-03DOI: 10.1093/icsidreview/siae002
Stavros Brekoulakis, Anna Howard
This article proposes a new approach to assessing impartiality in investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS). It builds on earlier work that criticises the current doctrine of impartiality in ISDS which applies irrespective of the role and context in which arbitrators are called to decide a dispute. Drawing on empirical findings, moral philosophy and psychology, this article proposes the idea of contextual impartiality. As is argued, a contextual approach offers an understanding of impartiality which better corresponds to the foundational value of trust in ISDS which is founded on the method of party appointment of arbitrators. Under this approach, the question is not whether an arbitrator can meet universal standards of impartiality irrespective of the context within which the arbitrator operates. Rather, the critical distinction is between permissible and impermissible partiality which depends on whether the individual is reasonably expected to act partially because of their circumstances. In this respect, the article identifies open-mindedness as a fundamental feature of a contextual approach to impartiality and a bright line between permissible and impermissible partiality.
{"title":"Contextual Impartiality: A New Approach to Assessing Impartiality in Investor-State Dispute Settlement","authors":"Stavros Brekoulakis, Anna Howard","doi":"10.1093/icsidreview/siae002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siae002","url":null,"abstract":"This article proposes a new approach to assessing impartiality in investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS). It builds on earlier work that criticises the current doctrine of impartiality in ISDS which applies irrespective of the role and context in which arbitrators are called to decide a dispute. Drawing on empirical findings, moral philosophy and psychology, this article proposes the idea of contextual impartiality. As is argued, a contextual approach offers an understanding of impartiality which better corresponds to the foundational value of trust in ISDS which is founded on the method of party appointment of arbitrators. Under this approach, the question is not whether an arbitrator can meet universal standards of impartiality irrespective of the context within which the arbitrator operates. Rather, the critical distinction is between permissible and impermissible partiality which depends on whether the individual is reasonably expected to act partially because of their circumstances. In this respect, the article identifies open-mindedness as a fundamental feature of a contextual approach to impartiality and a bright line between permissible and impermissible partiality.","PeriodicalId":44986,"journal":{"name":"Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140837348","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}
Pub Date : 2024-01-13DOI: 10.1093/icsidreview/siad020
Albert Jan van den Berg
Arbitration lawyers have been discussing enforcement of annulled awards for some 25 years. Recently, another discussion regarding annulled awards is gaining traction: can an investment arbitrator rely on an annulled award? More specifically, does it constitute legal authority? The author submits that, in investment arbitration, an arbitral award, annulled by a national court in the UNCITRAL Rules context or by an ad hoc committee in the ICSID context, does not constitute legal authority, nor can it give guidance on the content of the applicable law in another manner.
{"title":"Does an Annulled Award Constitute Legal Authority in Investment Arbitration?","authors":"Albert Jan van den Berg","doi":"10.1093/icsidreview/siad020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siad020","url":null,"abstract":"Arbitration lawyers have been discussing enforcement of annulled awards for some 25 years. Recently, another discussion regarding annulled awards is gaining traction: can an investment arbitrator rely on an annulled award? More specifically, does it constitute legal authority? The author submits that, in investment arbitration, an arbitral award, annulled by a national court in the UNCITRAL Rules context or by an ad hoc committee in the ICSID context, does not constitute legal authority, nor can it give guidance on the content of the applicable law in another manner.","PeriodicalId":44986,"journal":{"name":"Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2024-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139462470","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}
Pub Date : 2023-12-05DOI: 10.1093/icsidreview/siad033
Stavros Brekoulakis, Anna Howard
This article analyses impartiality in investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) by identifying the way that the parties’ trust in arbitrators is constructed. Drawing on the findings of a large-scale empirical project, it questions the applicability of an orthodox judicial doctrine of impartiality to ISDS on the grounds that trust in arbitrators is constructed on a fundamentally different basis from that of trust in judges. The primary feature of a judicial doctrine of impartiality is that trust is founded on an absolutist approach to impartiality which is intended to ensure that judges have no predispositions to parties. In contrast, trust in ISDS is founded on the method of party appointment which is based on a very different assumption—that arbitrators’ predispositions can be valuable and appropriate in the decision-making process. The empirical findings show that the parties’ choice of a predisposed arbitrator is generally considered compatible with the understanding of impartiality in ISDS. Accordingly, this article calls for a new, and contextualised, approach which better corresponds to the fundamental value of trust in ISDS.
{"title":"Impartiality and the Construction of Trust in Investor-State Dispute Settlement","authors":"Stavros Brekoulakis, Anna Howard","doi":"10.1093/icsidreview/siad033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siad033","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses impartiality in investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) by identifying the way that the parties’ trust in arbitrators is constructed. Drawing on the findings of a large-scale empirical project, it questions the applicability of an orthodox judicial doctrine of impartiality to ISDS on the grounds that trust in arbitrators is constructed on a fundamentally different basis from that of trust in judges. The primary feature of a judicial doctrine of impartiality is that trust is founded on an absolutist approach to impartiality which is intended to ensure that judges have no predispositions to parties. In contrast, trust in ISDS is founded on the method of party appointment which is based on a very different assumption—that arbitrators’ predispositions can be valuable and appropriate in the decision-making process. The empirical findings show that the parties’ choice of a predisposed arbitrator is generally considered compatible with the understanding of impartiality in ISDS. Accordingly, this article calls for a new, and contextualised, approach which better corresponds to the fundamental value of trust in ISDS.","PeriodicalId":44986,"journal":{"name":"Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2023-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138542416","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}
Pub Date : 2023-10-19DOI: 10.1093/icsidreview/siad023
Mahnaz Malik
Journal Article Deutsche Lufthansa AG v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela: Am I My Brother’s Keeper? Get access Mahnaz Malik Mahnaz Malik Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, siad023, https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siad023 Published: 19 October 2023 Article history Received: 09 March 2023 Revision received: 26 May 2023 Editorial decision: 04 August 2023 Accepted: 10 August 2023 Corrected and typeset: 19 October 2023 Published: 19 October 2023
德国汉莎航空公司诉委内瑞拉玻利瓦尔共和国:我是我兄弟的守护者吗?获取Mahnaz Malik Mahnaz Malik作者其他作品搜索:牛津学术谷歌学者ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, siad023, https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siad023发布日期:2023年10月19日文章历史收稿日期:2023年3月9日修订收到日期:2023年5月26日编辑决定:2023年8月4日接受日期:2023年8月10日校正排版:2023年10月19日发布日期:2023年10月19日
{"title":"<i>Deutsche Lufthansa AG v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela:</i> Am I My Brother’s Keeper?","authors":"Mahnaz Malik","doi":"10.1093/icsidreview/siad023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siad023","url":null,"abstract":"Journal Article Deutsche Lufthansa AG v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela: Am I My Brother’s Keeper? Get access Mahnaz Malik Mahnaz Malik Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, siad023, https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siad023 Published: 19 October 2023 Article history Received: 09 March 2023 Revision received: 26 May 2023 Editorial decision: 04 August 2023 Accepted: 10 August 2023 Corrected and typeset: 19 October 2023 Published: 19 October 2023","PeriodicalId":44986,"journal":{"name":"Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135778402","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}
Pub Date : 2023-10-06DOI: 10.1093/icsidreview/siad025
Claudia Annacker
Journal Article Fragmentation and Integration in International Investment Law: Plus Ça Change Get access Claudia Annacker Claudia Annacker Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, siad025, https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siad025 Published: 06 October 2023 Article history Received: 03 August 2023 Editorial decision: 01 September 2023 Accepted: 04 September 2023 Corrected and typeset: 06 October 2023 Published: 06 October 2023
期刊文章国际投资法的碎片化与整合:Plus Ça变更获取Claudia Annacker Claudia Annacker搜索作者的其他作品:Oxford Academic Google Scholar ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, siad025, https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siad025发布日期:2023年10月06日文章历史收稿日期:2023年8月03日编辑决定:2023年9月01日接受日期:2023年9月04日校正排版:2023年10月06日发布:2023年10月6日
{"title":"Fragmentation and Integration in International Investment Law: <i>Plus Ça Change</i>","authors":"Claudia Annacker","doi":"10.1093/icsidreview/siad025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siad025","url":null,"abstract":"Journal Article Fragmentation and Integration in International Investment Law: Plus Ça Change Get access Claudia Annacker Claudia Annacker Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, siad025, https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siad025 Published: 06 October 2023 Article history Received: 03 August 2023 Editorial decision: 01 September 2023 Accepted: 04 September 2023 Corrected and typeset: 06 October 2023 Published: 06 October 2023","PeriodicalId":44986,"journal":{"name":"Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135345701","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}
Pub Date : 2023-09-08DOI: 10.1093/icsidreview/siad021
Abayomi Okubote
Journal Article The Investment Treaty Regime and Public Interest Regulation in Africa Get access Dominic Dagbanja, The Investment Treaty Regime and Public Interest Regulation in Africa ( OUP 2022), ISBN 9780192896179, USD$125.00. Abayomi Okubote Abayomi Okubote Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, siad021, https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siad021 Published: 08 September 2023 Article history Received: 30 May 2023 Editorial decision: 24 July 2023 Accepted: 24 July 2023 Corrected and typeset: 08 September 2023 Published: 08 September 2023
多米尼克·达巴尼亚，《非洲投资条约制度与公共利益监管》(OUP 2022)， ISBN 9780192896179, 125.00美元。Abayomi Okubote作者其他著作搜索:Oxford Academic谷歌Scholar ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, siad021, https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siad021发布日期:2023年9月08日文章历史收稿日期:2023年5月30日编辑决定:2023年7月24日接收日期:2023年7月24日校正排版:2023年9月08日发布日期:2023年9月08日
{"title":"The Investment Treaty Regime and Public Interest Regulation in Africa","authors":"Abayomi Okubote","doi":"10.1093/icsidreview/siad021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siad021","url":null,"abstract":"Journal Article The Investment Treaty Regime and Public Interest Regulation in Africa Get access Dominic Dagbanja, The Investment Treaty Regime and Public Interest Regulation in Africa ( OUP 2022), ISBN 9780192896179, USD$125.00. Abayomi Okubote Abayomi Okubote Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, siad021, https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siad021 Published: 08 September 2023 Article history Received: 30 May 2023 Editorial decision: 24 July 2023 Accepted: 24 July 2023 Corrected and typeset: 08 September 2023 Published: 08 September 2023","PeriodicalId":44986,"journal":{"name":"Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136362144","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}
Pub Date : 2023-07-28DOI: 10.1093/icsidreview/siad016
Mercédeh Azeredo da Silveira, Yulia Levashova
Journal Article Economic Sanctions, Countermeasures and Investment Claims against the Russian Federation: A Battle on Multiple Fronts Get access Mercédeh Azeredo da Silveira, Mercédeh Azeredo da Silveira Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Yulia Levashova Yulia Levashova Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, siad016, https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siad016 Published: 28 July 2023 Article history Received: 21 October 2022 Revision received: 06 March 2023 Editorial decision: 05 May 2023 Accepted: 08 May 2023 Corrected and typeset: 28 July 2023 Published: 28 July 2023
期刊文章针对俄罗斯联邦的经济制裁、反制措施和投资索赔:一场多战线的战斗获取mercmodeh Azeredo da Silveira, mercmodeh Azeredo da Silveira搜索作者的其他作品，网址:牛津学术谷歌学者Yulia Levashova搜索作者的其他作品，网址:牛津学术谷歌学者ICSID评论-外国投资法杂志，siad016, https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siad016出版:文章历史收稿日期:2022年10月21日修稿日期:2023年3月06日编辑决定日期:2023年5月05日验收日期:2023年5月08日校正排版日期:2023年7月28日发布日期:2023年7月28日
{"title":"Economic Sanctions, Countermeasures and Investment Claims against the Russian Federation: A Battle on Multiple Fronts","authors":"Mercédeh Azeredo da Silveira, Yulia Levashova","doi":"10.1093/icsidreview/siad016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siad016","url":null,"abstract":"Journal Article Economic Sanctions, Countermeasures and Investment Claims against the Russian Federation: A Battle on Multiple Fronts Get access Mercédeh Azeredo da Silveira, Mercédeh Azeredo da Silveira Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Yulia Levashova Yulia Levashova Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, siad016, https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siad016 Published: 28 July 2023 Article history Received: 21 October 2022 Revision received: 06 March 2023 Editorial decision: 05 May 2023 Accepted: 08 May 2023 Corrected and typeset: 28 July 2023 Published: 28 July 2023","PeriodicalId":44986,"journal":{"name":"Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134919942","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：