间接征收的审查标准:效果规则与意图原则的协调

Q2 Social Sciences Global Journal of Comparative Law Pub Date : 2022-03-23 DOI:10.1163/2211906x-11010002
C. Ajibo, Chikodili O. Oguejiofor, Chidi C. Egbom, Gloria I. Onyia, Iwu Victor E. Okwulehie, Adaeze J. Nkokelonye
{"title":"间接征收的审查标准:效果规则与意图原则的协调","authors":"C. Ajibo, Chikodili O. Oguejiofor, Chidi C. Egbom, Gloria I. Onyia, Iwu Victor E. Okwulehie, Adaeze J. Nkokelonye","doi":"10.1163/2211906x-11010002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The standard of review that underpins investor-state dispute resolution particularly in the energy and natural resources sectors remains mired in a conundrum of legitimacy. While the jurisprudence of arbitral tribunals illustrates that the effect doctrine constitutes the central standard of review, and the intent behind the measure is largely jettisoned, questions remain as to whether the exclusive reliance on the effect doctrine reflects the interest of both parties and actually balances such interests in such strategic sectors as oil and gas where a trade-off is critical in view of massive State reliance on accrued revenue. In essence, it is contended that the doctrine of intent be deployed to complement the effect doctrine. Such an approach will not only enhance the substantive legitimacy of the dispute settlement process but equally reflect the balanced interest emblematic of the proportionate commitment of both parties.","PeriodicalId":38000,"journal":{"name":"Global Journal of Comparative Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Standard of Review in Indirect Expropriation: Reconciling the Effect Rule with the Doctrine of Intent\",\"authors\":\"C. Ajibo, Chikodili O. Oguejiofor, Chidi C. Egbom, Gloria I. Onyia, Iwu Victor E. Okwulehie, Adaeze J. Nkokelonye\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/2211906x-11010002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The standard of review that underpins investor-state dispute resolution particularly in the energy and natural resources sectors remains mired in a conundrum of legitimacy. While the jurisprudence of arbitral tribunals illustrates that the effect doctrine constitutes the central standard of review, and the intent behind the measure is largely jettisoned, questions remain as to whether the exclusive reliance on the effect doctrine reflects the interest of both parties and actually balances such interests in such strategic sectors as oil and gas where a trade-off is critical in view of massive State reliance on accrued revenue. In essence, it is contended that the doctrine of intent be deployed to complement the effect doctrine. Such an approach will not only enhance the substantive legitimacy of the dispute settlement process but equally reflect the balanced interest emblematic of the proportionate commitment of both parties.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38000,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Journal of Comparative Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Journal of Comparative Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/2211906x-11010002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Journal of Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/2211906x-11010002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

作为投资者与国家争端解决(尤其是在能源和自然资源领域)基础的审查标准,仍深陷合法性难题的泥潭。虽然仲裁法庭的判例表明,效果原则构成了审查的中心标准,而措施背后的意图在很大程度上被抛弃了,但问题仍然存在,即对效果原则的完全依赖是否反映了双方的利益,并实际上平衡了石油和天然气等战略部门的利益,鉴于国家对累积收入的巨大依赖,权衡是至关重要的。从本质上讲,我们认为意图原则应该被用来补充效果原则。这种做法不仅将增强争端解决进程的实质性合法性,而且同样反映了象征双方相称承诺的平衡利益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Standard of Review in Indirect Expropriation: Reconciling the Effect Rule with the Doctrine of Intent
The standard of review that underpins investor-state dispute resolution particularly in the energy and natural resources sectors remains mired in a conundrum of legitimacy. While the jurisprudence of arbitral tribunals illustrates that the effect doctrine constitutes the central standard of review, and the intent behind the measure is largely jettisoned, questions remain as to whether the exclusive reliance on the effect doctrine reflects the interest of both parties and actually balances such interests in such strategic sectors as oil and gas where a trade-off is critical in view of massive State reliance on accrued revenue. In essence, it is contended that the doctrine of intent be deployed to complement the effect doctrine. Such an approach will not only enhance the substantive legitimacy of the dispute settlement process but equally reflect the balanced interest emblematic of the proportionate commitment of both parties.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Global Journal of Comparative Law
Global Journal of Comparative Law Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: The Global Journal of Comparative Law is a peer reviewed periodical that provides a dynamic platform for the dissemination of ideas on comparative law and reports on developments in the field of comparative law from all parts of the world. In our contemporary globalized world, it is almost impossible to isolate developments in the law in one jurisdiction or society from another. At the same time, what is traditionally called comparative law is increasingly subsumed under aspects of International Law. The Global Journal of Comparative Law therefore aims to maintain the discipline of comparative legal studies as vigorous and dynamic by deepening the space for comparative work in its transnational context.
期刊最新文献
Access to Public Documents and Its Restrictions: a Reflection from the Perspectives of Brazil and Sweden Comparative Study of Selected Nigerian and Indian Labour Practices and the Law The Irony in the Lineage of Modern Chinese Constitutions and Constitutionalism Regulating Surrogacy as a Reproductive Practice in India and Sri Lanka Use of Specialized Tribunals for the Settlement of Construction Projects in Times of a Financial Crisis
×
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