“跨条约解释”整体或CAFTA-DR法庭如何基于NAFTA判例法系统解释FET标准

P. Dumberry
{"title":"“跨条约解释”整体或CAFTA-DR法庭如何基于NAFTA判例法系统解释FET标准","authors":"P. Dumberry","doi":"10.1163/15718034-bja10093","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThis article examines how tribunals set up under the CAFTA-DR have interpreted the fair and equitable treatment (‘FET’) standard under Article 10.5 in the last 15 years. It shows that they have consistently referred to NAFTA case law to define the standard and to interpret the scope and content of the different elements it contains (arbitrary conduct, legitimate expectations, due process). The only exception is regarding denial of justice. This is a fascinating example of “cross treaty interpretation”. I will explain the reasons why CAFTA tribunals have done so and examine whether or not this “cross treaty interpretation” en bloc is legitimate and sound in light of the canons of treaty interpretation.","PeriodicalId":42613,"journal":{"name":"Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“Cross Treaty Interpretation” en bloc or How CAFTA-DR Tribunals Are Systematically Interpreting the FET Standard Based on NAFTA Case Law\",\"authors\":\"P. Dumberry\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15718034-bja10093\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThis article examines how tribunals set up under the CAFTA-DR have interpreted the fair and equitable treatment (‘FET’) standard under Article 10.5 in the last 15 years. It shows that they have consistently referred to NAFTA case law to define the standard and to interpret the scope and content of the different elements it contains (arbitrary conduct, legitimate expectations, due process). The only exception is regarding denial of justice. This is a fascinating example of “cross treaty interpretation”. I will explain the reasons why CAFTA tribunals have done so and examine whether or not this “cross treaty interpretation” en bloc is legitimate and sound in light of the canons of treaty interpretation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42613,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-bja10093\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-bja10093","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文考察了在过去15年中,根据中美洲自由贸易协定设立的法庭是如何解释第10.5条规定的公平与公平待遇(FET)标准的。它表明,它们一贯引用北美自由贸易协定判例法来定义标准并解释其所包含的不同要素(任意行为、合法期望、正当程序)的范围和内容。唯一的例外是否认正义。这是“跨条约解释”的一个引人入胜的例子。我将解释CAFTA法庭这样做的原因,并根据条约解释的惯例来考察这种“跨条约解释”整体是否合法和合理。
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
“Cross Treaty Interpretation” en bloc or How CAFTA-DR Tribunals Are Systematically Interpreting the FET Standard Based on NAFTA Case Law
This article examines how tribunals set up under the CAFTA-DR have interpreted the fair and equitable treatment (‘FET’) standard under Article 10.5 in the last 15 years. It shows that they have consistently referred to NAFTA case law to define the standard and to interpret the scope and content of the different elements it contains (arbitrary conduct, legitimate expectations, due process). The only exception is regarding denial of justice. This is a fascinating example of “cross treaty interpretation”. I will explain the reasons why CAFTA tribunals have done so and examine whether or not this “cross treaty interpretation” en bloc is legitimate and sound in light of the canons of treaty interpretation.
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
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
40.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals is firmly established as the leading journal in its field. Each issue will give you the latest developments with respect to the preparation, adoption, suspension, amendment and revision of Rules of Procedure as well as statutory and internal rules and other related matters. The Journal will also provide you with the latest practice with respect to the interpretation and application of rules of procedure and constitutional documents, which can be found in judgments, advisory opinions, written and oral pleadings as well as legal literature.
期刊最新文献
Situating “Deformalization” within the International Court of Justice: Understanding Institutionalised Informality The World Is Burning, Urgently and Irreparably – a Plea for Interim Protection against Climatic Change at the ICJ “Cross Treaty Interpretation” en bloc or How CAFTA-DR Tribunals Are Systematically Interpreting the FET Standard Based on NAFTA Case Law The Asian Turn in Foreign Investment, edited by Mahdev Mohan and Chester Brown Not Just a Participation Trophy? Advancing Public Interests through Advisory Opinions at the International Court of Justice
×
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