National Courts and Tribunals in Investor-State Disputes
In: Forthcoming Xavier Groussot, Marja-Liisa Öberg and Graham Butler (eds), The EU Law of Investment: Past, Present, and Future
13 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Forthcoming Xavier Groussot, Marja-Liisa Öberg and Graham Butler (eds), The EU Law of Investment: Past, Present, and Future
SSRN
In: Austrian review of international and European law: ARIEL, Band 25, Heft 1, S. 141-167
ISSN: 1573-6512
In: Forthcoming, European Yearbook of International Economic Law
SSRN
In: Forthcoming in Pietro Ortolani and others (eds), International Arbitration and Technology
SSRN
In: Forthcoming, Austrian Review of International and European Law
SSRN
In: Journal of International Dispute Settlement, Forthcoming
SSRN
In: Alan Anderson and Ben Beaumont (eds), The Investor-State Dispute Settlement System: Reform, Replace or Status Quo?, Forthcoming
SSRN
Working paper
In: Glasnik - Journal of Legal Theory and Practice of the Bar Association of Vojvodina, 3/2019
SSRN
Working paper
In: Journal of Dispute Resolution, Band 2018, Heft 1
SSRN
In: Forthcoming, Junji Nakagawa (ed), Asian Perspectives on International Investment Law
SSRN
In: Journal of International Dispute Settlement, Forthcoming
SSRN
In: http://orbilu.uni.lu/handle/10993/32402
The 2011 decision on jurisdiction and admissibility in Abaclat and Others v Argentina has started a discussion about mass claims processes in investment treaty arbitration. The tribunal concluded that although proceedings were initiated in aggregate, the continuance of the case contained a representative feature. This determination led them to declare that the applicable procedure could and had to be adapted. Today, the legacy of Abaclat and the availability of mass claims procedural devices in investment treaty arbitration remain questionable: can mass claims investment arbitration be qualified as 'class-like'? If so, does it satisfy the fundamental principles of arbitration (particularly the principle of consent)? This article takes a comparative approach to answering these questions by putting mass claims investment arbitration procedures and United States class actions processes side-by-side. It argues that mass claims arbitration as construed in Abaclat cannot satisfy fundamental arbitration principles because it fails to observe the inextricable link between the parties' consent, representative procedure, and representative relief. It is therefore wrong to view mass claims arbitration as an available device for investors in investment treaty arbitration.
BASE
In: McGill Journal of Dispute Resolution, Band 4
SSRN
Working paper