Cover of book: Von bilateralen Schieds- und Investitionsgerichten zum multilateralen Investitionsgerichtshof
Buy in shop
, to see if you have full access to this publication.
Book Titles No access

Von bilateralen Schieds- und Investitionsgerichten zum multilateralen Investitionsgerichtshof

Optionen für die Institutionalisierung der Investor-Staat-Streitbeilegung
Authors:
Publisher:
 08.10.2018

Bibliographic data

Copyright year
2018
Publication date
08.10.2018
ISBN-Print
978-3-8487-5211-9
ISBN-Online
978-3-8452-9400-1
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series
Studien zum Internationalen Investitionsrecht
Volume
28
Language
German
Pages
318
Product type
Book Titles

Table of contents

ChapterPages
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis No access 1 - 14
  2. Abkürzungsverzeichnis No access 15 - 16
    1. Grundüberlegungen zur Errichtung No access
    2. Organisationsstruktur No access
    3. Verfahren des MIC No access
    4. Anwendbares Recht des MIC No access
    5. Entscheidungsausspruch und Vollstreckung eines MIC No access
    6. Errichtung „nur“ einer multilateralen Berufungsinstanz (MIAM) No access
    1. Preliminary Considerations regarding the Establishment of the MIC/MIAM No access
    2. Organisational Structure No access
    3. Procedure of the MIC No access
    4. Applicable Law of the MIC No access
    5. Legal Remedies and Enforcement of MIC Decisions No access
    6. Establishment of a “Mere” Multilateral Investment Appellate Mechanism (MIAM) No access
  5. Einführung No access 35 - 40
      1. a) Konsistenz von Entscheidungen No access
      2. b) Stärkere Legitimation No access
      3. c) Unabhängigkeit und Neutralität von Richtern No access
      4. d) Fehlender Kontrollmechanismus No access
      5. e) Kosteneffizienz No access
      6. f) Zugang von KMU No access
      7. g) Transparenz No access
      8. h) Zeiteffizienz No access
    2. 2. Vorteile der zweiinstanzlichen MIC-Lösung No access
        1. aa) Mitglieder eines MIC No access
            1. Anzahl der MIC-Richter No access
            2. Nominierung der Richterkandidaten No access
            3. Evaluierungsausschuss No access
            4. Diversität bei der Wahl der Richter No access
            1. Verabschiedung von internen Verfahrensregelungen, Haushalt etc. No access
            2. Auslegung, auch nachträgliche Auslegung No access
            3. Nachträgliche Erweiterung der Richterzahl No access
          3. (3) Mehrheiten bei der Beschlussfassung No access
          4. (4) Transparenz des Plenarorgans No access
          5. (5) Sitz des Plenarorgans und Sitzungshäufigkeit No access
          1. (1) Voll- oder Teilzeitrichter No access
          2. (2) Qualifikation No access
          3. (3) Unabhängigkeit No access
          4. (4) Ethics No access
          5. (5) Verfügbarkeit No access
          6. (6) Vergütung No access
          7. (7) Amtseid No access
          8. (8) Immunität No access
          9. (9) Nebentätigkeit No access
          10. (10) Ernennung/Wahl durch die Vertragsparteien No access
          11. (11) Amtszeit der Richter sowie rotierende Neubesetzung No access
          12. (12) Entscheidung über die Befangenheit von Richtern No access
          13. (13) Beendigung des Amtes No access
          14. (14) Amtsenthebung No access
        4. dd) Gerichtspräsident und Vizegerichtspräsident No access
        5. ee) Plenarentscheidungen, Kammern und Einzelrichter No access
        6. ff) Berufungsinstanz No access
        7. gg) Sekretariat No access
        8. hh) Advisory Centre No access
        1. aa) Mitgliedschaft des Beklagten und Heimatstaat des Investors im MIC No access
        2. bb) (Schriftliche) Zustimmung zur Zuständigkeit des MIC No access
        3. cc) Zuständigkeit ratione personae (persönliche Zuständigkeit) No access
        4. dd) Zuständigkeit ratione materiae (sachliche Zuständigkeit) No access
        5. ee) Zuständigkeit ratione temporis (zeitliche Zuständigkeit) No access
          1. Zurückweisung offensichtlich unzulässiger oder unbegründeter Klagen No access
          2. Keine Zuständigkeit bei nach politischen Gesichtspunkten handelnden SOEs und Staatsfonds No access
          3. Ausschluss von Treaty Shopping No access
          4. Denial of Benefits und Klagezurückweisung bei Korruption No access
      2. b) Verhältnis des MIC zu anderen Gerichten und zur „herkömmlichen“ Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit No access
      3. c) Das Verhältnis zur nationalen Gerichtsbarkeit No access
      4. d) Das Verhältnis zur Staat-Staat-(Schieds-)Gerichtsbarkeit No access
        1. aa) Obligatorische Konsultationen? No access
          1. (1) Der allgemeine Verfahrensablauf No access
            1. Antragsverfahren, Klageeinreichung und Klageschrift No access
            2. Zuweisung der Klage zu einer Kammer No access
            3. Prüfung der Zuständigkeit sowie offensichtlicher Unzulässigkeit oder Unbegründetheit No access
            4. Klagefrist No access
            5. Klagegegner No access
            6. Bestimmung des richtigen Beklagten bei internationalen Organisationen mit Rechtssetzungskompetenz und deren Mitgliedern No access
            7. Klagebefugnis und Klagegegenstand No access
            8. Anspruch auf rechtliches Gehör No access
            9. Mündliche Verhandlung und freie Beweiswürdigung No access
            10. Gerichtsgebühren No access
            11. Kostenverteilungsregelungen, Prozesskostenfinanzierung und Prozesskostenhilfe No access
            12. Nichterscheinen vor Gericht und Versäumnisurteil No access
            13. Streitbeitritt und Anhörung von interessierten Dritten No access
            14. Sachverständige No access
            15. Klagerücknahme No access
            16. Entscheidungsbegründung und Minderheitenvoten No access
            17. Vorläufiger Rechtsschutz und Sicherung der Klägerrechte No access
            18. Counterclaims No access
            19. Massenklagen No access
            20. Rechtskraft und Rechtswirkung der Urteile No access
            21. Prozessvertretung No access
          1. (1) Der allgemeine Verfahrensablauf No access
            1. Verfahrensdauer No access
            2. Reichweite der Prüfungs- und Ermittlungskompetenz No access
            3. Kammern oder Plenarentscheidungen No access
            4. Präzedenzwirkung von Urteilen der zweiten Instanz? No access
      6. f) Verbindung von Verfahren No access
      1. a) EU-Recht als anwendbares materielles Recht? No access
        1. aa) Personelle Identität der Vertragsausleger am MIC No access
        2. bb) Harmonisierender Auslegungsauftrag No access
        1. aa) Präzisierung und Limitierung der Investitionsschutzstandards in Investitionsabkommen No access
        2. bb) Limitierender Auslegungsauftrag No access
        3. cc) „Authentische“ Interpretation durch die Vertragsparteien No access
        4. dd) Besetzung des MIC durch neutrale und unabhängige Richter No access
      1. a) Transparenz No access
      2. b) Effizienz No access
      3. c) Untersuchungsgrundsatz und Begrenzung des Streitgegenstandes No access
    1. 1. Rechtswirkungen von Entscheidungen internationaler Streitbeilegungsinstanzen No access
    2. 2. Entscheidungswirkungen von Investitionsschiedsgerichten No access
    1. 1. Entscheidungen des MIC als Schiedssprüche im Sinne der ICSID-Konvention No access
      1. a) Freiwillige Unterwerfung der Parteien No access
      2. b) Endgültige, verbindliche Streitbeilegung No access
      3. c) Nichtstaatlicher Entscheidungsträger No access
      4. d) Von den Parteien gewählte Schiedsrichter No access
      5. e) Außerstaatliche, nicht-inländische und a-nationale Schiedssprüche No access
      6. f) Rechtsstreitigkeiten zwischen natürlichen oder juristischen Personen No access
      7. g) MIC als „ständiges Schiedstribunal“ unter Art. I Abs. 2 NYK No access
      8. h) Vertragsvorbehalt zur Beschränkung auf „Handelssachen“ unter Art. I Abs. 3 NYK No access
    3. 3. Die Anerkennung und Vollstreckung von Entscheidungen des MIC No access
    1. 1. Die praktische Umsetzung der Errichtung eines MIC No access
    2. 2. Konkrete Ausgestaltung des MIC als internationale Organisation No access
    3. 3. Anbindung an bestehende Institutionen No access
    4. 4. Inkrafttreten des MIC-Statuts erst bei einer Mindestanzahl an Mitgliedern No access
      1. a) Abschluss neuer IIAs und FTAs mit Investitionskapiteln No access
      2. b) Nachverhandlung und Reform bestehender EU-Wirtschaftsabkommen No access
      3. c) Einbeziehung der mitgliedstaatlichen IIA-„Netzwerke“ in die MIC-Zuständigkeitsbegründung No access
      1. a) Der Normalfall: Konsensuale Zuständigkeitsbegründung des MIC No access
      2. b) Ausnahmefälle – Zuständigkeit des MIC auch, wenn Heimatstaat des Investors kein MIC-Mitglied ist? No access
      3. c) Zuständigkeit des MIC bei multilateralen IIAs No access
      4. d) Zusammenfassung der Zuständigkeitsbegründung des MIC No access
    7. 7. Übergangsvorschriften und Systemkonformität eines MIC No access
    8. 8. Arbeits- und Verfahrenssprachen des MIC No access
    9. 9. Kostentragung des neuen Systems No access
    10. 10. Überblick über notwendige Abkommen und Nebeninstrumente No access
    1. 1. Organisatorischer Aufbau No access
    2. 2. Allgemeiner Verfahrensablauf No access
      1. a) Verfahrensdauer No access
      2. b) Reichweite der Prüfungs- und Ermittlungskompetenz No access
      3. c) Kammern oder Plenarentscheidungen No access
      4. d) Entscheidung über die Befangenheit von Schiedsrichtern des Grundverfahrens und des MIAM No access
      5. e) Präzedenzwirkung von Urteilen der zweiten Instanz? No access
    4. 4. Entscheidungsausspruch des MIAM No access
    5. 5. Vollstreckung von Entscheidungen des MIAM No access
      1. a) Errichtung als eigenständige internationale Organisation No access
      2. b) Notwendigkeit einer Mindestanzahl von Mitgliedern No access
        1. aa) MIAM-Zuständigkeitsbegründung über ausdrückliche Änderung existierender und neu abzuschließende IIAs No access
        2. bb) MIAM-Statut als Opt-in-Konvention zur Änderung bestehender IIAs No access
    7. 7. Übergangsvorschriften und Systemkonformität eines MIAM No access
    8. 8. Arbeits- und Verfahrenssprachen des MIAM No access
    9. 9. Kostentragung des neuen Systems No access
    10. 10. Überblick über notwendige Abkommen etc. No access
  13. Literaturverzeichnis No access 305 - 318

Bibliography (254)

  1. Bücher Open Google Scholar
  2. Ahl, Die Anwendung völkerrechtlicher Verträge in China, 2009. Open Google Scholar
  3. Ahner, Investor-Staat-Schiedsverfahren nach Europäischem Unionsrecht, 2015. Open Google Scholar
  4. Amerasinghe, Principles of the Institutional Law of International Organizations, 1996. Open Google Scholar
  5. Arnauld von (Hrsg.), Europäische Außenbeziehungen, Enzyklopädie Europarecht, Band 10, 2014. Open Google Scholar
  6. Balchin/Chung/Kaushal/Waibel (Hrsg.), The Backlash Against Investment Arbitration: Perceptions And Reality, 2010. Open Google Scholar
  7. Baumgartner, Treaty Shopping in International Investment Law, 2016. Open Google Scholar
  8. Blackaby/Partasides/Redfern/Hunter, Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration, 2009. Open Google Scholar
  9. Böckstiegel/Berger/Bredow (Hrsg.), Die Beteiligung Dritter an Schiedsverfahren, 2005. Open Google Scholar
  10. Born, International Commercial Arbitration, 2014. Open Google Scholar
  11. Braun, Ausprägungen der Globalisierung: Der Investor als partielles Subjekt im Internationalen Investitionsrecht, Qualität und Grenzen dieser Wirkungseinheit, 2012. Open Google Scholar
  12. Brekoulakis, Third Parties in International Commercial Arbitration, 2010. Open Google Scholar
  13. Brower/Brueschke, The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, 1998. Open Google Scholar
  14. Bungenberg/Griebel/Hobe/Reinisch (Hrsg.), International Investment Law – A Handbook, 2015. Open Google Scholar
  15. Closa/Kochenov (Hrsg.), Reinforcing Rule of Law Oversight in the European Union, 2016. Open Google Scholar
  16. Caron/Caplan, The UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules: A Commentary, 2013. Open Google Scholar
  17. De Brabandere, Investment Treaty Arbitration as Public International Law, 2014. Open Google Scholar
  18. Dimolitsa/Cremades Román (Hrsg.), Third-Party Funding in International Arbitration, 2013. Open Google Scholar
  19. Dimopoulos, EU Foreign Investment Law, 2011. Open Google Scholar
  20. Dolzer/Schreuer, Principles of International Investment Law, 2. Aufl. 2012. Open Google Scholar
  21. Douglas, The International Law of Investment Claims, 2009. Open Google Scholar
  22. Dugan/Wallace/Rubins/Sabahi, Investor-State Arbitration, 2008. Open Google Scholar
  23. Ehlers (Hrsg.), Europäische Grundrechte und Grundfreiheiten, 4. Aufl. 2015. Open Google Scholar
  24. Ehlers/Schoch (Hrsg.), Rechtsschutz im Öffentlichen Recht, 2009. Open Google Scholar
  25. Evans (Hrsg.), International Law, 4. Aufl. 2014. Open Google Scholar
  26. Fleiner/Basta Fleiner, Allgemeine Staatslehre, Über die konstitutionelle Demokratie in einer multikulturellen globalisierten Welt, 2004. Open Google Scholar
  27. Franke, Der personelle Anwendungsbereich des internationalen Investitionsschutzrechts, 2013. Open Google Scholar
  28. Giorgetti, The Rules, Practice, and Jurisprudence of International Courts and Tribunals, 2012. Open Google Scholar
  29. Goeler von, Third-Party Funding in International Arbitration and its Impact on Procedure, 2016. Open Google Scholar
  30. Groeben von der /Hatje/Schwarze (Hrsg.), Europäisches Unionsrecht, 7. Aufl. 2015. Open Google Scholar
  31. Harris/O’Boyle/Warbrick, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, 2009. Open Google Scholar
  32. Herrmann/Weiß/Ohler, Welthandelsrecht, 2. Aufl. 2007. Open Google Scholar
  33. Hilf/Oeter (Hrsg.), WTO-Recht, 2. Aufl. 2010. Open Google Scholar
  34. Hindelang/Krajewski (Hrsg.), Shifting Paradigms in International Investment Law – More Balanced, Less Isolated, Increasingly Diversified, 2016. Open Google Scholar
  35. Hofmann/Tams (Hrsg.), International Investment Law and General International Law – From Clinical Isolation to Systemic Integration?, 2011. Open Google Scholar
  36. Kastler, Föderaler Rechtsschutz: Personenbezogene Daten in einem Raum der Freiheit, 2017. Open Google Scholar
  37. Kinnear et al. (Hrsg.), Building international investment law: the first 50 years of ICSID, 2016. Open Google Scholar
  38. Kläger, “Fair and Equitable Treatment” in International Investment Law, 2011. Open Google Scholar
  39. Kogan/Hurd/Johnstone, The Oxford Handbook of International Organizations, 2016. Open Google Scholar
  40. Krajewski, Wirtschaftsvölkerrecht, 4. Aufl. 2017. Open Google Scholar
  41. Lamprecht, Richter contra Richter, Abweichende Meinungen und ihre Bedeutung für die Rechtskultur; 1992. Open Google Scholar
  42. Lange, Denial-of-Benefits-Klauseln in internationalen Investitionsschutzverträgen, 2016. Open Google Scholar
  43. Lew/Mistelis/Kröll, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration, 2003. Open Google Scholar
  44. Mackenzie/Malleson/Martin/Sands, Selecting International Judges – Principles, Process, and Politics, 2010. Open Google Scholar
  45. Markert, Streitschlichtungsklauseln in Investitionsschutzabkommen: zur Notwendigkeit der Differenzierung von jurisdiction und admissibility in Investitionsschiedsverfahren, 2009. Open Google Scholar
  46. McLachlan et al., International Investment Arbitration, 2008. Open Google Scholar
  47. Petrochilos, Procedural Law in International Arbitration, 2004. Open Google Scholar
  48. Poudret/Besson, Comparative Law of International Arbitration, 2. Aufl. 2007 Open Google Scholar
  49. Reinisch (Hrsg.), The Conventions on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and its Specialized Agencies. A Commentary, 2016. Open Google Scholar
  50. Romano/Alter/Shany (Hrsg.), The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication, 2014. Open Google Scholar
  51. Romesh Weeramantry, Treaty Interpretation in Investment Arbitration, 2012. Open Google Scholar
  52. Ruffert/Walter, Institutionalisiertes Völkerrecht, 2009. Open Google Scholar
  53. Ruthemeyer, Der amicus curiae brief im Internationalen Investitionsrecht, 2014. Open Google Scholar
  54. Salacuse, The Three Laws of International Investment. National, Contractual, and International Frameworks for Foreign Capital, 2013. Open Google Scholar
  55. Schabas, The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute, 2010. Open Google Scholar
  56. Schermers/Blokker, International Institutional Law, Unity within Diversity, 2011. Open Google Scholar
  57. Schill (Hrsg.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law, 2010. Open Google Scholar
  58. Schreuer/Malintoppi/Reinisch/Sinclair, The ICSID Convention, A Commentary, 2. Aufl. 2009. Open Google Scholar
  59. Schröder (Hrsg.), About Strengthening the Rule of Law in Europe, 2016. Open Google Scholar
  60. Schütze, Schiedsgericht und Schiedsverfahren, 6. Aufl. 2016. Open Google Scholar
  61. Shaw, International Law, 2014. Open Google Scholar
  62. Stompfe, Die Gestaltung und Sicherung internationaler Investor-Staat-Verträge in der arabischen Welt am Beispiel Libyens und Katars, 2016. Open Google Scholar
  63. Berrisch/Prieß, WTO-Handbuch, 2003. Open Google Scholar
  64. Toope, Mixed International Arbitration, 1990. Open Google Scholar
  65. Tudor, The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in the International Law of Foreign Investment, 2008. Open Google Scholar
  66. Van den Berg, The NY Arbitration Convention of 1958: Towards Uniform Judicial Interpretation, 1981. Open Google Scholar
  67. Vandevelde, Bilateral Investment Treaties, 2010. Open Google Scholar
  68. Verhoosel, Annulment and Enforcement Review of Treaty Awards: To ICSID or Not to ICSID?, in: Van den Berg (Hrsg.), 50 Years of the New York Convention, 2009. Open Google Scholar
  69. Waldermann, Theorie investitionsrechtlicher Meistbegünstigung, 2015. Open Google Scholar
  70. Wandahl Mouyal, International Investment Law and the Right to Regulate: A Human Rights Perspective, 2016. Open Google Scholar
  71. Weber, WTO-Streitbeilegung und EuGH im Vergleich, 2007. Open Google Scholar
  72. Weeramantry, Treaty Interpretation in Investment Arbitration, 2012. Open Google Scholar
  73. Yen, The Interpretation of Investment Treaties, 2014. Open Google Scholar
  74. Buchbeiträge Open Google Scholar
  75. Abi-Saab, Ensuring the Best Bench: Ways of Selecting Judges, in: Peck/Lee (Hrsg.), Increasing the Effectiveness of the International Court of Justice, 1997, 166-188. Open Google Scholar
  76. Binder, Changed Circumstances in International Investment Law: Interfaces between the Law of Treaties and the Law of State Responsibility with a Special Focus on the Argentine Crisis, in: Binder/Kriebaum/Reinisch/Wittich (Hrsg.), International Investment Law in the 21st Century, Essays in Honour of Christoph Schreuer, 2009, 608-630. Open Google Scholar
  77. Bjorklund, Emergency Exceptions: State of Necessity and Force Majeure, in: Muchlinski/Ortino/Schreuer (Hrsg.), Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law, 2008, 459-523. Open Google Scholar
  78. Böckstiegel, The Role of the Arbitrators in Investment Treaty Arbitration, in: van den Berg (Hrsg.), International Commercial Arbitration: Important Contemporary Questions, 2003, 366-375. Open Google Scholar
  79. Boisson de Chazournes, The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, in: Giorgetti (Hrsg.), The Rules, Practice, and Jurisprudence of International Courts and Tribunals, 2012, 111-131. Open Google Scholar
  80. von Bogdandy/Krenn, Zur Parlamentarisierung der Richterauswahl, Warum der Europarat der EU den Weg weist, in: Franzius/Mayer/Neyer (Hrsg.), Modelle des Parlamentarismus im 21. Jahrhundert, Neue Ordnungen von Recht und Politik, 2015, 409-429. Open Google Scholar
  81. Brown, The Evolution of the Regime of International Investment Agreements: History, Economics and Politic, in: Bungenberg/Griebel/Hobe/Reinisch (Hrsg.), International Investment Law, 2015, 153-185. Open Google Scholar
  82. Bungenberg, Going Global? The EU Common Commercial Policy After Lisbon, in: Herrmann/Terhechte (Hrsg.), European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2010, 123-151. Open Google Scholar
  83. Burke-White, The Argentine Financial Crisis: State Liability under BITs and the Legitimacy of the ICSID System, in: Waibel/Kaushal/Chung (Hrsg.), The Backlash against Investment Arbitration, 2010, 286-346. Open Google Scholar
  84. Busch/Reinhardt, Transatlantic Trade Conflicts and GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement, in: Petersmann/Pollack (Hrsg.), Transatlantic Economic Disputes: The EU, the US, and the WTO, 2003, 465-485. Open Google Scholar
  85. Butler, In Search of a Model for the Reform of International Investment Dispute Resolution: An Analysis of Existing International and Regional Dispute Settlement Mechanisms, in: Kalicki/Joubin-Bret (Hrsg.), Reshaping the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System, 2015, 353-380. Open Google Scholar
  86. Daly, Permanent Court of Arbitration, in: Giorgetti (Hrsg.), The Rules, Practice, and Jurisprudence of International Courts and Tribunals, 2012, 37-73. Open Google Scholar
  87. De Baere/Chané/Wouters, The Contribution of International and Supranational Courts to the Rule of Law: A Framework for Analysis, in: De Baere/Wouters (Hrsg.), The Contribution of International and Supranational Courts to the Rule of Law, 2015, 19-82. Open Google Scholar
  88. Ehle, Article I (Scope of Application), in: Wolff (Hrsg.), New York Convention: on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards – Commentary, 2012. Open Google Scholar
  89. Ewing-Chow/Losari, Extra-Arbitral Interpretative Procedures for IIAs, in: Kalicki/ Joubin-Bret (Hrsg.), Reshaping the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System, 2015, 91-114. Open Google Scholar
  90. Giorgetti, International Adjudicative Bodies, in: Kogan/Hurd/Johnstone (Hrsg.), The Oxford Handbook of International Organizations, 2016, 881-902. Open Google Scholar
  91. Heuser, Die unruhigen Ränder Chinas: Tibet und Taiwan, in: Giegerich/Proelß (Hrsg.), Krisenherde im Fokus des Völkerrechts – Trouble Spots in the Focus of International Law, 2010, 99-122. Open Google Scholar
  92. Hodgson, Costs in Investment Treaty Arbitration: The Case for Reform, in: Kalicki/ Joubin-Bret (Hrsg.), Reshaping the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System, 2015, 748-759. Open Google Scholar
  93. Howse, Adjudicative Legitimacy and Treaty Interpretation in International Trade Law: The Early Years of WTO Jurisprudence, in: Weiler (Hrsg.), The EU, the WTO and the NAFTA: towards a common law of international trade?, 2000, 35-69. Open Google Scholar
  94. Ishikawa, Keeping Interpretation in Investment Treaty Arbitration on Track: The Role of State Parties, in: Joubin-Bret/Kalicki (Hrsg.), Reshaping the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System, 2015, 115-149. Open Google Scholar
  95. Jacob/Schill, Fair and Equitable Treatment: Content, Practice, Method, in: Bungenberg/Griebel/Hobe/Reinisch (Hrsg.), International Investment Law. A Handbook, 2015, 700-763. Open Google Scholar
  96. Kaufmann-Kohler, Interpretive Powers of the Free Trade Commission and the Rule of Law, in: Bachand (Hrsg.), Fifteen Years of NAFTA Chapter 11 Arbitration, 2011, 175-194. Open Google Scholar
  97. Kurtz, Building Legitimacy Through Interpretation in Investor-State Arbitration: On Consistency, Coherence and the Identification of Applicable Law, in: Douglas/Pauwely/Vinuales (Hrsg.), The Foundations of International Investment Law, 2014, 257-296. Open Google Scholar
  98. Levesque/Newcombe, The evolution of IIA practice in Canada and the United States, in: De Mestral/Levesque (Hrsg.), Improving International Investment Agreements, 2013, 25-41. Open Google Scholar
  99. Mackenzie, The Selection of International Judges, in: Romano/Alter/Shany (Hrsg.), The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication, 2014, 737-756. Open Google Scholar
  100. Newcombe, Developments in IIA treaty-making, in: De Mestral/Levesque (Hrsg.), Improving International Investment Agreements, 2013, 15-24. Open Google Scholar
  101. Ortino, Transparency of Investment Awards: External and Internal Dimensions, in: Nakagawa (Hrsg.), Transparency in International Trade and Investment Dispute Settlement, 2013, 119-158. Open Google Scholar
  102. Potestà, State-to-State Dispute Settlement Pursuant to Bilateral Investment Treaties: Is There Potential?, in: Boschiero et al. (Hrsg.), International Courts and the Development of International Law, 2013, 753-768. Open Google Scholar
  103. Raviv, Achieving a Faster ICSID, in: Kalicki/Joubin-Bret (Hrsg.), Reshaping the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System, 2015, 653-717. Open Google Scholar
  104. Reinisch, Privileges and Immunities, in: Cogan/Hurd/Johnstone (Hrsg.), The Oxford Handbook of International Organizations, 2016, 1048-1068. Open Google Scholar
  105. Reinisch, Verfahrensrechtliche Aspekte der Rechtskontrolle von Organen der Staatengemeinschaft, in: Hofmann/Reinisch/Pfeiffer/Oeter/Stadler, Die Rechtskontrolle von Organen der Staatengemeinschaft, 2007, 43-92. Open Google Scholar
  106. Schill, Maffezini v. Plama: reflections on the jurisprudential schism in the application of most-favored-nation clauses to matters of dispute settlement, in: Kinnear et al. (Hrsg.), Building international investment law: the first 50 years of ICSID, 2016, 251-265. Open Google Scholar
  107. Schreuer, Do we need Investment Arbitration?, in: Joubin-Bret/Kalicki (Hrsg.), Reshaping the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System, 2015, 879-890. Open Google Scholar
  108. Sullivan/Ingle, Interim Costs Orders: The Tribunal’s Tool to Encourage Procedural Economy, in: Joubin-Bret/Kalicki (Hrsg.), Reshaping the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System, 2015, 731-747. Open Google Scholar
  109. Tan/Bouchenaki, Limiting Investor Access to Investment Arbitration, in: Kalicki/ Joubin-Bret (Hrsg.), Reshaping the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System, 2015, 250-309. Open Google Scholar
  110. Tawil, Binding Force and Enforcement of ICSID Awards: Untying Articles 53 and 54 of the ICSID Convention, in: Van den Berg (Hrsg.), 50 Years of the New York Convention, 2009, 327-337. Open Google Scholar
  111. Tietje, Das Ende der parallelen Mitgliedschaft von EU und Mitgliedstaaten in der WTO?, in: Herrmann/Krenzler/Streinz (Hrsg.), Die Außenwirtschaftspolitik der Europäischen Union nach dem Verfassungsvertrag, 2006, 161-174. Open Google Scholar
  112. Ulfstein, The International Judiciary, in: Klabbers/Peters/Ulfstein (Hrsg.), The Consti-tutionalization of International Law, 2009, 126-150. Open Google Scholar
  113. Van Aaken, Primary and Secondary Remedies in International Investment Law and National State Liability: A Functional and Comparative View, in: Schill (Hrsg.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law, 2010, 721-754. Open Google Scholar
  114. Van Harten, Perceived Bias in Investment Treaty Arbitration, in: Balchin/Chung/ Kaushal/Waibel (Hrsg.), The Backlash Against Investment Arbitration: Perceptions And Reality, 2010, 433-453. Open Google Scholar
  115. Wuschka, Investionsschiedsverfahren: Individualrechtsschutz oder “anti-demokratische Herrschaft der Konzerne”?, in: Buszewski/Martini/Rathke (Hrsg.), Freihandel vs. Demokratie, 2016, 15-35. Open Google Scholar
  116. Yannaca-Small, Improving the System of Investor-State Dispute Settlement: The OECD Governments’ Perspective, in: Sauvant/Chiswick-Patterson (Hrsg.), Appeals Mechanism in International Investment Disputes, 2008, 223-228. Open Google Scholar
  117. Yannaca-Small, Fair and Equitable Treatment: Recent Developments, in: Reinisch (Hrsg.), Standards of Investment Protection, 2008, 111-130. Open Google Scholar
  118. Zuleta, The Challenges of Creating a Standing International Investment Court, in: Kalicki/Joubin-Bret (Hrsg.), Reshaping the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System, 2015, 403-423. Open Google Scholar
  119. Zeitschriftenbeiträge / Papers Open Google Scholar
  120. Aggarwal/ Maynard, Investment Treaty Arbitration Post-Abaclat: Towards a Taxonomy of Mass Claims, Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law 3 (2014), 825-852. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.7574/cjicl.03.03.228
  121. Alvarez, The Return of the State, Minnesota Journal of International Law 20 (2011), 223-264. Open Google Scholar
  122. Alexandrov, Breaches of Contract and Breaches of Treaty – The Jurisdiction of Treaty-based Arbitration Tribunals to Decide Breach of Contract Claims in SGS v Pakistan and SGS v Philippines, The Journal of World Investment and Trade 5 (2004), 555-577. Open Google Scholar
  123. Alvarez/Khamsi, The Argentine Crisis and Foreign Investors: A Glimpse into the Heart of the Investment Regime, Yearbook on International Law and Policy 2008-2009, 379-478. Open Google Scholar
  124. Bastin, The Amicus Curiae in Investor-State Arbitration, Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law 1 (2012), 208-234. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.7574/cjicl.01.03.57
  125. Baetens, The European Union’s Proposed Investment Court System, Legal Issues of Economic Integration 43 (2016), 367-384. Open Google Scholar
  126. Bekker, International Legal Aid in Practice: The ICJ Trust Fund, The American Journal of International Law 84 (1993), 659-668. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2203623
  127. Bernardini, Reforming Investor-State Dispute Settlement: The Need to Balance Both Parties’ Interests, ICSID Review 32 (2017), 38-57. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siw035
  128. Berner, Authentic Interpretation in Public International Law, ZaöRV 2016, 845-878. Open Google Scholar
  129. Beess/Chrostin, Sovereign Debt Restructuring and Mass Claims Arbitration before the ICSID, The Abaclat Case, Harvard International Law Review 53 (2012), 505-517. Open Google Scholar
  130. Binder, A Treaty Law Perspective on Intra-EU BITs, Journal of World Investment & Trade 17 (2016), 964-983. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1163/22119000-12340024
  131. Bjorklund, The Role of Counterclaims in Rebalancing Investment Law, Lewis & Clark Law Review 17 (2013), 461-480. Open Google Scholar
  132. Bjorklund, Economic Security Defenses in International Investment Law, International Investment Law and Policy Yearbook 2008-2009, 479-503. Open Google Scholar
  133. Bogdandy von /Venzke, In Whose Name? An Investigation of International Courts’ Public Authority and Its Democratic Justification, European Journal of International Law 23 (2012), 7-41. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chr106
  134. Bogdandy von /Krenn, Zur demokratischen Legitimation von Europas Richtern, JZ 2014, 529-537. Open Google Scholar
  135. Bondar, Allocation of costs in investor-State and commercial arbitration: towards a harmonized approach, Arbitration International 2016, 45-58. Open Google Scholar
  136. Brower/Schill, Is Arbitration a Threat or a Boom to the Legitimacy of International Investment Law?, Chicago Journal of International Law 9 (2009), 471-498. Open Google Scholar
  137. Buergenthal, The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, American Journal of International Law 76 (1982), 231-245. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2201452
  138. Bungenberg, The Scope of Application of EU (Model) Investment Agreements, The Journal of World Investment & Trade 15 (2014), 402-421. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1163/22119000-01504004
  139. Burke-White/von Staden, Investment Protection in Extraordinary Times: Interpreting Non-Precluded Measures Provisions, Virginia Journal of International Law 48 (2007), 307-410. Open Google Scholar
  140. Calamita, The (In)Compatibility of Appellate Mechanisms with Existing Instruments of the Investment Treaty Regime, Journal of World Investment & Trade 18 (2017), 585-627. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1163/22119000-12340053
  141. Cane, The Enforcement of ICSID Awards: Revolutionary or Ineffective?, American Review of International Arbitration 15 (2004), 439-463. Open Google Scholar
  142. Carbonneau, The Exercise of Contract Freedom in the Making of Arbitration Agreements, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 36 (2003), 1189-1232. Open Google Scholar
  143. Caron, War and International Adjudication: Reflections on the 1899 Peace Conference, American Journal of International Law 94 (2000), 4-30. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2555228
  144. Carver, How to Avoid Conflicting Awards – The Lauder and CME Case, Journal of World Investment & Trade 5 (2004), 23-29. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1163/221190004X00173
  145. Cass, The “Constitutionalization” of International Trade: Judicial Norm-Generation as the Engine of Constitutional Development in International Trade Law, European Journal of International Law 12 (2001), 39-75. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/ejil/12.1.39
  146. Chalamish, The Future of Bilateral Investment Treaties: A de facto Multitlateral Agreement?, Brooklyn Journal of International Law 34 (2009), 303-354. Open Google Scholar
  147. Choi, Judicial Enforcement of Arbitration Awards Under the ICSID and New York Conventions, N.Y.U. Journal of International Law and Politics 28 (1995-1996), 175-215. Open Google Scholar
  148. Chung, The Lopsided International Investment Law Regime and Its Effect on the Future of Investor-State Arbitration, Virginia Journal of International Law 47 (2007), 954-976. Open Google Scholar
  149. Commission, Precedent in Investment Treaty Arbitration: A Citation Analysis of a Developing Jurisprudence, Journal of International Arbitration 24 (2007), 129-158. Open Google Scholar
  150. Delaume, Enforcement of State Contract Awards: Jurisdictional Pitfalls and Remedies, ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 8 (1993), 29-52. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/8.1.29
  151. Delaume, Reflections on the Effectiveness of International Arbitral Awards, International Arbitration 12 (1995), 5-19. Open Google Scholar
  152. Dermikol, Remedies in Investment Treaty Arbitration, Journal of International Dispute Settlement 6 (2015), 403-426. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idv012
  153. Dimitropoulos, Constructing the Independence of International Investment Arbitrators: Past, Present and Future, Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business 36 (2016), 371-434. Open Google Scholar
  154. Diop, Objection under Rule 41(5) of the ICSID Arbitration Rules, ICSID Review 25 (2010), 312-336. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/25.2.312
  155. Douglas, The MFN Clause in Investment Arbitration: Treaty Interpretation Off the Rails, Journal of International Dispute Settlement 2 (2011), 97-113. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idq015
  156. Dupont, The Notion of ICSID Investment: Ongoing Confusion or Emerging Synthesis, Journal of World Investment & Trade 12 (2011), 245-272. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1163/221190011X00193
  157. Eberhardt, Investitionsschutz am Scheideweg, TTIP und die Zukunft des globalen Investitionsrechts, Internationale Politikanalyse Mai 2014. Open Google Scholar
  158. Engel, Mehr Transparenz für die Wahrung professioneller Qualität bei den Richter-Wahlen zum EGMR, EuGRZ 2012, 486-492. Open Google Scholar
  159. Fontoura Costa, Comparing WTO Panelists and ICSID Arbitrators: the Creation of International Legal Fields, Oñati Socio-Legal Series 1 (2011), N. 4. Open Google Scholar
  160. Franck, Development and Outcomes of Investment Treaty Arbitration, Harvard International Law Journal 50 (2009), 435-489. Open Google Scholar
  161. Gaillard, Establishing Jurisdiction Through a Most-Favoured-Nation Clause, New York Law Journal Vol. 233 No. 105 v. 2.6.2005. Open Google Scholar
  162. Gaillard/Banifatemi, The Meaning of “and” in Article 42(1), Second Sentence, of the Washington Convention: The Role of International Law in the ICSID Choice of Law Process, ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 2003, 375-411. Open Google Scholar
  163. Gaukrodger/Gordon, Investor-State Dispute Settlement, A scoping paper for the investment policy community, OECD Working Papers on International Investment 2012/03. Open Google Scholar
  164. Gray, The Choice between Restitution and Compensation, European Journal of International Law 10 (1999), 413-423. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/ejil/10.2.413
  165. Griebel/Kim, Zwischen Aufbruch, Stillstand und Rückschritt – Überlegungen zur Zukunft des internationalen Investitionsrechts, SchiedsVZ 2007, 186-195. Open Google Scholar
  166. Harten/Loughlin, Investment Treaty Arbitration as a Species of Global Administrative Law, European Journal of International Law 17 (2006), 121-150. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chi159
  167. Hindelang, Grundzüge eines modernen Investitionsschutzes – Ziele und Handlungsempfehlungen, Ein realpolitischer Vorschlag zur Reform des Investitionsschutzes zwischen CETA-Text und den Kommissionsvorschlägen zu TTIP, Harnack-Haus Reflections, 2015. Open Google Scholar
  168. Hoffmann, Counterclaims in Investment Arbitration, ICSID Review 28 (2013), 438-453. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/sit032
  169. Howse, International Investment Law and Arbitration: A Conceptual Framework, IILJ Working Paper 2017/1. Open Google Scholar
  170. Hueckel, Rebalancing Legitimacy and Sovereignty in International Investment Agreements, Emory Law Journal 61 (2012), 601-640. Open Google Scholar
  171. Johannesson/Mavroidis, The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995-2016: A Data Set and its Descriptive Statistics, EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2016/72. Open Google Scholar
  172. Johnson/Volkov, Investor-State Contracts, Host-State “Commitments” and the Myth of Stability in International Law, The American Review of International Arbitration 24 (2013), 361-415. Open Google Scholar
  173. Kaufmann-Kohler/Potesta, Can the Mauritius Convention serve as a model for the reform of investor-State arbitration in connection with the introduction of a permanent investment tribunal or an appeal mechanism? – Analysis and roadmap, 2016. Open Google Scholar
  174. Kaufmann-Kohler/Boisson de Chazournes/Bonnin/Mbengue, Consolidation of Proceedings in Investment Arbitration: How Can Multiple Proceedings Arising from the Same or Related Situations Be Handled Efficiently?, Final Report on the Geneva Colloquium v. 22.4.2006, ICSID Review 21 (2006), 59-125. Open Google Scholar
  175. Koeth, Can the Investment Court System (ICS) save TTIP and CETA?, EIPA Working Paper 2016/W/01. Open Google Scholar
  176. Kriebaum, FET and Expropriation in the (Invisible) EU Model BIT, The Journal of World Investment and Trade 15 (2014), 454-483. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1163/22119000-01504006
  177. Kunz, Privileges and Immunities of International Organizations, American Journal of International Law 41 (1947), 828-862. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.2307/2193092
  178. Lavranos, Is an International Investor-to-State Arbitration System Under the Auspices of the ECJ Possible? SSRN Working Paper, December 2011, 10.2139/ssrn.1973491. Open Google Scholar
  179. Lawson, Impartiality and Independence of International Arbitrators: Commentary on the 2004 IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration, ASA Bulletin 23 (2005), 22-44. Open Google Scholar
  180. Loken, Introductory Note to UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-Based Investor-State Arbitration, International Legal Materials 52 (2013), 1300-1308. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5305/intelegamate.52.6.1300
  181. Manciaux, The Notion of Investment: New Controversies, Journal of World Investment & Trade 9 (2008), 801-824. Open Google Scholar
  182. Marceddu, The EU Dispute Settlement: Towards Legal Certainty in an Uneven International Investment System?, European Investment Law and Arbitration Review 1 (2016), 33-75. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1163/24689017-00101003
  183. Maupin, MFN-Based Jurisdiction in Investor-State Arbitration: Is There any Hope for a Consistent Approach?, Journal of International Economic Law 14 (2011), 157-190. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgq052
  184. McLachlan, The Principle of Systemic Integration and Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention, International & Comparative Law Quarterly 54 (2005), 279-320. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/iclq/lei001
  185. Moonhawk, Costly Procedures: Divergent Effects of Legalization in the GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures, International Studies Quarterly 52 (2008), 657-686. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2008.00519.x
  186. Mowbray, The Consideration of Gender in the Process of Appointing Judges to the European Court of Human Rights, Human Rights Law Review 8 (2008), 549-559. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngn012
  187. Newman/Zaslowsky, The Yukos Case: More on the Fourth Arbitrator, New York Law Journal v. 28.5.2015. Open Google Scholar
  188. Paparinskis, MFN Clauses and International Dispute Settlement: Moving Beyond Maffezini and Plama, ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 26 (2011), 14-58. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/26.2.14
  189. Paulsson, Moral Hazard in International Dispute Resolution, ICSID Review 25 (2010), 339-355. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/25.2.339
  190. Paulsson, Arbitration Without Privity, ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 10 (1995), 232-257. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/10.2.232
  191. Pauwelyn, The Rule of Law without the Rule of Lawyers? Why Investment Arbitrators are from Mars, Trade Adjudicators from Venus, American Journal of International Law 109 (2015), 761-805. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5305/amerjintelaw.109.4.0761
  192. Peterson, Challenges Under Bilateral Investment Treaties Give Weight to Calls for Multilateral Rules, World Trade Agenda 2001, 12-14. Open Google Scholar
  193. Raviv, Achieving a Faster ICSID, Transnational Dispute Management 1 (2014), 1-49. Open Google Scholar
  194. Reinisch, The European Union and Investor-State Dispute Settlement: From Investor-State Arbitration to a Permanent Investment Court, CIGI-Paper NO. 2, March 2016. Open Google Scholar
  195. Reinisch, Will the EU’s Proposal Concerning an Investment Court System for CETA and TTIP Lead to Enforceable Awards? – The Limits of Modifying the ICSID Convention and the Nature of Investment Arbitration, Journal of International Economic Law 19 (2016), 761-786. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgw072
  196. Reinisch, From the Perennial Issue of the Notion of Investment Pursuant to Article 25 ICSID Convention and Narrow Dispute Settlement Provisions to Further Clarifications of Substantive Standards of Protection – ICSID Arbitration in 2009, The Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence 10 (2010), 839-856. Open Google Scholar
  197. Reinisch, Necessity in International Investment Arbitration – An Unnecessary Split of Opinions in Recent ICSID Cases?, Journal of World Investment and Trade 8 (2007), 191-214. Open Google Scholar
  198. Roberts, State-To-State Investment Treaty Arbitration: A Hybrid Theory of Interdependent Rights and Shared Interpretive Authority, Transnational Dispute Management Vol. 11, issue 1, 2014. Open Google Scholar
  199. Roberts, Power and persuasion in investment treaty interpretation: The dual role of states, American Journal of International Law 104 (2010), 179-225. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5305/amerjintelaw.104.2.0179
  200. Ryan, Meeting Expectations: Assessing the Long-term Legitimacy and Stability of International Investment Law, The University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law 29 (2008), 725-761. Open Google Scholar
  201. Safferling, Audiatur et altera pars – die prozessuale Waffengleichheit als Prozessprinzip?, NStZ 2004, 181-188. Open Google Scholar
  202. Sandrock, Das Internationale Handelsgericht im TTIP: The Permanent International Investment Tribunal, RIW 2015, 625-639. Open Google Scholar
  203. Sauvant, The Evolving International Investment Law and Policy Regime: Ways Forward, Policy Options Paper, ICTSD & WEF 2016. Open Google Scholar
  204. Schill, Sind Regelungen Zur Investor-Staat-Streitbeilegung in EU-Freihandelsabkommen sinnvoll?, Amsterdam Law School Research Paper No. 2017-06. Open Google Scholar
  205. Schill, Sind Regelungen zur Investor-Staat-Streitbeilegung in EU-Freihandelsabkommen sinnvoll?, KSzW 2016, 115-121. Open Google Scholar
  206. Schill, Editorial: Opinion 2/13 – The End for Dispute Settlement in EU Trade and Investment Agreements?, The Journal of World Investment & Trade 16 (2015), 379-388. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1163/22119000-01603000
  207. Schill, Reforming Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS): Conceptual Framework and Options for the Way Forward, E15 Initiative, ICTSD 2015. Open Google Scholar
  208. Schill, Enhancing International Investment Law’s Legitimacy: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations of a New Public Law Approach, Virginia Journal of International Law 52 (2011), 57-102. Open Google Scholar
  209. Schill, Allocating Adjudicatory Authority: Most-Favoured-Nation Clauses as a Basis of Jurisdiction – A Reply to Zachary Douglas, Journal of International Dispute Settlement 2 (2011), 353-371. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idr004
  210. Schill, International Investment Law and the Host State’s Power to Handle Economic Crises, Journal of International Arbitration 24 (2007), 265-286. Open Google Scholar
  211. Schreuer, Non-Pecuniary Remedies in ICSID Arbitration, Arbitration International 20 (2004), 325-332. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/arbitration/20.4.325
  212. Schreuer, Travelling the BIT Route: Of Waiting Periods, Umbrella Clauses and Forks in the Road, The Journal of World Investment and Trade 5 (2004), 231-256. Open Google Scholar
  213. Sevilla, Explaining Patterns of GATT/WTO Trade Complaints, Working Paper 98-1. Open Google Scholar
  214. Shaw, Third-Party funding in investment arbitration: how non-disclosure can cause harm for the sake of profit, Arbitration International 33 (2017), 109-120. Open Google Scholar
  215. Shihata/Parra, The Experience of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, ICSID Review 14 (1999), 299-361. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/14.2.299
  216. Sinclair, The Origins of the Umbrella Clause in the International Law of Investment Protection, Arbitration International 20 (2004), 411-434. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/arbitration/20.4.411
  217. Steinbach, Investor-Staat-Schiedsverfahren und Verfassungsrecht, Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 2016, 1-38. Open Google Scholar
  218. Steinitz, Whose Claim Is This Anyway? Third-Party Litigation Funding, Minnesota Law Review, 95 (2011), 1268-1338. Open Google Scholar
  219. Timmer, The Meaning of ‘Investment’ as a Requirement for Jurisdiction Ratione Materiae of the ICSID Centre, Journal of International Arbitration 29 (2012), 363-374. Open Google Scholar
  220. Trevino, State-to-State Investment Treaty Arbitration and the Interplay with Investor-State Arbitration Under the Same Treaty, Journal of International Dispute Settlement 2014, 199-233. Open Google Scholar
  221. Van Damme, Treaty Interpretation by the WTO Appellate Body, European Journal of International Law 21 (2010), 605-648. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chq049
  222. Van Harten, A Case for an International Investment Court, SIEL Online Proceedings Working Paper No. 22/08. Open Google Scholar
  223. Van Houte/Mc Asey, Case Comment. Abaclat and Others v Argentine Republic, ICSID, the BIT and Mass Claims, ICSID Review 27 (2012), 231-236. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/sis020
  224. Voeten, The Politics of International Judicial Appointments, Chicago Journal of International Law 9 (2009), 387-405. Open Google Scholar
  225. Voon, Consolidating International Investment Law: The Mega-Regionals as a Pathway Towards Multilateral Rules, World Trade Review 2017, 1-31. Open Google Scholar
  226. Voon/Mitchell/Munro, Parting Ways: The Impact of Mutual Termination of Investment Treaties on Investor Rights, ICSID Review 29 (2014), 451-473. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/sit051
  227. Wackernagel, The Twilight of the BITs?, EU Judicial Proceedings, the Consensual Termination of Intra-EU BITs and Why that Matters for International Law, Beiträge zum Transnationalen Wirtschaftsrecht Heft 140, 2016. Open Google Scholar
  228. Waibel, Two Worlds of Necessity in ICSID Arbitration: CMS and LG&E, Leiden Journal of International Law 20 (2007), 637-648. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.1017/S0922156507004293
  229. Wälde, “Equality of Arms” in Investment Arbitration: Procedural Challenges, Transnational Dispute Management 1 (2011). Open Google Scholar
  230. Wälde, The “Umbrella” Clause on Investment Arbitration – A Comment on Original Intentions and Recent Cases, The Journal of World Investment and Trade 6 (2005), 183-236. Open Google Scholar
  231. Wuschka, Ein Investitionsgerichtshof – Der große Wurf der EU-Kommission?, ZEuS 2016, 153-175. Open Google Scholar
  232. Blogbeiträge und sonstige Quellen Open Google Scholar
  233. Ambrose/Naish, An Investment Court system or an Appeals mechanism? The EU’s 2017 consultation on multilateral reform of ISDS, Arbitration Blog, 15.2.2017. Open Google Scholar
  234. American Bar Association Section on International Law, Investment Treaty Working Group, Task Force Report on the Investment Court System Proposal, Initial Task Force Discussion Paper, 16.10.2016. Open Google Scholar
  235. Arbeiterkammer Wien, Kritische Bewertung des Österreichischen Mustertextes für bilaterale Investitionsschutzabkommen, November 2011. Open Google Scholar
  236. Akande, ICJ Elections 2014: UN General Assembly and Security Council Elect four Judges to the ICJ But Fail to Agree on a Fifth, Again!, EJIL: Talk!, 10.11.2014. Open Google Scholar
  237. Fouchard Papaefstratiou, TTIP: The French Proposal For A Permanent European Court for Investment Arbitration, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 22.7.2015. Open Google Scholar
  238. Fracking auf TTIP komm raus: Wie das EU-USA Freihandelsabkommen Klima- und Umweltschutz untergräbt, März 2014, www.ttip-stoppen.at/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/kurzstudie-fracking-ttip_mc3a4rz-2014_-ceo-powershift-foe.pdf. Open Google Scholar
  239. Ghahremani/ Prandzhev, Multilateral Investment Court: A Realistic Approach to Achieve Coherence and Consistency in International Investment Law?, EFILA Blog, 14.3.2017. Open Google Scholar
  240. Hodgson, Investment Treaty Arbitration: How much does it cost? How long does it take?, Allen Overy Publications, 18.2.2014. Open Google Scholar
  241. Hodgson, Counting the costs of investment treaty arbitration, GAR News, 24.3.2014. Open Google Scholar
  242. Krajewski, Modell-Investitionsschutzvertrag mit Investor-Staat-Schiedsverfahren für Industriestaaten unter Berücksichtigung der USA, 2015. Open Google Scholar
  243. Open Letter from Lawyers to the Negotiators of the Trans-Pacific Partnership urging the Rejection of Investor-State Dispute Settlement, 8.5.2012, ttps://tpplegal.word-press.com/open-letter/ (28.5.2017). Open Google Scholar
  244. Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Public Statement on the International Investment Regime, Osgoode and York University, August 2010, www.osgoode.yorku.ca/public-statement-international-investment-regime-31-august-2010/. Open Google Scholar
  245. Pauwelyn, Why the US should support the EU Proposal for an “Investment Court System”, Georgetown Journal of International Law Online, 24.11.2015. Open Google Scholar
  246. Procés-Verbaux of the Proceedings of the Advisory Committee of Jurists, Annex No. 1, 695 (1920). Open Google Scholar
  247. Roberts, Would a Multilateral Investment Court be Biased? Shifting to a treaty party framework of analysis, EJIEL: Talk!, 28.4.2017. Open Google Scholar
  248. Schill, The European Commission’s Proposal of an “Investment Court System” for TTIP: Stepping Stone or Stumbling Block for Multilateralizing International Investment Law?, ASIL insights Vol. 20, issue 9, 22.4.2016. Open Google Scholar
  249. Schill, The Mauritius Convention on Transparency: A Model for Investment Law Reform?, EJIL: Talk!, 8.4.2015. Open Google Scholar
  250. Secretary-General’s Trust Fund to Assist States in the Settlement of Disputes through the International Court of Justice, A/59/37221, 21.9.2004. Open Google Scholar
  251. UNCTAD, Reform of Investor-State Dispute Settlement: In Search of a Roadmap, IIA Issues Note No. 2, June 2013. Open Google Scholar
  252. UNCTAD, Interpretation of IIAs: What States Can Do, IIA Issues Note No. 3, December 2011. Open Google Scholar
  253. Woods, Fit for purpose? The EU’s Investment Court System, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 23.3.2016. Open Google Scholar
  254. Wuschka, Investitionsschiedsverfahren: Individualrechtsschutz oder „anti-demokratische Konzernherrschaft”?, Völkerrechtsblog, 20.4.2015. Open Google Scholar

Similar publications

from the topics "European Law & International Law & Comparative Law"
Cover of book: Der Volkseinwand
Book Titles No access
Florian Feigl
Der Volkseinwand
Cover of book: Wie fördert die EU Menschenrechte in Drittstaaten?
Book Titles No access
Dennis Traudt
Wie fördert die EU Menschenrechte in Drittstaaten?
Cover of book: Future-Proofing in Public Law
Edited Book No access
Nicole Koblenz LL.M., Nicholas Otto, Gernot Sydow
Future-Proofing in Public Law
Cover of book: Das Weltraumrecht und seine Eignung für den Rohstoffabbau durch Privatakteure
Book Titles No access
Justus Schmidt
Das Weltraumrecht und seine Eignung für den Rohstoffabbau durch Privatakteure
Cover of book: From Outlaws to Equal Players – Rebel Courts in International Law
Book Titles No access
Isabella Poewe
From Outlaws to Equal Players – Rebel Courts in International Law

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Give feedback

We welcome your feedback on content and features. Your message helps us to continuously improve our service.

Rating
Attach images
or drag and drop
PNG or JPG (max. 3 MB)

Login

Forgotten your password?
Login via Open Athens
Don't have an account yet?
Register now

Cite publication

Download: RIS BibTex