Cantitate/Preț
Produs
Total produse
Vezi coșul
Civil Society in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Status and Prospects de Farouk El-Hosseny

Civil Society in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Status and Prospects: Nijhoff International Investment Law Series, cartea 10

Autor Farouk El-Hosseny
en Limba Engleză Hardback – 24 ian 2018
Civil Society in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Status and Prospects provides an overview of the evolution of civil society’s participation as amicus curiae before ICSID tribunals and ad hoc tribunals applying the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. That evolution fits within a broader movement towards transparency in investment treaty arbitration. By looking at the procedural roles available to civil society before other jurisdictions, the book questions whether the amicus role could be expanded. El-Hosseny ultimately shows how substance and procedure closely intertwine. The issue of civil society’s participation in investment treaty arbitration transcends the procedural realm. It is equally about arbitral tribunals’ openness vis-à-vis public interest, environmental protection and human rights issues—a crucial consideration in ongoing debates over the legitimacy, and future, of investor-state arbitration.
Citește tot Restrânge

Din seria Nijhoff International Investment Law Series

Preț: 60803 lei

Preț vechi: 74150 lei
-18% Nou

Puncte Express: 912
Preț estimativ în valută:
11638€ • 12203$ • 9616£

Carte indisponibilă temporar


Wish list
Gift list
Am citit!
Adaugă în listă
Doresc să fiu notificat când acest titlu va fi disponibil:
Trimite
Preluare comenzi: 021 569.72.76

Specificații

ISBN-13: 9789004349124
ISBN-10: 900434912X
Pagini: 336
Dimensiuni: 155 x 235 mm
Greutate: 0.61 kg
Editura: Brill
Colecția Brill | Nijhoff
Seria Nijhoff International Investment Law Series

Cuprins

List of Abbreviations

Introduction
1 Concepts and Definitions
iThe Concept of ‘civil society’
ii‘Amicus curiae’ and ‘third party intervention’ Procedures
2 Approach and Methodology
iApproach
iiMethodology
3 Structure

Part 1: Civil Society Participation before Investor-state Tribunals


Introductory Remarks
1 Identifying the ‘public interest’ in an Investor-state Arbitration Context
1.1A Structural Stress Test: ‘public interest’ Pressure on Foreign Investors’ Rights and Host States’ Obligations
1.2Plenty of ‘hard law’ Rights, Few ‘soft law’ Obligations: A Look at the International Framework on Foreign Investment Protection
1.3Earlier Examples of Public Interest Issues Raised in Investor-state Disputes
1.4Adjudication à sens unique? Some of the Earlier Criticism of Investor-state Tribunals’ Awards
1.5Impact of the International Commercial Arbitration Model on Investor-state Arbitration and Civil Society’s Role
2 Procedural Rules Governing Civil Society’s Participation as micus curiae
2.1Acceptance of Civil Society’s Participation as Amicus curiae
2.2Formalization of Amicus curiae Participation – The Opening Up to ‘third persons’
3 From Theory to Practice: Investor-state Tribunals’ Decisions on Amicus curiae Participation
3.1Earlier Tribunals Inspired by the Methanex Precedent
3.2Tribunals That Applied Amended and Recently-Adopted Rules
3.3Common (Procedural) Grounds
4 Civil Society Participation: Where Procedure Intertwines with Substance
4.1Are Environmental Protection and Human Rights Issues Relevant to the Adjudication of Investor-state Disputes?
4.2The leitmotiv of Environmental Protection
4.3Civil Society as a Human Rights Advocate
4.4Representing the Under-represented: Civil Society and Indigenous Groups
5 An Appraisal of Civil Society’s Amicus curiae Role
5.1Procedural Developments: Amicus curiae Intervention Crystallized
5.2‘Mixed results’ – Do Investor-state Tribunals Consider Amici’s Substantive Arguments?
6 Concluding Remarks

Part 2: Civil Society Participation before Other Jurisdictions: Four Models


Introductory Remarks
1 Absent, but Not Entirely: Indirect Participation at the icj
1.1Contentious Proceedings
1.2Advisory Proceedings
2 Standing before International Human Rights Jurisdictions
2.1Civil Society as a Victim of Human Rights Violations before the ECtHR
2.2Representation of Victims of Human Rights Violations before the IACtHR and achpr
3 A ‘friend of the court’ Outside the Realm of Investor-state Arbitration
3.1The amicus curiae Procedure – A Common Law Inspiration
3.2wto Panels and the Appellate Body’s Restrictive Approach
3.3 International Human Rights Jurisdictions’ Liberalism
4 The Peculiar Case of Third Party Intervention
4.1Third Party Intervention – A Look at the us Model
4.2Third Party Intervention as Practiced before International Jurisdictions
4.3Towards a Common Understanding of ‘third party intervention’?
5 Concluding Remarks

Part 3: An Enhanced Role for Civil Society before Investor-state Tribunals?


Introductory Remarks
1 Transcending amicus curiae Submissions
1.1The Inherent Limitations of the amicus curiae Role – A Comparative Perspective
1.2To be an amicus or Not to be: Fundamental Differences with Third Party Intervention
2 Looking for a Procedure to Uphold Third Parties’ Direct Interest in Investor-state Arbitration
2.1The Impossibility of ‘adding strangers to the arbitration’ – ups v. Canada
2.2Extreme Circumstances, Standard Limitations – Aguas del Tunari v. Bolivia
2.3Jurisdictional Barriers Set by the ups and Bechtel Tribunals
3 The Access to Justice Principle: The Basis for Civil Society’s Third Party Intervention?
3.1Access to Justice under International Law
3.2Is There a Civil Society ius standi before Investor-state Tribunals?
4 What Conditions Would Govern Civil Society’s Third Party Intervention?
4.1Rationalizing Civil Society’s Third Party Intervention in Investor-state Arbitration
4.2Procedural Void and Substantive Barriers: How to Reconcile Third Party Intervention with the Investor-state Arbitration Regime?
5 Concluding Remarks

Conclusion

Bibliography
Summary
Curriculum Vitae

Notă biografică

Farouk El-Hosseny, Ph.D. (Leiden University, 2016) is an international arbitration practitioner. He has co-authored a number of articles and chapters on international arbitration, including Amicus Acceptance and Relevance: The Distinctive Example of Philip Morris v. Uruguay (Netherlands International Law Review, 2016) and Non-Compensatory Damages in Civil and Common Law (Global Arbitration Review Guide to Damages, 2016).