Résultats 2 ressources
-
The reform of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism has provoked much debate among legal scholars and practitioners. The critiques of ISDS mainly arise from concerns regarding the legitimacy of the mechanism such as the perceived tolerance for the lack of impartiality and consistency. To allay these concerns, there have been proposals to reform ISDS by establishing investment courts with tenured judges and appellate tribunals. However, international adjudication systems like ISDS cannot be fully analogized to domestic courts in common law countries: ISDS falls into a broader international regime where there are neither hierarchical/centralized decision-making and enforcement authorities nor a multilateral investment treaty, and the rules and principles on foreign investment protection are fragmented in around three thousand Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs). Against this backdrop, this thesis argues that, although there is a general agreement among the international community to further legalize international investment law, the process of legalization via the specific avenue of reforming the adjudication mechanism (i.e. ISDS) is subject to (1) the institutional constraint of international investment law, especially the lack of shared understanding among the international community regarding the treatment of foreign investments, and (2) the internal constraints of adjudication as a mode of social ordering. It further cautions that pursuing predictability while disregarding the low level of shared understandings regarding investment protection may cause more legitimacy problems than it solves
-
The arbitration of internal trust disputes has attracted significant attention in the arbitration and trust law communities in recent years with draft clauses and rules produced by arbitral institutions, several states undertaking legislative reform in order to provide such arbitrations with a statutory basis and numerous scholars as well as practitioners writing articles on the subject. Such enthusiasm is justified on the basis that arbitration has several advantages over litigation, such as confidentiality, international enforceability of judgments, the ability to choose one’s judge and the power to tailor the procedure. Notwithstanding these advantages, trust arbitration has failed to make any great inroad into trust disputes due to the many novel and complex points of legal practice and theory which it entails. For example, although arbitration does not typically involve minors or legally incapable parties’ trusts do, and thus trust arbitration raises numerous due process and human rights concerns. Similarly, court supervision and enforcement of trusts is sometimes considered essential to the very nature of trusts and questions therefore arise concerning the extent to which arbitral tribunals could supplant courts in that regard. Another complication is that trusts are not contracts and questions therefore arise about how to bind individuals to a trust arbitration agreement, particularly as regards beneficiaries who may be unascertained, minor or legally incompetent at the time the trust was created. The aim of this thesis is to analyse and present potential solutions to these complications from an English law perspective, although other common law legal systems will be analysed where relevant