A new journal called the “European International Arbitration Review” is seeking case note submissions . The Review is published twice yearly around May and November. The Case Notes section constitutes a panorama of state court case law from around Europe touching upon or in relation to arbitration. The Review’s editors intend to procure as many case notes as possible for each edition of the Review. It intends to publish submissions from lawyers on case law developments in North, South, East and West Europe, as well as supranational/international case law developments (e.g., Court of Justice of the European Union, European Court of Human Rights) from time to time, to ensure as wide and balanced coverage as possible. Typically, there shall be 4-5 case notes per issue, ideally one report from each geographic area and, where appropriate, from the supranational/international arena as well.
The inaugural issue of the Review examined State support for arbitration (“arbitration-friendly” legislation, court judgments, etc.) and how this contributed to the creation of a self-contained system of international arbitration. In the November 2012 edition, the editors wish to examine the flip-side, namely, attacks by States on the scope/sphere/nature of arbitration through court judgments or legal proceedings before State courts in the interests of protecting higher systemic interests, such as ensuring the observance of fundamental principles of due process, etc (national level and EU level) or the uniform application of EU law, or for other reasons.
Young ICCA members interested to contribute to the second issue of the European International Arbitration Review, are invited to submit a case note touching upon or in relation to this issue. If this is of interest to you please submit in the first instance an abstract of 250-400 words in length by 15 September 2012 to editors Tim Foden (at Timothy.Foden@AllenOvery.com) and John Gaffney (at JGaffney@KSLAW.com), following which the editors may invite you to submit a full draft case note by 1 October 2012.
By Wamiq Chowdhury
This essay was written as a response to two prompts provided for the Miami/Young ICCA Scholarship Competition. The two prompts were: “Recent developments in ICSID arbitration – time to think about alternatives?” and “How Do We Design for Legitimacy?”
The International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) is experiencing growing pains. As recourse to ICSID arbitration in order to resolve foreign investment disputes becomes more common, ICSID jurisprudence is beginning to raise concerns on a number of fronts about the legitimacy of the system, and whether it will remain a viable method of settling investment disputes in the long term. This paper begins by exploring ICSID’s design, why legitimacy matters to ICSID, and what it means to say that ICSID’s legitimacy is in doubt. It then examines a number of different developments that are presenting challenges to ICSID’s legitimacy: inadequately reasoned awards, inconsistencies in awards and annulment decisions, and potentially problematic interpretive practices of ICSID tribunals with regards to essential security clauses, umbrella clauses, and treaty shopping. After assessing the challenges posed by these developments, the paper urges caution in determining the extent to which ICSID’s legitimacy has been affected by said developments. It argues that the challenges may seem greater at present than they in fact are. It also proposes some less far-reaching solutions for enhancing ICSID’s legitimacy than are being discussed in the investment arbitration community at present.
Continue reading Recent Developments in ICSID Arbitration: Too Early to Jump Ship
This case note is limited to an attempt to answer the question whether the case Ciments Français v. Sibirskij Cement might be “[a] Russian Putrabali?”
Continue reading Ciments Français – a Russian Putrabali? by Michael Wietzorek
By Shalini Soopramanien
“And therefore, as when there is a controversy in an account, the parties must by their own accord, set up for right Reason, the Reason of some Arbitrator…to whose sentence they will both stand, or their controversy must either come to blowes, or be undecided, for want of a right Reason constituted by Nature; so is it also in all debates of what kind soever.”
– Thomas Hobbes
Continue reading Gauging the Tension Between Finality and Fairness in Arbitration: An Assessment of the Scope and Limits of “Correction” and “Interpretation” of Final Awards