This book analyses all relevant questions of State responsibility and attribution arising from the conduct of rebels and governments in the context of civil wars and rebellions aiming at the establishment of a new government or the creation of a new State. Based on a comprehensive analysis of both old and recent State practice, and case law, including investment awards, as well as the works of scholars and the International Law Commission, the book identifies ten basic rules which can be used by States and international tribunals. It explains the history, content and scope of application of the specific solutions adopted in Article 10 of the International Law Commission Articles on State responsibility to address particular problems. The book also critically revisits some of the solutions that have been put forward by tribunals and scholars, and examines a number of questions which have never been addressed by them before.
The fair and equitable treatment (‘FET’) standard is a type of protection found in BITs which has become in the last decades one of the most controversial provisions examined by arbitral tribunals. This book first examines the interaction between the ‘minimum standard of treatment’ (MST) and the FET standard and the question why States started referring to the former in their BITs. It also addresses the question whether the FET should be considered as an autonomous standard of protection under BITs. This book also examines the controversial proposition that the FET standard should now be considered as a rule of customary international law. I will show that while the practice of States to include FET clauses in their BITs can be considered as general, widespread and representative, it remains that it is not uniform and consistent enough for the standard to have crystallised into a customary rule. States also lack the necessary opinio juris when including the clause in their BITs.
Although the vast majority of investment treaties include a fair and equitable treatment (FET) clause, a considerable degree of variation in the actual content of the clause remains. In this important book by a well-known authority in international investment law analyses how tribunals have concretely interpreted FET clauses in relation to the minimum standard of treatment (MST), with detailed reference to all publicly available awards dealing with the provision rendered by arbitral tribunals in the past 25 years. This first comprehensive survey of case law since the 2012 UNCTAD Report highlights the following important trends: tribunals have interpreted the status of a FET clause and its relationship with the MST differently depending on the specific wording of each provision; how a tribunal analyses the status of a clause has a direct impact on the interpretation (broad or narrow) it gives to the content of the standard, including whether or not it includes protecting investors’ legitimate expectations; the way a tribunal analyses this issue has, in turn, a direct impact on how it addresses matters of liability and compensation; and the success rate of claims filed under ‘stand-alone’ FET clauses (containing no mention of ‘international law’ or any other standard) and those referring to ‘international law’ is much higher compared to clauses expressly linked to the MST. This book is the first to provide solid empirical evidence showing that the scope of the FET protection under a treaty very much depends on the type of clause being applied by a tribunal. The author’s thorough analysis will provide arbitrators and counsel with useful guidelines to assess how the clause has been interpreted by tribunals. It will also offer States and other stakeholders an in-depth analysis of some of the pitfalls and benefits that are associated with each different type of FET clause.
The break-up of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia and the unification of Germany in the 1990s marked the dramatic return to center stage in international law of the issue of State succession. This book deals with one particularly controversial aspect of State succession that until now has not received much attention: the question of State succession to international responsibility. In State Succession to International Responsibility the international lawyer and scholar Patrick Dumberry addresses the question, critical for our times, whether or not a new State may be held responsible for wrongful acts committed before its independence by the predecessor State. He also considers the reverse situation: whether or not a new State may claim reparations for wrongful acts committed before its independence by third parties and which affected the predecessor State or one of its nationals. State Succession to International Responsibility contains the most comprehensive analysis ever published of doctrine and State practice related to these questions. It is the first attempt to examine systematically State conduct, both historical and modern, with a view to identifying the factors and circumstances under which rights and obligations of a predecessor State may be transferred to a new State. Winner 2008 ASIL Certificate of Merit for High Technical Craftsmanship And Utility To Practicing Lawyers And Scholars.
Das internationale Investitionsschutzrecht steht seit Jahren in der Kritik: Genießen Investoren internationale Rechte ohne korrespondierende Verantwortlichkeit? Dieses Buch stellt diese Sicht infrage. Vielmehr lassen sich der Vertrags- und Schiedspraxis bereits heute Investorenpflichten entnehmen, die das Buch normtheoretisch als direkte und indirekte Pflichten erschließt. Diese verpflichten Investoren etwa auf Menschenrechte und Umweltschutz. Sie sind potentiell geeignet, das Rechtsgebiet verstärkt auf das Ziel nachhaltiger Entwicklung auszurichten und Investorenverhalten international zu regulieren. Das Buch stellt diese Entwicklung in den allgemeineren Kontext der seit 1945 stattfindenden Individualisierung des Völkerrechts.
This book provides the actors involved in investor-State arbitration with a set of comprehensive guidelines to better understand the nature, meaning, and function of general principles of law in the field of international investment law.
This volume addresses the controversial issue of State succession to international responsibility. It deals with two distinct questions. Firstly, whether or not there is State succession to obligations arising from internationally wrongful acts committed by the predecessor State against a third State before the date of succession. Secondly, whether or not there is State succession to the right to claim reparation as a consequence of internationally wrongful acts committed by a third State against the predecessor State before the date of succession. Winner 2008 ASIL Certificate of Merrit for High Technical Craftsmanship And Utility To Practicing Lawyers And Scholars.
Marcelo Kohen and Patrick Dumberry explore in an article-by-article commentary the Resolution adopted in 2015 by the Institute of International Law, on state succession in matters of state responsibility. They analyse the content and scope of application of each provision based on a comprehensive survey of existing state practice and judicial decisions (both domestic and international), as well as taking into account the works of scholars and that of the ILC Special Rapporteur in his proposed Draft Articles on the same topic. This book explains the rationale and the reasons behind why the Institute adopted specific solutions to address particular problems of succession to responsibility for each provision, including the need to achieve a fair outcome given the specific circumstances and relevant factors for each case.
A Guide to State Succession in International Investment Law provides a comprehensive analysis of State succession issues arising in the context of international investment law. The author examines whether a successor State is bound by the investment treaties and State contracts which the predecessor State had signed with other States and foreign investors before the date of succession. Actors who are called upon to apply rules of State succession in investment arbitration cases will find this book a valuable source of practical guidance with strong theoretical foundations.
The fair and equitable treatment (‘FET’) standard is a type of protection found in BITs which has become in the last decades one of the most controversial provisions examined by arbitral tribunals. This book first examines the interaction between the ‘minimum standard of treatment’ (MST) and the FET standard and the question why States started referring to the former in their BITs. It also addresses the question whether the FET should be considered as an autonomous standard of protection under BITs. This book also examines the controversial proposition that the FET standard should now be considered as a rule of customary international law. I will show that while the practice of States to include FET clauses in their BITs can be considered as general, widespread and representative, it remains that it is not uniform and consistent enough for the standard to have crystallised into a customary rule. States also lack the necessary opinio juris when including the clause in their BITs.
Although the vast majority of investment treaties include a fair and equitable treatment (FET) clause, a considerable degree of variation in the actual content of the clause remains. In this important book by a well-known authority in international investment law analyses how tribunals have concretely interpreted FET clauses in relation to the minimum standard of treatment (MST), with detailed reference to all publicly available awards dealing with the provision rendered by arbitral tribunals in the past 25 years. This first comprehensive survey of case law since the 2012 UNCTAD Report highlights the following important trends: tribunals have interpreted the status of a FET clause and its relationship with the MST differently depending on the specific wording of each provision; how a tribunal analyses the status of a clause has a direct impact on the interpretation (broad or narrow) it gives to the content of the standard, including whether or not it includes protecting investors’ legitimate expectations; the way a tribunal analyses this issue has, in turn, a direct impact on how it addresses matters of liability and compensation; and the success rate of claims filed under ‘stand-alone’ FET clauses (containing no mention of ‘international law’ or any other standard) and those referring to ‘international law’ is much higher compared to clauses expressly linked to the MST. This book is the first to provide solid empirical evidence showing that the scope of the FET protection under a treaty very much depends on the type of clause being applied by a tribunal. The author’s thorough analysis will provide arbitrators and counsel with useful guidelines to assess how the clause has been interpreted by tribunals. It will also offer States and other stakeholders an in-depth analysis of some of the pitfalls and benefits that are associated with each different type of FET clause.
In the context of the break-up of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, the independence of Montenegro and the unification of Germany, can a new State be held responsible for wrongful acts committed before its independence by the predecessor State? This book is the most comprehensive analysis of State practice, case law and scholarship identifying the factors and circumstances under which the rights and obligations arising from wrongful acts committed before independence can be transferred to a new State. This updated and revised second edition covers new developments, including the recent works of the International Law Commission and the Institute of International Law.
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.