Browse ORBilu by Open Access
- What it is and what it isn't
- Green Road / Gold Road?
- Ready to Publish. Now What?
- How can I support the OA movement?
- Where can I learn more?
ORBilu is a project developed by
  Demystifying Consent: The Jurisdictional Framework of Investment Treaty Arbitration RevisitedRadović, Relja  Doctoral thesis (2019) Detailed reference viewed: 174 (21 UL)  Between Rights and Remedies: The Access to Investment Treaty Arbitration as a Substantive Right of Foreign InvestorsRadović, Relja in Journal of International Dispute Settlement (2019), 10(1), 42-68 Arbitrators in investment treaty arbitration have not been reluctant to express their views that the access to international arbitration forms part of the substantive protection of investors. The present ... [more ▼] Arbitrators in investment treaty arbitration have not been reluctant to express their views that the access to international arbitration forms part of the substantive protection of investors. The present article examines what is the added legal value of such views, and whether they are capable of requalifying procedural rules as substantive ones, or alternatively, breaking the separation line between substantive and procedural rules. This is discussed in the context of the application of most-favoured-nation clauses to dispute settlement clauses, as a case study. It is argued that the arbitral qualification of dispute resolution clauses as a means of investors’ protection cannot prompt a change regarding their legal nature, and has primarily an instrumental role in legitimizing expansionary interpretive outcomes. But the fact that a blurred separation line between substantive and procedural rules appears acceptable in investment treaty arbitration implies fragmentation from general international law in that respect, effected through arbitral lawmaking. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 107 (6 UL)Screening Powers in Investment Arbitration: Questions of Legal Change and LegitimacyRadović, Relja in Baetens, Freya (Ed.) The Legitimacy of Unseen Actors in International Adjudication (2019) Screening powers of arbitral institutions over requests initiating investment arbitrations are often justified by the need to prevent embarrassment of states and to avoid unnecessary costs. This Chapter ... [more ▼] Screening powers of arbitral institutions over requests initiating investment arbitrations are often justified by the need to prevent embarrassment of states and to avoid unnecessary costs. This Chapter examines possible effects of such powers, particularly on the arbitral development of the jurisdictional standards governing investment arbitration. Can administrative organs filter the demands for legal change that will be heard before tribunals, and if so, does this diminish the legitimacy of their screening powers? It is argued that screening powers offer possibilities of setting arbitrators’ agenda in terms of which demands for legal change will be considered. This could affect their legitimacy, but it does not mean that screening powers have completely lost their justification. It is suggested that such powers must be exercised with an extreme level of diligence, requiring an almost complete elimination of legal considerations, in order to safeguard their legitimacy. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 81 (3 UL)Defending the Undefendable: Asia’s Sovereignist Battles against Easy Access to Investment Treaty ArbitrationRadović, Relja in Nakagawa, Junji (Ed.) Asian Perspectives on International Investment Law (2019) States from the Asian region have not been the loudest participants in the backlash against investment treaty arbitration. That does not mean that they have not reacted to an evolving arbitral practice ... [more ▼] States from the Asian region have not been the loudest participants in the backlash against investment treaty arbitration. That does not mean that they have not reacted to an evolving arbitral practice allowing easy access of foreign investors to international arbitration. This chapter examines the action taken by several Asian states, particularly in the form of detailed treaty provisions, aimed to reassert the gateway to investment dispute settlement at the international level. It is argued that although state reaction in Asia has not been systemic and radical, but rather occasional and modest, it is based on the same sovereignist rationale, which assumes that harder conditions of access to international arbitration protect better state sovereignty. That reaction, however, will probably not produce the desired effects, because it does not follow the emergence of arbitral jurisdictional regulation, which has developed jurisdictional rules capable of tackling harder conditions of access, in light of the internationalised and depoliticised nature of investment disputes. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 77 (2 UL)Fighting Resistance against Courts: The Role of Investment ArbitrationRadović, Relja Scientific Conference (2018, September 21) Detailed reference viewed: 49 (2 UL)Investment Treaty Arbitration Between States and Arbitrators: Some Reflections on the Principle of ConsensualismRadović, Relja Scientific Conference (2018, July) Detailed reference viewed: 66 (1 UL)A Changing Jurisdictional Framework of Investment Treaty Arbitration: Quo Vadis?Radović, Relja Poster (2018, March 01) Detailed reference viewed: 81 (1 UL)Inherently Unneutral Investment Treaty Arbitration: The Formation of Decisive Arguments in Jurisdictional DeterminationsRadović, Relja in Journal of Dispute Resolution (2018), 2018(1), 143-183 Detailed reference viewed: 105 (5 UL)The ECOWAS Court of Justice as an Investment TribunalHappold, Matthew ; Radović, Relja in Journal of World Investment and Trade (2018), 19(1), 95-117 This article considers the extent to which foreign investors in Member States of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) might be able to use the ECOWAS Court of Justice to protect their ... [more ▼] This article considers the extent to which foreign investors in Member States of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) might be able to use the ECOWAS Court of Justice to protect their investments against actions of their host States. It does so taking into account the ECOWAS Supplementary Act on Investments and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice on, in particular, the extent of its substantive jurisdiction. Although it is not suggested that the Court of Justice would be better forum than an international arbitral tribunal, it is argued that it has considerable advantages over national courts. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 410 (37 UL)Administrators or Censors: How Not to Prevent a Dialogue on Legal Change in Investment Treaty Arbitration?Radović, Relja Scientific Conference (2017, October) Detailed reference viewed: 61 (2 UL)Problematizing Abaclat’s Mass Claims Investment Arbitration Using Domestic Class ActionsRadović, Relja in McGill Journal of Dispute Resolution (2017), 4 (2017-2018) The 2011 decision on jurisdiction and admissibility in Abaclat and Others v Argentina has started a discussion about mass claims processes in investment treaty arbitration. The tribunal concluded that ... [more ▼] The 2011 decision on jurisdiction and admissibility in Abaclat and Others v Argentina has started a discussion about mass claims processes in investment treaty arbitration. The tribunal concluded that although proceedings were initiated in aggregate, the continuance of the case contained a representative feature. This determination led them to declare that the applicable procedure could and had to be adapted. Today, the legacy of Abaclat and the availability of mass claims procedural devices in investment treaty arbitration remain questionable: can mass claims investment arbitration be qualified as ‘class-like’? If so, does it satisfy the fundamental principles of arbitration (particularly the principle of consent)? This article takes a comparative approach to answering these questions by putting mass claims investment arbitration procedures and United States class actions processes side-by-side. It argues that mass claims arbitration as construed in Abaclat cannot satisfy fundamental arbitration principles because it fails to observe the inextricable link between the parties’ consent, representative procedure, and representative relief. It is therefore wrong to view mass claims arbitration as an available device for investors in investment treaty arbitration. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 151 (10 UL)A New Perception of Consent to Arbitrate in Investment Treaty Arbitration and the Asian PerspectiveRadović, Relja Scientific Conference (2017, June) Detailed reference viewed: 87 (2 UL)Inherently Unneutral Investment Treaty Arbitration and Never-Ending ExcusesRadović, Relja Scientific Conference (2017, February) Detailed reference viewed: 108 (4 UL)Who Is the Dominant Lawmaker? Arbitrator’s Perception of Dispute Settlement Clauses as Substantive Rights in Investment ArbitrationRadović, Relja Scientific Conference (2016, July) Detailed reference viewed: 93 (12 UL)Any Consensuality on the Horizon? Investment Court and an Arrogant LegitimacyRadović, Relja Presentation (2016, April) Detailed reference viewed: 89 (12 UL)“When I Grow Up I'll Be a Court”: Understanding Investor-State Mass Claims Arbitration with the Help of Domestic Class Action ProcessesRadović, Relja Scientific Conference (2016, March) Detailed reference viewed: 124 (17 UL) |
||
