Combating Norm and Forum Shopping in Investment Arbitration

M. Shelbaya, Dimitrios Katsikis
{"title":"Combating Norm and Forum Shopping in Investment Arbitration","authors":"M. Shelbaya, Dimitrios Katsikis","doi":"10.54648/bcdr2016029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present article seeks to address the norm and forum shopping in investment arbitration that results from the overlap between contract and treaty claims. By no means new, the proliferation of parallel proceedings arising from the same dispute has brought this problem to the forefront of investment arbitration again. The overlap stems from the lack of well-defined spheres of application between treaty and contract: arbitral tribunals have extended the scope of treaties to govern conduct that is not necessarily sovereign, and have construed substantive standards in a broad manner, on occasion reducing the standards to the protection of an investor’s expectations. The difficulty with such interpretations is that they present an investor with a choice as to what standard the host state’s conduct should be measured against, and before which tribunal this should take place. In extreme cases, investors are allowed to initiate simultaneous or subsequent proceedings in connection with the same set of facts before different fora. This discretionary choice of norms and/or duplication of proceedings maximises the investor’s chances not only of recovery but also of success, can allow the investor to put a host state under undue pressure, and may lead to inconsistent decisions. To address this issue, one can clarify the scope of investment treaties by clarifying the conduct treaties are meant to govern and the standards of protection they offer, thus ensuring distinct normative spheres for contract and treaty. Where two norms must nevertheless coexist in respect of the same conduct, tools such as fork-in-the road and waiver provisions can ensure that an investor cannot pursue parallel claims, whether directly or indirectly. If parallel proceedings are nevertheless initiated, concepts such as res judicata have been used to bind the investor to the decisions of the commercial tribunal through which it is claiming even if not a party to the commercial arbitration.","PeriodicalId":166341,"journal":{"name":"BCDR International Arbitration Review","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BCDR International Arbitration Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/bcdr2016029","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The present article seeks to address the norm and forum shopping in investment arbitration that results from the overlap between contract and treaty claims. By no means new, the proliferation of parallel proceedings arising from the same dispute has brought this problem to the forefront of investment arbitration again. The overlap stems from the lack of well-defined spheres of application between treaty and contract: arbitral tribunals have extended the scope of treaties to govern conduct that is not necessarily sovereign, and have construed substantive standards in a broad manner, on occasion reducing the standards to the protection of an investor’s expectations. The difficulty with such interpretations is that they present an investor with a choice as to what standard the host state’s conduct should be measured against, and before which tribunal this should take place. In extreme cases, investors are allowed to initiate simultaneous or subsequent proceedings in connection with the same set of facts before different fora. This discretionary choice of norms and/or duplication of proceedings maximises the investor’s chances not only of recovery but also of success, can allow the investor to put a host state under undue pressure, and may lead to inconsistent decisions. To address this issue, one can clarify the scope of investment treaties by clarifying the conduct treaties are meant to govern and the standards of protection they offer, thus ensuring distinct normative spheres for contract and treaty. Where two norms must nevertheless coexist in respect of the same conduct, tools such as fork-in-the road and waiver provisions can ensure that an investor cannot pursue parallel claims, whether directly or indirectly. If parallel proceedings are nevertheless initiated, concepts such as res judicata have been used to bind the investor to the decisions of the commercial tribunal through which it is claiming even if not a party to the commercial arbitration.
反对投资仲裁中的规范与“买地”现象
本文试图解决由于合同和条约索赔之间的重叠而导致的投资仲裁中的规范和法庭选择问题。同一纠纷引发的平行诉讼的激增,使这一问题再次成为投资仲裁的首要问题,这绝不是什么新鲜事。这种重叠源于条约和合同之间缺乏明确的适用范围:仲裁法庭扩大了条约的范围,以管理不一定是主权的行为,并以广泛的方式解释实质性标准,有时将标准简化为保护投资者的期望。这种解释的困难之处在于,它们向投资者提供了一个选择,即应以何种标准衡量东道国的行为,以及应在哪个法庭审理。在极端情况下,投资者可以就同一组事实在不同法庭同时或随后提起诉讼。这种随意选择规范和(或)重复诉讼程序的做法不仅使投资者获得赔偿的机会最大化,而且使投资者获得成功的机会最大化,这可能使投资者对东道国施加不适当的压力,并可能导致不一致的决定。为了解决这个问题,可以澄清投资条约的范围,办法是澄清条约所要管理的行为及其所提供的保护标准,从而确保合同和条约的不同规范领域。然而,在同一行为必须同时存在两种规范的情况下,诸如分岔和豁免条款之类的工具可以确保投资者不能直接或间接地提出平行索赔。如果平行程序仍然被提起,则利用既判力等概念将投资者约束于其提出索赔的商事法庭的决定,即使投资者不是商事仲裁的当事方。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信