BCDR International Arbitration Review最新文献_第10页

Recourse Against Non-ICSID Investment Arbitration Awards in the MENA Region 中东和北非地区对非icsid投资仲裁裁决的追索权

BCDR International Arbitration Review Pub Date : 2016-12-01 DOI: 10.54648/bcdr2016033

G. Blanke

引用次数: 0

Georges R. Delaume (19212016): A Life of Service to Intellectual Integrity and Scholarship 乔治·r·德劳姆(1921 - 2016):为知识产权和学术服务的一生

BCDR International Arbitration Review Pub Date : 2016-12-01 DOI: 10.54648/bcdr2016023

Nassib G. Ziadé

引用次数: 0

An Analysis of the Compensation Regime Applicable to Claims Arising from Armed Conflicts Affecting Investments in MENA 对影响中东和北非地区投资的武装冲突产生的索赔适用赔偿制度的分析

BCDR International Arbitration Review Pub Date : 2016-12-01 DOI: 10.54648/bcdr2016026

Panagiotis A. Kyriakou, Laura Halonen, Noradèle Radjai

引用次数: 0

Accountability for Corruption in Investment Arbitration: Equitable Remedies for Findings of Illegality 投资仲裁中的腐败问责:违法性认定的公平救济

BCDR International Arbitration Review Pub Date : 2016-12-01 DOI: 10.54648/bcdr2016037

Nassib G. Ziadé

引用次数: 1

The Arbitrability of Administrative Contracts 行政合同的可仲裁性

BCDR International Arbitration Review Pub Date : 2016-09-01 DOI: 10.54648/bcdr2016013

Mohamed Amin El Mahdi

引用次数: 0

Mixed Courts of Egypt and International Arbitration 埃及混合法庭和国际仲裁

BCDR International Arbitration Review Pub Date : 2016-09-01 DOI: 10.54648/bcdr2016003

P. Leboulanger

{"title":"Mixed Courts of Egypt and International Arbitration","authors":"P. Leboulanger","doi":"10.54648/bcdr2016003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/bcdr2016003","url":null,"abstract":"Historically, Mixed Courts of Egypt, and recently international arbitration, have led to controversial debates as to their role in the Egyptian legal system. The Mixed Courts have been and are often still considered an infringement of Egyptian sovereignty because they were established during colonialism. However, the courts came into existence because Egypt needed a new, efficient legal system to end the consular courts, which were created under the Capitulations Treaties in the Ottoman Empire and caused unequal and sometimes biased treatment of Egyptian nationals. But beyond the geopolitical and historical context, the Mixed Courts have contributed to the development of the modern Egyptian legal system and Egyptian heritage in comparative law and international private law. Although the Mixed Courts and international arbitration proceedings are similar (e.g., different nationalities and legal backgrounds of judges and arbitrators, the possibility to apply different laws to the parties’ disputes), the historical and political context that resulted in the creation of the mechanisms is different. Thus, the claim that international arbitration would overstep Egyptian sovereignty is unfounded. On the contrary, Egypt’s desire to have a modern set of arbitration rules is shared with other States seeking participation in the economic globalization, and international arbitration has proved to be an appropriate mechanism for international trade dispute resolution.","PeriodicalId":166341,"journal":{"name":"BCDR International Arbitration Review","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134436030","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Consent Ltd.: A Brief History of Egypts Ministerial Approval Requirement for Arbitration of State Contracts and Why It Should Be Abolished 同意有限公司:埃及对国家合同仲裁的部长批准要求简史及其废除理由

BCDR International Arbitration Review Pub Date : 2016-09-01 DOI: 10.54648/bcdr2016004

Karim Youssef

{"title":"Consent Ltd.: A Brief History of Egypts Ministerial Approval Requirement for Arbitration of State Contracts and Why It Should Be Abolished","authors":"Karim Youssef","doi":"10.54648/bcdr2016004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/bcdr2016004","url":null,"abstract":"Recourse to arbitration in state contracts or state entity contracts has been a longstanding hot topic in Egypt. In the aftermath of the Arab Spring, Egyptian courts have caused a major implosion in the rules governing arbitration in state contracts and state entity contracts. The so-called requirement of the minister’s approval was and continues to be at the centre of the post-2011 judicial unwinding of a number of Mubarak era transactions. A brief history of the requirement of the minister’s approval of arbitration agreements in state contracts and how it has been applied before and after the Revolution raises legitimate considerations about whether this legislative requirement is useful. The author believes that this requirement should be abolished. The decision to abolish the requirement of the minister’s approval should be seen through the lens of the developments brought about by Law No. 32 of 2014 and the balance the law aims to strike between the legitimate interest of the state in protecting the integrity of state contracts and the legitimate interest of investors in protecting their contractual rights. From that balance emerges a key notion, namely, the legitimate right (not only obligation) of the state (as in the executive branch of the government) to protect its investment climate and the sanctity of its commitments, and by proxy, also its international law obligations to observe standards of conduct afforded to foreign investors in bilateral investment treaties and other general international law obligations. It is that right to which the government of Egypt has availed itself by eliminating third-party nullification rights of state contracts and the post-2011 enforcement of those rights. It is also through the lens of that right that the necessity of abolishing the requirement of the minister’s approval should be considered.","PeriodicalId":166341,"journal":{"name":"BCDR International Arbitration Review","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134541751","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

The Deemed Internationalisation of Arbitration under Egyptian Arbitration Law No. 27 of 1994 Considerations Beyond Hope and Fear 1994年第27号《埃及仲裁法》下仲裁的“认定”国际化——超越希望与恐惧的思考

BCDR International Arbitration Review Pub Date : 2016-09-01 DOI: 10.54648/bcdr2016005

M. Wahab

引用次数: 0

Cairo Court of Appeal 7th Economic Circuit 7/12/2015 Case No. 393 of Judicial Year 132 Arbitration 开罗上诉法院-第七经济巡回法院- 2015年7月12日-第132司法年度第393号案件-仲裁

BCDR International Arbitration Review Pub Date : 2016-09-01 DOI: 10.54648/bcdr2016010

引用次数: 0

On the Consideration of the Procedures to Challenge Arbitrators in the Egyptian Arbitration Law as Mandatory and the Ability to Appeal Decisions Made by Arbitral Institutions. A Commentary on the Cair 论埃及仲裁法中对仲裁员的质疑程序的强制性及对仲裁机构裁决的上诉能力。《对会议的评论

BCDR International Arbitration Review Pub Date : 2016-09-01 DOI: 10.54648/bcdr2016016

D. Hussein

引用次数: 0