投资者-国家仲裁的创立

Taylor St. John
{"title":"投资者-国家仲裁的创立","authors":"Taylor St. John","doi":"10.1093/LAW/9780198796190.003.0033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter explores the creation of investor–state arbitration. There\n is no shortage of antecedents for investor–state arbitration. So why is\n it perceived as ‘dramatically different’ from what had gone before? In\n the second half of the twentieth century, consent to investor–state\n arbitration was provided prospectively (before disputes arose) and\n pursuant to generalized jurisdiction (for any treaty breach); this is\n profoundly different from previous practices. Two institutional\n developments were crucial for creating prospective, generalized consent.\n First, the ICSID Convention emerged. Second, provisions providing\n consent to investor–state arbitration were added to investment treaties.\n The chapter then focuses on these two developments. It reconstructs the\n choices that officials faced, their constraints, and the reasons why\n they made the choice for investor–state arbitration against other\n alternatives. To do so, it uses primary documents from five archives:\n the American, British, German, and Swiss national archives as well as\n the World Bank archives.","PeriodicalId":448349,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of International Arbitration","volume":"65 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Creation of Investor–State Arbitration\",\"authors\":\"Taylor St. John\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/LAW/9780198796190.003.0033\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter explores the creation of investor–state arbitration. There\\n is no shortage of antecedents for investor–state arbitration. So why is\\n it perceived as ‘dramatically different’ from what had gone before? In\\n the second half of the twentieth century, consent to investor–state\\n arbitration was provided prospectively (before disputes arose) and\\n pursuant to generalized jurisdiction (for any treaty breach); this is\\n profoundly different from previous practices. Two institutional\\n developments were crucial for creating prospective, generalized consent.\\n First, the ICSID Convention emerged. Second, provisions providing\\n consent to investor–state arbitration were added to investment treaties.\\n The chapter then focuses on these two developments. It reconstructs the\\n choices that officials faced, their constraints, and the reasons why\\n they made the choice for investor–state arbitration against other\\n alternatives. To do so, it uses primary documents from five archives:\\n the American, British, German, and Swiss national archives as well as\\n the World Bank archives.\",\"PeriodicalId\":448349,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Oxford Handbook of International Arbitration\",\"volume\":\"65 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Oxford Handbook of International Arbitration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/LAW/9780198796190.003.0033\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Oxford Handbook of International Arbitration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/LAW/9780198796190.003.0033","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本章探讨投资者-国家仲裁的产生。投资者与国家之间的仲裁不乏先例。那么,为什么它被认为与以前的“截然不同”呢?在20世纪下半叶,同意投资者与国家之间的仲裁是前瞻性的(在争端产生之前),并根据广义的管辖权(针对任何违反条约的行为);这与以往的做法截然不同。两项制度发展对于创造前瞻性的、普遍的同意至关重要。首先,ICSID公约诞生了。其次,在投资条约中增加了同意投资者与国家间仲裁的条款。这一章的重点是这两个发展。它重构了官员们面临的选择,他们的约束,以及他们为什么选择投资者-国家仲裁而不是其他选择的原因。为此,它使用了五个档案馆的主要文件:美国、英国、德国和瑞士国家档案馆以及世界银行档案馆。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Creation of Investor–State Arbitration
This chapter explores the creation of investor–state arbitration. There is no shortage of antecedents for investor–state arbitration. So why is it perceived as ‘dramatically different’ from what had gone before? In the second half of the twentieth century, consent to investor–state arbitration was provided prospectively (before disputes arose) and pursuant to generalized jurisdiction (for any treaty breach); this is profoundly different from previous practices. Two institutional developments were crucial for creating prospective, generalized consent. First, the ICSID Convention emerged. Second, provisions providing consent to investor–state arbitration were added to investment treaties. The chapter then focuses on these two developments. It reconstructs the choices that officials faced, their constraints, and the reasons why they made the choice for investor–state arbitration against other alternatives. To do so, it uses primary documents from five archives: the American, British, German, and Swiss national archives as well as the World Bank archives.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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