WTO争端解决、投资者与国家仲裁与投资法院:探索国家权力、裁决与合法性的主题

E. Whitsitt, T. Weiler
{"title":"WTO争端解决、投资者与国家仲裁与投资法院:探索国家权力、裁决与合法性的主题","authors":"E. Whitsitt, T. Weiler","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3391894","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"U.S. assertion of political power in the World Trade Organization (WTO)’s appointment process reminds us of the tenuous balance that exists between state power, adjudication and legitimacy in WTO dispute settlement. Even more fundamentally, it prompts questions about whether reformation of investor-state dispute settlement based on the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism will solve the legitimacy crisis (real or perceived) that currently threatens the international investment law regime. To address that question this paper explores the contours of state power and adjudication in the dispute settlement mechanisms underpinning the international trade and international investment law regimes. An overview of the historical development of dispute settlement mechanisms in each of these regimes reveals the existence of a long-standing tension between adjudication and sovereign regulatory authority, with the legitimacy of each regime coming under question. Responses to these so-called legitimacy crises vary between the international trade and international investment law regimes and, to some extent, depend on the power states have to respond to such crises. Whether innovations, such as the investment court established in the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union, will solve international investment law’s legitimacy crisis remains an open question.","PeriodicalId":122765,"journal":{"name":"LSN: WTO Law (Topic)","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"WTO Dispute Settlement, Investor-State Arbitration and Investment Courts: Exploring Themes of State Power, Adjudication & Legitimacy\",\"authors\":\"E. Whitsitt, T. Weiler\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3391894\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"U.S. assertion of political power in the World Trade Organization (WTO)’s appointment process reminds us of the tenuous balance that exists between state power, adjudication and legitimacy in WTO dispute settlement. Even more fundamentally, it prompts questions about whether reformation of investor-state dispute settlement based on the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism will solve the legitimacy crisis (real or perceived) that currently threatens the international investment law regime. To address that question this paper explores the contours of state power and adjudication in the dispute settlement mechanisms underpinning the international trade and international investment law regimes. An overview of the historical development of dispute settlement mechanisms in each of these regimes reveals the existence of a long-standing tension between adjudication and sovereign regulatory authority, with the legitimacy of each regime coming under question. Responses to these so-called legitimacy crises vary between the international trade and international investment law regimes and, to some extent, depend on the power states have to respond to such crises. Whether innovations, such as the investment court established in the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union, will solve international investment law’s legitimacy crisis remains an open question.\",\"PeriodicalId\":122765,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: WTO Law (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: WTO Law (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3391894\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: WTO Law (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3391894","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

美国在世界贸易组织(WTO)任命过程中的政治权力主张提醒我们,在WTO争端解决中,国家权力、裁决和合法性之间存在着微妙的平衡。更根本的是,它引发了这样的问题:基于WTO争端解决机制的投资者-国家争端解决改革是否会解决目前威胁国际投资法制度的合法性危机(真实的或感知的)。为了解决这个问题,本文探讨了作为国际贸易和国际投资法制度基础的争端解决机制中的国家权力和裁决的轮廓。对这些制度中争端解决机制的历史发展的概述表明,裁决和主权监管当局之间存在着长期存在的紧张关系,每个制度的合法性都受到质疑。对于这些所谓的合法性危机,不同的国际贸易法和国际投资法制度的反应各不相同,在某种程度上,这取决于各国应对此类危机的权力。加拿大与欧盟(eu)之间的《全面经济贸易协定》(Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement)中设立的投资法庭等创新,能否解决国际投资法的合法性危机,仍是一个悬而未决的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
WTO Dispute Settlement, Investor-State Arbitration and Investment Courts: Exploring Themes of State Power, Adjudication & Legitimacy
U.S. assertion of political power in the World Trade Organization (WTO)’s appointment process reminds us of the tenuous balance that exists between state power, adjudication and legitimacy in WTO dispute settlement. Even more fundamentally, it prompts questions about whether reformation of investor-state dispute settlement based on the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism will solve the legitimacy crisis (real or perceived) that currently threatens the international investment law regime. To address that question this paper explores the contours of state power and adjudication in the dispute settlement mechanisms underpinning the international trade and international investment law regimes. An overview of the historical development of dispute settlement mechanisms in each of these regimes reveals the existence of a long-standing tension between adjudication and sovereign regulatory authority, with the legitimacy of each regime coming under question. Responses to these so-called legitimacy crises vary between the international trade and international investment law regimes and, to some extent, depend on the power states have to respond to such crises. Whether innovations, such as the investment court established in the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union, will solve international investment law’s legitimacy crisis remains an open question.
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信