萨利尼的性质:仲裁员的司法监督职责

Perry S. Bechky
{"title":"萨利尼的性质:仲裁员的司法监督职责","authors":"Perry S. Bechky","doi":"10.1163/15718034-12341373","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThis article examines the duty of jurisdictional policing that Salini v. Morocco inferred from the ICSID Convention. According to Salini, ICSID arbitrators must determine whether a dispute arises from an “investment” that satisfies an objective definition of that term, regardless of the subjective definition used by the parties to a case. Salini thus suggests that this duty cannot be waived or varied by the parties. Its proponents claim that Salini’s duty serves ICSID’s vital institutional interests. Moreover, ICSID can enforce Salini’s duty. Taken together, these considerations signal that Salini’s duty is owed not only to the parties to the case, but also to ICSID itself as an institution. As Salini migrates beyond ICSID to other investor-state tribunals, however, the nature of this duty may be revealed as not only institutional but systemic – a duty inherent in the investor-state arbitrators’ function that serves the interests of the investor-state dispute system.","PeriodicalId":313622,"journal":{"name":"Transnational Litigation/Arbitration","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Salini's Nature: Arbitrators' Duty of Jurisdictional Policing\",\"authors\":\"Perry S. Bechky\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15718034-12341373\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThis article examines the duty of jurisdictional policing that Salini v. Morocco inferred from the ICSID Convention. According to Salini, ICSID arbitrators must determine whether a dispute arises from an “investment” that satisfies an objective definition of that term, regardless of the subjective definition used by the parties to a case. Salini thus suggests that this duty cannot be waived or varied by the parties. Its proponents claim that Salini’s duty serves ICSID’s vital institutional interests. Moreover, ICSID can enforce Salini’s duty. Taken together, these considerations signal that Salini’s duty is owed not only to the parties to the case, but also to ICSID itself as an institution. As Salini migrates beyond ICSID to other investor-state tribunals, however, the nature of this duty may be revealed as not only institutional but systemic – a duty inherent in the investor-state arbitrators’ function that serves the interests of the investor-state dispute system.\",\"PeriodicalId\":313622,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transnational Litigation/Arbitration\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-06-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transnational Litigation/Arbitration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-12341373\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transnational Litigation/Arbitration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-12341373","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

本文考察了Salini诉摩洛哥案从ICSID公约中推断出的司法管辖义务。根据Salini的说法,ICSID仲裁员必须确定争议是否源于满足该术语客观定义的“投资”,而不管案件各方使用的主观定义如何。因此,萨利尼建议各方不能放弃或改变这一义务。它的支持者声称,萨利尼的职责符合ICSID的重要机构利益。此外,ICSID可以强制执行Salini的义务。综上所述,这些考虑表明Salini的责任不仅是对案件各方,而且对ICSID本身作为一个机构负有责任。然而,随着Salini从ICSID转移到其他投资者-国家法庭,这一义务的性质可能不仅是制度性的,而且是系统性的——这是投资者-国家仲裁员服务于投资者-国家争端体系利益的职能中固有的义务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Salini's Nature: Arbitrators' Duty of Jurisdictional Policing
This article examines the duty of jurisdictional policing that Salini v. Morocco inferred from the ICSID Convention. According to Salini, ICSID arbitrators must determine whether a dispute arises from an “investment” that satisfies an objective definition of that term, regardless of the subjective definition used by the parties to a case. Salini thus suggests that this duty cannot be waived or varied by the parties. Its proponents claim that Salini’s duty serves ICSID’s vital institutional interests. Moreover, ICSID can enforce Salini’s duty. Taken together, these considerations signal that Salini’s duty is owed not only to the parties to the case, but also to ICSID itself as an institution. As Salini migrates beyond ICSID to other investor-state tribunals, however, the nature of this duty may be revealed as not only institutional but systemic – a duty inherent in the investor-state arbitrators’ function that serves the interests of the investor-state dispute system.
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