C. Ajibo, Chikodili O. Oguejiofor, Chidi C. Egbom, Gloria I. Onyia, Iwu Victor E. Okwulehie, Adaeze J. Nkokelonye
{"title":"间接征收的审查标准:效果规则与意图原则的协调","authors":"C. Ajibo, Chikodili O. Oguejiofor, Chidi C. Egbom, Gloria I. Onyia, Iwu Victor E. Okwulehie, Adaeze J. Nkokelonye","doi":"10.1163/2211906x-11010002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The standard of review that underpins investor-state dispute resolution particularly in the energy and natural resources sectors remains mired in a conundrum of legitimacy. While the jurisprudence of arbitral tribunals illustrates that the effect doctrine constitutes the central standard of review, and the intent behind the measure is largely jettisoned, questions remain as to whether the exclusive reliance on the effect doctrine reflects the interest of both parties and actually balances such interests in such strategic sectors as oil and gas where a trade-off is critical in view of massive State reliance on accrued revenue. In essence, it is contended that the doctrine of intent be deployed to complement the effect doctrine. Such an approach will not only enhance the substantive legitimacy of the dispute settlement process but equally reflect the balanced interest emblematic of the proportionate commitment of both parties.","PeriodicalId":38000,"journal":{"name":"Global Journal of Comparative Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Standard of Review in Indirect Expropriation: Reconciling the Effect Rule with the Doctrine of Intent\",\"authors\":\"C. Ajibo, Chikodili O. Oguejiofor, Chidi C. Egbom, Gloria I. Onyia, Iwu Victor E. Okwulehie, Adaeze J. Nkokelonye\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/2211906x-11010002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The standard of review that underpins investor-state dispute resolution particularly in the energy and natural resources sectors remains mired in a conundrum of legitimacy. While the jurisprudence of arbitral tribunals illustrates that the effect doctrine constitutes the central standard of review, and the intent behind the measure is largely jettisoned, questions remain as to whether the exclusive reliance on the effect doctrine reflects the interest of both parties and actually balances such interests in such strategic sectors as oil and gas where a trade-off is critical in view of massive State reliance on accrued revenue. In essence, it is contended that the doctrine of intent be deployed to complement the effect doctrine. Such an approach will not only enhance the substantive legitimacy of the dispute settlement process but equally reflect the balanced interest emblematic of the proportionate commitment of both parties.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38000,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Journal of Comparative Law\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Journal of Comparative Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/2211906x-11010002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Journal of Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/2211906x-11010002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
Standard of Review in Indirect Expropriation: Reconciling the Effect Rule with the Doctrine of Intent
The standard of review that underpins investor-state dispute resolution particularly in the energy and natural resources sectors remains mired in a conundrum of legitimacy. While the jurisprudence of arbitral tribunals illustrates that the effect doctrine constitutes the central standard of review, and the intent behind the measure is largely jettisoned, questions remain as to whether the exclusive reliance on the effect doctrine reflects the interest of both parties and actually balances such interests in such strategic sectors as oil and gas where a trade-off is critical in view of massive State reliance on accrued revenue. In essence, it is contended that the doctrine of intent be deployed to complement the effect doctrine. Such an approach will not only enhance the substantive legitimacy of the dispute settlement process but equally reflect the balanced interest emblematic of the proportionate commitment of both parties.
期刊介绍:
The Global Journal of Comparative Law is a peer reviewed periodical that provides a dynamic platform for the dissemination of ideas on comparative law and reports on developments in the field of comparative law from all parts of the world. In our contemporary globalized world, it is almost impossible to isolate developments in the law in one jurisdiction or society from another. At the same time, what is traditionally called comparative law is increasingly subsumed under aspects of International Law. The Global Journal of Comparative Law therefore aims to maintain the discipline of comparative legal studies as vigorous and dynamic by deepening the space for comparative work in its transnational context.