Description
Book SynopsisInvestor-State arbitration is currently a much-debated topic, both within the legal community and in the public at large. In Towards Consistency in International Investment Jurisprudence, Katharina Diel-Gligor addresses the alleged proliferation of inconsistent decision-making in this field – one of the main points of concern raised in the ongoing discussions. After exploring whether such criticism is appropriate at all, she goes on to examine the different causes, forms, and manifestations of the inconsistencies that exist through a detailed analysis of ICSID arbitration. The author then canvasses possible approaches to reform and concludes that an ICSID preliminary ruling system – the practicalities of which are set out in the study – is a suitable means for enhancing consistency in investment arbitration and moving towards a jurisprudence constante.
Table of ContentsAcknowledgements List of Abbreviations Introduction A. Subject Area: International Investment Law and Arbitration B. Central Problem: Inconsistency in International Investment Jurisprudence C. Central Goal: Targeted, Effective and Feasible Approach for Reform D. Research Questions and Hypotheses E. Research Methods F. Course of Investigation Chapter 1 – Contextual Framework and Object of Study A. Preliminary Considerations B. Contextual Framework: International Investment Law and Arbitration I. Development of (Inter-) National Investment Law and Policy II. Development of International Investment Arbitration C. Object of Study: ICSID Arbitration I. Basic Information II. Relative Strengths and Weaknesses: Comparative Law Analysis of ICSID and UNCITRAL Arbitration III. Summary and Evaluation D. Interim Conclusion Chapter 2 – Analysis of Problem: Inconsistency in ICSID Investment Jurisprudence A. Preliminary Considerations I. “Consistency” and “Jurisprudence Constante” – Working Definitions and Premises II. ICSID Jurisprudence in the Focus of Criticism – Rationales B. Questions of Principle I. Is Jurisprudential Consistency Desirable At All? II. Is the Inconsistency Criticism Appropriate At All? C. Forms of Inconsistencies I. Same Dispute, but Multiple Proceedings II. Different Disputes, but Same Legal Issues III. Temporal Distinction: Parallel vs. Successive Proceedings D. Causes of Inconsistencies I. Systemic Causes: Basic Structures of ICSID Arbitration II. Methodological Causes: Legal Interpretation in ICSID Arbitral Decisions E. Occurences of Inconsistencies: Qualitative-Empirical Study I. Law Governing Jurisdiction II. Procedural Law III. Substantive Law IV. Summary and Evaluation F. Interim Conclusion Chapter 3 – Reform Proposal: Curing Inconsistent ICSID Investment Jurisprudence A. Preliminary Considerations B. Overview of Reform Proposals to Enhance Consistency I. Instruments without ICSID Specificity II. Instruments with ICSID Specificity III. Evaluative Choice of the Preferable Instrument C. Preferable Reform Proposal: Draft of an ICSID Preliminary Ruling System I. Conceptual Models II. Legal Implementation III. Basic Structures IV. Admissible Questions V. Submission of Questions VI. Course of Proceedings VII. Effect of Preliminary Rulings VIII. Summary and Evaluation D. Interim Conclusion Conclusion A. Final Summary B. Research Questions and Hypotheses: Answers and Confirmations C. Prospects and Outlook Summary in German Annex A. Annex to Chapter 1 B. Annex to Chapter 2 C. Annex to Chapter 3 Table of Cases Bibliography
