OAK Repository

Metadata Downloads

Emergency Arbitration in the Investor-State Dispute Settlement Cases: Challenges and Perspectives for Arbitration Institutions

Part Name
Articles
Title
Emergency Arbitration in the Investor-State Dispute Settlement Cases: Challenges and Perspectives for Arbitration Institutions
Author(s)
Alexandr Svetlicinii
Publication Year
1-Jun-2018
Citation
Vol. 8 Issue. 1, 2018
Keyword
investment disputes; investor-state dispute settlement; emergency arbitration; arbitration institution; bilateral investment treaty; interim relief
Type
Article
URI
http://www.klri.re.kr:9090/handle/2017.oak/6474
Abstract
During the past decade, the arbitration institutions experienced growing
demand for adequate procedures and standards that meet the requirements of
the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). The emergency arbitration (EA)
is gradually becoming one of such requirements as the parties often
experience an urgent need of interim relief that precedes the constitution of
the arbitral tribunal and commencement of the regular arbitration proceedings.
In order to meet this demand, numerous arbitration institutions have
introduced emergency arbitration procedures under their arbitration rules.
While the arbitration institutions have already accumulated certain experience
in applying emergency arbitration in commercial cases, the first ISDS EA
cases under the bilateral investment treaties (BITs) have started to emerge
only in 2014. The paper provides a critical analysis on the suitability of the
current emergency arbitration rules to the peculiarities of ISDS including
issues such as timing, applicability of the “cooling-off clauses” under the
relevant BITs, substantive criteria for granting interim relief, and the
enforceability of the EA decisions. The research builds on the study of the
first EA decisions rendered in ISDS cases.
Table Of Contents
I. Introduction: The Rise of Emergency Arbitration
II. The First Emergency Arbitration Case in an Investor-State Dispute:
TSIKInvest LLC v. Republic of Moldova (SCC, 2014)
III. Changing Tides in the State’s Favour: Evrobalt LLC v. Republic of
Moldova (SCC, 2016)
IV. Testing the Enforceability of the Emergency Arbitration: Kompozit
LLC v. Republic of Moldova (SCC, 2016)
V. Remaining Challenges for Emergency Arbitration in Investor-State
Disputes
VI. Conclusion
Files in This Item:

qrcode

  • mendeley

해당 아이템을 이메일로 공유하기 원하시면 인증을 거치시기 바랍니다.

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse