Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Procedural Transparency in the Settlement of Treaty-Based Investment Disputes in EVIPA and CPTPP Cover

Procedural Transparency in the Settlement of Treaty-Based Investment Disputes in EVIPA and CPTPP

Open Access
|Oct 2020

References

  1. [1] Micula (and others) v. Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20)
  2. [2] World Duty Free Company v Republic of Kenya (ICSID Case No. Arb/00/7) Award (4 October 2016)
  3. [3] Philip Morris Asia Limited v. The Commonwealth of Australia, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2012-12, Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (17 December 2015)
  4. [4] Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. The Republic of the Philippines (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/25) Award (10 December 2014)
  5. [5] Eli Lilly and Company v. Canada (ICSID Case No. UNCT/14/2)
  6. [6] Philip Morris Brands SARL and others v. Republic of Uruguay (ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7)
  7. [7] Bernhard von Pezold and Others v. Republic of Zimbabwe (ICSID Case No. ARB/10/15)
  8. [8] Pope & Talbot Inc. v. The Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Award in Respect of Costs (26 Nov 2002) [11]-[13]
  9. [9] Bianchi A. and Peters A. (eds) (2013), Transparency in International Law, Cambridge University Press, p. 160
  10. [10] Euler D. et al. (eds.) (2015), Transparency in International Investment Arbitration: A Guide to the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-Based Investor-State Arbitration, Cambridge University Press, p.79, p. 324
  11. [11] Nuemann T. and Simma B. (2013), ‘Transparency in International Adjudication’, in Bianchi A. and Peters A. (eds), Transparency in International Law, Cambridge University Press, pp. 436-43710.1017/CBO9781139108843.025
  12. [12] CIEL (2010), Webcasting as a tool to increase transparency in dispute settlement proceeding, p. 6
  13. [13] CIEL and IISD (2007), ‘Revising UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules to Address Investor-State Arbitrations’, p. 4
  14. [14] UNCITRAL, ‘Report of Working Group II (Arbitration and Conciliation) on the work of its fifty-seventh session’, UN Doc. A/CN.9/760, 12 October 2012, 102
  15. [15] UNCITRAL, ‘Report of Working Group II (Arbitration and Conciliation) on the work of its fifty-fifth session’, UN Doc. A/CN.9/736, 3-7 October 2011, p. 45
  16. [16] UNCITRAL, ‘Report of Working Group II (Arbitration and Conciliation) on the work of its fifty-third session’, UN Doc. A/CN.9/712, 20 Oct 2010, 69
  17. [12] Calamita N. J. (2014), ‘Dispute Settlement Transparency in Europe’s Evolving Investment Treaty Policy - Adopting the UNCITRAL Transparency Rules Approach’, Journal of World Investment & Trade, pp. 652-653, p.656, p.659.
  18. [15] Ishikawa T. (2010), ‘Third Party Participation in Investment Treaty Arbitration’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 39, pp. 378-388.10.1017/S0020589310000059
  19. [17] Magraw D. B. and Amerasinghe N. M. (2009), ‘Transparency and Public Participation in Investor-State Arbitration’, ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law, No. 15:2, p.349, pp. 352-356
  20. [18] Malanczuk P. (2015), ‘China and the Emerging Standard of Transparency in Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)’, in New Zealand Association for Comparative Law: hors série Vol XIX, 2015. Retrieved from http://www.victoria.ac.nz/law/research/publications/about-nzacl/publications/special-issues/hors-serie-volume-xvi,-2013/Malanczuk.pdf [accessed 15 July 2019], p. 93
  21. [25] Yu H.-L. and Giupponi B. O. (2016), ‘The Pandora’s Box Effects under the UNCITRAL Transparency Rules’, The Journal of Business Law, 2016 (5), p. 349, p. 352
  22. [14] Guidelines of the UNICTRAL Transparency Registry, Article D(2). Retrieved from http://www.uncitral.org/transparency-registry/en/guidelines.html [accessed 11 May 2017]
  23. [16] Laird I. A. (2014), ‘Transparency in investor-state arbitration’, OUP blog. Retrieved from https://blog.oup.com/2014/03/transparency-in-investor-state-arbitration/ [accessed 9 May 2017]
  24. [19] McGowan G. V., ‘Sanctions in US and International Arbitrations: Old Law In Modern Context’, Kluwer Arbitration Blog. Retrieved from http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/2013/10/10/sanctions-in-us-and-international-arbitrations-old-law-in-modern-context/ [accessed 9 May 2020]
  25. [17] Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 16 December 2013 [on the report of the Sixth Committee (A/68/462)] 68/109. United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration and Arbitration Rules (as revised in 2010, with new article 1, paragraph 4, as adopted in 2013). UN Doc. A/RES/68/109, 18 December 2013. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/68/109 [accessed 15 July 2019]
  26. [20] UNCITRAL Transparency Registry, ‘Introduction’. Retrieved from http://www.uncitral.org/transparency-registry/en/introduction.html [accessed 22 June 2020]
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/vjls-2020-0010 | Journal eISSN: 2719-3004 | Journal ISSN: 2719-5872
Language: English
Page range: 58 - 75
Published on: Oct 14, 2020
Published by: Hochiminh City University of Law
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 3 issues per year

© 2020 Hai Yen Trinh, The Hoang Nguyen, published by Hochiminh City University of Law
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.