The book's main conclusion is that state-to-state arbitration may be used as an alternative to currently popular investor-state arbitration by resolving procedural hurdles which impede its acceptance. It becomes more important with the removal of investor-state arbitration as an option in certain recent IIAs, which then elevates state-to-state arbitration as the sole option for binding third party dispute resolution in the treaty. Even then, it is unlikely to replace investor-state arbitration completely due to its inherent shortcomings, such as the risk of re-politicising disputes and a lack of direct control over the process for the affected investors. Nevertheless, the availability of an alternative forum will benefit all parties involved, as they will no longer be wholly dependent on investor-state arbitration, which can be affected by events such as denunciation from the ICSID Convention or the refusal of a host state to enforce an arbitration award.

Deals specifically with state-to-state arbitration arising from investment agreements and discusses options for resolution of its procedural hurdles Presents state-to-state arbitration as a novel alternative for investment dispute settlement Addresses the co-existence of different dispute settlement forums in investment law, which is a widely debated topic

Autorentext
Angshuman Hazarika is a qualified lawyer from India with research interests in International Economic Law and specific focus on International Trade Law and International Investment Law. He obtained his Bachelors degree in Law from Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, India and subsequently completed his LL.M. at Europa-Institut, Saarland University with the Angela Merkel Scholarship from DAAD. After completion of his degree he worked as a Research Associate at the Chair of Prof. Dr. Marc Bungenberg LL.M. in Saarland University and simultaneously pursued his doctoral research under his guidance.

Klappentext

This book discusses the use of the compromissory clause in international investment agreements (IIAs) for interstate dispute resolution. It puts forward the possibility of using state-to-state arbitration based on the compromissory clause in IIAs as an alternative means of resolving investment disputes in light of the global debate on the shortcomings of investor-state arbitration. The book s main conclusion is that state-to-state arbitration may be used as an alternative to currently popular investor-state arbitration by resolving procedural hurdles which impede its acceptance. It becomes more important with the removal of investor-state arbitration as an option in certain recent IIAs, which then elevates state-to-state arbitration as the sole option for binding third party dispute resolution in the treaty. Even then, it is unlikely to replace investor-state arbitration completely due to its inherent shortcomings, such as the risk of re-politicising disputes and a lack of direct control over the process for the affected investors. Nevertheless, the availability of an alternative forum will benefit all parties involved, as they will no longer be wholly dependent on investor-state arbitration, which can be affected by events such as denunciation from the ICSID Convention or the refusal of a host state to enforce an arbitration award.

Inhalt

Investment Dispute Settlement and the Position of State-to-State Arbitration in Investment Law.- 2. Framework for State-to-State Arbitration under the Compromissory Clause in an IIA.- 3. Utilisation of State-to-State Arbitration Based on the Compromissory Clause in Practice.- 4. Resolution of Procedural Hurdles in Utilising State-to-State Arbitration under IIAs.- 5. Coexistence of State-to-State Arbitration under IIAs with other Forums of Dispute Resolution and Treaty Interpretation.- 6. Additional Suggestions for Developing State-to-State Arbitration as an Effective Means of Dispute Resolution.- 7. Conclusion. <p