Investment Arbitration

In the era of trade liberalization marked with mega competition, investors have been more freely to invest. For that the recipient of capital must prepare various means to attract investors. Consideration for potential investors, if he wants to invest his capital abroad is the existence of dispute resolution institutions between investors and the host country. In Indonesia after the Capital Market Law settlement of investment disputes, in the resolution of investment disputes between investors and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia through arbitration institutions. Indonesia has ratified the New York Convention 1958, then the convention becomes national law. This means that the foreign arbitral award will automatically be recognized and enforceable in Indonesia. Arbitration institutions as one of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ARD) in Indonesia has been legitimately stronger with the enactment of Arbitration and ADR law. With the issuance of this law, doubts on the execution of arbitral awards, especially international arbitral awards can be minimized. Thus, the arrangements of foreign investment in Indonesia should also be harmonize with the regulations of International Law, in this case the International Trade Law of GATT/WTO and International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Convention on the settlement of investment disputes between States and Nationals of other States. This does not mean that Indonesia has transferred its sovereignty to the International Law, since the principles of GATT/WTO has exceptions and the implementation of the ICSID Convention in dispute resolution should have prior written approval from the Government of Indonesia.

The jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals and the admissibility of inter-State claims under international law are central to international adjudication, operating as a gateway to the litigation on the merits – the end goal of the proceedings. Still, these concepts remain inherently under-defined, and can be shaped in multiple ways to formulate preliminary objections in international litigation in general. International investor-State arbitration adds specific aspects and complexities to the issue. This introductory contribution accounts for the theoretical deficiencies underpinning the notions of jurisdiction and admissibility, with a special focus on international investment arbitration, and introduces the selected case-studies which form the subject-matter of the articles in this Special Issue. The recent Urbaser award is also used as an example of the unexplored potential of novel – and critical – legal argumentation relating to the jurisdiction of investment tribunals.

Author's version. Forthcoming in European Investment Law and Arbitration Review (2016) 1(1) xxx-xxx 3 mechanism and the setting aside procedure for non-ICSID awards by national courts. These mechanisms -while not perfect -provide useful corrective tools. 3. The analysis of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism illustrates that caution should be exercised in simply transplanting it to investor-state disputes. The reason is that WTO law is structurally different from investment law, serves different purposes and has different users. 4. Generally, it can be concluded that the ICS clearly breaks with the current party-appointed, ad hoc ISDS common to most BITs and FTAs. The main result is that it deprives claimants of any role in the appointment of the judges, while giving the respondent States the exclusive authority to do so, albeit in advance of a particular case. The appointment of the judges by the States parties to the treaties raises several problems, which the ICS proposal does not sufficiently address. 5. The pre-selection of the judges of the Tribunal of First Instance (TFI) and Appellate Tribunal (AT) by the contracting parties carries the inherent risk of selecting 'pro-State' individuals. Apart from this danger, it remains doubtful whether a sufficient number of appropriately qualified individuals with the necessary expertise can be found. This is particularly true since many professionals currently working in arbitration may face the same accusations of partiality that have fuelled the reform. The pool of TFI and AT judges would seem to be limited to academics, (former) judges and (former) governmental officials. That might not be sufficient to guarantee the practical experience and expertise needed and/or independence from States. 12. As the TTIP negotiations between the US and the EU are now focusing on the ICS proposal, this is a perfect moment to further improve the proposal by addressing the matters identified in this analysis. 13. Finally, the US and the EU should also consider whether it would not be more preferable to modify and improve existing systems, such as turning the ICSID annulment procedure into a full appeal mechanism.

In light of the ongoing blockade of the Northern Corridor, the possibility of simultaneous development of the Middle and Zangezur corridors as complementary routes appears promising. The key issue in this matter is achieving a balance of interests—not only between the United States and China, but also among all countries in the region, so as to secure a peaceful future for the Caucasus.

International commercial arbitration has emerged as the preferred mechanism for resolving cross-border disputes, with the New York Convention of 1958 providing the backbone for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards across jurisdictions. Both Pakistan and India, as contracting states, have enacted domestic legislation to give effect to the Convention. However, their judicial treatment of the Convention’s refusal grounds, particularly the public policy exception, has evolved differently. This paper undertakes a comparative analysis of Article V grounds for refusal, incapacity, denial of due process, excess of jurisdiction, improper tribunal composition, non-binding awards, arbitrability, and public policy. It examines how these provisions have been interpreted in Pakistan and India, highlighting India’s steady movement toward a narrow, internationally aligned understanding of public policy following Renusagar and Shri Lal Mahal, and Pakistan’s gradual but uneven transition from earlier reliance on public policy consideration in HUBCO v. WAPDA to more restrained pro-enforcement approaches in Orient Power v. SNGPL. Comparative perspectives from the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Germany further contextualize global judicial trends toward enforcement, emphasizing the balance between state sovereignty and arbitral finality. The conclusion underscores that while India has established itself as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction, Pakistan still faces challenges of judicial inconsistency, lack of specialization, and broad discretion. The paper recommends legislative clarification of “public policy,” creation of specialized commercial benches, deterrence against frivolous objections, adoption of partial enforcement, and regional cooperation with India to harmonize enforcement practices. Strengthening these mechanisms will not only enhance investor confidence but also signal Pakistan’s commitment to international arbitration norms and the rule of law.

BCDÿ FG ÿ FHFIJKLMJNÿ OKPQMR ÿ JTN? ÿ NM? NMU VWXÿ YZ[\ÿ ]ÿ Z^ÿ _ `aÿ b aca^_ ÿ d e d _ `ÿ f^^e gab h fb iÿ jd ÿ f^ÿ e ^_ ab ^f_ e j^fk ÿ fb le _ b fk ÿ _ b e lm^fk n h ÿ b mk e ^oÿ _ `f_ ÿ b ap ac_ aqÿ r`e ^ah a ck fe shÿ jgab ÿ _ `aÿ tjm_ `ÿ r`e ^fÿ tafR ÿ utÿ tacb a_ fb iÿ jd ÿ t_ f_ aÿ v^_ j^iÿ wk e ^xa^ÿ e syk jb aqÿ r`e ^fÿ _ jÿ b ah yac_ ÿ _ `aÿ qace h e j^z wm_ ÿ wk e ^xa^n h ÿ k ac_ mb aÿ _ jÿ r`e ^fn h ÿ k afqab h ÿ b fe h ah ÿ _ `aÿ _ `jb ^iÿ e h h maÿ jd ÿ vsab e cfn h ÿ j{^ÿ fyyb jfc`ÿ _ jÿ _ `aÿ e ^_ ab ^f_ e j^fk b mk aÿ jd ÿ k f{ÿ m^qab ÿ |b ah e qa^_ ÿ } jaÿ we qa^z ~b maR ÿ _ `aÿ b asjgfk ÿ jd ÿ h f^c_ e j^h ÿ _ `f_ ÿ |b ah e qa^_ ÿ j^fk qÿ ~b msyn h ÿ fqse ^e h _ b f_ e j^ÿ `fqÿ e syjh aqÿ fofe ^h _ ÿ `e o`ÿ jd d e ce fk h jd ÿ _ `aÿ ^_ ab ^f_ e j^fk ÿ rb e se ^fk ÿ rjmb _ ÿ {fh ÿ fk sjh _ ÿ m^e gab h fk k iÿ {ak cjsaqÿ fb jm^qÿ _ `aÿ {jb k qz ÿ vk _ `jmo`ÿ _ `aÿ u^e _ aq t_ f_ ah ÿ e h ÿ ^j_ ÿ fÿ saslab ÿ jd ÿ _ `aÿ rrÿ f^qÿ e _ h ÿ jlp ac_ e j^h ÿ _ jÿ e ^gah _ e of_ e j^h ÿ jd ÿ fk k aoaqÿ utÿ {fb ÿ cb e sah ÿ e ^ÿ vd o`f^e h _ fŷ b aqf_ aÿ ~b msyR ÿ _ `aÿ h f^c_ e j^h ÿ {ab aÿ f^ÿ m^yb acaqa^_ aqÿ f^qÿ jm_ b foajmh ÿ f_ _ fcxÿ j^ÿ _ `aÿ d m^c_ e j^e ^oÿ jd ÿ f^ÿ e syjb _ f^_ ok jlfk ÿ e ^h _ e _ m_ e j^z Z^ÿ j_ `ab ÿ d b j^_ h R ÿ `j{agab R ÿ _ `aÿ we qa^ÿ fqse ^e h _ b f_ e j^ÿ `fh ÿ ^j_ ÿ sjgaqÿ {e _ `ÿ _ `aÿ h yaaqÿ sf^iÿ _ `e ^xÿ e h ÿ {fb b f^_ aqÿ _ j b agab h aÿ e _ h ÿ yb aqacah h jb n h ÿ f_ _ fcxÿ j^ÿ e ^_ ab ^f_ e j^fk ÿ qe h ym_ aÿ h a_ _ k asa^_ z ÿ ~`aÿ ~b msyÿ fqse ^e h _ b f_ e j^R ÿ d jb ÿ afsyk aR ÿ mh aq e _ h ÿ ga_ jÿ yj{ab ÿ _ jÿ lk jcxÿ fk k ÿ fyyje ^_ sa^_ h ÿ _ jÿ _ `aÿ Xjb k qÿ ~b fqaÿ Zb of^e f_ e j^n h ÿ vyyak k f_ aÿ wjqiR ÿ {`e c`ÿ aga^_ mfk k i lacfsaÿ e ^mjb f_ aÿ {`a^ÿ yb e jb ÿ fyyje ^_ aah n ÿ _ ab shÿ a^qaqz ÿ [jlab _ ÿ e o`_ `e ab R ÿ _ `aÿ utÿ ~b fqaÿ [ayb ah a^_ f_ e gaÿ m^qab ~b msyR ÿ p mh _ e d e aqÿ _ `e h ÿ a_ b fjb qe ^fb iÿ fc_ e j^ÿ fh ÿ fÿ b ah yj^h aÿ _ jÿ fqgab h aÿ X~Zÿ b mk e ^oh R ÿ ck fe se ^oÿ p mqe ce fk ÿ jgab b afc`z X`e k aÿ h jsaÿ jd ÿ _ `aÿ k aofk ÿ p mqosa^_ h ÿ e ^ÿ mah _ e j^ÿ fb aÿ e ^qaaqÿ jya^ÿ _ jÿ cb e _ e ce h sR ÿ _ `aÿ vyyak k f_ aÿ wjqiÿ `fh ÿ jd _ aq ace qaqÿ e ^ÿ d fgjb ÿ jd ÿ _ `aÿ utÿ e ^ÿ cfh ah ÿ fofe ^h _ ÿ r`e ^fR ÿ fsj^oÿ j_ `ab h R ÿ f^qÿ `fh ÿ my`ak qÿ utÿ cj^h ab gf_ e j^ÿ f^q a^ge b j^sa^_ fk ÿ yjk e ce ah z ÿ v^qÿ ia_ R ÿ h e ÿ sj^_ `h ÿ e ^_ jÿ `e h ÿ _ ab sR ÿ _ `aÿ we qa^ÿ fqse ^e h _ b f_ e j^ÿ `fh ÿ d fe k aqÿ _ jÿ fb _ e cmk f_ aÿ f^i cj^h _ b mc_ e gaÿ yb jcah h ÿ d jb ÿ b ah _ fb _ e ^oÿ fyyak k f_ aÿ b age a{z Xfk xe ^oÿ f{fiÿ d b jsÿ f^ÿ e ^_ ab ^f_ e j^fk ÿ cjmb _ ÿ lacfmh aÿ _ `aÿ utÿ k jh _ ÿ fÿ cfh aÿ qe qÿ ^j_ ÿ laoe ^R ÿ `j{agab R ÿ {e _ `ÿ ~b msyÿ f^q _ `aÿ X~Zÿ vyyak k f_ aÿ wjqiz ÿ X`a^ÿ Ve cfb fomfÿ yb agfe k aqÿ fofe ^h _ ÿ _ `aÿ utÿ e ^ÿ ÿ f_ ÿ _ `aÿ ^_ ab ^f_ e j^fk ÿ rjmb _ ÿ jd ÿ } mh _ e ca e ^ÿ fÿ h me _ ÿ jgab ÿ utÿ fe qÿ _ jÿ _ `aÿ rj^_ b fh R ÿ _ `aÿ [afof^ÿ fqse ^e h _ b f_ e j^ÿ {e _ `qb a{ÿ b acjo^e _ e j^ÿ jd ÿ _ `aÿ r} n h ÿ p mb e h qe c_ e j {`e c`ÿ `fqÿ fk b afqiÿ laa^ÿ mfk e d e aqÿ liÿ j^ab jmh ÿ cj^qe _ e j^h z ÿ ^ÿ j_ `ab ÿ cfh ah R ÿ _ jjR ÿ _ `aÿ utÿ fccay_ aqÿ _ `aÿ r} n h fm_ `jb e _ iÿ _ jÿ h a_ _ k aÿ qe h ym_ ah ÿ m^qab ÿ fÿ h yace d e cÿ _ b af_ iR ÿ lm_ ÿ b agab h aqÿ cjmb h aÿ {`a^ÿ e _ ÿ k jh _ ÿ fÿ cfh az Vj{R ÿ `j{agab R ÿ _ `aÿ we qa^ÿ fqse ^e h _ b f_ e j^ÿ h aah ÿ d e _ ÿ _ jÿ c`fh _ e h aÿ j_ `ab ÿ h _ f_ ah ÿ d jb ÿ {fk xe ^oÿ f{fiÿ d b jsÿ _ `aÿ qace h e j^h ÿ jd e ^_ ab ^f_ e j^fk ÿ _ b e lm^fk h R ÿ fh ÿ wk e ^xa^n h ÿ qb ah h e ^oÿ qj{^ÿ jd ÿ r`e ^fÿ h `j{h z ÿ fe b ÿ a^jmo` ÿ r`e ^fn h ÿ ck fe shÿ e ^ÿ _ `aÿ tjm_ r`e ^fÿ tafÿ fd d ac_ ÿ _ `aÿ h jgab ae o^_ iÿ f^qÿ _ ab b e _ jb e fk ÿ e ^_ aob e _ iÿ jd ÿ f_ ÿ k afh _ ÿ fÿ `fk d qja^ÿ cjm^_ b e ah z ÿ wm_ ÿ j^aÿ {jmk qÿ ayac_ _ `f_ ÿ utÿ k afqab h ÿ se o`_ ÿ f_ ÿ k afh _ ÿ b acj^h e qab ÿ _ `ae b ÿ j{^ÿ h jb aÿ k jh ab ÿ h _ b f_ aoiz ÿ u^d jb _ m^f_ ak iR ÿ _ `f_ ÿ e h ÿ ia_ ÿ _ jÿ `fyya^z rj^h e qab R ÿ fofe ^R ÿ _ `aÿ rrz ÿ ah ye _ aÿ b asjge ^oÿ h f^c_ e j^h R ÿ _ `aÿ we qa^ÿ fqse ^e h _ b f_ e j^ÿ yab h e h _ h ÿ e ^ÿ fqjy_ e ^oÿ h _ f^cah ÿ _ `f_ m^qab se ^aÿ _ `aÿ cjmb _ n h ÿ k aoe _ e sfciÿ f^qÿ ad d ac_ e ga^ah h z ÿ jb ÿ afsyk aR ÿ _ `aÿ jd d e ce fk ÿ utÿ yjh e _ e j^ÿ m^qab ÿ we qa^ÿ e h ÿ _ `f_ ÿ _ `a rrÿ `fh ÿ ^jÿ fm_ `jb e _ iÿ _ jÿ e ^gah _ e of_ aÿ fk k aof_ e j^h ÿ jd ÿ {fb ÿ cb e sah ÿ cjsse _ _ aqÿ e ^ÿ _ `aÿ h b fak e |fk ah _ e ^e f^ÿ cj^d k e c_ z |fk ah _ e ^aÿ e h ÿ f^ÿ ah _ flk e h `aqÿ t_ f_ aÿ |fb _ iÿ _ jÿ _ `aÿ rr ÿ h b fak ÿ e h ÿ ^j_ z ÿ ~`aÿ sf^qf_ aÿ _ jÿ e ^gah _ e of_ aR ÿ e ^ck mqe ^oÿ fk k aoaq jd d a^h ah ÿ liÿ h b fak e h R ÿ {fh ÿ my`ak qÿ liÿ fÿ ck jh ak iÿ b afh j^aqÿ sfp jb e _ iÿ p mqosa^_ ÿ jd ÿ fÿ c`fslab ÿ jd ÿ _ `aÿ cjmb _ R ÿ lfh aqÿ jp mb e h qe c_ e j^ÿ j^ÿ |fk ah _ e ^e f^ÿ _ ab b e _ jb iz Z^aÿ jd ÿ _ `aÿ xaiÿ yb e ^ce yk ah ÿ jd ÿ e ^_ ab ^f_ e j^fk ÿ k f{ÿ e h ÿ fÿ _ b e lm^fk n h ÿ fm_ `jb e _ iÿ _ jÿ qace qaÿ e _ h ÿ j{^ÿ p mb e h qe c_ e j^z ÿ Zd ÿ cjmb h aR _ `aÿ we qa^ÿ fqse ^e h _ b f_ e j^ÿ sfiÿ `fgaÿ b afh j^h ÿ _ jÿ mah _ e j^ÿ _ `aÿ yjk e _ e cfk ÿ b f_ e j^fk aÿ d jb ÿ lb e ^oe ^oÿ _ `aÿ h b fak e |fk ah _ e ^e fĉ j^d k e c_ ÿ _ jÿ ~`aÿ fomaz ÿ wm_ ÿ fh ÿ fÿ ^j^ saslab ÿ jd ÿ _ `aÿ rrR ÿ _ `aÿ utÿ `fh ÿ ^jÿ lmh e ^ah h ÿ m^qab se ^e ^oÿ _ `aÿ b mk aÿ jd ÿ k f{ _ `ab aR ÿ yb jyab k iÿ fyyk e aqÿ liÿ _ `aÿ cjmb _ n h ÿ j{^ÿ e ^h _ e _ m_ e j^h z ~`e h ÿ qjah ÿ ^j_ ÿ saf^ÿ _ `f_ ÿ _ `aÿ we qa^ÿ fqse ^e h _ b f_ e j^ÿ smh _ ÿ ymh `ÿ d jb ÿ _ `aÿ utÿ _ jÿ lacjsaÿ fÿ yfb _ iÿ _ jÿ _ `aÿ rrz ÿ wm_ ÿ _ `a rrn h ÿ j{^ÿ cj^h _ e _ m_ e j^R ÿ _ `aÿ [jsaÿ t_ f_ m_ aR ÿ b acjo^e ah ÿ e syjb _ f^_ ÿ b jk ah ÿ d jb ÿ ^j^ saslab h R ÿ h mc`ÿ fh ÿ fh h e h _ e ^oÿ {e _ `

Steps taken by the European Union (EU) towards putting an end to intra-EU investment arbitration have attracted much criticism, which ranges from accusations of legal imperialism to observations that the notion of autonomy of the EU's legal order, which is the primary tool weaponised against intra-EU arbitration, is politically malleable. Nevertheless, those supporting the EU's position argue that in a legal community like the EU, it is expected to litigate against state authorities before national courts. This article informs the debate from a rule of law lens-it contends that the concerns for the EU's legal order with respect to intra-EU investment arbitration resonate dual standards and undermine article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). First, it analyses the inconsistencies of the European Commission's position considering its failure to protect judicial independence in the EU. Then, it explains why the politicisation of the principle of the autonomy of the EU's legal order in the Court of Justice of the European Union's case law, which reflects the court's commitment to self-increasing its jurisdiction and to prioritising procedure over substantive human rights, leads to tension with article 2 TEU. After shedding light on concrete cases illustrating why the EU's stance on intra-EU investment arbitration hampers investors' rights, it contemplates what solutions could be envisaged to ensure more adequate investor protection in the EU.

The investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system, established through the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), emerged as a response to foreign investors' distrust of national courts, particularly in developing countries. Since its establishment in 1966, ICSID has served as the backbone of the global ISDS mechanism, offering legal certainty and neutrality in dispute resolution. However, in the past two decades, the system has faced a substantial legitimacy crisis due to jurisdictional expansion, closed procedures, and inconsistent jurisprudence. This critical research examines the three main pillars of ICSID-competence, procedure, and jurisprudence-through a critical doctrinal approach and analysis of selected cases. The findings show that ICSID tribunals frequently expand their jurisdiction beyond the intent of the treaty, fueled by double-hatting practices, the dominance of repeat players, and a lack of transparency. ICSID jurisprudence, while not legally binding, establishes a soft precedent that creates law without democratic legitimacy, impacting state sovereignty and public policy. In this context, the ad hoc arbitration model is deemed to have failed to meet the demands of accountability and balance. Therefore, this study recommends a transformation towards a permanent multilateral investment court (MIC) system, with an appellate body, mandatory transparency, a ban on double-hatting, and the strengthening of the voices of the Global South. The future of international investment law must be built on the principles of balance, inclusiveness, and accountability, based on general principles of law to create a just and sustainable order.

International commercial arbitration is a dispute resolution process that most cross-border contracts provide. Under this arrangement, domestic courts uphold awards made by private tribunals that have resolved disputes. Given arbitration’s prominence in international contract enforcement, it stands to reason that it will play a significant role in easing FDI. Few studies have examined the effect of arbitration on foreign direct investment (FDI), despite MNEs’ extensive use of the practice. As a result, several issues pertaining to foreign direct investment (FDI) and international commercial arbitration have gone unanswered by economists. Does the availability of arbitration, for instance, influence foreign direct investment (FDI) or the quantity of investment projects? Why should countries ratify an international treaty to make arbitration more accessible? Therefore, the consequences of arbitration and FDI are unclear, and the connection between the two has been seldom studied. This paper addresses that void.
Key Words: International Commercial Arbitration, Foreign Direct Investment, Legal System

The globe has become a global village since the onset of globalization. Cross-border transactions have increased in real time as a result of business organizations expanding internationally. Due to the "cross-border" nature of the transactions, agreements and contracts made between commercial organizations sometimes turn nasty and result in disputes that are outside the purview of local law in a given nation. Cross-border commercial conflict resolution requires a distinct kind of competence, particularly when the parties involved are from countries with different legal systems, such as common law and civil law. It is important to emphasize that, as a matter of practice, all agreements made between businesses to further a shared goal often have three covenants: the "governing law," the "jurisdiction clause," and the "arbitration clause." The "governing law" clause specifies which country's legislation will be applied in the event that business dealings between multinational businesses go awry. The "jurisdiction clause" specifies which nation's courts will have the "say" on the subject at hand. The "arbitration clause" specifies how disagreements between corporations are to be settled before they are officially brought before a court of law for decision-making. It refers to procedures that fall under the category of "out-of-the-court-settlement-of-disputes," including mediation, conciliation, and arbitration.

Both Nigeria and the United Kingdom (UK) have been active when it comes to legislation recently. Nigeria itself underwent thorough revamping when it updated nearly 20-year-old laws with its Arbitration and Mediation Act, 2023, which brings the country in line with international norms. This complete overhaul resolved basic flaws in the Nigerian arbitration system, providing strong platforms for both domestic and international arbitrations. Conversely, on August 1, 2025, the United Kingdom will formally be more surgical in its implementation of a more refined approach through its Arbitration Act, 2025. The UK did not contemplate wholesale reform but, instead, tackled particular practical
segments pinpointed in the course of years of judicial interpretation and stakeholder feedback. This article explores these opposing schools of  thought and highlights major innovations in the 2025 Act in the UK that Nigeria can borrow strategically to complement its just-implemented arbitration system and to consolidate its status as an arbitration hub in Africa.

This paper seeks to explore key issues and challenges impacting trade and business disputes between China and ASEAN countries. Arbitration has become increasingly popular as a dispute resolution mechanism in China and ASEAN, especially with the rise of cross-border transactions and foreign investment. However, there are several challenges and issues associated with arbitration in the region. One major challenge is the lack of uniformity and clarity in the legal framework. There is a diverse legal system in the region, and the inconsistency in the arbitration laws and regulations makes it difficult for parties to agree on the arbitration process. Another challenge is the shortage of qualified arbitrators in the region, which can lead to delays and affect the quality of arbitration awards. The cost of arbitration is also an issue, and the lack of transparency in the cost structure can create disputes between parties, further delaying the arbitration process. The lack of public awarene...

Chiều ngày 10 tháng 4 năm 2025, Phiên A của HICAC 2025 sẽ tập trung thảo luận về các xu hướng hiện tại trong giải quyết tranh chấp thay thế (ADR) trong các dự án xây dựng với sự tham gia của 07 chuyên gia trong nước và quốc tế.

Tại Phiên A2, các diễn giả sẽ tập trung thảo luận về chủ đề Giải quyết Tranh chấp thay thế trong Xây dựng – Kinh nghiệm Quốc tế.

Tác giả: Ông Maximilian D. Benz - Chuyên gia định giá, Chuyên gia giám định chi phí SJA (Singapore)

Chiều ngày 10 tháng 4 năm 2025, Phiên A của HICAC 2025 sẽ tập trung thảo luận về các xu hướng hiện tại trong giải quyết tranh chấp thay thế (ADR) trong các dự án xây dựng với sự tham gia của 07 chuyên gia trong nước và quốc tế.

Tại Phiên A2, các diễn giả sẽ tập trung thảo luận về chủ đề Giải quyết Tranh chấp thay thế trong Xây dựng – Kinh nghiệm Quốc tế.

Tác giả: Bà Sinyee Ong - Giám đốc Pháp lý tại HFW

Hodiernamente, é notório que a arbitragem em Angola tem conquistado um espaço significativo,
consolidando-se ao longo dos anos como um mecanismo necessário, útil e eficaz para a resolução
de litígios, sobretudo aqueles decorrentes das relações comerciais. Neste contexto, o presente
artigo tem como escopo esclarecer as principais diferenças entre a arbitragem ad hoc e a
arbitragem institucional, com especial destaque para as vantagens que poderá proporcionar o
futuro Centro de Arbitragem da Ordem dos Advogados de Angola, à luz do quadro legislativo
vigente. Pretende-se, ainda, clarificar a área de actuação dos centros de arbitragem nos termos
definidos pela Lei e evidenciar as principais diferenças entre os centros de arbitragem e os
tribunais arbitrais. Esta distinção é essencial, uma vez que é comum a confusão entre as
competências de ambos: se, por um lado, os tribunais arbitrais exercem funções jurisdicionais; de
outro, os centros de arbitragem têm natureza meramente administrativa.

The protection of cultural heritage is a fundamental public interest, closely connected to fundamental human rights and deemed to be among the best guarantees of international peace and security. Economic globalization has spurred a more intense dialogue and interaction among nations, potentially promoting cultural diversity. However, this phenomenon may also jeopardize cultural heritage. Foreign direct investments in the extraction of natural resources have the ultimate capacity to change cultural landscapes and erase memories. Foreign investment in cultural industries can induce cultural homogenization. However, international investment law constitutes a legally binding and highly effective regime that requires that states promote and facilitate foreign direct investment. Does the existing legal framework adequately protect cultural heritage vis-a-vis economic globalization? This Article investigates the distinct interplay between the promotion of foreign direct investment and the...

This research is necessary due to the chilling effect brought about by the IIL and the provision under Article 32 of the Indonesian Capital Investment Law, which potentially brings adverse effects to the Government of Indonesia. Such adverse effects can manifest as substantial compensation claims and policy adjustments contrary to national interests. Unlike previous research concerning Indonesia prior to the IIL regime, the distinctive feature of this study is the implementation of the exhaustion of local remedies doctrine based on IIL doctrines, past ICSID cases, and dispute settlement procedures under BITs. This research comprises four discussions outlined below. The first discussion outlines prior research concerning Indonesia before the IIL regime, along with the novelty discussion. Meanwhile, the second discussion explains the adverse effects of ISDS and SSID on Indonesia's sovereignty and its diplomatic relations with other ICSID Convention members. The third discussion emphasises that Indonesia should not perceive the IIL as an isolated regime, allowing it to utilise this legal framework to prevent disputes through international arbitration and adopt objective investment measures. Lastly, the fourth discussion describes how Indonesian local courts should be employed to resolve foreign investment disputes. The expected contribution of this research is to enrich the literature concerning IIL from an Indonesian law perspective. Furthermore, this research is crucial to serve as guidance for Indonesian lawmakers when amending Article 32 of the Capital Investment Law.

Sathyapalan HK, Kumar A. India: The 1985 Model Law and the 1996 Act: A Survey of the Indian Arbitration Landscape. In: Bell GF, ed. The UNCITRAL Model Law and Asian Arbitration Laws: Implementation and Comparisons. Cambridge University Press; 2018:29-68.

Debido a su complejidad jurídica y un bajo desarrollo conceptual, la normativa legal de la contrademanda es una práctica inusual en el derecho ambiental internacional. El examen de las reconvenciones de los Estados soberanos a inversores extranjeros en el marco de los contratos de inversión y los daños ambientales –en casos internacionales arbitrados en la CNUDMI, Ciadi y la CPA de La Haya– sugiere que las contrademandas del Estado ecuatoriano a las compañías Perenco Limited y Burlington Resources aportan elementos para la discusión. El análisis identifica precedentes globales que rebaten la idea de que los daños al medio ambiente no sean arbitrables. Las conclusiones apuntan a la necesidad de conceptualizar la figura de la contrademanda y realizar reformas al arbitraje sobre tratados internacionales con énfasis en los daños ambientales

This essay critically evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms in the context of international commercial transactions. ADR, including arbitration, mediation, and conciliation, offers parties flexible, confidential, and often more efficient alternatives to litigation. The essay highlights key benefits such as party autonomy, neutrality, enforceability under the New York Convention, and the potential to preserve business relationships. At the same time, it acknowledges limitations such as enforcement challenges for non-binding outcomes, high costs in complex arbitrations, limited rights of appeal, procedural inconsistencies, and difficulties handling multi-party disputes. Drawing on UK legislation—particularly the Arbitration Act 1996—and relevant case law, the discussion provides a balanced view of ADR’s suitability in cross-border disputes. The essay concludes that while ADR is highly effective in many international contexts, careful drafting of dispute resolution clauses and legal guidance are crucial to navigate its constraints.

The interrelationship between international investment law and  international human rights law has attracted widespread attention in the last two decades. While arbitration institutions have been experiencing a rapid increase in their caseload, given that investor-state arbitration has emerged as the most effective and popular means to settle investment disputes, the spotlight has been directed to the interactions between the international investment law and the host States’ non-investment obligations to protect the human rights of all individuals living on their territory. The present study aims to investigate and illustrate, though a case law analysis approach, the course of development of human rights arguments in investor-state arbitration, over the last decade. Namely, it deals with human rights arguments - inspired by or derived from international human rights law - which both the investors and the host States have raised during investment arbitration proceedings. Furthermore, it recognizes the significance of the amicus curiae submissions and it presents the amici’s human rights arguments, raised mainly in support of the host State defense. *For the purposes of this paper, “human rights arguments” include environmental arguments.

THIS IS the Final Report of the International Law Association Committee on International Commercial Arbitration on the topic of public policy as a ground for refusing recognition 1 and enforcement of international arbitral awards. The Committee has agreed upon a number of Recommendations as to the application of public policy by State courts. 2 This Final Report sets out the Recommendations and provides a brief commentary on each. This Report should be read together with the Committee's Interim Report presented at the London Conference in June 2000 ('Interim Report'). 3 The Recommendations are the culmination of a six year study of public policy by the Committee, starting after the Helsinki Conference in 1996. 4 The Recommendations themselves have been discussed and agreed by the Committee.

Source: https://academic.oup.com/arbitration/article-abstract/19/2/249/210560?redirectedFrom=fulltext

This paper seeks to explore key issues and challenges impacting trade and business disputes between China and ASEAN countries. Arbitration has become increasingly popular as a dispute resolution mechanism in China and ASEAN, especially with the rise of cross-border transactions and foreign investment. However, there are several challenges and issues associated with arbitration in the region. One major challenge is the lack of uniformity and clarity in the legal framework. There is a diverse legal system in the region, and the inconsistency in the arbitration laws and regulations makes it difficult for parties to agree on the arbitration process. Another challenge is the shortage of qualified arbitrators in the region, which can lead to delays and affect the quality of arbitration awards. The cost of arbitration is also an issue, and the lack of transparency in the cost structure can create disputes between parties, further delaying the arbitration process. The lack of public awareness and education about arbitration is another challenge, which can lead to parties opting for traditional litigation methods. Finally, the lack of transparency in the arbitration process can create mistrust among parties, affecting the credibility of the process. Addressing these challenges will require collaboration between governments, arbitration institutions, and stakeholders in the region to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the arbitration process.

La presente investigación tiene por objeto responder la cuestión de los límites al poder constituyente a la luz de los tratados internacionales suscritos y ratificados por Chile. Para estos efectos, es menester revisar la regla contenida en el artículo 135 in fine de la Constitución Política de la República y complementarla con las obligaciones internacionales que ha contraído el Estado en virtud de dichos tratados. Dentro de estas obligaciones se destaca el arbitraje internacional de inversiones, así como el pago de cuantiosas multas en caso de contravenir las disposiciones de los tratados y afectar los derechos de los inversores extranjeros. Finalmente, se concluye que el ejercicio del poder constituyente y el posible nuevo texto constitucional tiene límites, tanto explícitos, como implícitos.

Cultural phenomena are governed at national, regional and international levels; and a multiplicity of courts and tribunals adjudicate disputes with cultural elements. Against this background, this study addresses the key question as to whether a lex administrativa culturalis or cultural administrative law has emerged, characterized by the coalescence of consistent narratives, emerging rules and patterns of behaviors by relevant intra-national, national, supranational administrative bodies and private actors. In particular, this study hypothesizes the emergence of a lex administrativa culturalis investigating the distinct interplay between the protection of cultural heritage and the promotion of economic activities in investment treaty arbitration.  Emile Noël Postdoctoral Fellow, Jean Monnet Center for International and Regional Economic Law, New York University. PhD (EUI), M. Jur (Oxon), J.D. and M. Pol. Sc. (Siena). I gratefully acknowledge the Marie Curie Fellowship granted by t...

The role of the business leaders, bankers, and lawyers who promoted investment treaties and ISDS in the post-World War II period remains controversial. The introductory chapter argues that these norm entrepreneurs and their professional associations created a legal imagination about foreign investment relations which remains alive and well in both international investment law and ISDS awards. Their contribution to the progressive development of the law consisted of ideas as much as practice, particularly the way in which they collated their ideas into a vision of foreign investment relations. The chapter introduces the main features of this legal imagination, including the relevance of certain interpretations of property and contracts. It claims that grasping this imagination calls for a transnational law method, and concludes with an overview of the book.

Gerek uluslararası örf ve âdet gerekse sözleşme hukuku, devletlerin, faili kim olursa olsun, kadınlara yönelik şiddet eylemlerini önlemek, mağdurları korumak, failleri cezalandırmak ve şiddetin yol açtığı zararı tazmin etme yönünde gerekli özeni gösterme yükümlülüğü bulunduğu kuralını kabul etmiştir. Böylece, devlet doktrinin pozitif yükümlülük anlayışını da içermesiyle şiddetle mücadele ivme kazanmıştır.  Bu yöndeki önemli gelişmelere rağmen, şiddetin tüm dünyada artma eğiliminde olması uluslararası norm ve pratik arasındaki mesafeyi açmakta ve sorunun ‘objektif’ hukuk normlarının uygulanmasından ibaret olmadığı gerçeğini ifşa etmektedir. Bu çalışma, devletin özen yükümlülüğü standardının, özellikle şiddetin önlenmesi bağlamında uluslararası belge ve mekanizmalarda yorumu, olanakları ve sınırlarına odaklanmakta ve direnen yapısal eşitsizlikler, ekonomi politik dinamikler, toplumsal cinsiyetin anaakımlaştırılması yaklaşımının çelişkileri karşısında, anaakım toplum düzenini dönüştürecek yeni bir feminist vizyonun gerekliliğini savunmaktadır.

Over the last few decades, one of the most contentious issues of the international investment law has been the interpretation of the 'umbrella clauses'. Since the umbrella clauses are generally vague, short and hidden in international investment agreements, the interpretation of the clause is in a controversial position and thereby having been subject to the scholarly interest. Should umbrella clauses in international investment agreements be

The Ethiopian legal framework governing investment dispute resolution is a critical aspect of the country's investment climate. This seminar research aims to analyze the intricacies of this legal framework, exploring relevant laws, regulations, and international agreements that shape the jurisdiction of investment dispute resolution in Ethiopia. Through a comprehensive examination, this research seeks to provide insights into the strengths, weaknesses, and potential areas for improvement within Ethiopia's investment dispute resolution system.

El artículo examina el alegato de falta de jurisdicción de los tribunales arbitrales en controversias sobre inversiones dentro de la Unión Europea. Ofrece una visión global de la normativa comunitaria y el régimen de protección de inversiones en los países de la UE. Analiza la sentencia Achmea, su impacto en la terminación de los TBIs intra-UE y el desarrollo posterior de esta doctrina. Explica los principales argumentos de la objeción intra-UE, incluyendo la invalidez de las cláusulas arbitrales, la primacía del derecho comunitario y la falta de diversidad territorial según el TCE. Finalmente, examina cómo la jurisprudencia arbitral ha tratado la objeción, tanto en las decisiones que la han desestimado como en los laudos recientes que la han declarado con lugar.

Investment arbitration is increasingly intersecting with global efforts to address climate change, as disputes related to climate measures, such as renewable energy subsidies and fossil fuel phase-outs are being brought under Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms. However, the current ISDS framework often creates tension between investor protections and states' rights to regulate for environmental purposes. This research explores how ISDS reform, particularly through UNCITRAL's Working Group III, can better address climate change disputes while aligning with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The study investigates how ISDS reforms can protect states' regulatory autonomy for environmental and climate change measures, ensure that investment arbitration aligns with international climate agreements like the Paris Agreement, and incorporate specialised approaches for climate-sensitive disputes. Using a qualitative methodology, it analyses case law (e.g., Urbaser v. Argentina and Vattenfall v. Germany) to identify trends and gaps in handling climate-related disputes, reviews treaty provisions, reform proposals, and legal commentaries to evaluate the potential for environmental carve-outs, climate-sensitive arbitration rules, and public interest participation, and examines comparative practices in international environmental and investment law to recommend actionable reforms. The study's objectives include proposing treaty provisions that integrate environmental safeguards and incentivize green investments, advocating for procedural reforms such as appointing arbitrators with environmental expertise and enabling amici curiae participation, and recommending the development of specialised dispute resolution mechanisms for climate-related issues. By aligning investment arbitration with environmental governance, this research aims to balance investor rights with states' responsibilities to combat climate change, ensuring a fair and sustainable approach to international economic law.

With a rapidly changing business landscape, not only do small businesses have to protect their interests when forming commercial contracts, but they also need to ensure that sustainable relationships are built with clients, suppliers, and partners. Knowing how to draft elegant contracts requires familiarity with telling details such as choices of law for dispute resolution, limitations of liability, and jurisdiction. This paper discusses best practices to design sound contractual frameworks for small companies that take into account the particular characteristics and limitations of small enterprises. This study explores the strategic choice of dispute resolution clauses, namely, how choosing between traditional litigation and alternative forms, such as mediation and arbitration, can lead to cost-effectiveness, confidentiality, and speed of dispute resolution. Moreover, it nalyses the importance of liability limitation clauses in reducing financial exposure, protecting businesses from undue burden from unforeseen risks or excessive claims. Emphasis is placed on the tightrope between exposing a business to liability and the necessity of fairness and enforceability under applicable laws. The paper also touches on jurisdictional aspects and how the choice of governing law and forum could play a role in enforcing contracts, especially in the context of cross-border transactions. This paper highlights the necessity of choosing jurisdictions that provide legal certainty, strong enforcement conditions, and compatibility with the business's operational imperatives. This research provides practical implications for small enterprises to strengthen their contract strategy, minimize legal exposure, and foster robust business relationships through case studies and legal analysis. With these combined tools, small businesses can tackle the conniving nature of contracts with a legally secured sound mind.

The increasing frequency and complexity of cybersecurity disputes pose significant challenges for organizations and governments alike. As cyber threats evolve, so does the necessity for effective conflict resolution mechanisms that can address the intricacies of digital infrastructure disputes. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) strategies, including mediation, arbitration, and negotiation, offer innovative solutions to resolve cybersecurity conflicts efficiently and confidentially while minimizing disruption to critical operations. ADR mechanisms provide a framework for stakeholders to collaboratively address issues arising from data breaches, intellectual property theft, and contractual disputes related to cybersecurity services. Mediation, for example, enables affected parties to engage in constructive dialogue with the assistance of a neutral facilitator, fostering understanding and facilitating the development of tailored solutions. This approach is particularly beneficial in high-stakes situations where preserving relationships and reputations is

After a short presentation of the arbitral activities of the UNCITRAL (the United Nations Commission for International Trade Law) this paper sets forth the history of the formulation of the latest arbitral document of this organization, the Notes on Organizing Arbitral Proceedings. From the perspective of arbitral tradition in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, the author analyzes some of the recommendations given the Notes. In conclusion, the author argues that the Notes will essentially contribute to the process of harmonizing international arbitration law and to defining of the “arbitral due process of law”.

International investment law has redefined the nature of cooperation between states through provision of investor-state dispute resolution mechanism that was weak and unenforceable under the customary international law principles which required home country of the foreign investor to espouse the claim of its nationals in case of infringement of its rights by the host state of investment. The conclusion of investment protection treaties or BITs have strengthened the ability of private individuals to pursue foreign governments in neutral, impartial and independent judicial forum to enforce their property rights without the involvement of their home state of nationality. Investment arbitration law has benefited many countries including Kosovo to promote and attract global capital for development of their economy through application of international standards of fair and treatment, MFN and national treatment standards, non-exporpriation and transfer of currency rights.

Contrary to the notion that ordinary people want black robbed judges, well dressed lawyers and fine court rooms as settings to resolve their disputes, people actually want their disputes resolved as quickly as possible and inexpensively. Like many other developing countries, access to justice service for the citizens of South Sudan isn't safeguarded properly. The formal justice sector in particular suffers from chronic problems at all stages of the justice delivery system that seriously limits citizens' ability to access justice through the courts: the police are understaffed, under-equipped, inadequately trained, court infrastructure is inadequate, number of judges are inadequate, court procedures are slow, complex and confusing, expensive in terms of court fees, lawyer's fees, transport cost etc. leading to cases being delayed, often by years and a consequent backlog. Also, most crimes against women and young girls go unreported on a daily basis. Women Lawyers, Judges or decision makers around the world are only a handful. So, it is safe to say, women don't have a great relationship to law or the justice delivery system. This article examines the problem of access to justice by looking at the inclusion of Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms in the justice system. It looks at key observations of using ADR, what is ADR, A brief History of ADR, The Characteristics of ADR Approaches, What Can ADR Do, Goals and Possible Uses of ADR, the Limitations of ADR and bridging the gap to accessible justice.

Cet article examine les communications médiatiques de la Chine dans le cadre de l’arbitrage sur la Mer de Chine méridionale. En dressant un inventaire de ces communications, il s’interroge sur leurs motivations et les objectifs poursuivis par cette campagne médiatique. Dans un premier temps, l’étude identifie les stratégies et finalités sous-jacentes des communications chinoises, mettant en lumière leur rôle dans la défense des positions de Pékin. Dans un second temps, elle analyse les réactions des États tiers face à l’arbitrage, en s’appuyant sur leurs propres déclarations et prises de position relayées par les médias. L’article démontre que ces communications ne se limitent pas à la contestation de la juridiction sous forme d’exceptions préliminaires, mais qu’elles constituent également des arguments de fond visant à légitimer les prétentions chinoises et à les renforcer par leur diffusion publique.

In this chapter we will primarily focus on how the EU Member States have reacted to the Achmea judgment, more specifically, how 23 out of the 27 Member States ended up concluding the ‘Agreement for the Termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties between the Member States of the European Union’ (‘the Termination Agreement’). Besides this plurilateral agreement, we will also discuss how those Member States that have not concluded the Termination Agreement considered the effects of Achmea, by terminating their intra-EU BITs bilaterally. By contrast, the recent Member State declaration(s) to terminate the ECT in an intra-EU setting, following the Komstroy judgment, will not form part of this chapter. The chapter also looks at  how investment tribunals have reacted to the Termination Agreement. In order to provide a thorough and most up-to-date overview, we have used UNCTAD’s Investment Policy Hub, Jus Mundi, the ICSID Database, ITALAW and IA Reporter, to check every intra-EU arbitration that was pending when the Termination Agreement was concluded or was initiated after its conclusion.

Regulations adopted jointly by the European Parliament and the Council, and by the Council, pursuant to the provisions of the Treaties, [3][4] may give the Court of Justice of the European Union unlimited jurisdiction with regard to the penalties provided for in such regulations. [5][6][7][8][10][11] Contents 1. Overview .

Regulations adopted jointly by the European Parliament and the Council, and by the Council, pursuant to the provisions of the Treaties, [3][4] may give the Court of Justice of the European Union unlimited jurisdiction with regard to the penalties provided for in such regulations. [5][6][7][8][10][11] Contents 1. Overview .

Zurich-based boutique law firm 5Gambit Disputes has enhanced its arbitration practice with the addition of Leonid Shmatenko, a dual-qualified German and Swiss lawyer, as Counsel. Shmatenko brings extensive experience from his previous role at Eversheds Sutherland in Zurich, where he contributed significantly to complex commercial and investment arbitration cases, including securing a key Art. 185a PILA judgment at Zurich District Court. Shmatenko's career includes training at top law firms Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Orrick Herrington Sutcliffe, and Derains & Gharavi across Düsseldorf, Paris, and Geneva. He has handled notable cases, including high-stakes arbitrations like Boyko v. Ukraine, BOTAS v. Gazprom, and UkrEnergo v. Russia. At Peter & Kim, he served as Tribunal Secretary in a Zurich-seated case involving Glencore, where the tribunal substantiated findings of bad faith against the company. Beyond his arbitration expertise, Shmatenko is a Visiting Lecturer at Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University in Ukraine, regularly serves as an arbitrator for commercial and sports disputes at the Swiss Sports Tribunal, and is the founder of Esports Legal News and the Esports Legal Conference: Play by the Rules.

One of the trends that has been growing in importance in international commercial dispute resolution has been the combining and mixing of modes, particularly of mediation and arbitration. Surveys of users indicate that the reason for this growth has been the perception that mixing of non-adjudicative and adjudicative modes can help to achieve certain process goals, such as international enforceability, cost-effectiveness and relationship preservation. This article first suggests an approach towards articulating the myriad ways that mediation and arbitration may be combined, focusing on mediation followed by arbitration (med-arb), arbitration followed by mediation (arb-med), and opening mediation windows in the arbitration process (arb-med-arb). It then discusses which of these mixed mediation and arbitration processes best achieves the goals of international enforceability, cost-effectiveness and relationship preservation. It is hoped that this endeavour will contribute to a greater...