Abstract
This is the first half of a two-part essay on jurisdiction and admissibility in investment arbitration. It focuses on the arbitration practice, whilst the second part sets these concepts in the wider framework of public international law litigation. This essay maps the objections to the tribunal’s jurisdiction (by ratio: materiae, temporis, loci and personae) and the claim’s admissibility. It offers some preliminary conclusions: in certain areas there still is no consensus; tribunals are inclined to characterise objections as jurisdictional, and rarely resort to admissibility; findings of inadmissibility draw a judgment on the claimant or the claim’s propriety (whilst jurisdictional decisions typically eschew value-judgment); tribunals failed to distinguish jurisdiction from admissibility. These findings are further explored, within a wider theoretical context, in the second part of the essay.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Number of pages | 193 |
Volume | 1 |
Edition | 3-4 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | E-pub ahead of print - 27 Mar 2018 |
Publication series
Name | Brill Research Perspectives in International Investment Law and Arbitration |
---|---|
Publisher | Brill |
ISSN (Print) | 2405-576X |
Keywords / Materials (for Non-textual outputs)
- admissibility
- competence
- Jurisdiction
- Investment Arbitration
- ratione materiae
- ratione temporis
- ratione personae
- ratione loci
- general principles of International Law
- foreign investment
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Jurisdiction and admissibility in investment arbitration: The practice and the theory'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Profiles
-
Filippo Fontanelli
- School of Law - Personal Chair of International Law and Practice
- Edinburgh Centre for International and Global Law
Person: Academic: Research Active