Amicus Acceptance and Relevance: The Distinctive Example of Philip Morris v. Uruguay
Tóm tắt
In the last decade amicus intervention has become increasingly prevalent in investor-state arbitration. As part of a generalized drive towards transparency, amicus briefs are now routinely submitted in high-profile investor-state arbitrations, which are closely related to public interest issues. Philip Morris v. Uruguay is a notable example of such arbitrations. However, it is often argued that amicus submissions are hardly relevant to investor-state tribunals’ analyses. By first shedding light on the conditions governing the acceptance of amicus briefs, this article looks at how the Philip Morris tribunal admitted such briefs and whether they were at all relevant to the tribunal’s analysis. It thereafter questions the extent to which such relevance may be linked to the tribunal’s findings.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Bastin L (2014) Amicus curiae in investor-state arbitration: eight recent trends. Arbitr Int 30:125–144
Brauch M (2016) Philip Morris v. Uruguay: all claims dismissed; Uruguay to receive US$7 million reimbursement. International Institute for Sustainable Development. https://www.iisd.org/itn/2016/08/10/philip-morris-brands-sarl-philip-morris-products-s-a-and-abal-hermanos-s-a-v-oriental-republic-of-uruguay-icsid-case-no-arb-10-7/. Accessed 8 Feb 2017
Buckley R, Blyschak P (2007) Guarding the open door: non-party participation before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Bank Financ Law Rev 22:353–376
Crawford J et al (2014) Foreign investment disputes: cases, materials and commentary. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn
Fortier Y, Drymer S (2003) Third-party intervention and document discovery. J World Invest 4:473–479
Francioni F (2009) Access to justice, denial of justice and international investment law. Eur J Int Law 20:729–748
Jones T (2016) German court rules on nuclear phase-out as Vattenfall award draws near. Global Arbitration Review, 8 December 2016. http://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/1078505/german-court-rules-on-nuclear-phase-out-as-vattenfall-award-draws-near. Accessed 14 Feb 2017
Kaufmann-Kohler G, Potestà M (2016) Can the Mauritius Convention serve as a model for the reform of investor-state arbitration in connection with the introduction of a permanent investment tribunal or an appeal mechanism? Geneva Center for International Dispute Settlement. http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/commissionsessions/unc/unc-49/CIDS_Research_Paper_-_Can_the_Mauritius_Convention_serve_as_a_model.pdf. Accessed 9 Feb 2017
Knauer S (2009) Power plant battle goes to international arbitration. Spiegel Online, 15 July 2009. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/vattenfall-vs-germany-power-plant-battle-goes-to-international-arbitration-a-636334.html. Accessed 8 Feb 2017
Lavranos N (2016) The deafening silence of the anti-ISDS groups after the Philip Morris decision. Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 24 February 2016. http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/2016/02/24/the-deafening-silence-of-the-anti-isds-groups-after-the-philip-morris-decision/. Accessed 8 Feb 2017
Malmström C (2015) European Commission investment in TTIP and beyond—the path for reform: enhancing the right to regulate and moving from current ad hoc arbitration towards an investment court, 5 May 2015. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/may/tradoc_153408.PDF. Accessed 8 Feb 2017
Maupin J (2014) Public and private in international investment law: an integrated systems approach. Va J Int Law 54:368–436
Moore A (2006) Are amici curiae the proper response to the public’s concerns on transparency in investment arbitration? Law Pract Int Courts Trib 5:257–271
Ross A (2016) Arbitration will survive—but avoid hubris, warns Veeder’. Global Arbitration Review, 20 January 2016. http://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/1035066/arbitration-will-survive-%E2%80%93-but-avoid-hubris-warns-veeder. Accessed 14 Feb 2017
Sands P (2001) Turtles and torturers: the transformation of international law. N Y Univ J Int Law Politics 33:527–560
Shihata I (1986) Towards a greater depoliticization of investment disputes: the role of ICSID and MIGA. ICISID Review 1:1–25
Simma B (2011) Foreign investment arbitration: a place for human rights? Int Comp Law Q 60:573–596
Thomas D (2016) Canada and EU sign controversial trade deal. Global Arbitration Review, 31 October 2016. http://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/1070109/canada-and-eu-sign-controversial-trade-deal. Accessed 14 Feb 2017
Tudor O (2016) Clinton & Sanders show the way on ‘trade’ agreements. Touch Stone, 24 April 2016. http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2016/04/us-democrats-show-way-trade-agreements/. Accessed 14 Feb 2017
Wälde T (2010) Procedural challenges in investment arbitration under the shadow of the dual role of the state: asymmetries and tribunals’ duty to ensure, pro-actively, the equality of arms. Arbitr Int 26:3–42