Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items for

  • Author or Editor: Alexander G. Leventhal x
  • Search level: All x
Clear All
A Philosophical Deconstruction of an Investor-State Tribunal's Authority to Award Interim Relief in Relation to Criminal Proceedings
In Threading the Sovereign’s Needle: A Philosophical Deconstruction of an Investor-State Tribunal’s Authority to Award Interim Relief in Relation to Criminal Proceedings, Alexander G. Leventhal draws from a rich compendium of investor-State case law deciding on requests for provisional measures in relation to criminal measures. Leventhal shows that, rather than a diffuse set of contradictory decisions, these cases obey a coherent philosophy. He lays out in detail the criteria that these tribunals have considered – the basis of the tribunal’s jurisdiction, the rights whose protection compels interim relief, tribunals’ considerations of the criteria for interim relief, and the binding nature and enforceability of an order for interim relief. More than that, however, he explains the reasons behind the results, making this work a must-read for practitioners and academics alike.

ICSID’S Rule 37(2) introduced into the ICSID system a process by which a nondisputing party may make submissions as an amicus curiae. While amicus submissions have existed in the ICSID system for nearly 20 years, the majority of Rule 37(2) applications have been filed only recently by one party – the EU Commission – on one issue – the applicability of the arbitration agreements in intra- EU BIT S. In this article, we explore how tribunals and ad hoc committees have addressed these applications, which do not seek to provide insight on a particular issue in relation to the merits (as past amicus have), but to strip the ICSID process of jurisdiction over all intra- EU BIT disputes.

In: European Investment Law and Arbitration Review Online

Abstract

An investor-State tribunal enjoys significant authority once a dispute is referred to it. Among a tribunal’s unquestioned powers is the power to order interim relief—including with respect to the most sovereign of a State’s conduct: its enforcement of its criminal law. In exercising these powers, an investor-State tribunal goes beyond the role traditionally assigned to it—i.e. to award damages for prejudice caused by a treaty breach—and dictates sovereign conduct. While the applicable treaty, arbitral rules, or law of the seat may not offer specific instructions, arbitral tribunals deciding on such interim relief requests can rely on a significant body of case law. That case law reflects a coherent approach to a thorny question, even though outcomes may vary. This article will deconstruct that coherent approach—from the foundations of the tribunal’s authority to order interim relief in respect to pendant criminal proceedings, to the rights that such relief may protect, to the requirements for ordering such relief, as well the effect of such relief and its duration in addition to any recourse for non-compliance.

In: Brill Research Perspectives in International Investment Law and Arbitration

Abstract

An investor-State tribunal enjoys significant authority once a dispute is referred to it. Among a tribunal’s unquestioned powers is the power to order interim relief—including with respect to the most sovereign of a State’s conduct: its enforcement of its criminal law. In exercising these powers, an investor-State tribunal goes beyond the role traditionally assigned to it—i.e. to award damages for prejudice caused by a treaty breach—and dictates sovereign conduct. While the applicable treaty, arbitral rules, or law of the seat may not offer specific instructions, arbitral tribunals deciding on such interim relief requests can rely on a significant body of case law. That case law reflects a coherent approach to a thorny question, even though outcomes may vary. This article will deconstruct that coherent approach—from the foundations of the tribunal’s authority to order interim relief in respect to pendant criminal proceedings, to the rights that such relief may protect, to the requirements for ordering such relief, as well the effect of such relief and its duration in addition to any recourse for non-compliance.

In: Threading the Sovereign's Needle