Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 15 items for

  • Author or Editor: Filippo Fontanelli x
  • Search level: All x
Clear All
In Jurisdiction and Admissibility in Investment Arbitration, Filippo Fontanelli offers an analysis of the subject for practitioners and scholars. The author undertakes two converging studies: first, the practice of investment tribunals is surveyed to provide a representative overview of how jurisdiction and admissibility operate in arbitration proceedings. Second, these concepts are studied in the wider framework of public international law litigation, in the attempt to solve the definitional issues, or at least trace them back to their theoretical background.

The analysis shows that the confusion prevailing in investment arbitration is largely a legacy of the comparable confusion that affects the notions of jurisdiction and admissibility in all kinds of dispute settlement under international law. Whilst the confusion is often irrelevant in the practice, some instances arise where it affects the outcome of the proceedings. The essay discusses some of these instances and recommends adopting a novel approach, which hinges on judicial discretion as the critical element of admissibility.

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.

In: Jurisdiction and Admissibility in Investment Arbitration

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.

In: Brill Research Perspectives in International Investment Law and Arbitration
General Principles of Law in Investment Arbitration surveys the function of general principles in the field of international investment law, particularly in investment arbitration. The authors’ analysis provides a representative case study of how this informal source operates alongside and in the absence of other sources of applicable law.
The contributions are divided into two parts, devoted respectively to substantive principles and procedural ones. The principles discussed in the book are selected for their currency in the practice, their contested nature and their relevance.
In: General Principles of Law and International Investment Arbitration
In: General Principles of Law and International Investment Arbitration

This opening chapter addresses the function of general principles of law in investment arbitration. It sets the scene for the volume’s investigation, and draws from the subsequent chapters to provide an overview. It is possible, in this light, to offer some general remarks. General principles are hardly ever used as primary norms of conduct, and mostly operate to make formal rules viable (complementing the procedural set of arbitration, or steering the interpretation of treaty norms). Principles operate ad hoc, their application depending on specific instances of normative ambiguity or unusual factual patterns. They are more than gap-fillers, but they cannot attain the front stage; in a sense, systematic recourse to general principles would call into question the viability of the treaty régime that fuels and sustains investment arbitration.

In: General Principles of Law and International Investment Arbitration
In: General Principles of Law and International Investment Arbitration
In: General Principles of Law and International Investment Arbitration