Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for :

  • All: "European Court of Human Rights" x
  • International Dispute Resolution & Arbitration x
Clear All

Filippo Fontanelli

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.

Irmgard Marboe

same arbitral institutions, 4 procedural rules, frequently also arbitrators, counsel, and experts. 5 References to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea or inter-state arbitrations as regards

Brody K. Greenwald and Jennifer A. Ivers

. 1110 of 1963, took place over a half century ago in France before a sole arbitrator, the late Judge Gunnar Lagergren, who later served as the first president of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal and as a judge on the European Court of Human Rights. In that case, both parties affirmed that their contractual