Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:11:53.866Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 December 2018

Rodrigo Polanco
Rodrigo Polanco
Affiliation:
Universität Bern, Switzerland
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Return of the Home State to Investor-State Disputes
Bringing Back Diplomatic Protection?
 , pp. 313 - 338
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aaronson, S. A., ‘A Fresh Approach to International Investment Rules’ (2011)Google Scholar
Adriaensen, J., ‘The Future of EU Trade Negotiations: What Has Been Learned from CETA and TTIP?’, November 2017: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/ (accessed 28 February 2018)Google Scholar
Aguilar Álvarez, G. and Park, W. W., ‘The New Face of Investment Arbitration: NAFTA Chapter 11’, Yale J. Int’l L., 28 (2003), 365Google Scholar
Alford, R., ‘The Convergence of International Trade and Investment Arbitration’, Santa Clara Journal of International Law, 12 (2014), 35Google Scholar
Alschner, W., ‘The Return of the Home State and the Rise of “Embedded” Investor–State Arbitration’ in S. Lalani and R. Polanco (eds.), The Role of the State in Investor–State Arbitration (Brill/Martinus Nijhoff, 2014)Google Scholar
Alvarez, J. E., ‘The Return of the State’, Minn. J. Int’l L., 20 (2011), 223–64Google Scholar
Álvarez Ávila, G., ‘Autopista Concesionada de Venezuela, C.A. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (ICSID Case No. ARB/00/5): Introductory Note’, ICSID Review, 16 (2001), 465–8Google Scholar
Amerasinghe, C. F., Diplomatic Protection (Oxford University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Task Force Argentina (ATFA), ‘ATFA Applauds UK Government’s Decision to Oppose Future Lending to Argentina’, February 2013: www.atfa.org/category/homepage/page/2/ (accessed 14 March 2018)Google Scholar
Antonietti, A., ‘The 2006 Amendments to the ICSID Rules and Regulations and the Additional Facility Rules’, ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal, 21 (2006), 427–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, ‘2017 Arbitration Rules’, January 2017: www.sccinstitute.com/media/168084/arbitration-rules_eng_17_final.pdf (accessed 5 January 2018)Google Scholar
Association for International Arbitration, Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Energy Sector (Maklu, 2009)Google Scholar
Auer, P. D., ‘The Competency of Mixed Arbitral Tribunals’, Transactions of the Grotius Society, 13 (1927), xvii–xxxGoogle Scholar
b92.net, ‘Lithuania Won’t Block Serbia’s EU Pathway’, March 2013: www.b92.net/eng/news/politics.php?yyyy=2013&mm=03&dd=28&nav_id=85396 (accessed 19 January 2018)Google Scholar
Baldi, M., ‘Letter from Swiss Secretariat for Economic Affairs to Antonio R. Parra, ICSID Deputy Secretary-General, 1 October 2003’, Mealey’s International Arbitration Reports, 19 (2004), E1–2Google Scholar
Balkan Insight, ‘Lithuania Ratifies Serbia’s EU Stability Agreement’, June 2013: www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/lithuania-ratifies-serbia-s-saa (accessed 19 January 2018)Google Scholar
Bank, R. and Foltz, F., ‘Lump Sum Agreements’, January 2009: http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e842?rskey=2mFiG0&result=1&prd=EPIL (accessed 15 May 2018)Google Scholar
Bantekas, I., ‘Corporate Social Responsibility in International Law’, B.U. Int’l L.J., 22 (2004), 309Google Scholar
Barratt, J. W. and Michael, M. N., ‘The “Automatic” Enforcement of ICSID Awards: The Elephant in the Room?’, The European, Middle Eastern and African Arbitration Review (2014)Google Scholar
Barreiro Lemos, L. and Campello, D., ‘The Non-Ratification of Bilateral Investment Treaties in Brazil: A Story of Conflict in a Land of Cooperation’, Review of International Political Economy, 22 (2015), 1055–86Google Scholar
Barston, R. P., Modern Diplomacy (Routledge, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bello, A., Principios de derecho de jentes (Imprenta de la Opinión, 1832; Reimpresión Valentín Espinal, 1837)Google Scholar
Ben Hamida, W., ‘The First Arab Investment Court Decision’, Journal of World Investment & Trade, 7 (2006), 699–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernasconi-Osterwalder, N. and Mann, H., ‘A Response to the European Commission’s December 2013 Document “Investment Provisions in the Free, EU–Canada Agreement, Trade (CETA)”’ (2014)Google Scholar
Bernasconi-Osterwalder, N. and Rosert, D., Investment Treaty Arbitration: Opportunities to Reform Arbitral Rules and Processes (2014)Google Scholar
Bhattacharya, U., Galpin, N. and Haslem, B., ‘The Home Court Advantage in International Corporate Litigation’, Journal of Law and Economics, 50 (2007), 625–60Google Scholar
Bishop, R. D., Crawford, J. and Reisman, W. M., Foreign Investment Disputes: Cases, Materials, and Commentary (Kluwer Law International, 2005)Google Scholar
Borchard, E., The Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad (New York, 1914)Google Scholar
Borchard, E., The Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad: Or, The Law of International Claims (Banks Law Publishing Company, 1915)Google Scholar
Bottini, G., Extending Responsibilities in International Investment Law. E15 Initiative (Geneva: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) and World Economic Forum, 2015)Google Scholar
Bovey, J., ‘Secret Diplomacy Is the Best Kind’ (1990)Google Scholar
Briggs, H. W., ‘The Settlement of Mexican Claims Act of 1942’, American Journal of International Law, 37 (1943), 222–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broches, A., ‘Awards Rendered Pursuant to the ICSID Convention: Binding Force, Finality, Recognition, Enforcement, Execution’, ICSID Review, 2 (1987), 287–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, C. N. and Blanchard, S., ‘What’s in a Meme? The Truth about Investor–State Arbitration: Why It Need Not, and Must Not, Be Repossessed by States’, Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 52 (2014), 689–896Google Scholar
Brower, II, C. H., ‘Investor–State Disputes Under NAFTA: The Empire Strikes Back’, Colum. J. Transnat’l L., 40 (2002), 43–88Google Scholar
Brower, II, C. H., ‘Why the FTC Notes of Interpretation Constitute a Partial Amendment of NAFTA Article 1105’, Virginia Journal of International Law, 46 (2005), 347Google Scholar
Brower, II, C. H., ‘Obstacles and Pathways to Consideration of the Public Interest in Investment Treaty Disputes’ in Sauvant, K. P. (ed.), Yearbook on International Investment Law & Policy (Oxford University Press, 2009), pp. 347–78Google Scholar
Brown, C., Commentaries on Selected Model Investment Treaties (Oxford University Press, 2013)Google Scholar
Burgueno, C., ‘US, Spain and Germany Vote against Argentina at the IADB’ (2012)Google Scholar
Calvet de Magalhães, J., The Pure Concept of Diplomacy (Greenwood Publishing Group, 1988)Google Scholar
Calvo, C., Derecho Internacional Teórico y Práctico de Europa y América (D’Amyot, 1868), vol. iGoogle Scholar
Canada, ‘Statement of Canada on Open Hearings in NAFTA Chapter Eleven Arbitrations’ (2003)Google Scholar
Canada–Chile Free Trade Commission, ‘Notes of Interpretation of Certain Chapter G Provisions’, October 2002: www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/chile-chili/ccftacommission.aspx?lang=eng (accessed 13 January 2018)Google Scholar
Canada–Chile Free Trade Commission, ‘Declaration of the Free Trade Commission on Non-Disputing party participation’, November 2004: www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/chile-chili/CCFTA-decla-ALECC.aspx?lang=eng (accessed 13 January 2018)Google Scholar
Canada–Chile Free Trade Commission, ‘Decision of the Canada-Chile Free Trade Commission, Interpretation of Article G-10’, April 2010: www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/chile-chili/interpretation-indirect.aspx?lang=eng (accessed 13 January 2018)Google Scholar
Canada, EU, ‘Joint Interpretative Declaration on the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the European Union and Its Member States’, October 2016: http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-13541–2016-INIT/en/pdf (accessed 16 January 2018)Google Scholar
Casas, M., ‘Nationalities of Convenience, Personal Jurisdiction, and Access to Investor–State Dispute Settlement’, New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 49 (2016), 63–128Google Scholar
Cate, A., ‘Non-Disputing State Party Participation in Investor–State Arbitration under CAFTA–DR’, July 2011: http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/blog/2011/07/01/non-disputing-state-party-participation-in-investor-state-arbitration-under-cafta-dr/ (accessed 25 March 2018)Google Scholar
Charlotin, D., ‘Looking Back: German Investor, Franz Sedelmayer, Was Early-Adopter of Investment Treaty Arbitration, but Had to Engage in Decade-Long Assets Hunt against Russia’, August 2017: www.iareporter.com/articles/looking-back-german-investor-franz-sedelmayer-was-early-adopter-of-investment-treaty-arbitration-but-had-to-engage-in-decade-long-assets-hunt/ (accessed 21 February 2018)Google Scholar
Clermont, K. M. and Eisenberg, T., ‘Xenophilia in American Courts’, Harvard Law Review, 109 (1996), 1120–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clermont, K. M. and Eisenberg, T., ‘Xenophilia or Xenophobia in US Courts? Before and After 9/11’, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4 (2007), 441–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coe Jr, J. J., ‘Taking Stock of NAFTA Chapter 11 in Its Tenth Year: An Interim Sketch of Selected Themes, Issues, and Methods’, Vand. J. Transnat’l L., 36 (2003), 1381Google Scholar
Cottier, T., Aerni, P., Karapinar, B., Matteotti, S., de Sépibus, J. and Shingal, A., ‘The Principle of Common Concern and Climate Change’, Archiv des Völkerrechts, 52 (2014), 293–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cotula, L., Foreign Investment, Law and Sustainable Development: A Handbook on Agriculture and Extractive Industries (2016)Google Scholar
Coyle, J., ‘The Treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation in the Modern Era’, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 51 (2013), 302Google Scholar
Crawford, J., Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law, 8th edn (Oxford University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuthbert, Joseph, Diplomatic Protection and Nationality: The Commonwealth of Nations (Northumberland Press, 1968)Google Scholar
Dawson, F. G., ‘The Influence of Andres Bello on Latin-American Perceptions of Non-Intervention and State Responsibility’, British Yearbook of International Law, 57 (1987), 253–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vattel, E., The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, with Three Early Essays on the Origin and Nature of Natural Law and on Luxury (Liberty Fund, 2008)Google Scholar
Desierto, D. A., ‘Joint Decisions by State Parties: Fair Control of Tribunal Interpretations?’, June 2012: http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2012/06/08/joint-decisions-by-state-parties-fair-control-of-tribunal-interpretations/ (accessed 17 February 2018)Google Scholar
Dolzer, R. and Schreuer, C., Principles of International Investment Law (Oxford University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolzer, R. and Stevens, M., Bilateral Investment Treaties (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donovan, D. F., ‘Abaclat and Others v Argentine Republic as a Collective Claims Proceeding’, ICSID Review, 27 (2012), 261–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Z., ‘The Hybrid Foundations of Investment Treaty Arbitration’, British Yearbook of International Law, 74 (2003), 151–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Z., The International Law of Investment Claims (Cambridge University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dugan, C. F., Wallace, D. Jr, Rubins, N. D. and Sabahi, B., Investor–State Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dugard, J., ‘Diplomatic Protection’, May 2009: http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1028 (accessed 20 August 2018)Google Scholar
Dugard, J., ‘First Report of the Special Rapporteur on Diplomatic Protection’, Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2000 (New York: United Nations Publications, 2000), pp. 35–72Google Scholar
Dugard, J., ‘Second Report of the Special Rapporteur on Diplomatic Protection’, Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2001 (New York: United Nations, 2009), pp. 97–114Google Scholar
Dumberry, P., The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard: A Guide to NAFTA Case Law on Article 1105 (Kluwer Law International, 2013)Google Scholar
Dunn, F. S., The Protection of Nationals: A Study in the Application of International Law (The Johns Hopkins Press, 1932)Google Scholar
Eberhardt, P., The Zombie ISDS (Corporate Europe Observatory, 2016)Google Scholar
Eberhardt, P. and Olivet, C., Profiting from Injustice. How Law Firms, Arbitrators and Financiers Are Fuelling an Investment Arbitration Boom (Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) and the Transnational Institute (TNI), 2012)Google Scholar
Echandi, R., ‘Complementing Investor–State Dispute Resolution: A Conceptual Framework for Investor–State Conflict Management’: Prospects in International Investment Law and Policy (Cambridge University Press, 2013)Google Scholar
Energy Charter Secretariat, The Energy Charter Treaty and Related Documents (Energy Charter Secretariat, 2004)Google Scholar
Energy Charter Secretariat, ‘About the Charter’, https://energycharter.org/process/energy-charter-treaty-1994/energy-charter-treaty/ (accessed 23 February 2018)Google Scholar
Esquirol, J. L., ‘Latin America’ in Fassbender, B., Peters, A. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law (Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 553–77Google Scholar
European Commission, ‘A Future Multilateral Investment Court’, December 2016: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-4350_en.htm (accessed 20 January 2018)Google Scholar
European Commission, ‘A Multilateral Investment Court. State of the Union 2017’, September 2017: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2017/september/tradoc_156042.pdf (accessed 23 February 2018)Google Scholar
European Commission, ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions towards a Comprehensive European International Investment Policy’, July 2010: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/july/tradoc_146307.pdf (accessed 3 February 2018)Google Scholar
European Commission, ‘Fact sheet on investment provisions in the EU–Singapore Free Trade Agreement’ (2014)Google Scholar
European Commission, ‘Online Public Consultation on Investment Protection and Investor-to-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (TTIP)’ (2014)Google Scholar
European Commission and Directorate-General for Trade, Trade for All: Towards a More Responsible Trade and Investment Policy (Publications Office, 2015)Google Scholar
European Commission – Trade, ‘A New EU Trade Agreement with Japan’, August 2017: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2017/july/tradoc_155684.pdf (accessed 23 February 2018)Google Scholar
European Commission – Trade, ‘Singapore’, September 2017: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/singapore/ (accessed 19 February 2018)Google Scholar
Ewing-Chow, M. and Losari, J. J., ‘Which Is to Be the Master?: Extra-Arbitral Interpretative Procedures for IIAs’, Transnational Dispute Management, 11 (2014), 1–20Google Scholar
Fach Gómez, K., ‘Latin America and ICSID: David versus Goliath?’ (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauchald, O. K., ‘The Legal Reasoning of ICSID Tribunals – An Empirical Analysis’, European Journal of International Law, 19 (2008), 301–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Federation of German Industries (BDI), Background: Facts and Figures. International Investment Agreements and Investor–State Dispute Settlement (2014)Google Scholar
Feldman, M., ‘Joint Interpretation under a Divided TPP Investment Chapter’ in Shan, W. and Su, J. (eds.), China and International Investment Law: Twenty Years of ICSID Membership (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2014), pp. 408–28Google Scholar
Feller, A. H., The Mexican Claims Commissions, 1923–1934: A Study in the Law and Procedure of International Tribunals (Macmillan, 1935)Google Scholar
Forcese, C., ‘Shelter from the Storm: Rethinking Diplomatic Protection of Dual Nationals in Modern International Law’, George Washington International Law Review, 37 (2005), 469Google Scholar
Foreign Affairs Trade and Development Canada Government of Canada, ‘Cases Filed against the Government of Canada’, January 2018: www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/gov.aspx?lang=eng (accessed 20 February 2018)Google Scholar
Fortese, F. and Peterson, L. E., ‘Full Light Is Shed on the Reasons for ICSID’s Rejection of Argentine Efforts to Remove Arbitrators in Repsol Case’ (2013)Google Scholar
Gaillard, E., ‘Investment Treaty Arbitration and Jurisdiction Over Contract Claims – the SGS Cases Considered’ in Weiler, T. (ed.), International Investment Law and Arbitration: Leading Cases from the ICSID, NAFTA, Bilateral Treaties and Customary International Law (Cameron May, 2005), pp. 325–46Google Scholar
Gallagher, K. P. and Shrestha, E., ‘Investment Treaty Arbitration and Developing Countries: A Re-Appraisal’, Global Development and Environment Institute. Working Paper No 11–01 (2011), 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia-Bolivar, O. E., ‘Sovereignty vs. Investment Protection: Back to Calvo?’, ICSID Review, 24 (2009), 464–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia-Mora, Manuel R. ‘The Calvo Clause in Latin American Constitutions and International Law’, Marq. L. Rev., 33 (1949) 205Google Scholar
Garner, B. A., Black’s Law Dictionary, Standard Ninth Edition, 9th edn (West, 2009)Google Scholar
Gaukrodger, D., ‘Investment Treaties as Corporate Law: Shareholder Claims and Issues of Consistency’, OECD Working Papers on International Investment (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaukrodger, D. and Gordon, K., ‘Investor–State Dispute Settlement: A Scoping Paper of the Investment Policy Community’, OECD Working Papers on International Investment, No 2012/3 (2012)Google Scholar
Gazzini, T., ‘Nigeria and Morocco Move Towards a “New Generation” of Bilateral Investment Treaties’, May 2017: www.ejiltalk.org/nigeria-and-morocco-move-towards-a-new-generation-of-bilateral-investment-treaties/ (accessed 17 January 2018)Google Scholar
Gertz, G., ‘The International Investment Regime Is Stronger Than You Think. GEG Working Paper 2015/96’, The Global Economic Governance Programme, University of Oxford (2015)Google Scholar
Gertz, G., Jandhyala, S. and Poulsen, L. S., ‘Conference “The Political Economy of International Investment Agreements”, Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik – World Trade Institute. Bonn, 8–9 December 2014’ (2014)Google Scholar
Gertz, G. Jandhyala, S. and Poulsen, L. S., ‘Has Investor–State Arbitration Depoliticized Investment Disputes?’, p. 10.Google Scholar
Gharavi, H. G., The International Effectiveness of the Annulment of an Arbitral Award (Kluwer Law International, 2002)Google Scholar
Giardina, A., ‘L’exécution des sentences du Centre international pour le règlement des différends relatifs aux investissements’, Revue critique de droit international privé, 712 (1982), 273–93Google Scholar
Gordon, K. and Pohl, J., Investment Treaties over Time – Treaty Practice and Interpretation in a Changing World (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Government of the Republic of Serbia. European Integration Office, ‘Ratification of the SAA’, January 2015: www.seio.gov.rs/serbia-and-eu/ratification-of-the-saa.61.html (accessed 9 February 2018)Google Scholar
Grewe, W. G., The Epochs of International Law, revised edn (De Gruyter, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyomar, G., ‘L’arbitrage concernant les rapports entre Etats et particuliers’, Annuaire français de droit international, 5 (1959), 333–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guzman, A. T., ‘Why LDCs Sign Treaties That Hurt Them: Explaining the Popularity of Bilateral Investment Treaties’, Virginia Journal of International Law, 38 (1998), 639–88Google Scholar
Hepburn, J., ‘As Merits Hearings Approach in Chevron v. Ecuador BIT Arbitration, Latest Legal Arguments Come into Focus’, December 2014: www.iareporter.com/articles/20141229_1 (accessed 6 February 2018)Google Scholar
Hepburn, J., ‘CIS Economic Court Issues Authoritative Interpretation of Investment Treaty at Root of Series of Investor–State Arbitrations’, September 2014: www.iareporter.com/articles/20140923_2 (accessed 9 February 2018)Google Scholar
Hepburn, J. and Peterson, L. E., ‘US–Ecuador Inter-State Investment Treaty Award Released to Parties; Tribunal Members Part Ways on Key Issues’, October 2012: www.iareporter.com/articles/20121030_1 (accessed 13 February 2018)Google Scholar
Hershey, A. S., ‘The Calvo and Drago Doctrines’, American Journal of International Law, 1 (1907), 26–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hindelang, S. and Krajewski, M. (eds.), Shifting Paradigms in International Investment Law: More Balanced, Less Isolated, Increasingly Diversified, 1st edn (Oxford University Press, 2016)Google Scholar
Hindelang, S. and Sassenrath, C.-P., The Investment Chapters of the EU’s International Trade and Investment Agreements in a Comparative Perspective (Publications Office, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holtzman, H. M. and Shifm, B. E., Permanent Court of Arbitration (United Nations, 2003), vol. 1, 3Google Scholar
Hooge, N. T., Responsibility to Protect (R2P) as Duty to Protect?: Reassessing the Traditional Doctrine of Diplomatic Protection in Light of Modern Developments in International Law (University of Toronto, 2010)Google Scholar
House of Commons (UK), ‘House of Commons Hansard Written Answers’, December 2013: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130212/text/130212w0004.htm#13021285002895 (accessed 14 March 2018)Google Scholar
Howse, R., ‘Courting the Critics of Investor–State Dispute Settlement: The EU Proposal for a Judicial System for Investment Disputes’, Fall 2015: https://cdn-media.web-view.net/i/fjj3t288ah/Courting_the_Criticsdraft1.pdf (accessed 20 January 2018)Google Scholar
Huerta Goldman, J. A., Romanetti, A. and Stirnimann, F. X., ‘Cross-Cutting Observations on Compositions of Tribunals’ in Huerta Goldman, J. A., Romanetti, A. and Stirnimann, F. X. (eds.), WTO Litigation, Investment Arbitration, and Commercial Arbitration (Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, Kluwer Law International, 2013), pp. 129–34Google Scholar
Hunter, M. and Barbuk, A., ‘Procedural Aspects of Non-Disputing Party Interventions in Chapter 11 Arbitrations’, Asper Review of International Business and Trade Law, 3 (2003), 151Google Scholar
ILC, ‘Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection, with Commentaries. Report of the International Law Commission, 58th Session (A/61/10)’, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, II (2006), 22–100Google Scholar
ILC, ‘Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries. Report of the International Law Commission, 53rd session (A/56/10)’, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, II (2008), 31–143Google Scholar
Indlekofer, M., International Arbitration and the Permanent Court of Arbitration (Kluwer Law International, 2013)Google Scholar
InSerbia News, ‘Dacic: I Expect Lithuania to Ratify SAA’, April 2013: http://inserbia.info/today/2013/04/dacic-i-expect-lithuania-will-ratify-saa/ (accessed 9 February 2018)Google Scholar
Inside Trade, ‘U.S. Rejects Proposal Brought by 58 Members to Fill WTO Appellate Body Slots’, January 2018: https://insidetrade.com/daily-news/us-rejects-proposal-brought-58-members-fill-wto-appellate-body-slots (accessed 26 February 2018)Google Scholar
International Bar Association, Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration (2014)Google Scholar
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), ‘Contracting States and Measures Taken by Them for the Purpose of the Convention. ICSID/8. Notifications Concerning Classes of Disputes Considered Suitable or Unsuitable for Submission to the Center’, June 2017: https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Documents/icsiddocs/ICSID%208-Contracting%20States%20and%20Measures%20Taken%20by%20Them%20for%20the%20Purpose%20of%20the%20Convention.pdf (accessed 26 February 2018)Google Scholar
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), History of the ICSID Convention (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, 1968), vol. iiGoogle Scholar
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), ‘ICSID Additional Facility Rules (2006)’, April 2006: https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/icsiddocs/ICSID-Additional-Facility-Rules.aspx (accessed 5 January 2018)Google Scholar
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), ‘Members of the Panels of Conciliators and Arbitrators’, February 2018: https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Documents/icsiddocs/ICSID%2010%20-%20Latest.pdf (accessed 18 February 2018)Google Scholar
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), ‘Model Clauses Relating to the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Designed for Use in Bilateral Investment Agreements [September 1969]’, International Legal Materials, 8 (1969), 1341–52Google Scholar
International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), ‘US Suspends Argentina from Trade Preference Scheme’, Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest, 16 (2012)Google Scholar
International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), ‘ICC Rules of Arbitration’, January 2012: www.iccwbo.org/Products-and-Services/Arbitration-and-ADR/Arbitration/Rules-of-arbitration/Download-ICC-Rules-of-Arbitration/ICC-Rules-of-Arbitration-in-several-languages/ (accessed 5 January 2018)Google Scholar
International Court of Justice, The Permanent Court of International Justice, 1922–2012 (United Nations, 2015)Google Scholar
International Institute for Sustainable Development, Mann, H. L., von Moltke, K., Peterson, L. E. and Cosbey, A., ‘IISD Model International Agreement on Investment for Sustainable Development’ (2005)Google Scholar
International Labour Organization (ILO), ‘Translating the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development into Action: Integrating Trade, Investment and Decent Work Policies. Background Note’ (Nairobi, Kenya, 2016)Google Scholar
International Labour Organization (ILO), ‘Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy (MNE Declaration, 5th ed.)’, 2017: www.ilo.org/empent/areas/mne-declaration/lang–en/index.htm (accessed 9 February 2018)Google Scholar
International Organization for Standardization, ‘ISO 26000 – Social Responsibility’, 2010: www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/iso26000.htm (accessed 18 January 2018)Google Scholar
Investment Arbitration Reporter (IAReporter), ‘Repsol–Argentina Settlement Agreement, April 2014’, April 2014: www.iareporter.com/downloads/20140430 (accessed 20 August 2017)Google Scholar
Iran–United States Claims Tribunal, ‘Tribunal Rules of Procedure’ (1983)Google Scholar
Ishikawa, T., ‘Keeping Interpretation in Investment Treaty Arbitration “on Track”: The Role of States Parties’, Transnational Dispute Management, 11 (2014)Google Scholar
Jacob, M., ‘Investments, Bilateral Treaties’, May 2011: http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1061 (accessed 13 January 2018)Google Scholar
Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC), ‘Japan Bank for International Cooperation Annual Report 2016’: www.jbic.go.jp/wp-content/uploads/page/2016/12/53051/2016E_00_full.pdf (accessed 15 May 2018)Google Scholar
Jenča, M., ‘The Concept of Preventive Diplomacy and Its Application by the United Nations in Central Asia’, Security and Human Rights, 24 (2013), 183–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jentsch, V., The Role of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) in Switzerland: Importance and Alternatives from an Entrepreneurial Perspective (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, L. and Razbaeva, M., ‘State Control Over Treaty Interpretation’ (2014)Google Scholar
Johnson, O. T. and Gibson, C. H., ‘The Objections of Developed and Developing States to Investor–State Dispute Settlement and What They Are Doing about Them’ in Rovine, A. W. (ed.), Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration and Mediation: The Fordham Papers 2013 (2014), pp. 253–69Google Scholar
Johnson, O. T Jr. and Gimblett, J., ‘From Gunboats to BITs: Evolution of Modern International Investment Law’, Yearbook on International Investment Law & Policy 2010–2011 (2012), 649–92Google Scholar
Jonas, P. M., ‘United States Citizens vs. Mexico, 1821–1848’, unpublished PhD thesis, Marquette University (1989)Google Scholar
Joubin-Bret, A., ‘Is There a Need for Sanctions in International Investment Arbitration?’, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), 106 (2012), 130–3Google Scholar
Juratowitch, B., ‘The Relationship between Diplomatic Protection and Investment Treaties’, ICSID Review, 23 (2008), 10–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katselas, A. T., ‘Exit, Voice, and Loyalty in Investment Treaty Arbitration’, Nebraska Law Review, 93 (2014), 313–69Google Scholar
Kaufmann-Kohler, G., ‘Interpretive Powers of the Free Trade Commission and the Rule of Law’ Fifteen Years of NAFTA (JurisNet, LLC, 2011), pp. 175–94Google Scholar
Kaufmann-Kohler, G., ‘Non-Disputing State Submissions in Investment Arbitration’ in Boisson, L. de Chazournes, M. G. Kohen, and Viñuales, J. E. (eds.), Diplomatic and Judicial Means of Dispute Settlement (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2012), pp. 307–26Google Scholar
Kho, S., Bate, M., Yanovich, A., Casey, B. and Strauss, J., The EU TTIP–Investment Court Proposal and the WTO Dispute Settlement System: Comparing Apples and Oranges? (Cambridge, MA, 2016)Google Scholar
Kho, S. S., Yanovich, A., Casey, B. R. and Strauss, J., ‘The EU–TTIP Investment Court Proposal and the WTO Dispute Settlement System: Comparing Apples and Oranges?’, ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal, 32 (2017), 326–45Google Scholar
Kinderman, D., ‘Global and EU-Level Corporate Social Responsibility: Dynamism, Growth, and Conflict’ in Backhaus-Maul, H., Kunze, M. and Nährlich, S. (eds.), Gesellschaftliche Verantwortung von Unternehmen in Deutschland (Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, 2018), pp. 101–13Google Scholar
Kinnear, M., ‘Letter from Meg Kinnear to the Tribunal in Pope & Talbot Inc. v. Canada (NAFTA/UNICTRAL), 1 October 2011 – Exhibit A of the Submission of the United States of America in Chemtura Corporation v. Canada, 31 July 2009’Google Scholar
Kinnear, M., Bjorklund, A. and Hannaford, J. F. G., Investment Disputes Under NAFTA. An Annotated Guide to NAFTA Chapter 11, looseleaf edn (Kluwer Law International, 2006)Google Scholar
Kinsella, N. S. and Rubins, N., International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution: A Practitioner’s Guide (Oxford University Press, 2005)Google Scholar
Klabbers, J., ‘On Rationalism in Politics: Interpretation of Treaties and the World Trade Organization’, Nordic Journal of International Law, 74 (2005), 405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klabbers, J., ‘Virtuous Interpretation’ in Fitzmaurice, M., Elias, O. A. and Merkouris, P. (eds.), Treaty Interpretation and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: 30 Years on (Brill, 2010), pp. 17–37Google Scholar
Kluwer Law International, ‘Kluwer Arbitration’, February 2018: www.kluwerarbitration.com/ (accessed 28 February 2018)Google Scholar
Knudsen, J. S., Bringing the State Back In? US and UK Government Regulation of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in International Business (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolo, A., ‘Tax “Veto” as a Special Jurisdictional and Substantive Issue in Investor–State Arbitration: Need for Reassessment?’, Suffolk Transnational Law Review, 32 (2009), 475Google Scholar
Kovick, D. and Rees, C., ‘International Support for Effective Dispute Resolution Between Companies and Their Stakeholders: Assessing Needs, Interests, and Models. Working Paper No. 63’, June 2011: www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/CSRI/publications/workingpaper_63_rees%20kovick_june%202011.pdf (accessed 18 January 2018)Google Scholar
Kriebaum, U., ‘The PCIJ and the Protection of Foreign Investments’ in Tams, C. J., Fitzmaurice, M. (eds.), Legacies of the Permanent Court of International Justice (Nijhoff, 2013), pp. 145–73Google Scholar
Kulick, A. (ed.), Reassertion of Control Over the Investment Treaty Regime (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulick, A., ‘Reassertion of Control: An Introduction’ in Kulick, A. (ed.), Reassertion of Control Over the Investment Treaty Regime (2017), pp. 1–29Google Scholar
Kulick, A., ‘State–State Investment Arbitration as a Means of Reassertion of Control. From Antagonism to Dialogue’ in Kulick, A. (ed.), Reassertion of Control Over the Investment Treaty Regime (2017), pp. 128–52Google Scholar
La Nación, ‘Ofensiva argentina para frenar a EE.UU.’ (2011)Google Scholar
Lauterpacht, E., Aspects of the Administration of International Justice (Cambridge University Press, 1991)Google Scholar
Lavranos, N., ‘The Shortcomings of the Proposal for an “International Court System” (ICS)’, February 2016: https://efilablog.org/2016/02/02/the-shortcomings-of-the-proposal-for-an-international-court-system-ics/ (accessed 20 January 2018)Google Scholar
Lester, S., ‘The New Investment Appellate Court Will Have Remand’, International Economic Law and Policy Blog, 2 March 2016. http://worldtradelaw.typepad.com/. (accessed 25 March 2018)Google Scholar
Leys, D., ‘Diplomatic Protection and Individual Rights: A Complementary Approach’, Harvard International Law Journal Online, 57 (2016)Google Scholar
Lopez, C., Gotsi, M. and Andriopoulos, C., ‘Conceptualising the Influence of Corporate Image on Country Image’, European Journal of Marketing, 45 (2011), 1601–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowenfeld, A. F., International Economic Law (Oxford University Press, 2003)Google Scholar
MacChesney, B., ‘Case of Certain Norwegian Loans (France v. Norway)’, American Journal of International Law, 51 (1957), 777–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malanczuk, P., Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law (Routledge, 1997)Google Scholar
Mann, H., ‘The Free Trade Commission Statements of October 7, 2003, on NAFTA’s Chapter 11: Never-Never Land or Real Progress?’ (2003)Google Scholar
Martini, P., ‘Brazil’s New Investment Treaties: Outside Looking … Out?’, June 2015: http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/2015/06/16/brazils-new-investment-treaties-outside-looking-out-2/ (accessed 19 August 2018)Google Scholar
Matson, F. W., ‘In Defense of Compromise’, The Pacific Spectator, IX (1955), 264–71Google Scholar
Maurer, N., The Empire Trap: The Rise and Fall of U.S. Intervention to Protect American Property Overseas, 1893–2013 (Princeton University Press, 2013)Google Scholar
McLachlan, C., ‘Investment Treaties and General International Law’, International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 57 (2008), 361–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MercoPress, ‘US Decision to Vote against Loans for Argentina “will not affect funding for 2012”’ (2011)Google Scholar
MercoPress, ‘US Will Vote against Loans to Argentina in World Bank and IDB’ (2011)Google Scholar
Methymaki, E. and Tzanakopoulos, A., ‘Masters of Puppets? Reassertion of Control through Joint Investment Treaty Interpretation’ in Kulick, A. (ed.), Reassertion of Control Over the Investment Treaty Regime (2017), pp. 155–81Google Scholar
Miles, K., The Origins of International Investment Law: Empire, Environment and the Safeguarding of Capital (Cambridge University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mistelis, L. A. and Baltag, C. M., ‘Denial of Benefits and Article 17 of the Energy Charter Treaty’, Penn St. L. Rev., 113 (2008), 1301Google Scholar
Mitchener, K. J. and Weidenmier, M., ‘How Are Sovereign Debtors Punished? Evidence from the Gold Standard Era’, Santa Clara University, Department of Economics Working Paper (2004)Google Scholar
Mizushima, T., ‘The Role of the State after an Award Is Rendered in Investor–State Arbitration’ in Lalani, S., Polanco Lazo, R. (eds.), The Role of the State in Investor-State Arbitration (Brill/Martinus Nijhoff, 2014), pp. 380–404Google Scholar
Monebhurrun, N., ‘Novelty in International Investment Law: The Brazilian Agreement on Cooperation and Facilitation of Investments as a Different International Investment Agreement Model’, Journal of International Dispute Settlement (2016), 79–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montt, S., State Liability in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Global Constitutional and Administrative Law in the BIT Generation (Hart Publishing, 2009)Google Scholar
Moore, K. A., ‘Xenophobia in American Courts’, Northwestern University Law Review, 97 (2003), 1497Google Scholar
Morosini, F. and Ratton Sánchez-Badin, M., ‘The Brazilian Agreement on Cooperation and Facilitation of Investments (ACFI): A New Formula for International Investment Agreements?’, August 2015: www.iisd.org/itn/2015/08/04/the-brazilian-agreement-on-cooperation-and-facilitation-of-investments-acfi-a-new-formula-for-international-investment-agreements/ (accessed 11 January 2018)Google Scholar
Morosini, F. and Ratton Sánchez-Badin, M., ‘The New Brazilian Agreements on Cooperation and Facilitation of Investments (ACFIs): Navigating between Resistance and Conformity with the Global Investment Regime’, 2015: www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/Morosini%20-%20Global%20Fellows%20Forum.pdf (accessed 19 January 2018)Google Scholar
Mouyal, L. W., International Investment Law and the Right to Regulate: A Human Rights Perspective (Routledge, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muchlinski, P. et al., ‘Statement of Concern about Planned Provisions on Investment Protection and Investor–State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)’, July 2014: www.kent.ac.uk/law/isds_treaty_consultation.html (accessed 4 August 2018)Google Scholar
Muller, W. and Vogel, A., ‘The Swiss Lex Koller before Its Next Revision?’, January 2017: https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/8–551-2765?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1 (accessed 25 February 2018)Google Scholar
Muniz, J. P., Duggal, K. A. N. and Peretti, L. A. S., ‘The New Brazilian BIT on Cooperation and Facilitation of Investments: A New Approach in Times of Change’, ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal, 32 (2017), 404–17Google Scholar
Muniz, J. P. and Peretti, L. A. S., ‘Brazil Signs New Bilateral Investment Treaties with Mozambique and Angola: New Approach to BITs or “toothless lions”?’, April 2015: https://globalarbitrationnews.com/20150407-brazil-signs-new-bilateral-investment-treaties/ (accessed 15 January 2018)Google Scholar
Nadakavukaren Schefer, K., ‘State Powers and ISDS’ in Lalani, S. and Polanco Lazo, R. (eds.), The Role of the State in Investor–State Arbitration (Brill/Martinus Nijhoff, 2014)Google Scholar
Nadakavukaren Schefer, K. and Cottier, T., ‘Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and the Emerging Principle of Common Concern’, NCCR Working Paper No 2012/29 (2012)Google Scholar
NAFTA Free Trade Commission, ‘2004 NAFTA Commission Meeting – Joint Statement, San Antonio 16 July 2004’, July 2004: www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/nafta-alena/JS-SanAntonio.aspx?lang=en (accessed 14 January 2018)Google Scholar
NAFTA Free Trade Commission, ‘Statement of the Free Trade Commission on Non-Disputing Party Participation’ (2004)Google Scholar
NAFTA Free Trade Commission, ‘Statement of the Free Trade Commission on Notices of Intent to Submit a Claim to Arbitration’ (2003)Google Scholar
Nappert, S., ‘Escaping from Freedom? The Dilemma of an Improved ISDS Mechanism’, European Investment Law and Arbitration Review, 1 (2015), 171–90Google Scholar
Naray, O., ‘Commercial Diplomacy: A Conceptual Overview’, 7th World Conference of TPOs, The Hague, The Netherlands (2008)Google Scholar
New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, ‘Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership’, February 2018: www.mfat.govt.nz/en/about-us/who-we-are/treaties/cptpp/ (accessed 23 February 2018)Google Scholar
Newcombe, A. and Paradell, L., Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standards of Treatment (Kluwer Law International, 2009)Google Scholar
Nolte, George, ‘First Report on Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice in Relation to Treaty Interpretation’, UN Doc. A/CN.4/660 (19 March 2013) International Law Commission Sixty-fifth sessionGoogle Scholar
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) – Free Trade Commission, ‘Notes of Interpretation of Certain Chapter 11 Provisions’, July 2001: www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/NAFTA-Interpr.aspx (accessed 29 April 2018)Google Scholar
Nouel, G. L., ‘Arbitration Due to the Failed Privatisation Process of Belgrade Beer Industry (BIP)’, The Brief, March 2013, 6–7Google Scholar
OAS, ‘SICE the OAS Foreign Trade Information System’, February 2018: (www.sice.oas.org/, accessed 28 February 2018)Google Scholar
OAS, ‘Trade Policy Developments: Bolivia–Mexico’, June 2010: www.sice.oas.org/tpd/BOL_MEX/BOL_MEX_e.asp#EntryintoForce (accessed 15 December 2018)Google Scholar
Obama, B., ‘Presidential Proclamation – To Modify Duty-Free Treatment Under the Generalized System of Preferences and for Other Purposes’, March 2012: www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/26/modify-duty-free-treatment-under-generalized-system-preferences-and-othe (accessed 13 March 2018)Google Scholar
OECD, Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (OECD Publishing, 2011)Google Scholar
OECD, ‘Draft Convention on the Protection of Foreign Property’, International Legal Materials, 2 (1963), 241–67Google Scholar
OECD, ‘Guidelines for MNEs’, 2018: http://mneguidelines.oecd.org/about.htm (accessed 9 February 2018)Google Scholar
OECD, ‘Implementation Procedures of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises’, OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, 2011 edn (OECD Publishing, 2011), pp. 65–89Google Scholar
OECD, International Investment Law: Understanding Concepts and Tracking Innovations (OECD, 2008)Google Scholar
OECD, OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, 2011 edn (OECD Publishing, 2011)Google Scholar
OECD, ‘The Multilateral Agreement on Investment Draft Consolidated Text’ (1998)Google Scholar
OECD, Transparency and Third Party Participation in Investor–State Dispute Settlement Procedures (2005)Google Scholar
OECD and WTO, Aid for Trade at a Glance 2015 (OECD Publishing, 2015)Google Scholar
Office of the United States Trade Representative, ‘U.S. Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) Guidebook’, December 2012: www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/GSP%20Guidebook%20Dec%202012%20%20%20final%20version_0.pdf (accessed 13 March 2018)Google Scholar
O’Laughlin, P., ‘ATPA’s Impact on U.S. Economy, Drug Crop Eradication Still Negligible, Says USITC’ (2014)Google Scholar
OPIC, ‘Environmental and Social Policy Statement’, January 2017: www.opic.gov/sites/default/files/files/final%20revised%20ESPS%2001132017(1).pdf (accessed 9 February 2018)Google Scholar
OPIC, ‘Finance Eligibility Checklist’, 2017: www.opic.gov/doing-business-us/applicant-screener/finance-eligibility-checklist (accessed 16 January 2018)Google Scholar
Orrego Vicuña, F., International Dispute Settlement in an Evolving Global Society: Constitutionalization, Accessibility, Privatization (Cambridge University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortiz, F., ‘Spain Has few Ways to Pressure Argentina over YPF’ (2012)Google Scholar
Oxford University Press, ‘Investment Claims’, February 2018: http://oxia.ouplaw.com/ (accessed 28 February 2018)Google Scholar
Paparinskis, M., ‘Investment Arbitration and the Law of Countermeasures’, British Yearbook of International Law (2008), 265–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paparinskis, M., ‘Investment Treaty Arbitration and the (New) Law of State Responsibility’, European Journal of International Law, 24 (2013), 617–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paparinskis, M., The International Minimum Standard and Fair and Equitable Treatment (Oxford University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paparinskis, M., ‘The Limits of Depoliticisation in Contemporary Investor–State Arbitration’, Select Proceedings of the European Society of International Law, 3 (2010), 271Google Scholar
Paparinskis, M. and Howley, J., ‘Article 5. Submission by a Non-Disputing Party to the Treaty’ in Euler, D., Gehring, M. and Scherer, M. (eds.), Transparency in International Investment Arbitration (Cambridge University Press, 2015), pp. 196–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, W. W., ‘Arbitration and the Fisc: NAFTA’s “Tax Veto”’, Chicago Journal of International Law, 2 (2001), 231–41Google Scholar
Parlett, K., ‘Diplomatic Protection and Investment Arbitration’ in Hofmann, R. and Tams, C. J. (eds.), International Investment Law and General International Law: From Clinical Isolation to Systemic Integration? (Nomos, 2011), pp. 211–29Google Scholar
Parlett, K., The Individual in the International Legal System: Continuity and Change in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parra, A. R., ‘The Enforcement of ICSID Arbitral Awards’, 24th Joint Colloquium on International Arbitration. Paris, November 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
Parra, A. R., The History of ICSID (Oxford University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paton, R. B., ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: From Conflict Resolution to Conflict Anticipation’, Reflections, 7 (2012)Google Scholar
Paulsson, J., ‘Arbitration without Privity’, ICSID Review, 10 (1995), 232–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulsson, J., Denial of Justice in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulsson, J. and Petrochilos, G., ‘Neer-Ly Misled?’, ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal, 22 (2007), 242–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulus, A., ‘Treaties of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation’, March 2011: www.mpepil.com/subscriber_article?script=yes&id=/epil/entries/law-9780199231690-e1482&recno=1&searchType=Quick&query=friendship (accessed 17 April 2018)Google Scholar
Pearce, C. C. and Coe, J. J. Jr, ‘Arbitration under NAFTA Chapter Eleven: Some Pragmatic Reflections upon the First Case Filed against Mexico’, Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 23 (1999), 311Google Scholar
Peels, R., Echeverria, E., Aissi, J. and Schneider, A., ‘Corporate Social Responsibility in International Trade and Investment Agreements’, ILO Research Paper, International Labour Office 13 (2016)Google Scholar
Pellet, A., ‘The Case Law of the ICJ in Investment Arbitration’, ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal, 28 (2013), 223–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), ‘Arbitration between Aeroport Belbek LLC and Mr. Igor Valerievich Kolomoisky as Claimants and the Russian Federation’, August 2016: https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1865 (accessed 19 February 2018)Google Scholar
Perrone, N. M., ‘The International Investment Regime and Local Populations: Are the Weakest Voices Unheard?’, Transnational Legal Theory, 7 (2016), 383–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, P., ‘Dispute Settlement Arrangements in Investment Treaties’, Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, 22 (1991), 91–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, L. E., ‘After Settling some Awards, Argentina Takes more Fractious Path in Bond-Holders Case, with New Bid to Disqualify Arbitrators’, December 2013: www.iareporter.com/articles/after-settling-some-awards-argentina-takes-more-fractious-path-in-bond-holders-case-with-new-bid-to-disqualify-arbitrators/ (accessed 29 September 2018)Google Scholar
Peterson, L. E., ‘Argentina by the Numbers: Where Things Stand with Investment Treaty Claims Arising out of the Argentine Financial Crisis’, February 2011: www.iareporter.com/articles/20110201_9 (accessed 29 September 2018)Google Scholar
Peterson, L. E., ‘As Repsol Files Arbitration against Argentina, Row Erupts over Alleged “diplomatic protection” by Spain and the EU – Investment Arbitration Reporter (IAReporter)’ (2012)Google Scholar
Peterson, L. E., ‘How many States Are Not Paying Awards under Investment Treaties?’, May 2010: www.iareporter.com/articles/20100507_3 (accessed 4 February 2018)Google Scholar
Peterson, L. E., ‘Singapore Court Rejects Arbitrators’ Extension of Chinese Investment Treaty to Macao’, January 2015: www.iareporter.com/articles/20150121_1 (accessed 26 January 2018)Google Scholar
Peterson, L. E., ‘South Africa Mining Arbitration Sees Another Amicus Curiae Intervention’, February 2009: www.iareporter.com/articles/south-africa-mining-arbitration-sees-another-amicus-curiae-intervention/ (accessed 21 February 2018)Google Scholar
Peterson, L. E., ‘UNCITRAL Meetings on ISDS Reform Get off to Bumpy Start, as Delegations Can’t Come to Consensus on Who Should Chair Sensitive Process – Entailing a Rare Vote’, September 2017: www.iareporter.com/articles/uncitral-meetings-on-isds-reform-gets-off-to-bumpy-start-as-delegations-cant-come-to-consensus-on-who-should-chair-sensitive-process-entailing-a-rare-vote/ (accessed 23 February 2018)Google Scholar
Pohl, J., Mashigo, K. and Nohen, A., Dispute Settlement Provisions in International Investment Agreements (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polanco, R. and Torrent, R., Analysis of the Prospects for Updating the Trade Pillar of the European Union-Chile Association Agreement (European Parliament, 2016)Google Scholar
Polanco Lazo, R., ‘Is There a Life for Latin American Countries after Denouncing the ICSID Convention?’, Transnational Dispute Management, 11 (2014)Google Scholar
Polanco Lazo, R., ‘The No of Tokyo Revisited: Or How Developed Countries Learned to Start Worrying and Love the Calvo Doctrine’, ICSID Review, 30 (2015), 172–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polášek, P. and Tonova, S. T., ‘Enforcement against States’ in Huerta Goldman, J. A., Romanetti, A. and Stirnimann, F. X. (eds.), WTO Litigation, Investment Arbitration, and Commercial Arbitration (Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, Kluwer Law International, 2013), pp. 357–87Google Scholar
Posner, T., ‘The Role of Non-Disputing States in Investment Dispute Settlement, 22nd Investment Treaty Forum (ITF), British Institute of International and Comparative Law (BIICL), 8 May 2014’ (2014)Google Scholar
Posner, T. R. and Walter, M. C., ‘The Abiding Role of State–State Engagement in the Resolution of Investor–State Disputes’ in Kalicki, J. E., Joubin-Bret, A. (eds.), Reshaping the Investor–State Dispute Settlement System (Brill, 2015), pp. 381–93Google Scholar
Potestà, M., ‘Republic of Italy v. Republic of Cuba’, American Journal of International Law, 106 (2012), 341–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potestà, M., ‘State-to-State Dispute Settlement Pursuant to Bilateral Investment Treaties: Is There Potential?’ in Boschiero, N., Scovazzi, T., Pitea, C. and Ragni, C. (eds.), International Courts and the Development of International Law (T. M. C. Asser Press, 2013), pp. 753–68Google Scholar
Potestà, M., ‘Towards a Greater Role for State-to-State Arbitration in the Architecture of Investment Treaties?’ in Lalani, S. and Polanco Lazo, R. (eds.), The Role of the State in Investor–State Arbitration (Brill/Martinus Nijhoff, 2014)Google Scholar
Potestà, M. and Sobat, M., ‘Frivolous Claims in International Adjudication: A Study of ICSID Rule 41(5) and of Procedures of Other Courts and Tribunals to Dismiss Claims Summarily’, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 3 (2012), 131–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poulsen, L. N. S., ‘Sacrificing Sovereignty by Chance: Investment Treaties, Developing Countries, and Bounded Rationality’, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) (2011)Google Scholar
Poulsen, L. N. S., ‘The Importance of BITs for Foreign Direct Investment and Political Risk Insurance: Revisiting the Evidence’ in Sauvant, K. P. (ed.), Yearbook on International Investment Law & Policy 2009–2010 (Oxford University Press Inc, 2010), pp. 539–74Google Scholar
Ralston, J. H., International Arbitration from Athens to Locarno (Stanford University Press, 1929)Google Scholar
Ralston, J. H. and Doyle, W. T. S., Venezuelan Arbitration of 1903 (US Government Printing Office, 1904)Google Scholar
Randelzhofer, A., ‘Nationality’ in Biglieri, E. and Prati, G. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Elsevier, 2014), pp. 416–24Google Scholar
Rayfuse, R. (ed.), ‘Report of the Executive Directors on the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (18 March 1965)’, ICSID Reports: Volume 1: Reports of Cases Decided Under the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, 1965 (Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 23–33Google Scholar
Recanati, M., ‘Diplomatic Intervention and State-to-State Arbitration as Alternative Means for the Protection of Foreign Investments and Host States’ General Interests: The Italian Experience’ in Sacerdoti, G., Acconci, P., Luca, A. D. and Valenti, M. (eds.), General Interests of Host States in International Investment Law (Cambridge University Press, 2014), pp. 422–44Google Scholar
Reed, L., ‘Observations on the Relationship between Diplomatic and Judicial Means’ in Boisson, L. de Chazournes, M. G. Kohen, and Viñuales, J. E. (eds.), Diplomatic and Judicial Means of Dispute Settlement (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2012), pp. 291–305Google Scholar
Reinisch, A., ‘Will the EU’s Proposal Concerning an Investment Court System for CETA and TTIP Lead to Enforceable Awards? – The Limits of Modifying the ICSID Convention and the Nature of Investment Arbitration’, Journal of International Economic Law, 19 (2016), 761–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reisman, W. M., Republic of Ecuador v. United States of America (PCA Case No. 2012–5). Expert Opinion with Respect to Jurisdiction, Prof. W. Michael ReismanGoogle Scholar
Reuters, ‘Argentina Unhurt in 2012 by U.S. Loan Hurdles-Source’ (2011)Google Scholar
Reuters, ‘U.S. Business Groups Urge Ecuador Trade Benefits Be Cut’ (2012)Google Scholar
Roberts, A., ‘Power and Persuasion in Investment Treaty Interpretation: The Dual Role of States’, American Journal of International Law, 104 (2010), 179–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, A., ‘Recalibrating Interpretive Authority’ (2014) Columbia FDI Perspectives. Vale Columbia Center on Sustainable International InvestmentGoogle Scholar
Roberts, A., ‘State-to-State Investment Treaty Arbitration: A Hybrid Theory of Interdependent Rights and Shared Interpretive Authority’, Harv. Int’l L.J, 55 (2014), 1Google Scholar
Rode, Z. R., ‘The International Claims Commission of the United States: August 28, 1950–June 30, 1953’, American Journal of International Law, 47 (1953), 615–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, C. B., ‘The Intersection of International Trade and International Arbitration: The Use of Trade Benefits to Secure Compliance with Arbitral Awards’, Geo. J. Int’l L., 44 (2012), 503Google Scholar
Ross, A., ‘Nicosia: Investment Arbitration – A View from Cyprus’, Global Arbitration Review, 6 (2011)Google Scholar
Ruggie, J., ‘Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises’, Neth. Q. Hum. Rts, 29 (2011), 224Google Scholar
Sabahi, B., Compensation and Restitution in Investor–State Arbitration: Principles and Practice (Oxford University Press, 2011)Google Scholar
Salacuse, J. W., The Law of Investment Treaties (Oxford University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauvant, K. P., The Evolving International Investment Law and Policy Regime: Ways Forward. E15 Task Force on Investment Policy – Policy Options Paper. E15 Initiative (International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) and World Economic Forum, 2016)Google Scholar
Schill, S. W., ‘“Shared Responsibility”: Stopping the Irresponsibility Carousel for the Protection of Public Interests in International Investment Law’ in Reinisch, A., Footer, M. E. and Binder, C. (eds.), International Law and … Select Proceedings of the European Society of International Law (Hart Publishing, 2016), pp. 160–9Google Scholar
Schneider, M. E., ‘Investment Disputes – Moving Beyond Arbitration’ in Boisson, L. de Chazournes, M. G. Kohen, and Viñuales, J. E. (eds.), Diplomatic and Judicial Means of Dispute Settlement (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2012), p. 119Google Scholar
Schneider, M. E., ‘The Role of the State in Investor–State Arbitration: Introductory Remarks’ in Lalani, S. and Polanco Lazo, R. (eds.), The Role of the State in Investor–State Arbitration (Brill /Martinus Nijhoff, 2014)Google Scholar
Schreuer, C., ‘Calvo’s Grandchildren: The Return of Local Remedies in Investment Arbitration’, Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 4 (2005), 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreuer, C., ‘Investment Protection and International Relations’ in Reinisch, A. and Kriebaum, U. (eds.), The Law of International Relations: Liber Amicorum Hanspeter Neuhold (Eleven International Publishing, 2007), pp. 345–58Google Scholar
Schreuer, C., The ICSID Convention : A Commentary (Cambridge University Press, 2001)Google Scholar
Schreuer, C. and Weiniger, M., ‘A Doctrine of Precedent?’ in Muchlinski, P., Ortino, F. and Schreuer, C. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law (Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 1188–206Google Scholar
Schwarzenberger, G., ‘The Abs–Shawcross Draft Convention on Investments Abroad: A Critical Commentary’, Journal of Public Law, 9 (1960), 147Google Scholar
Schwebel, S. M., ‘In Defense of Bilateral Investment Treaties’, Arbitration International, 31 (2015), 181–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, J. B., Texts of the Peace Conferences at the Hague. 1899 and 1907, with English Translation and Appendix of Related Documents (Ginn & Company, Boston and London, Published for the International School of Peace, 1908)Google Scholar
Shea, D. R., The Calvo Clause: A Problem of Inter-American and International Law and Diplomacy (University of Minnesota Press, 1955)Google Scholar
Shihata, I. F. I., ‘Towards a Greater Depoliticization of Investment Disputes: The Roles of ICSID and MIGA’, ICSID Review, 1 (1986), 1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simons, P. and Macklin, A., The Governance Gap: Extractive Industries, Human Rights, and the Home State Advantage (Routledge, 2015)Google Scholar
Sinclair, S., ‘Financial Services’ in Sinclair, S., Trew, S. and Mertins-Kirkwood, H. (eds.), Making Sense of the CETA (Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 2014), pp. 18–23Google Scholar
Skinner, M., Miles, C. A. and Luttrell, S., ‘Access and Advantage in Investor–State Arbitration: The Law and Practice of Treaty Shopping’, Journal of World Energy Law & Business, 3 (2010), 260–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slater, M. D., ‘The Energy Charter Treaty : A Brief Introduction to Its Scope and Initial Arbitral Awards’ in Association for International Arbitration (ed.), Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Energy Sector (Maklu, 2009), pp. 15–54Google Scholar
Sornarajah, M., Resistance and Change in the International Law on Foreign Investment (Cambridge University Press, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southern African Development Community (SADC), SADC Model Bilateral Investment Treaty Template with Commentary (2012)Google Scholar
Stuyt, A. M., Survey of International Arbitrations: 1794–1989 (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1990)Google Scholar
Sulzberger, C. L., ‘Lack of Secrecy Makes Diplomacy Even More Difficult’ (1975)Google Scholar
Summers, L. M., ‘Arbitration and Latin America’, California Western International Law Journal, 3 (1972), 1Google Scholar
Swiss Network for International Studies (SNIS), ‘Diffusion of International Law: A Textual Analysis of International Investment Agreements’, February 2018: https://snis.ch/project/diffusion-of-international-law/ (accessed 27 February 2018)Google Scholar
The Economist, ‘Foreign Investment Disputes: Come and Get Me’, February 2012: www.economist.com/node/21547836 (accessed 13 March 2018)Google Scholar
Tietje, C. and Kampermann, K., ‘Taxation and Investment: Constitutional Law Limitations on Tax Legislation in Context’ in Schil, S. Wl (ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 569–97Google Scholar
Titi, C., ‘The European Commission’s Approach to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP): Investment Standards and International Investment Court System – An Overview of the European Commission’s Draft TTIP text of 16 September 2015’, Transnational Dispute Management, 12 (2015)Google Scholar
Titi, C., The Right to Regulate in International Investment Law (Beck/Hart, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomz, M., Reputation and international cooperation: sovereign debt across three centuries (Princeton University Press, 2007)Google Scholar
Torrent, R. and Polanco, R., Analysis of the Upcoming Modernisation of the Trade Pillar of the European Union–Mexico Global Agreement (European Parliament, 2016)Google Scholar
Trakman, Leon E., ‘Investor–State Dispute Settlement under the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement’ in Voon, Tania (ed.), Trade Liberalisation and International Co-operation: A Legal Analysis of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013), pp. 179–206Google Scholar
Transnational Dispute Management, ‘Legal & Regulatory docs.’, February 2018: www.transnational-dispute-management.com/ (accessed 29 December 2017)Google Scholar
Trevino, C. J., ‘State-to-State Investment Treaty Arbitration and the Interplay with Investor–State Arbitration Under the Same Treaty’, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 5 (2014), 199–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations, ‘Claims Commission Established under the Convention Concluded between the United States of America and Venezuela on 5 December 1885’, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, 29 (2011), 223–98Google Scholar
United Nations, ‘Commission for the Settlement of Claims under the Convention of 7 August 1892 concluded between the United States of America and the Republic of Chile’, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, 29 (2011), 299–326Google Scholar
United Nations, ‘French–Mexican Claims Commission (France, United Mexican States)’ Reports of International Arbitral Awards, pp. 307–560Google Scholar
United Nations, ‘Introducing Responsible Investment’, January 2015: www.unpri.org/introducing-responsible-investment/ (accessed 27 February 2018)Google Scholar
United Nations, ‘U.S.–Mexico General Claims Commission’ Reports of International Arbitral Awards (United Nations, 2006), pp. 1–769Google Scholar
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), ‘Rules on Transparency in Treaty-Based Investor–State Arbitration. UN Doc. A/RES/68/462’, April 2014: www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/2014Transparency.html (accessed 14 February 2018)Google Scholar
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), ‘Status UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-Based Investor–State Arbitration’, February 2018: www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/2014Transparency_Rules_status.html (accessed 20 February 2018)Google Scholar
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Dispute Settlement: State–State (United Nations, 2003)Google Scholar
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), ‘Improving Investment Dispute Settlement: UNCTAD’s Policy Tools’, IIA Issues Note, 4 (2017)Google Scholar
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), ‘International Investment Agreements Navigator’, February 2018: http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/IIA/IiasByCountry#iiaInnerMenu (accessed 6 February 2018)Google Scholar
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), ‘Interpretation of IIAs: What States Can Do’, IIA Issues Note (2011)Google Scholar
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), ‘Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator’, September 2017: http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/ISDS (accessed 15 September 2017)Google Scholar
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), ‘Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator’, February 2018: http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/ISDS (accessed 26 February 2018)Google Scholar
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Investment Facilitation: A Review of Policy Practices. Follow-up to UNCTAD’s Global Action Menu for Investment Facilitation (2017)Google Scholar
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development (2012)Google Scholar
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development (IPFSD) (2015)Google Scholar
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Investor–State Disputes: Prevention and Alternatives to Arbitration (United Nations Publications, 2010)Google Scholar
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), ‘Reform of Investor–State Dispute Settlement: In Search of a Roadmap’, IIA Issues Note, 2 (2013)Google Scholar
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (ed.), Reforming International Investment Governance (United Nations, 2015)Google Scholar
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Scope and Definition: UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II (United Nations, 2011)Google Scholar
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), ‘Special Update on Investor–State Dispute Settlement: Facts and Figures’, IIA Issues Note, 3 (2017)Google Scholar
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), World Investment Report 2016. Investor Nationality: Policy Challenges (United Nations, 2016)Google Scholar
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), ‘Corporate Social Responsibility and Regional Trade and Investment Agreements’, 2011: http://unep.ch/etb/publications/CSR%20publication/UNEP_Corporate%20Social%20Responsibility.pdf (accessed 18 January 2018)Google Scholar
United Nations Human Rights Council, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’, Framework, endorsed by the United Nations Human Rights Council on 16 June 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
United States, ‘Statement on Open Hearings in NAFTA Chapter Eleven Arbitrations’, http://www.ustr.gov/archive/assets/Trade_Agreements/Regional/NAFTA/asset_upload_file143_3602.pdf (accessed 23 February 2018)Google Scholar
United States Trade Representative (USTR), ‘Generalized System of Preferences (GSP)’, January 2015: https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/trade-development/preference-programs/generalized-system-preference-gsp (accessed 6 February 2018)Google Scholar
United States Trade Representative (USTR), ‘GSP in Use – Country Specific Information’, February 2018: https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/trade-development/preference-programs/generalized-system-preferences-gsp/gsp-use-%E2%80%93-coun (accessed 22 February 2018)Google Scholar
United States Trade Representative (USTR), ‘Office of the United States Trade Representative. Generalized System of Preferences (GSP): Notice Regarding the Announcement of Petitions Accepted for the 2009 Annual GSP Country Practices Review, Acceptance of Pre-Hearing Comments and Requests to Testify for the 2009 Annual GSP Country Practices Review Hearing, and the Initiation of the 2010 Annual GSP Country Practices Review’, www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010–08-11/pdf/2010–19745.pdf (accessed 13 March 2018)Google Scholar
US Commercial Service, ‘Services for U.S. Companies’, February 2018: www.trade.gov/cs/services.asp#commercialdiplomacy (accessed 24 February 2018)Google Scholar
US Department of State, ‘Bilateral Investments, Other Bilateral Claims and Arbitrations’, January 2015: www.state.gov/s/l/c7344.htm (accessed 24 February 2018)Google Scholar
US Department of State, ‘CAFTA–DR Investor–State Arbitrations’, February 2018: www.state.gov/s/l/c33165.htm (accessed 20 February 2018)Google Scholar
US Department of State, ‘Investment Climate Statements’, February 2018: www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/ics/ (accessed 26 February 2018)Google Scholar
US Department of State, ‘NAFTA Investor–State Arbitrations’, February 2018: www.state.gov/s/l/c3439.htm (accessed 20 February 2018)Google Scholar
US Department of State, ‘Understanding Concerning Certain U.S. Bilateral Investment Treaties, Signed by the U.S., the European Commission, and Acceding and Candidate Countries for Accession to the European Union’, September 2003: www.state.gov/s/l/2003/44366.htm (accessed 16 January 2018)Google Scholar
‘USCODE-2009-title22-chap32-subchapIII-partI-sec2370a.pdf’Google Scholar
Usoskin, S., ‘Kyrgyz Republic’s Mixed Fortunes in Investment Arbitration’, May 2014: www.cisarbitration.com/2014/05/14/kyrgyz-republics-mixed-fortunes-in-investment-arbitration/ (accessed 9 February 2018)Google Scholar
Van Aaken, A., ‘Control Mechanisms in International Investment Law’ in Douglas, Z., Pauwelyn, J. and Viñuales, J. E. (eds.), The Foundations of International Investment Law: Bringing Theory into Practice (Oxford University Press, 2014), pp. 409–35Google Scholar
Van Aaken, A., ‘Delegating Interpretative Authority in Investment Treaties: The Case of Joint Commissions’, Transnational Dispute Management, 11 (2014)Google Scholar
Van Aaken, A., ‘The Interaction of Remedies between National Judicial Systems and ICSID : An Optimization Problem’ in Calamita, N. J., Earnest, D. and Burgstaller, M. (eds.), The Future of ICSID and the Place of Investment Treaties in International Law (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2013), pp. 291–324Google Scholar
van Harten, G., Investment Treaty Arbitration and Public Law (Oxford University Press, USA, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Harten, G., ‘TWAIL and the Dabhol Arbitration’, Comparative Research in Law & Political Economy. Research Report No 19/2011Google Scholar
van Houtte, H. and McAsey, B., ‘Abaclat and others v Argentine Republic ICSID, the BIT and Mass Claims’, ICSID Review, 27 (2012), 231–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeer-Künzli, A., ‘As If: The Legal Fiction in Diplomatic Protection’, European Journal of International Law, 18 (2007), 37–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeer-Künzli, A. M. H., The Protection of Individuals by Means of Diplomatic Protection: Diplomatic Protection as a Human Rights Instrument (Department of Public International Law, Faculty of Law, Leiden University, 2007)Google Scholar
Viñuales, J. E. and Bentolila, D., ‘The Use of Alternative (Non-Judicial) Means to Enforce Investment Awards against States’ in Boisson, L. de Chazournes, M. G. Kohen, and Viñuales, J. E. (eds.), Diplomatic and Judicial Means of Dispute Settlement (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2012), pp. 248–77Google Scholar
Voon, T., ‘Consolidating International Investment Law: The Mega-Regionals as a Pathway towards Multilateral Rules’, World Trade Review, 17 (2018), 33–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waibel, M., ‘Arbitrator Selection’ in Kulick, A. (ed.), Reassertion of Control Over the Investment Treaty Regime (2017), pp. 333–55Google Scholar
Waibel, M., Kaushal, A., Chung, K.-H. and Balchin, C. (eds.), The Backlash against Investment Arbitration: Perceptions and Reality (Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2010)Google Scholar
Wälde, T. and Kolo, A., ‘Investor–State Disputes: The Interface between Treaty-Based International Investment Protection and Fiscal Sovereignty’, Intertax, 35 (2007) 424–49Google Scholar
Wälde, T. W., ‘“Equality of Arms” in Investment Arbitration: Procedural Challenges’ in Yannaca-Small, K. (ed.), Arbitration under International Investment Agreements: A Guide to the Key Issues (Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 161–88Google Scholar
Weeramantry, J. R., Treaty Interpretation in Investment Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2012)Google Scholar
Weiler, T., ‘NAFTA Investment Law in 2001: As the Legal Order Starts to Settle, the Bureaucrats Strike Back’, International Lawyer, 36 (2002), 345–53Google Scholar
Weston, B. H., Bederman, D. J. and Lillich, R. B., International Claims: Their Settlement by Lump Sum Agreements, 1975–1995 (Martinus Nijhoff, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whytock, C. A., Domestic Courts and Global Governance: The Politics of Private International Law (ProQuest, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, J., ‘The Subversion of State-to-State Investment Treaty Arbitration’, Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 53 (2014), 6–48Google Scholar
Woolcock, S., The EU Approach to International Investment Policy after the Lisbon Treaty (Directorate-General for External Policies of the Union, 2010)Google Scholar
World Bank, ‘News & Broadcast – Argentina: World Bank to Deepen Its Support to Social Programs’, March 2012: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/03/19/argentina-world-bank-deepen-support-social-programs (accessed 14 March 2018)Google Scholar
World Bank, Report to the Development Committee and Guidelines on the Treatment of Foreign Direct Investment (1992), vol. IIGoogle Scholar
World Trade Organization (WTO), ‘Dispute Settlement – Index of Disputes Issues’, February 2018: www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_subjects_index_e.htm (accessed 26 February 2018)Google Scholar
Wu, C.-H., ‘The Many Facets of States in International Investment Law’ in Lalani, S. and Polanco, R. (eds.), The Role of the State in Investor–State Arbitration (Brill/Martinus Nijhoff, 2014), pp. 405–29Google Scholar
Yackee, J. W., ‘The First Investor–State Arbitration: The Suez Canal Company v Egypt (1864)’, Journal of World Investment & Trade, 17 (2016), 401–62Google Scholar
Yen, T. H., The Interpretation of Investment Treaties (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bibliography
  • Rodrigo Polanco, Universität Bern, Switzerland
  • Book: The Return of the Home State to Investor-State Disputes
  • Online publication: 28 December 2018
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108628983.010
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bibliography
  • Rodrigo Polanco, Universität Bern, Switzerland
  • Book: The Return of the Home State to Investor-State Disputes
  • Online publication: 28 December 2018
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108628983.010
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bibliography
  • Rodrigo Polanco, Universität Bern, Switzerland
  • Book: The Return of the Home State to Investor-State Disputes
  • Online publication: 28 December 2018
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108628983.010
Available formats
×