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
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 9 - Assessing Convergence between International Investment Law and International Trade Law through Interpretative Commissions/Committees: A Case of Ambivalence?

  • from Part III - Interpretive Powers and Adjudicative Behaviour
  • Edited by Szilárd Gáspár-Szilágyi, University of Oslo, Daniel Behn, University of Oslo, Malcolm Langford, University of Oslo
  • Book:
    Adjudicating Trade and Investment Disputes
    Published online:
    25 June 2020
    Print publication:
    02 July 2020, pp 211-243

  • Summary

    This chapter focuses on treaty committees that share interpretative functions with adjudicative bodies. The author explores whether, and to what extent, joint interpretative commissions/committees are in fact signs of convergence between international investment law and international trade law. The author addresses convergence through the following four dimensions: spatial, temporal, ideological and functional. She concludes that the ideological dimension demonstrates a deeper convergence than can be seen from the space and time perspectives, namely the introduction of a new epistemic community into the field of international investment. Furthermore, the functional dimension shows lasting similarities and differences between the fields. Nevertheless, deeper analysis shows up complexity in reconciling states’ dual role as both respondents and interpreters in pending proceedings, and this is where convergence meets resistance.