The proposed Investment Court System: does it really solve the problems?

The proposed Investment Court System: does it really solve the problems?

En los últimos años, el régimen de inversión extranjera ha sido objeto de un creciente número de críticas del público. Las sumas significativas de dinero en juego y el posible impacto de los laudos en los poderes regulatorios del Estado han puesto al actual Sistema de Resolución de Controversias entre Inversores y el Estado bajo la lupa. En respuesta a ello, la Unión Europea ha propuesto una reforma de gran alcance mediante la introducción de un Sistema de Corte de Inversiones (sci). El nuevo sistema constituye un mecanismo innovador de resolución de controversias internacionales destinado a remediar los problemas centrales que acarrea el sistema actual, mediante la combinación de elementos tradicionales del arbitraje con rasgos judiciales.... Ver más

Guardado en:

Revista Derecho del Estado

0122-9893

2346-2051

Charris Benedetti, Juan Pablo

UNIVERSIDAD EXTERNADO DE COLOMBIA

10.18601/01229893.n42.04

2018-11-23

83

115

Colombia

Sistema de Corte de Inversiones;

Sistema de Resolución de Controversias entre Inversores y el Estado;

Inversión Extranjera Directa;

Acuerdos Internacionales de Inversión;

Acuerdo Económico y Comercial Global (aecg);

Asociación Transatlántica de Comercio e Inversión

http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2

info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess

Juan Pablo Charris Benedetti - 2018

id 04637fb9a9e50044d47b379b20fa63fa
record_format ojs
spelling The proposed Investment Court System: does it really solve the problems?
sgs Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan. icsid Case No. arb/01/13. Decision on Jurisdiction, 6 August 2003.
icsid Rules (Icsid.worldbank.org, 2017). Available at: https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/icsiddocs/icsid-Rules.aspx (Accessed 4 July 2017).
Process Overview (Icsid.worldbank.org, 2017). Available at: https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/process/Overview.aspx (Accessed 6 July 2017).
Arbitral Rules - Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator (Investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org, 2017). Available at: http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/isds/FilterByRulesAndInstitution (Accessed 20 July 2017).
Fábrica de Vidrios Los Andes, CA and Owens-Illinois de Venezuela v. Bolivarian Republic Venezuela. icsid Case No. ARB/12/21.
S.D. Myers, Inc. v. Government of Canada. uncitral Case, Partial Award, 13 November 2000 (nafta Arbitration).
Metalclad Corporation v. United Mexican States. icsid Case No. arb(AF)/97/1, Award, 30 August 2000.
sgs Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Republic of the Philippines. icsid Case No. arb/02/6. Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 January 2004.
Lauder v. Czech Republic. uncitral Rules, Final Award, 3 September 2001.
unctad. Trade and Development Report. United Nations, 2014. Available at: http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/tdr2014_en.pdf (Accessed 8 July 2017).
cme Czech Republic B.V. v. Czech Republic. uncitral Rules, Award, 14 March 2003.
Webb Yackee, J. Toward a Minimalist System of International Investment Law. Suffolk Transnational Law Review. 303, 2009.
Van Harten, G. Arbitrator Behaviour in Asymmetrical Adjudication (Part Two): An Examination of Hypotheses of Bias In Investment Treaty Arbitration. Osgoode Hall Law Journal. Vol. 50, 2012.
Tams, C. Is there a Need for an icsid Appellate Structure? 2009. ssrn Electronic Journal: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1341268
Stone Sweet, A., Chung, M. and Saltzman, A. Arbitral Lawmaking and State Power: An Empirical Analysis of Investment Arbitration. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2919723 (Accessed 17 July 2017).
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. Vol. 19, 2016.
Mann, H. et al. Comments on icsid Discussion Paper, “Possible Improvements of the Framework for icsid Arbitration”. International Institute for Sustainable Development (iisd), 2004.
Lenk, H. An Investment Court System for the New Generation of EU Trade and Investment Agreements: A Discussion of the Free Trade Agreement with Vietnam and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Canada. European Papers. 1, 2016. Available at: http://www.europeanpapers.eu/en/europeanforum/investment-courtsystem-new-generation-eu-trade-and-investment-agreements (Accessed 16 July 2017).
icsid Additional Facility Rules (Icsid.worldbank.org, 2017). Available at: https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/icsiddocs/icsid-Additional-Facility-Rules.aspx (Accessed 4 July 2017).
Malmström, C. Concept Paper: Investment in ttip And Beyond – The Path for Reform. European Commission, 2015. International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Possible Improvements of the Framework for icsid Arbitration. icsid Secretariat, 2004.
Horvath, G. J. and Berzero, R. Arbitrator and Counsel: The Double-Hat Dilemma. Transnational Dispute Management (tdm). 2017. Available at: https://www.transnationaldispute-management.com/article.asp?key=1985 (Accessed 19 August 2017).
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
Text
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTREF
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
Practical Law – Arbitration Blog. Update on the European Commission’s Drive for Investment Courts. 2017. Available at: http://arbitrationblog.practicallaw.com/update-onthe-european-commissions-drive-for-investment-courts/ (Accessed 12 January 2018).
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Suggested Changes to the icsid Rules and Regulations. icsid Secretariat, 2005.
European Commission. Memorandum: ‘Key features of the EU-Mexico trade agreement’. 2018. Available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1831 (Accessed 8 July 2018).
European Commission. Memorandum: ‘Key elements of the EU-Singapore trade and investment agreements’. 2018. Available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1827 accessed 8 July 2018.
European Commission. ceta: EU and Canada Agree on New Approach on Investment in Trade Agreement. 2016. Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-399_en.htm (Accessed 12 July 2017).
The Shortcomings of the Proposal for an “International Court System” (ics). efila Blog, 2017. Available at: https://efilablog.org/2016/02/02/the-shortcomings-of-the-proposalfor-an-international-court-system-ics/ (Accessed 16 July 2017).
European Commission. The EU and Vietnam Finalise Landmark Trade Deal. 2017. Available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1409 (Accessed 9 July 2017)
Malmström, C. Concept Paper: Investment in ttip And Beyond – The Path for Reform. European Commission, 2015.
European Commission. Discussion on Investment in ttip at the Meeting of the International Trade Committee of the European Parliament. 2015. Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_speech-15-4624_en.htm (Accessed 10 July 2017).
Report Presented Today: Consultation on Investment Protection In EU-US Trade Talks - Trade - European Commission (Trade.ec.europa.eu, 2017). Available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1234 (Accessed 6 July 2017).
Laird, I. and Askew, R. Finality versus Consistency: Does Investor State Arbitration need an Appellate System? The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process. Vol. 7, 2005.
Koeth, W. Can the Investment Court System (ics) save ttip and ceta. European Institute of Public Administration (eipa) Working Papers. 2016. Available at: http://publications.eipa.eu/en/details/&tid=1860 (Accessed 16 July 2017).
Gleason, E. International Arbitral Appeals: What are we so afraid of? Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal. Vol. 7, 2007. Available at: http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/drlj/vol7/iss2/5 (Accessed 17 July 2017).
application/xml
En los últimos años, el régimen de inversión extranjera ha sido objeto de un creciente número de críticas del público. Las sumas significativas de dinero en juego y el posible impacto de los laudos en los poderes regulatorios del Estado han puesto al actual Sistema de Resolución de Controversias entre Inversores y el Estado bajo la lupa. En respuesta a ello, la Unión Europea ha propuesto una reforma de gran alcance mediante la introducción de un Sistema de Corte de Inversiones (sci). El nuevo sistema constituye un mecanismo innovador de resolución de controversias internacionales destinado a remediar los problemas centrales que acarrea el sistema actual, mediante la combinación de elementos tradicionales del arbitraje con rasgos judiciales. En este contexto, el presente escrito pretende analizar si el nuevo enfoque de la Unión Europea constituye una mejora efectiva del actual mecanismo de resolución de controversias de inversiones y del futuro del régimen de inversión internacional. Para dicho propósito, el artículo comienza con una descripción general del actual Sistema de Resolución de Controversias entre Inversores y el Estado; seguido de una sinopsis de sus principales críticas; continúa con un resumen de las principales características del Sistema de Corte de Inversiones, así como de su inclusión en la nueva generación de acuerdos internacionales de inversión en negociación por la Unión Europea; y, finalmente, hace una referencia a las principales críticas y posibles obstáculos que afrontará la introducción del nuevo Sistema de Corte de Inversiones.
Charris Benedetti, Juan Pablo
Sistema de Corte de Inversiones;
Sistema de Resolución de Controversias entre Inversores y el Estado;
Inversión Extranjera Directa;
Acuerdos Internacionales de Inversión;
Acuerdo Económico y Comercial Global (aecg);
Asociación Transatlántica de Comercio e Inversión
42
Núm. 42 , Año 2019 : Enero-Abril
Artículo de revista
application/pdf
text/html
Publication
Departamento de Derecho Constitucional
Collins, D. The UK should include Investor State Dispute Settlement (isds) in its Post-Brexit International Investment Agreements. 2017. ssrn Electronic Journal: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2924051
Butler, N. Possible Improvements to the Framework of International Investment Arbitration. The Journal of World Investment & Trade. Vol. 14, 2013.
https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/view/5665
Español
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
Juan Pablo Charris Benedetti - 2018
Revista Derecho del Estado
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (ttip)
In recent years, the foreign investment regime has been subject to an increasing volume of criticism from the public. The significant sums of money at stake and the potential impact of the awards on State’s regulatory powers have placed the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (isds) under the spotlight. In response to this, the European Union has proposed a far-reaching reform which introduces an Investment Court System (ics). This model constitutes an innovative dispute settlement mechanism intended to address most of the core issues of the isds by combining elements of the traditional isds with judicial features. Overall, this paper aims at analysing whether the EU’s new approach constitutes an effective improvement to the traditional isds and the future of the international investment regime. To achieve this, the study begins with an overview of the current isds; followed by a synopsis of the main criticisms to the traditional isds; proceeded by a review of the core features of the EU’s proposed ics and its inclusion in the new generation of iias in negotiation by the EU; and finally, provides a commentary of the main criticisms and obstacles that the introduction of the ics is likely to encounter.
Investment Court System (ics);
Investor-State Disputes Settlement (isds);
Foreign Direct Investment (fdi);
International Investment Agreement (iia);
Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (ceta);
Journal article
The proposed Investment Court System: does it really solve the problems?
115
https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/download/5665/7062
https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/download/5665/7383
https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/download/5665/7567
https://doi.org/10.18601/01229893.n42.04
10.18601/01229893.n42.04
2346-2051
2018-11-23T00:00:00Z
2018-11-23T00:00:00Z
2018-11-23
0122-9893
83
institution UNIVERSIDAD EXTERNADO DE COLOMBIA
thumbnail https://nuevo.metarevistas.org/UNIVERSIDADEXTERNADODECOLOMBIA/logo.png
country_str Colombia
collection Revista Derecho del Estado
title The proposed Investment Court System: does it really solve the problems?
spellingShingle The proposed Investment Court System: does it really solve the problems?
Charris Benedetti, Juan Pablo
Sistema de Corte de Inversiones;
Sistema de Resolución de Controversias entre Inversores y el Estado;
Inversión Extranjera Directa;
Acuerdos Internacionales de Inversión;
Acuerdo Económico y Comercial Global (aecg);
Asociación Transatlántica de Comercio e Inversión
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (ttip)
Investment Court System (ics);
Investor-State Disputes Settlement (isds);
Foreign Direct Investment (fdi);
International Investment Agreement (iia);
Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (ceta);
title_short The proposed Investment Court System: does it really solve the problems?
title_full The proposed Investment Court System: does it really solve the problems?
title_fullStr The proposed Investment Court System: does it really solve the problems?
title_full_unstemmed The proposed Investment Court System: does it really solve the problems?
title_sort proposed investment court system: does it really solve the problems?
title_eng The proposed Investment Court System: does it really solve the problems?
description En los últimos años, el régimen de inversión extranjera ha sido objeto de un creciente número de críticas del público. Las sumas significativas de dinero en juego y el posible impacto de los laudos en los poderes regulatorios del Estado han puesto al actual Sistema de Resolución de Controversias entre Inversores y el Estado bajo la lupa. En respuesta a ello, la Unión Europea ha propuesto una reforma de gran alcance mediante la introducción de un Sistema de Corte de Inversiones (sci). El nuevo sistema constituye un mecanismo innovador de resolución de controversias internacionales destinado a remediar los problemas centrales que acarrea el sistema actual, mediante la combinación de elementos tradicionales del arbitraje con rasgos judiciales. En este contexto, el presente escrito pretende analizar si el nuevo enfoque de la Unión Europea constituye una mejora efectiva del actual mecanismo de resolución de controversias de inversiones y del futuro del régimen de inversión internacional. Para dicho propósito, el artículo comienza con una descripción general del actual Sistema de Resolución de Controversias entre Inversores y el Estado; seguido de una sinopsis de sus principales críticas; continúa con un resumen de las principales características del Sistema de Corte de Inversiones, así como de su inclusión en la nueva generación de acuerdos internacionales de inversión en negociación por la Unión Europea; y, finalmente, hace una referencia a las principales críticas y posibles obstáculos que afrontará la introducción del nuevo Sistema de Corte de Inversiones.
description_eng In recent years, the foreign investment regime has been subject to an increasing volume of criticism from the public. The significant sums of money at stake and the potential impact of the awards on State’s regulatory powers have placed the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (isds) under the spotlight. In response to this, the European Union has proposed a far-reaching reform which introduces an Investment Court System (ics). This model constitutes an innovative dispute settlement mechanism intended to address most of the core issues of the isds by combining elements of the traditional isds with judicial features. Overall, this paper aims at analysing whether the EU’s new approach constitutes an effective improvement to the traditional isds and the future of the international investment regime. To achieve this, the study begins with an overview of the current isds; followed by a synopsis of the main criticisms to the traditional isds; proceeded by a review of the core features of the EU’s proposed ics and its inclusion in the new generation of iias in negotiation by the EU; and finally, provides a commentary of the main criticisms and obstacles that the introduction of the ics is likely to encounter.
author Charris Benedetti, Juan Pablo
author_facet Charris Benedetti, Juan Pablo
topicspa_str_mv Sistema de Corte de Inversiones;
Sistema de Resolución de Controversias entre Inversores y el Estado;
Inversión Extranjera Directa;
Acuerdos Internacionales de Inversión;
Acuerdo Económico y Comercial Global (aecg);
Asociación Transatlántica de Comercio e Inversión
topic Sistema de Corte de Inversiones;
Sistema de Resolución de Controversias entre Inversores y el Estado;
Inversión Extranjera Directa;
Acuerdos Internacionales de Inversión;
Acuerdo Económico y Comercial Global (aecg);
Asociación Transatlántica de Comercio e Inversión
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (ttip)
Investment Court System (ics);
Investor-State Disputes Settlement (isds);
Foreign Direct Investment (fdi);
International Investment Agreement (iia);
Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (ceta);
topic_facet Sistema de Corte de Inversiones;
Sistema de Resolución de Controversias entre Inversores y el Estado;
Inversión Extranjera Directa;
Acuerdos Internacionales de Inversión;
Acuerdo Económico y Comercial Global (aecg);
Asociación Transatlántica de Comercio e Inversión
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (ttip)
Investment Court System (ics);
Investor-State Disputes Settlement (isds);
Foreign Direct Investment (fdi);
International Investment Agreement (iia);
Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (ceta);
citationissue 42
citationedition Núm. 42 , Año 2019 : Enero-Abril
publisher Departamento de Derecho Constitucional
ispartofjournal Revista Derecho del Estado
source https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/view/5665
language Español
format Article
rights http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
Juan Pablo Charris Benedetti - 2018
references sgs Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan. icsid Case No. arb/01/13. Decision on Jurisdiction, 6 August 2003.
icsid Rules (Icsid.worldbank.org, 2017). Available at: https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/icsiddocs/icsid-Rules.aspx (Accessed 4 July 2017).
Process Overview (Icsid.worldbank.org, 2017). Available at: https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/process/Overview.aspx (Accessed 6 July 2017).
Arbitral Rules - Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator (Investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org, 2017). Available at: http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/isds/FilterByRulesAndInstitution (Accessed 20 July 2017).
Fábrica de Vidrios Los Andes, CA and Owens-Illinois de Venezuela v. Bolivarian Republic Venezuela. icsid Case No. ARB/12/21.
S.D. Myers, Inc. v. Government of Canada. uncitral Case, Partial Award, 13 November 2000 (nafta Arbitration).
Metalclad Corporation v. United Mexican States. icsid Case No. arb(AF)/97/1, Award, 30 August 2000.
sgs Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Republic of the Philippines. icsid Case No. arb/02/6. Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 January 2004.
Lauder v. Czech Republic. uncitral Rules, Final Award, 3 September 2001.
unctad. Trade and Development Report. United Nations, 2014. Available at: http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/tdr2014_en.pdf (Accessed 8 July 2017).
cme Czech Republic B.V. v. Czech Republic. uncitral Rules, Award, 14 March 2003.
Webb Yackee, J. Toward a Minimalist System of International Investment Law. Suffolk Transnational Law Review. 303, 2009.
Van Harten, G. Arbitrator Behaviour in Asymmetrical Adjudication (Part Two): An Examination of Hypotheses of Bias In Investment Treaty Arbitration. Osgoode Hall Law Journal. Vol. 50, 2012.
Tams, C. Is there a Need for an icsid Appellate Structure? 2009. ssrn Electronic Journal: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1341268
Stone Sweet, A., Chung, M. and Saltzman, A. Arbitral Lawmaking and State Power: An Empirical Analysis of Investment Arbitration. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2919723 (Accessed 17 July 2017).
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. Vol. 19, 2016.
Mann, H. et al. Comments on icsid Discussion Paper, “Possible Improvements of the Framework for icsid Arbitration”. International Institute for Sustainable Development (iisd), 2004.
Lenk, H. An Investment Court System for the New Generation of EU Trade and Investment Agreements: A Discussion of the Free Trade Agreement with Vietnam and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Canada. European Papers. 1, 2016. Available at: http://www.europeanpapers.eu/en/europeanforum/investment-courtsystem-new-generation-eu-trade-and-investment-agreements (Accessed 16 July 2017).
icsid Additional Facility Rules (Icsid.worldbank.org, 2017). Available at: https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/icsiddocs/icsid-Additional-Facility-Rules.aspx (Accessed 4 July 2017).
Malmström, C. Concept Paper: Investment in ttip And Beyond – The Path for Reform. European Commission, 2015. International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Possible Improvements of the Framework for icsid Arbitration. icsid Secretariat, 2004.
Horvath, G. J. and Berzero, R. Arbitrator and Counsel: The Double-Hat Dilemma. Transnational Dispute Management (tdm). 2017. Available at: https://www.transnationaldispute-management.com/article.asp?key=1985 (Accessed 19 August 2017).
Practical Law – Arbitration Blog. Update on the European Commission’s Drive for Investment Courts. 2017. Available at: http://arbitrationblog.practicallaw.com/update-onthe-european-commissions-drive-for-investment-courts/ (Accessed 12 January 2018).
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Suggested Changes to the icsid Rules and Regulations. icsid Secretariat, 2005.
European Commission. Memorandum: ‘Key features of the EU-Mexico trade agreement’. 2018. Available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1831 (Accessed 8 July 2018).
European Commission. Memorandum: ‘Key elements of the EU-Singapore trade and investment agreements’. 2018. Available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1827 accessed 8 July 2018.
European Commission. ceta: EU and Canada Agree on New Approach on Investment in Trade Agreement. 2016. Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-399_en.htm (Accessed 12 July 2017).
The Shortcomings of the Proposal for an “International Court System” (ics). efila Blog, 2017. Available at: https://efilablog.org/2016/02/02/the-shortcomings-of-the-proposalfor-an-international-court-system-ics/ (Accessed 16 July 2017).
European Commission. The EU and Vietnam Finalise Landmark Trade Deal. 2017. Available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1409 (Accessed 9 July 2017)
Malmström, C. Concept Paper: Investment in ttip And Beyond – The Path for Reform. European Commission, 2015.
European Commission. Discussion on Investment in ttip at the Meeting of the International Trade Committee of the European Parliament. 2015. Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_speech-15-4624_en.htm (Accessed 10 July 2017).
Report Presented Today: Consultation on Investment Protection In EU-US Trade Talks - Trade - European Commission (Trade.ec.europa.eu, 2017). Available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1234 (Accessed 6 July 2017).
Laird, I. and Askew, R. Finality versus Consistency: Does Investor State Arbitration need an Appellate System? The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process. Vol. 7, 2005.
Koeth, W. Can the Investment Court System (ics) save ttip and ceta. European Institute of Public Administration (eipa) Working Papers. 2016. Available at: http://publications.eipa.eu/en/details/&tid=1860 (Accessed 16 July 2017).
Gleason, E. International Arbitral Appeals: What are we so afraid of? Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal. Vol. 7, 2007. Available at: http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/drlj/vol7/iss2/5 (Accessed 17 July 2017).
Collins, D. The UK should include Investor State Dispute Settlement (isds) in its Post-Brexit International Investment Agreements. 2017. ssrn Electronic Journal: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2924051
Butler, N. Possible Improvements to the Framework of International Investment Arbitration. The Journal of World Investment & Trade. Vol. 14, 2013.
type_driver info:eu-repo/semantics/article
type_coar http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
type_version info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
type_coarversion http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
type_content Text
publishDate 2018-11-23
date_accessioned 2018-11-23T00:00:00Z
date_available 2018-11-23T00:00:00Z
url https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/view/5665
url_doi https://doi.org/10.18601/01229893.n42.04
issn 0122-9893
eissn 2346-2051
doi 10.18601/01229893.n42.04
citationstartpage 83
citationendpage 115
url2_str_mv https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/download/5665/7062
url3_str_mv https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/download/5665/7383
url4_str_mv https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/download/5665/7567
_version_ 1797158135182393344

Código QR

Estadísticas y Métricas Alternativas

Títulos similares