Abstract
Over the years, investment treaty arbitration has emerged as the chief means to resolve disputes between foreign investors and the host state. One of the major reasons for this development is that the recourse to domestic courts is excluded in almost all such cases. From the investor’s perspective, domestic courts are not usually considered as an effective forum to settle their disputes with the host state because of the perceived fear of home-court bias. However, in practice, domestic courts, especially from certain countries, often intervene in the resolution of investment disputes under various pretexts. While the ICSID awards are protected under the shield of ‘exclusive remedy rule’ as they are not subjected to any appeal or challenge, except through a self-contained mechanism of review procedure, on the other hand, non-ICSID awards are subjected to a greater challenge. It may be noted that non-ICSID arbitral awards are not self-executing, and accordingly, they are subjected to judicial review by courts of forum State. There is a greater possibility that enforcement of such arbitral awards may be refused on any of the grounds listed in the New York Convention as well as under other governing laws. There are also other instances in which judicial proceedings are pursued in parallel to investment arbitration, especially in cases of non-ICSID proceedings.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
The awards administered under the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, Mar. 18, 1965, 575 UNTS 159, Art 25.1 (hereafter the ICSID Convention). Also see Schreuer (2001).
- 3.
See also the discussion in Delaume (1983).
- 4.
The awards rendered by arbitral institutions such as LCIA, SCIA, SCC, or ICC, including ad hoc arbitration proceedings administered under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules [the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, Aug. 12, 2010, 49 ILM 1640]. It includes the ICSID Additional Facility awards [the ICSID Additional Facility Rules 1978, ICSID/11/Rev 1] as well, these awards are enforced through New York Convention [the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Jun. 7, 1959, 330 UNTS 3] and other applicable domestic laws; See, the critique on the system in Billiet (2016).
- 5.
See, generally Van Den Berg (1981).
- 6.
Schreuer (2010).
- 7.
Lopez Ortiz et al. (2017).
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.
Schreuer, supra note 6, at 88.
- 12.
Saipem SpA v. the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/7, Award (Jun. 30, 2009); Romak S.A. (Switzerland) v. The Republic of Uzbekistan, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. AA280, Final Award (Nov. 26, 2009); Frontier Petroleum Services Ltd. v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Award (Nov. 12, 2010); GEA Group Aktiengesellschaft v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/16, Award (Mar. 31, 2011); White Industries Australia Limited v. The Republic of India, UNCITRAL, Award (Nov. 30, 2011) [hereinafter the White Industries Award].
- 13.
Michael Reisman (2011).
- 14.
For a discussion on crossover cases, see Alvarez (2013).
- 15.
Guha Roy (1961).
- 16.
- 17.
Devashish Krishan analysed the development of BITs in India and also examined the India‘s commitment to various other international legal instruments which are witnessed in his book chapter, refer Devashish Krishan, id at 291.
- 18.
Ranjan and Anand (2018).
- 19.
- 20.
Centre for Public Interest Litigation and others v Union of India and others, AIR 2012 SC 3725 (hereafter the 2G case Judgment).
- 21.
Union of India v. Dabhol Power Company on 5 May 2004; Union of India v. Vodafone Group PLC United Kingdom and Ors., MANU/DE/2590/2017.
- 22.
Rajput (2017).
References
Alvarez, J. E. (2013). Crossing the “Public/Private” divide: Saipem v. Bangladesh and other crossover cases. In A. J. den Berg (Ed.), International arbitration: The coming of a new age? ICCA Congress Series (Vol. 17, p. 400). Kluwer.
Billiet, J. (2016). International investment arbitration: A practical handbook (p. 175). Maklu.
Bjorklund, A. K. (2016). The use of investor-state arbitration as a De Facto enforcement mechanism for arbitral awards. In S. Brekoulakis et al. (Eds.), The evolution and future of international arbitration, international arbitration law library (Vol. 37, pp. 97–118). Kluwer.
Blackaby, N., et al. (2009). Redfern and hunter on international arbitration (p. 439). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Delaume, G. (1983). ICSID arbitration and the courts. American Journal of International Law, 77, 784, 785.
Demirkol, B. (2018). Judicial acts and investment treaty arbitration (Vols. 1–3). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dolzer, R., & Schreuer, C. (2008). Principles of international investment law (Vol. 214).
Garnett, R. (2011). National court intervention in arbitration as an investment treaty claim. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 60, 485, 487.
Guha Roy, S. N. (1961). Is the law of responsibility of states for injuries to aliens a part of universal international law? American Journal of International Law, 55, 886–887.
Joy, C. (1972). India and the international centre for settlement of investment disputes—A short critical study of official Indian view. International Law Report, 3(2), 15.
Krishan, D. (2008). India and international investment law. In B. N. Patel (Ed.), India and International Law (Vol. 2, pp. 277–291). Brill.
Lopez Ortiz, A., et al. (2017). The role of national courts in ICSID arbitration. In C. Baltag (Ed.), ICSID convention after 50 years: Unsettled issues (pp. 335, 340). Kluwer.
Michael Reisman, W. (2011). Investment and human rights tribunals as courts of last appeal in international commercial arbitration. In L. Levy & Y. Derains (Eds.), Liber Amicorum En L’honneur De Serge Lazareff (p. 521). Pedone.
Muchlinski, P., et al. (2008). The Oxford handbook of international investment law (Vol. 6). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Oliveira, T. B. J. (2013). The authority of domestic courts in adjudicating international investment disputes: Beyond the distinction between treaty and contract claims. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 4(1), 175–179.
Park, W. W. (2013). Convention violations and investment claims. Arbitration International, 29(2), 175.
Radicati di Brozolo, L. G., & Malintoppi, L. (2010). Unlawful interference with international arbitration by national courts of the seat in the aftermath of Saipem v. Bangladesh. In Ballesteros & D. Arias (Eds.), Liber Amicorum Bernardo Cremades (pp. 993, 995). Kluwer.
Rajput, A. (2017). Protection of foreign investment in India and investment treaty arbitration (p. 158). Kluwer.
Ranjan, P. (2014). India and bilateral investment treaties—A changing landscape. ICSID Review Foreign Investment Law Jounal, 29(2), 10–12.
Ranjan, P., & Anand, P. (2018). Investor state dispute settlement in the 2016 Indian model bilateral investment treaty: Does it go too far? In J. Chaisse & L. Nottage (Eds.), International investment treaties and arbitration across Asia (p. 582).
Rao, S. (2000). Bilateral investment protection agreements: A legal framework for the protection of foreign investments. Commonwealth Law Bulletin, 26(1), 623–624.
Saravanan, A., & Subramanian, S. R. (2016, September 16). Paradigmatic shifts in Indian bilateral investment treaties. The Indian Economist. Available at https://qrius.com/indian-bilateral-investment-treaties/. Last updated April 29, 2018.
Schill, S. W. (2009). The multilateralization of international investment law (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schreuer, C. (2001). The ICSID convention: A commentary (pp. 351, 1120). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schreuer, C. (2010). Interactions of international tribunals and Domestic Courts in investment law, in contemporary issues. In A. W. Rovine (Ed.), International arbitration and mediation: The Fordham papers (pp. 71, 72–73). MartinusNijhoff.
Sornarajah, M. (2010). The international law on foreign investment (Vol. 18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Den Berg, A. J. (1981). The New York arbitration convention of 1958 (pp. 264–275). Kluwer Law & Taxation.
Van Harten, G. (2007). Investment treaty arbitration and public law (Vol. 5). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Van Harten, G. (2014). Judicial restraint in investment treaty arbitration: Restraint based on relative suitability. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 5, 8.
Voss, J. O. (2011). The impact of investment treaties on contracts between host states and foreign investors (Vol. 1). Martinus Nijhoff.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Saravanan, A., Subramanian, S.R. (2020). Introduction. In: Role of Domestic Courts in the Settlement of Investor-State Disputes. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7010-0_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7010-0_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-7009-4
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-7010-0
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)