Keywords
interpretative declarations
subsequent agreements
interpretation of treaties
investment arbitration
International Law Commission
How to Cite
Number of views: 544
Number of downloads: 517
Abstract
International investment law has been subject to significant criticism for at least a decade, due to the methodology applied in the jurisprudence of arbitration tribunals. As a result, both States and international organizations are seeking measures to limit the judicial activism of these tribunals. The most commonly used mechanisms in this respect include renegotiating existing investment treaties, concluding new agreements and terminating treaties. These mechanisms, which are generally the most desirable and guarantee the greatest certainty in terms of rights and obligations, also have significant shortcomings, above all related to the time required to achieve the desired result. This article postulates that interpretative declarations may be the most optimal solution for limiting judicial activism in international investment law. Although they do not provide the same legal certainty as a new treaty, it is the relative ease of with which these declarations are accepted that allows for a quicker legal effect, in terms of understanding the treaty in accordance with the intention of its parties.References
Alvarez, J.E., Brink, T. (2010). Revisiting the necessity defense: Continental Casualty v. Argentina. Institute for International Law and Justice Working Paper, no. 3.
Aust, A. (2013). Modern Treaty Law and Practice. Cambridge.
Balcerzak, M. (2008). Zagadnienie precedensu w międzynarodowym prawie praw człowieka. Toruń.
Burek, W. (2012). Zastrzeżenia do traktatów z dziedziny ochrony praw człowieka. Warszawa.
Cameron, I. (2006). Treaties, declarations of interpretation, [w:] Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. [Online: https://opil.ouplaw.com/home/MPIL].
Cheng, T.-H. (2009). Precedent and control in investment treaty arbitration, [w:] A. Bjorklund, I. Laird, S. Ripinsky (eds.), Investment Treaty Law: Current Issues III, London: 147–180.
Cho, S., Kurtz, J. (2018). Convergence and divergence in international economic law and politics. European Journal of International Law 29(1): 169–203.
Crawford, J. (2013). Subsequent agreements and practice from a consensualist perspective, [w:] G. Nolte (ed.), Treaties and Subsequent Practice. Oxford: 29–33.
Dorr, O., Schmalenbach, K. (2012). Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary. Berlin–Heidelberg.
Ehrlich, L. (1957). Interpretacja traktatów. Warszawa.
Ewing-Chow. M., Losari, J.J. (2015). Which is to be the master? Extra-arbitral interpretative procedures for IIAs, [w:] J.E. Kalicki, A. Joubin-Bret (eds.), Reshaping the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System. Leiden–Boston: 91–114.
Fauchald, O.K. (2008). The legal reasoning of ICSID tribunals – an empirical analysis. European Journal of International Law 19(2): 301–364.
Ganesh, A. (2017). Cooling off period (investment arbitration). Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law Working Paper Series.
Gardiner, R. (2015). Treaty Interpretation. Oxford.
Gaukrodger, D. (2016). The legal framework applicable to joint interpretive agreements of investment treaties. OECD Working Papers on International Investment no. 1.
Gordon, K., Pohl, J. (2015). Investment treaties over time – treaty practice and interpretation in a changing world. OECD Working Papers on International Investment no. 2.
Ishikawa, T. (2014). Keeping interpretation in investment treaty arbitration ‘on track’: the role of states parties. Transnational Dispute Management 11(1): 1–33.
Jennings, R.Y., Watts, A. (1992). Oppenheim’s International Law. Oxford.
Kałduński, M. (2014). Klauzula największego uprzywilejowania, [w:] J. Symonides, D. Pyć (red.), Wielka encyklopedia prawa. Tom 4: Prawo międzynarodowe publiczne. Warszawa: 153–154.
Kaufmann-Kohler, G. (2007). Arbitral precedent: dream, necessity or excuse? Arbitration International 23(3): 257–378.
Kill, T. (2008). Don’t cross the streams: past and present overstatement of customary international law in connection with conventional fair and equitable treatment obligations. Michigan Law Review 106(5): 854–880.
Kozłowski, A. (2002). Interpretacja traktatu międzynarodowego w świetle jego kontekstu. Warszawa.
Krzan, B. (2009). Praktyczne znaczenie zakazu składania zastrzeżeń (uwagi na tle deklaracji interpretacyjnych do Statutu Rzymskiego), [w:] Z. Galicki, T. Kamiński, K. Myszona-Kostrzewa (red.), 40 lat minęło – Praktyka i perspektywy Konwencji wiedeńskiej o prawie traktatów. Warszawa: 321–331.
Krzan, B. (2015). Sądowe stosowanie prawa międzynarodowego w świetle roli państw w administrowaniu „sprawiedliwością międzynarodową” – system czy chaos? [w:] R. Kwiecień (red.), Państwo a prawo międzynarodowe jako system prawa. Lublin: 205–318.
Kułaga, Ł. (2014). Międzynarodowy arbitraż inwestycyjny z perspektywy zasady rządów prawa, [w:] C. Mik (red.), Arbitraż w prawie międzynarodowym. Warszawa: 202–220.
Kułaga, Ł. (2016a). Minimalny standard traktowania a traktowanie sprawiedliwe i słuszne w międzynarodowym prawie inwestycyjnym. Warszawa.
Kułaga, Ł. (2016b). W kierunku zmiany paradygmatu międzynarodowych porozumień inwestycyjnych. Forum Prawnicze 5(37): 31–46.
Kułaga, Ł. (2018). Udział Polski w transformacji międzynarodowego prawa inwestycyjnego. Aspekty prawnomiędzynarodowe i konstytucyjne. Przegląd Sejmowy 3(146): 107–111.
Linderfalk, U. (2007). On the Interpretation of Treaties – The Modern International Law as Expressed in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Springer.
Methymaki, E., Tzanakopoulos, A. (2017). Masters of puppets? Reassertion of control through joint investment treaty interpretation, [w:] A. Kulick (ed.), Reassertion of Control over the Investment Treaty Regime. Cambridge: 155–180.
Morawski, L. (2005). Główne problemy współczesnej filozofii prawa. Warszawa.
Nolte, G. (2013). Reports for the ILC Study Group on Treaties over Time. Report 2: Jurisprudence under special regimes relating to subsequent agreements and subsequent practice, [w:] G. Nolte (ed.), Treaties and Subsequent Practice. Oxford: 169–209.
Reinisch, A. (2009). Future of investment arbitration, [w:] C. Binder, U. Kriebaum, A. Reinisch, S. Wittich (eds.), International Investment Law for the 21st Century – Essays in Honour of Christoph Schreuer. Oxford: 894–916.
Roberts, A. (2010). Power and persuasion in investment treaty interpretation: the dual role of states. American Journal of International Law 104: 179–225.
Schill, S.W. (2010). International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law – An Introduction, [w:] S.W. Schill (ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law. Oxford: 3–38.
Schneiderman, D. (2008). Constitutionalizing Economic Globalization. Cambridge.
Schreuer, C. (2010). Diversity and harmonization of treaty interpretation in investment arbitration, [w:] M. Fitzmaurice, O. Elias, P. Merkouris (eds.), Treaty Interpretation and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: 30 Years on. Leiden: 129–152.
Schreuer, C., Weiniger, M. (2008). A doctrine of precedence? [w:] P. Muchlinski, F. Ortino, C. Schreuer (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law. Oxford: 1188–1206.
Sinclair, I. (1984). The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Manchester.
Supera, Ł. (2013). Ochrona uzasadnionych oczekiwań a wsteczne działanie wykładni orzeczniczej w prawie cywilnym. Warszawa.
Świątkowski, M. (2009). Naruszenie przez państwo umowy z inwestorem zagranicznym w świetle traktatów inwestycyjnych. Warszawa.
Villiger, M.E. (2009). Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Leiden.
Weeramantry, R. (2012). Treaty Interpretation in Investment Arbitration. Oxford.
Wyrozumska, A. (2006). Umowy międzynarodowe – teoria i praktyka. Warszawa.
Wyrozumska, A. (2014). Prawotwórcza działalność sądów międzynarodowych i jej granice, [w:] A. Wyrozumska (red.), Granice swobody orzekania sądów międzynarodowych. Łódź: 3–82.
License
Copyright (c) 2019 WPiA UAM
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.