Review and enforcement of arbitral awards in international investment law and general public international law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While arbitral proceedings before an investment tribunal are expensive and relatively long, a final award is not always the end of the dispute between the parties. In arbitrations conducted under the auspices of the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) of the World Bank, the parties may only apply to annul the award before a three-member ad hoc committee the members of which are selected by ICSID from the 'Panel of Arbitrators'. In non-ICSID arbitrations, which include arbitrations conducted under the auspices of the ICSID Additional Facility, the unsuccessful party can (and sometimes does) challenge the arbitral award before the courts of the jurisdiction in which the arbitral tribunal was seated. Thus, a number of cases of pivotal legal and political importance regarding the review of arbitral awards have been brought before domestic courts in the USA, Canada, UK, France, the Netherlands, Singapore, and other jurisdictions. To date, little attention has been paid to the influence that investment tribunals had or could have on the decisions rendered by other international courts and tribunals either generally or regarding the issue of review of arbitral awards. The aim of this chapter is to explore the jurisprudence of ICSID ad hoc Committees and domestic courts in relation to the review of arbitral awards and examine why a 'common law' of review of awards has not yet emerged. For doing so, the chapter will examine the law regulating the review of arbitral awards by the ICJ, domestic courts and ICSID ad hoc committees. Finally, the chapter makes the case for greater cross-fertilization between (i) the case law regarding review of arbitral awards and (ii) other regimes of international law.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.047 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".