THE GEM HIDDEN BEHIND PREDICTABILITY: DISCUSSING EFFICIENCY IN AND OF INVESTMENT ARBITRATION
Sažetak
The paper discusses the status quo regarding efficiency in investment arbitration and suggests how predictability of the arbitral outcome can improve both efficiency in and of investment arbitration. First, the paper will address the cost and duration of investment arbitration. Second, it will look at the provisions of the 2022 ICSID Arbitration and Mediation Rules, as well as UNCITRAL Working Group III Draft Provisions, aimed at increasing efficiency in investment arbitration. Third, it will present efficiency in and of investment arbitration, on the one hand, and predictability, on the other, as intertwined issues. Fourth, it will use the intra-EU jurisdictional objections ratione personae and voluntatis as examples of how the unpredictability of arbitral outcomes reduces the efficiency in and of investment arbitration. Fifth, it will present some of the solutions that could improve efficiency in and of investment arbitration.
Reference
Bibliography
Álvarez Zárate, J. M., et al., 2020, Duration of Investor–State Dispute Settlement Proceedings, Journal of World Investment & Trade, Vol. 21, No. 2–3, pp. 300–335.
Alvarez, E. J., 2021, ISDS Reform: The Long View, ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 253–277.
Bankowski, Z., et al., Rationales for Precedent, in: MacCormick, N., Summers, R., (eds.), 1997, Interpreting Precedents: A Comparative Study, London, Routledge, pp. 481–501.
Bhala, R., 1999, The Myth about Stare Decisis and International Trade Law (Part One of a Trilogy), American University International Law Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 845–956.
Bhala, R., 2001, Power of the Past: Towards De Jure Stare Decisis in WTO Ad- judication (Part Three of a Trilogy), The George Washington International Law Review, Vol. 33, No. 3–4, pp. 873–978.
Bogdandy, A. von, Venzke, I., 2014, In Whose Name?: A Public Law Theory of International Adjudication, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Bottini, G., et al., 2020, Excessive Costs and Recoverability of Costs Awards in Investment Arbitration, Journal of World Investment & Trade, Vol. 21, No. 2–3, pp. 251–299.
Boute, A., 2012, Combating Climate Change Through Investment Arbitration, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 613–664.
Castellarin, E., Investment Arbitration and the International Rule of Law, in: Belov, M., (ed.), 2018, Rule of Law at the Beginning of the Twenty-First Century, The Hague, Eleven International Publishing.
Cheng, T. H., 2006, Precedent and Control in Investment Treaty Arbitration, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 1014–1049.
Crawford, J., 2003, International Law and the Rule of Law, Adelaide Law Review, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 3–12.
Dunoff, L. J., Pollack, A. M., 2017, The Judicial Trilemma, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 111, No. 2, pp. 225–276.
Fanou, M., 2023, Green Power Partners v Spain: Upholding the Intra-EU Objec- tion to Jurisdiction in the ECT Context – A Swerve in the Search for the Line of Two Planes, ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 508–517.
Gould, J., 1973, The Economics of Legal Conflicts, Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 279–300.
Jarrett, M., 2024, ISDS 2.0: time for a doctrine of precedent?, Journal of International Economic Law, Vo. 27, No. 1, pp. 41–53.
Jung, J., 2022, Investor–State Mediation – A Third Lane on the ISDS Highway, ASA Bulletin, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 273–299.
Kaufmann-Kohler, G., 2007, Arbitral Precedent: Dream, Necessity or Excuse? – The 2006 Freshfields Lecture, Arbitration International, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 357–378.
Kaufmann-Kohler, G., 2004, Annulment of ICSID Awards in Contract and Treaty Arbitrations: Are There Differences?, in: Gaillard, E., Banifatemi, Y., (eds.), Annulment of ICSID Awards, New York, Juris Publishing, pp. 189–221.
Loughran, T. J., 1953, Some Reflections on the Role of Judicial Precedent, Fordham Law Review, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 1–19.
Macey, J. R., 1989, The Internal and External Costs and Benefits of Stare Decisis, Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 65, No. 1, pp. 93–113.
Markert, L., 2011, Improving Efficiency in Investment Arbitration, Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 215–246.
Rajković, N., 2024, The Danger of the Interpretation of Facts: Legal Uncertainty in the Spanish Saga Cases, Laws, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 1–16.
Raz, J., 1979, The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
Reed, L., 2010, The De Facto Precedent Regime in Investment Arbitration: A Case for Proactive Case Management, ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 95–103.
Shahabuddeen, M., 1996, Precedent in the World Court, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Stinson, J. M., 2021, Preemptive Dicta: The Problem Created by Judicial Efficiency, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, Vol. 54, No. 2, pp. 587–621.
Weidemaier, C. M. W., 2010, Toward a Theory of Precedent in Arbitration, William & Mary Law Review, Vol. 51, No. 5, pp. 1895–1958.
Zarra, G., 2016, Parallel Proceedings in Investment Arbitration, The Hague, Eleven International Publishing.
Zarra, G., 2018, The issue of Incoherence in Investment Arbitration: Is There Need for a Systemic Reform, Chinese Journal of International Law, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 137–185.
Zugliani, N., 2022, A Role for Precedent in the Determination of the Standard of Review Applicable by Investment Arbitral Tribunals? A Case Study of ECT-based Energy Disputes Against Spain, The Italian Review of International and Comparative Law, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 370–389.
Legislative Sources
ICSID Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (adopted 18 March 1965, entered into force 14 October 1966).
Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, 2016, OJEU C 202/1.
The Canada–European Union (EU) Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (signed 30 October 2016, entered into force provisionally 21 September 2017).
Energy Charter Treaty (signed 17 December 1994, entered into force 16 April 1998).
ICSID Arbitration Rules (entered into force 10 April 2006).
ICSID Arbitration Rules (as amended effective 1 July 2022).
ICSID Mediation Rules (effective as of 1 July 2022).
UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, 2010, (with Art. 1(4) as adopted in 2013, and Art. 1(5) as adopted in 2021).
UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor–State Arbitration (adopted 11 July 2013, came into effect 1 April 2014).
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (adopted 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980).
Case Law
CJEU, case C-284/16, Slovak Republic v. Achmea B.V., Judgment of 6 March 2018, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158.
CJEU, case C-741/19, Republic of Moldova v. Komstroy, Judgment of 2 September 2021, ECLI:EU:C:2021:655.
ICSID, Mathias Kruck and others v. Spain, Case No. ARB/15/23, Decision on Jurisdiction, Liability and Principles of Quantum of 14 September 2022.
ICSID, Renergy S.à.r.l. v. Spain, Case No. ARB/14/18, Award of 6 May 2022.
ICSID, Sevilla Beheer B.V. v. Spain, Case No. ARB/16/27, Decision on Jurisdiction, Liability and the principles of Quantum of 11 February 2022.
ICSID, Mathias Kruck and others v. Spain, Case No. ARB/15/23, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility of 19 April 2021.
ICSID, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg and others v. Spain, Case No. ARB/15/45, Decision on the Respondent’s application for reconsideration of the tribunal’s decisions of 25 February 2019 and 11 November 2021 regarding the “intra-EU” jurisdictional objection of 22 February 2023.
ICSID, Stadtwerke München GmbH, RWE Innogy GmbH, and others v. Spain, Case No. ARB/15/1, Award of 2 December 2019.
ICSID, OperaFund Eco-Invest SICAV PLC and Schwab Holding AG v. Spain, Case No. ARB/15/36, Award of 6 September 2019.
ICSID, Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.à.r.l. and Energia Termosolar B.V. (formerly Antin Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.à.r.l. and Antin Energia Ter- mosolar B V) v. Spain, Case No. ARB/13/31, Award of 15 June 2018.
ICSID, Sempra Energy International v. Argentina, Case No. ARB/02/16, Award of 28 September 2007.
ICSID, TS Villalba GmbH and others v. Spain, Case No. ARB/21/43.
PCA, The PV Investors v. Spain, Case No. 2012–14, Final Award of 28 February 2020.
PCA, The PV Investors v. Spain, Case No. 2012–14, Preliminary Award on Juris- diction of 13 October 2014.
SCC, Charanne B.V. and Construction Investments S.a.r.l. v. Spain, Case No. 062/2012, Final Award of 21 January 2016.
SCC, Isolux Infrastructure Netherlands B.V. v. Spain, Case No. 2013/153, Award of 12 July 2016.
SCC, Green Power Partners K/S and SCE Solar Don Benito APS v. Spain, Case No. 2016/135, Award of 16 June 2022.
SCC, Triodos SICAV II v. Kingdom of Spain, Case No. 2017/194, Final Award of 24 October 2022.
SCC, Alten Renewable Energy Developments BV v. Spain, Case No. 2015/036.
SCC, Solarpark Management GmbH & Co. Atum I KG v. Spain, Case No. 2015/163.
Internet Sources
Argentina, Comentarios de la República Argentina sobre el documento A/CN.9/ WG.III/WP.231,
(https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/comentarios_argentina_wp.231.pdf, 27. 10. 2024).
Clair, A., 2009, ICSID arbitration: How long does it take?, Global Arbitration Review,
(https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/parties_publications/C3765/ Claimant%27s%20Response%20to%20the%20Respondent%27s%20Re- quests%20under%20ICSID%20Arbitration%20Rules%2028%281%29%20and%20 39%281%29/Legal%20Authorities/CL-13.PDF, 06. 09. 2024).
EU, Comments made by the European Union and its Member States on Draft provisions on procedural and cross-cutting issues (A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.231), (https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/ comments_from_the_eu_and_its_ms_wp.231.pdf, 06. 09. 2024).
ECHR Registry, 2024, Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights Right to a fair trial (civil limb) (updated 29 February 2024), (https:// ks.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr-ks/guide_art_6_civil_eng, 27. 10. 2024).
Friedland, P., Mistelis, L., 2015, International Arbitration Survey: Improvements and Innovations in International Arbitration, Queen Mary University of Lon- don, White & Case, (https://www.qmul.ac.uk/arbitration/media/arbitration/ docs/2015_International_Arbitration_Survey.pdf, 06. 09. 2024).
Heiskanen, V., 2015, Key to Efficiency in International Arbitration, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 29 May, (https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2015/05/29/ key-to-efficiency-in-international-arbitration/, 30. 05. 2024).
Hodgson, M., Kryvoi, Y., Hrcka, D., 2021, 2021 Empirical Study: Costs, Damages and Duration in Investor–State Arbitration, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, Allen & Overy, (https://www.biicl.org/projects/empir- ical-study-costs-damages-and-duration-in-investor-state-arbitration?cookies- set=1&ts=1721132409, 06. 09. 2024).
ICSID, 2018a, Proposals for Amendment of the ICSID Rules – Working Paper 1, 2 August, (https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/publications/WP1_ Amendments_Vol_3_WP-updated-9.17.18.pdf, 06. 09. 2024).
ICSID, 2018b, Backgrounder on Proposals for Amendment of the ICSID Rules, (https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/publications/Amendment_Backgrounder.pdf, 06. 09. 2024).
ICSID, 2019a, Compendium of State and Public Comments on WP #1, (https:// icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/amendments/Compendium_Comments_ Rule_Amendment_3.15.19.pdf, 06. 09. 2024).
ICSID, 2019b, Proposals for Amendment of the ICSID Rules – Working Paper 2, (https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/amendments/Vol_1.pdf, 06. 09. 2024).
ICSID, 2024, The ICSID Caseload – Statistics Issue 2024–1, (https://icsid.world- bank.org/sites/default/files/publications/ENG_The_ICSID_Caseload_Statistics_ Issue%202024.pdf, 18. 10. 2024).
IISD, 2019, Commentary: Summary Comments to the Proposals for Amendment of the ICSID Arbitration Rules, (https://www.iisd.org/articles/summa- ry-comments-proposals-amendment-icsid-arbitration-rules#:~:text=The%20 proposed%20amendments%20signal%20an,state%20dispute%20settlement%20 (ISDS), 06. 09. 2024).
Israel’s Comments on Draft Provisions on Procedural and Cross-cutting Issues, (https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/EN/israel_ comments.pdf, 06. 09. 2024).
Commission, J., 2016, The duration and costs of ICSID and UNCITRAL invest- ment arbitration rules, Vannin Capital (https://www.international-arbitration-at- torney.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Duration-and-Costs-of-ICSID-Arbi- tration.pdf, 06. 09. 2024).
Parra, A., 2022, Some Highlights of the Amended ICSID Arbitration Rules, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 26 May, (https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration. com/2022/05/26/some-highlights-of-the-amended-icsid-arbitration-rules/, 06. 09. 2024).
Pernt, V., Stanisavljevic, M., 2018, Efficient Arbitration – Part 1: Metrics, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 16 June, (https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration. com/2018/06/16/efficient-arbitration-part-1-metrics/, 06. 09. 2024).
Singapore’s written comments on Draft Provisions contained in A/CN.9/WG.III/ WP.231, (https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/un- citral/en/comments_from_singapore.pdf, 06. 09. 2024).
UNCITRAL, 2017, Report of Working Group III (Investor–State Dispute Settlement Reform) on the work of its thirty-fourth session (Vienna, 27 November – 1 December 2017) A/CN.9/930/Rev.1, 19 December, (https://documents.un.org/ doc/undoc/gen/v18/029/83/pdf/v1802983.pdf, 06. 09. 2024).
UNCITRAL, 2018a, Report of Working Group III (Investor–State Dispute Settlement Reform) on the work of its thirty-fifth session (New York, 23–27 April 2018) A/CN.9/935, 14 May, (https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/v18/029/59/pdf/ v1802959.pdf, 06. 09. 2024).
UNCITRAL, 2018b, Possible reform of investor–State dispute settlement (ISDS): Consistency and related matters A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.150, 28 August, (https:// documents.un.org/doc/undoc/ltd/v18/056/80/pdf/v1805680.pdf, 20. 10. 2024).
UNCITRAL, 2018c, Possible reform of investor–State dispute settlement (ISDS) – cost and duration A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.153, 31 August, (https://documents.un- .org/doc/undoc/ltd/v18/057/51/pdf/v1805751.pdf, 06. 09. 2024).
UNCITRAL, 2018d, Possible reform of investor–State dispute settlement (ISDS) – Ensuring independence and impartiality on the part of arbitrators and decision makers in ISDS A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.151, 30 August, (https://documents.un.org/ doc/undoc/ltd/v18/057/64/pdf/v1805764.pdf, 17. 10. 2024).
UNCITRAL, 2019, Possible reform of investor–State dispute settlement (ISDS) – Submission from the European Union and its Member States A/CN.9/ WG.III/WP.159/Add.1, 24 January, (https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/ltd/ v19/004/19/pdf/v1900419.pdf, 06. 09. 2024).
UNCITRAL, 2020, Report of Working Group III (Investor–State Dispute Settlement Reform) on the work of its resumed thirty-eighth session A/CN.9/1004/ Add.1, 28 January, (https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/v20/007/33/pdf/ v2000733.pdf, 06. 09. 2024).
UNCITRAL, 2023, Possible reform of investor–State dispute settlement (ISDS) Draft provisions on procedural and cross-cutting issues A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.231, 26 July, (https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/ltd/v23/059/71/pdf/v2305971.pdf, 06. 09. 2024).
UNCITRAL, 2024a, Draft statute of an advisory centre on international investment dispute resolution A/CN.9/1184, 25 April, (https://documents.un.org/doc/ undoc/gen/v24/028/05/pdf/v2402805.pdf, 20. 10. 2024).
UNCITRAL, 2024b, Possible reform of investor–State dispute settlement (ISDS) – Draft statute of a standing mechanism for the resolution of international investment disputes A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.239, 8 February, (https://documents.un.org/ doc/undoc/gen/v24/008/78/pdf/v2400878.pdf, 20. 10. 2024).
UNCTAD, 2013, IIA Issues Note – Reform of Investor–State Dispute Settlement: In search of a Roadmap, 26 June, (http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/web- diaepcb2013d4_en.pdf, 06. 09. 2024).
Viet Nam’s written comments on Draft provisions on procedural and cross-cut- ting issues, (https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/ uncitral/en/writte1.pdf, 06. 09. 2024).