Kierunki reformy arbitrażu inwestycyjnego w ramach prac Grupy Roboczej III UNCITRAL

Autor

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31261/PPPM.2020.27.09

Słowa kluczowe:

investment arbitration reform, investment arbitration crisis, rule of law, UNCITRAL Working Group III, ICSID

Abstrakt

The goal of the study is to briefly present the work on the reform of investment arbitration under the auspices of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and to indicate the directions in which further discussion on this reform could potentially go. The Commission entrusted to Working Group III to work on the reform of international investment dispute resolution mechanisms. The ongoing debate in this area has met with very little interest in Polish literature. It is surprising since its outcome may have an impact on future investment policy also in Poland. The work is divided into five parts. The first part presents the scope of the work and the research methodology. The second one presents a very concise historical background for the establishment of investment arbitration, taking into account the key features underlying current crisis of this institution. The third part briefly outlines the course of work of UNCITRAL Working Group III. This section provides a background to show how negotiations are progressing, what major obstacles negotiators are facing and what the future direction of the Working Group’s work might be. These issues are discussed in the fourth part of the study. Author’s opinion on anticipated development of further discussion is presented in the closing remarks.

Bibliografia

Arcuri A ., Violi F .: Reforming ISDS: Changing (Almost) Everything, So That Everything Stays the Same?, September 26, 2019, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3459961.

Behn D., L audal B erge T., L angford M.: Poor States or Poor Governance? Explaining Outcomes in Investment Treaty Arbitration. „Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business” 2018, 38.

Bonnitcha J.: Assessing the Impacts of Investment Treaties: Overview of the evidence. International Insttitute for Sustainable Development (IISD) Report, September 2017, https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/assessing-impacts-investment-treaties.pdf.

Brower C h.N., S teven L .A.: Who Then Should Judge? Developing the International Rule of Law under NAFTA. Chapter 11. „Chicago Journal of International Law” 2002, 2.

Carim X.: International Investment Agreements and Africa’s Structural Transformation: A Perspective from South Africa. In: Rethinking Bilateral Investment Treaties: Critical Issues and Policy Choices. Eds. K. Singh, B. Ilge. Amsterdam—New Delphi 2016, https://www.somo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Rethinking-bilateral-investment-treaties.pdf.

Cosmos J.: Legitimacy Crisis in Investor — State International Arbitration System: A Critique on the Suggested Solutions & the Proposal on the Way Forward. „International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications” 2014, 4.

Czech K.: Dowody i postępowanie dowodowe w międzynarodowym arbitrażu handlowym oraz inwestycyjnym. Zagadnienia wybrane. Warszawa 2017.

De Luca A.: UNCITRAL Working Group III: Counterclaims in ISDS — Challenges and Prospects in Light of the UNCITRAL Reform Process, March 28, 2020, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2020/03/28/uncitral-working-group-iii-counterclaims-in-isds-challenges-and-prospects-in-light-of-the-uncitral-reform-process/?doing_wp_cron=1592665294.8821029663085937500000.

Diamond N.J., Duggal K.A.N.: ISDS Reform and Advancing All „Generations” of Human Rights, June 17, 2020, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2020/06/17/isds-reform-and-advancingall-generations-of-human-rights/?doing_wp_cron=1592658056.1291019916534423828125.

Dias Simões F.: UNCITRAL Working Group III: Would an Investment Court De-politicize ISDS?, March 25, 2020, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2020/03/25/uncitral-working-groupiii-would-an-investment-court-de-politicize-isds/?doing_wp_cron=1592664439.3457798957824707031250.

Djajić S.: Searching for purpose: Critical assessment of teleological interpretation of treaties in investment arbitration, International Review of Law, Issue 3 — Special issue of International Investment Treaties, 2016, https://journals.qu.edu.qa/index.php/IRL/article/view/1217/658.

Giorgetti Ch.: ICSID and UNCITRAL Publish the Anticipated Draft of the Code of Conduct for Adjudicators in Investor-State Dispute Settlement, May 2, 2020, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2020/05/02/icsid-and-uncitral-publish-the-anticipated-draft-of-the-code-of-conduct-for-adjudicators-in-investor-state-dispute-settlement/?doing_wp_cron=1592684708.7732639312744140625000.

Jeżewski M.: Międzynarodowe prawo inwestycyjne. Warszawa 2019.

Kałduński M.: Ochrona uzasadnionych oczekiwań w międzynarodowym prawie inwestycyjnym. Toruń 2019.

Kułaga Ł.: Międzynarodowa ochrona środowiska a swoboda handlu. W: Swoboda handlu międzynarodowego w prawie międzynarodowym. Red. C. Mik, M. Jeżewski. Warszawa 2014.

Kułaga Ł.: Międzynarodowy arbitraż inwestycyjny z perspektywy zasady rządów prawa. W: Arbitraż w prawie międzynarodowym. Red. C. Mik. Warszawa, C.H. Beck, 2014.

Kułaga Ł.: Ochrona praw człowieka w międzynarodowym arbitrażu inwestycyjnym. „Forum Prawnicze” 2014, nr 1.

Kułaga Ł.: Prawo państwa do regulacji a międzynarodowe prawo inwestycyjne: w kierunku zmiany paradygmatu. „Problemy Współczesnego Prawa Międzynarodowego, Europejskiego i Porównawczego” 2019, T. 17.

Kułaga Ł.: W kierunku zmiany paradygmatu międzynarodowych porozumień inwestycyjnych. „Forum Prawnicze” 2016, nr 5.

Langford M ., Behn D., Létourneau-T remblay L .: Empirical perspectives on investment arbitration: What do we know? Does it matter? ISDS Academic Forum Working Group 7 Paper, https://www.cids.ch/images/Documents/Academic-Forum/7_Empirical_perspectives_-_WG7.pdf.

Langford M ., Behn D., Lie R .: The Revolving Door in International Investment Arbitration. „Journal of International Economic Law” 2017, 20, https://academic.oup.com/jiel/article/20/2/301/3859188.

Menon T., Issac G.: Developing Country Opposition to an Investment Court: Could State-State Dispute Settlement be an Alternative? Kluwer Arbitration Blog, http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2018/02/17/developing-country-opposition-investment-court-state-state-dispute-settlement-alternative/.

Mohamadieh K.: The Future of Investor-State Dispute Settlement Deliberated at UNCITRAL: Unveiling a Dichotomy between Reforming and Consolidating the Current Regime, „Investment Policy Brief” 2019, 16, https://www.southcentre.int/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/IPB16_The-Future-of-ISDS-Deliberated-at-UNCITRAL_EN.pdf.

Monebhurrun N.: Is investment arbitration an appropriate venue for environmental issues? A Latin American perspective, Revista De Direito Inernacional. „Brazilian Journal of International Law” 2013, 10.

Nica A.: UNCITRAL Working Group III: One Step Closer to a Multilateral Investment Court?, March 24, 2020, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2020/03/24/uncitral-working-group-iii-onestep-closer-to-a-multilateral-investment-court/?doing_wp_cron=1592656079.5285549163818359375000.

Puig S., Shaffer G.: Imperfect Alternatives: Institutional Choice and the Reform of Investment Law. „The American Journal of International Law” 2018, 112.

Pyka M.: Pojęcie inwestycji w międzynarodowym arbitrażu inwestycyjnym. Warszawa 2018.

Roberts A.: Incremental, Systematic, ad Paradigmatic Reform of Investor-State Arbitration. „American Journal of International Law” 2018, 112.

Roberts A.: The Shifting Landscape of Investor-State Arbitration: Loyalists, Reformists, Revolutionaries and Undecideds. „International Economic Law and Policy Blog”, 15 June 2017, https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-shifting-landscape-of-investor-state-arbitration-loyalists-reformists-revolutionaries-andundecideds/.

Roberts A ., John T .S.: UNCITRAL and ISDS Reform: Plausible Folk Theories, February 13, 2020, https://www.ejiltalk.org/uncitral-and-isds-reform--plausible-folk-theories/.

Roberts A ., John T.S.: UNCITRAL and ISDS Reforms: What Makes Something Fly?, February 11, 2020, https://www.ejiltalk.org/uncitral-and-isdsreforms-what-makes-something-fly/.

Rönnelid L.: Research Report: An Evaluation of the Proposed Multilateral Investment Court System, An independent report commissioned by the European United Left/Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL) in the European Parliament 2018, https://www.guengl.eu/content/uploads/2019/03/MIC_vRET_web_FINAL2.pdf.

Sadowski W.: Protection of the Rule of Law in the European Union Through Investment Treaty Arbitration: Is Judicial Monopolism the Right Response to Illiberal Tendencies in Europe? „Common Market Law Review” 2018, 55.

Schultz T ., Dupont C .: Investment Arbitration: Promoting the Rule of Law Or Over-Empovering Investors? A Quantitative Empirical Study. „The European Journal of International Law” 2015, vol. 25, no. 4, http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/25/4/2551.pdf.

T iti C.: Who’s Afraid of Reform? Beware the Risk of Fragmentation. „American Journal of International Law Unbound” 2018, 112, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-journal-of-international-law/article/whos-afraidof-reform-beware-the-risk-of-fragmentation/5918DD3553CE666F2B817823C2063339.

Van Harten G.: Five Justifications for Investment Treaties: A Critical Discussion. „Trade, Law and Development” 2010, 2.

Van Harten G.: Investment Treaty Arbitration and Public Law. Oxford University Press 2007.

Van Harten G.: Investment Treaty Arbitration. Procedural Fairness, and the Rule of Law. In: Investment Law and Comparative Public Law. Ed. S.W. S chill. O xford 2010.

Van Harten G., Kelsey J., Schneiderman D.: Phase 2 of the UNCITRAL ISDS Review: Why ‘Other Matters’ Really Matter (2019). All Papers 328, https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article-=1335&context=all_papers.

Van Harten G., Malysheuski P.: Who Has Benefited Financially from Investment Treaty Arbitration? An Evaluation of the Size and Wealth of Claimants, January 11, 2016. „Osgoode Legal Studies Research Paper” 2016, no. 14, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2713876 lub http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2713876.

Van Harten G., Porterf ield M .C., Gallagher K .P.: Investment Provisions in Trade and Investment Treaties: The Need for Reform, A Global Economic Governance Initiative Policy Brief, https://www.bu.edu/pardeeschool/files/2014/12/Investor-State-Disputes-Policy-Brief.pdf.

Zarra G.: The Issue of Incoherence in Investment Arbitration: Is There Need for a Systemic Reform? „Chinese Journal of International Law” 2018, 17.

Dokumenty UNCITRAL

Possible reform of inwestor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) Note by the Secretariat A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.142, https://undocs.org/en/A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.142.

Possible reform of Investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) Note by the Secretariat A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.149, https://undocs.org/en/A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.149.

Possible reform of Investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) Note by the Secretariat A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.166, https://undocs.org/en/A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.166.

Possible reform of Investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) Note by the Secretariat A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.194, https://undocs.org/en/A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.194.

Report of Working Group III (Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform) on the work of its thirty-sixth session (Vienna, 29 October—2 November 2018) A/CN.9/964, https://undocs.org/A/CN.9/964.

Report of Working Group III (Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform) on the work of its thirty-seventh session (New York, 1—5 April 2019) A/CN.9/970, https://undocs.org/A/CN.9/970.

Report of Working Group III (Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform) on the work of its thirty-eighth session (Vienna, 14—18 October 2019) A/CN. 9/1004, https://undocs.org/en/A/CN.9/1004.

Report of Working Group III (Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform) on the work of its resumed thirty-eight session (Vienna, 20—24 January 2020) A/CN.9/1004/Add.1, https://undocs.org/en/A/CN.9/1004/Add.1.

Pobrania

Opublikowane

2020-12-29

Jak cytować

Zrałek, J. (2020). Kierunki reformy arbitrażu inwestycyjnego w ramach prac Grupy Roboczej III UNCITRAL. Problemy Prawa Prywatnego Międzynarodowego, 27, 253–281. https://doi.org/10.31261/PPPM.2020.27.09