FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2336431160> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2336431160 endingPage "576" @default.
• W2336431160 startingPage "541" @default.
• W2336431160 abstract "In BG Group v. Republic of Argentina, a divided U.S. Supreme Court determined earlier this year and for the first time the standard of review of an investment treaty award. Specifically, the Court held that because the requirement in the U.K-Argentina BIT that the investor first litigate its dispute in national courts was merely a procedural prerequisite to investor-state arbitration — rather than a substantive condition of consent to the treaty itself — U.S. courts could not review de novo the jurisdictional basis of the resulting arbitral award but instead had to accord the award substantial deference. While the result may be correct, the reasoning is not. In reaching its decision, the Court simply applied its domestic Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) caselaw, which provides that the authorized decision maker of issues in otherwise arbitrable disputes depend on whether the issues are questions of procedural arbitrability, or gateway questions of substantive arbitrability: The former are presumptively for arbitrators to resolve, while the latter are presumptively for courts to decide. The issue in dispute in BG Group was whether in reviewing the arbitral award, the court must defer to the arbitral tribunal, which had assumed jurisdiction after concluding that arbitration was not barred even though the investor had not met the litigation requirement as Argentina had unilaterally prevented access to its judiciary. Writing for the majority, Justice Breyer concluded that the local litigation requirement only determined when arbitration would begin, and was not a precondition to the existence of the arbitral agreement. Accordingly, it was a procedural question of arbitrability presumptively reserved for arbitrators, and their decision on the matter was to be given deference and could not be reviewed de novo by courts. In deciding thus, the Court treated the investment treaty award no differently from a domestic award subject to the FAA, ignoring the particular and international dimensions of investor-state arbitration. Instead of relying solely on the FAA to determine the standard of review, the Court should also have looked to international law, including the Vienna Convention, in interpreting the investment treaty. To the extent one justifies the exclusive application of the lex arbitri by reference to the disputing parties' choice of the seat of arbitration, that justification is undermined by the triangular nature of investment treaty arbitration: The disputing parties here are the investor and the host state, whereas the parties to the investment treaty itself -- the controlling agreement -- are the home and host state. The lex arbitri is but the national law of a third and otherwise unconnected state that was not chosen by both state parties to the treaty. Further, to permit the lex arbitri exclusively to determine the standard of review of any investment treaty arbitral award would lead to the unsettling result that an award issued under any single investment treaty is potentially subject to as many different standards of review as there are jurisdictions, depending solely on which seat of arbitration the investor and host state happen to agree upon. Surely the state parties must have intended any and all awards issued under the same investment treaty to be reviewable or binding to the same degree. In short, the Court here should have viewed the arbitration agreement between BG Group and Argentina through the prism of the U.K.-Argentina BIT and its provisions on investor-state dispute settlement, and interpreted the BIT under international law in reviewing the BG Group award, instead of relying exclusively on FAA caselaw in doing so. Under such an approach, the resulting interpretation will be shaped by very different factors than one informed solely by the lex arbitri, and could lead to a different outcome in any particular case." @default.
• W2336431160 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2336431160 creator A5078023253 @default.
• W2336431160 date "2016-01-01" @default.
• W2336431160 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2336431160 title "BG Group v. Republic of Argentina: A Supreme Misunderstanding of Investment Treaty Arbitration" @default.
• W2336431160 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W2336431160 type Work @default.
• W2336431160 sameAs 2336431160 @default.
• W2336431160 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2336431160 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2336431160 hasAuthorship W2336431160A5078023253 @default.
• W2336431160 hasConcept C160151201 @default.
• W2336431160 hasConcept C160786031 @default.
• W2336431160 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2336431160 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2336431160 hasConcept C2776607877 @default.
• W2336431160 hasConcept C2776949292 @default.
• W2336431160 hasConcept C2777246536 @default.
• W2336431160 hasConcept C2777366047 @default.
• W2336431160 hasConcept C2777438998 @default.
• W2336431160 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W2336431160 hasConcept C2779010840 @default.
• W2336431160 hasConcept C2780597233 @default.
• W2336431160 hasConcept C2781442640 @default.
• W2336431160 hasConcept C2992823438 @default.
• W2336431160 hasConcept C33842695 @default.
• W2336431160 hasConceptScore W2336431160C160151201 @default.
• W2336431160 hasConceptScore W2336431160C160786031 @default.
• W2336431160 hasConceptScore W2336431160C17744445 @default.
• W2336431160 hasConceptScore W2336431160C199539241 @default.
• W2336431160 hasConceptScore W2336431160C2776607877 @default.
• W2336431160 hasConceptScore W2336431160C2776949292 @default.
• W2336431160 hasConceptScore W2336431160C2777246536 @default.
• W2336431160 hasConceptScore W2336431160C2777366047 @default.
• W2336431160 hasConceptScore W2336431160C2777438998 @default.
• W2336431160 hasConceptScore W2336431160C2778272461 @default.
• W2336431160 hasConceptScore W2336431160C2779010840 @default.
• W2336431160 hasConceptScore W2336431160C2780597233 @default.
• W2336431160 hasConceptScore W2336431160C2781442640 @default.
• W2336431160 hasConceptScore W2336431160C2992823438 @default.
• W2336431160 hasConceptScore W2336431160C33842695 @default.
• W2336431160 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W2336431160 hasLocation W23364311601 @default.
• W2336431160 hasOpenAccess W2336431160 @default.
• W2336431160 hasPrimaryLocation W23364311601 @default.
• W2336431160 hasRelatedWork W1480294510 @default.
• W2336431160 hasRelatedWork W1488435642 @default.
• W2336431160 hasRelatedWork W1735778247 @default.
• W2336431160 hasRelatedWork W1858426122 @default.
• W2336431160 hasRelatedWork W1997138487 @default.
• W2336431160 hasRelatedWork W21319922 @default.
• W2336431160 hasRelatedWork W2133648986 @default.
• W2336431160 hasRelatedWork W2269214097 @default.
• W2336431160 hasRelatedWork W2280331748 @default.
• W2336431160 hasRelatedWork W2289171468 @default.
• W2336431160 hasRelatedWork W2292558267 @default.
• W2336431160 hasRelatedWork W2299249608 @default.
• W2336431160 hasRelatedWork W2359607961 @default.
• W2336431160 hasRelatedWork W257049378 @default.
• W2336431160 hasRelatedWork W273617440 @default.
• W2336431160 hasRelatedWork W300151214 @default.
• W2336431160 hasRelatedWork W3192872192 @default.
• W2336431160 hasRelatedWork W3199029718 @default.
• W2336431160 hasRelatedWork W45921306 @default.
• W2336431160 hasRelatedWork W74115522 @default.
• W2336431160 hasVolume "43" @default.
• W2336431160 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2336431160 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2336431160 magId "2336431160" @default.
• W2336431160 workType "article" @default.