Acknowledgements |
|
xi | |
|
|
xiii | |
|
Table of treaties, conventions, legislations |
|
|
xvii | |
|
|
xix | |
Introduction |
|
1 | (8) |
|
|
1 | (2) |
|
0.2 Central research questions |
|
|
3 | (1) |
|
0.3 Originality and significance of the book |
|
|
4 | (1) |
|
0.4 Structure of the book |
|
|
5 | (4) |
|
|
6 | (3) |
|
Chapter 1 Obstacles In Enforcement Of Icsid Awards |
|
|
9 | (28) |
|
|
9 | (3) |
|
1.2 The enforceability of ICSID awards |
|
|
12 | (3) |
|
1.2.1 Characteristics of ICSID awards |
|
|
12 | (1) |
|
1.2.1.1 Final and binding |
|
|
12 | (1) |
|
1.2.1.2 Additional Facility |
|
|
13 | (1) |
|
|
14 | (1) |
|
1.2.1.4 Post-award remedies |
|
|
14 | (1) |
|
1.3 Enforcement obstacles |
|
|
15 | (17) |
|
1.3.1 Stay of enforcement |
|
|
17 | (2) |
|
|
19 | (2) |
|
1.3.2.1 Jurisdictional immunity |
|
|
21 | (1) |
|
1.3.2.2 Immunity against execution |
|
|
22 | (4) |
|
1.3.2.2.1 LETCO v. Liberia (in the USA) |
|
|
26 | (2) |
|
1.3.2.2.2 AIG Capital Partners, Inc. v. Republic of Kazakhstan (in the UK) |
|
|
28 | (2) |
|
1.3.2.2.3 Sedelmayer v. Russian Federation |
|
|
30 | (2) |
|
|
32 | (5) |
|
|
34 | (3) |
|
Chapter 2 Obstacles In Enforcement Of Non-Icsid Awards |
|
|
37 | (26) |
|
2.1 Introduction: Enforceability of non-ICSID awards (the New York Convention) |
|
|
37 | (2) |
|
2.2 Benefits of the New York Convention |
|
|
39 | (2) |
|
2.3 Drawbacks of the New York Convention |
|
|
41 | (8) |
|
|
43 | (2) |
|
2.3.1.1 International public policy |
|
|
45 | (2) |
|
2.3.1.2 National public policy |
|
|
47 | (2) |
|
2.4 ICSID and non-ICSID awards: Enforceability in different jurisdictions |
|
|
49 | (9) |
|
|
58 | (5) |
|
|
59 | (4) |
|
Chapter 3 Potential Enforcement Obstacles In A Future Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) |
|
|
63 | (20) |
|
|
63 | (1) |
|
3.2 MIC enforcement mechanism |
|
|
64 | (10) |
|
3.2.1 The ICSID Convention |
|
|
66 | (3) |
|
3.2.2 New York Convention |
|
|
69 | (3) |
|
3.2.3 Creation of a new international convention |
|
|
72 | (2) |
|
3.3 Potential risk for enforcement of MIC awards in third states |
|
|
74 | (3) |
|
3.3.1 An alternative approach: Fund system of the MIC |
|
|
75 | (2) |
|
3.4 Evaluating the significance of the MIC in practice |
|
|
77 | (2) |
|
|
79 | (4) |
|
|
80 | (3) |
|
Chapter 4 Practical Remedies To Reduce Execution Issues In The Investment Dispute Settlement System |
|
|
83 | (56) |
|
|
83 | (3) |
|
4.2 The general progress of enforcement of an international arbitral award |
|
|
86 | (6) |
|
4.2.1 The Republic of Turkey |
|
|
87 | (5) |
|
4.3 Previous practical proposals to reduce enforcement issues |
|
|
92 | (39) |
|
4.3.1 Creating a uniform state sovereignty law |
|
|
92 | (2) |
|
4.3.1.1 States' consent to waive immunity from execution in their agreement |
|
|
94 | (3) |
|
4.3.1.2 Enter into force of the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (UNCSI) |
|
|
97 | (4) |
|
4.3.2 Activating the World Bank |
|
|
101 | (7) |
|
4.3.3 Refusal of the next ICSID application of non-compliant states or investors (new proposal) |
|
|
108 | (4) |
|
4.3.4 Proposal to reform ICSID rules |
|
|
112 | (3) |
|
4.3.5 Securing compliance of ICSID awards with countermeasures under the law of state responsibility |
|
|
115 | (11) |
|
4.3.6 Securing compliance of ICSID awards with VCLT Article 60: Termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty as a consequence of its breach |
|
|
126 | (1) |
|
4.3.7 Securing compliance from losing investors |
|
|
127 | (4) |
|
|
131 | (8) |
|
|
133 | (6) |
|
|
139 | (6) |
|
5.1 Answering the central research questions |
|
|
139 | (5) |
|
|
144 | (1) |
Index |
|
145 | |