Ad hoc or ad arbitrium? An Audit of Recent ICSID Annulment Decisions

Lucy F. Reed · Giorgio Francesco Mandelli

23 citations0/0 files storedBrill | Nijhoff eBooks

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

International Arbitration and Investment Law Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction World Trade Organization Law

Abstract

The role of an ad hoc committee is to ensure the stability of the ICSID arbitration system, not to overthrow awards because of its disagreement with the arbitral tribunal. Otherwise, the annulment mechanism of Article 52 would slide into an appeal. The limited purpose of this chapter is to survey the ICSID annulment decisions between mid-2010 and mid-2011 and, more particularly, to audit whether the troubling drift of the decisions noted by one of the authors at the October 2010 IBA Vancouver meeting is continuing. In chronological order, those seven decisions were issued in the following ICSID cases: Helnan v. Egypt ; Sempra v. Argentina ; Enron v. Argentina ; Vivendi v. Argentina (Vivendi II) ; Vieira v. Chile ; Fraport v. Philippines ; and Duke v. Peru . Keywords: ad hoc ; Enron; Helnan; ICSID arbitration system; Sempra; Vivendi

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.