- D. Vagts, The Backlash against Investment Arbitration: Perceptions and Reality
- R. Thorn & J. Doucleff, Disregarding the Corporate Veil and Denial of Benefits Clauses: Testing Treaty Language and the Concept of “ Investor”
- S. Schill, Private Enforcement of International Investment Law: Why We Need Investor Standing in BIT Dispute Settlement
- A. Turyn & F. Perez Aznar, Drawing the Limits of Free Transfer Provisions
- S. Jagusch & J. Sullivan, A Comparison of ICSID and UNCITRAL Arbitration. Areas of Divergence and Concern
- A. Reinisch, The Issues Raised by Parallel Proceedings and Possible Solutions
- R. Kreindler, Parallel Proceedings: A Practitioner’s Perspective
- C. Knahr, Annulment and its Role in the Context of Conflicting Awards
- K. Khamsi, Compensation for Non-expropriatory Investment Treaty Breaches in the Argentine Gas Sector Cases: Issues and Implications
- W. Park, Arbitrator Integrity
- N. Blackaby & C. Richards, Amicus Curiae: A Panacea for Legitimacy in Investment Arbitration?
- A. Kawahru, Participation of Non-governmental Organizations in Investment Arbitration as Amici Curiae
- G. Bottini, Legality of Investments under ICSID Jurisprudence
- A. Martinez, Invoking State Defenses in Investment Treaty Arbitration
- L. Wells, Backlash to Investment Arbitration: Three Causes
- B. Simmons, A.T. Guzman, & Z. Elkins, Denunciation of the ICSID Convention and Consent to Arbitration
- C. Schreuer, Competing for Capital: The Diffusion of Bilateral Investment Treaties, 1960-2000
- W. Burke-White, The Argentine Financial Crisis: State Liability under BITs and the Legitimacy of the ICSID System
- G. Van Harten, Perceived Bias in Investment Treaty Arbitration?
- M. Burgstaller, European Law Challenges to Investment Arbitration
- L.E. Peterson, Out of Order
- T.R. Braun, Globalization: The Driving Force in International Investment Law
- I.M. Penusliski, A Dispute Systems Design Diagnosis of ICSID
- A. van Aaken, The International Investment Protection Regime through the Lens of Economic Theory
- T. Nelson, History Ain’t Changed’: Why Investor-State Arbitration Will Survive the ‘New Revolution’
- M. Toral & T. Schultz, The State, a Perpetual Respondent in Investment Arbitration? Some Unorthodox Considerations
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Waibel, Kaushal, Chung, & Balchin: The Backlash Against Investment Arbitration
Michael Waibel, Asha Kaushal, Kyo-Hwa Chung, & Claire Balchin have published The Backlash Against Investment Arbitration (Kluwer Law International 2010). Contents include: