If you are not happy with the results below please do another search
News item by Dr Orsolya Toth, Assistant Professor in Commercial Law, University of Nottingham The University of Nottingham Commercial Law Centre will hold its inaugural Nottingham Arbitration Talk on Wednesday 18 March at 2 pm. The Centre is delighted to welcome distinguished speakers to the event drawn from both academia and practice. The Keynote address […]
Following an earlier
A collection of essays titled Investment Arbitration in Central and Eastern Europe, edited by Csongor istván Nagy (University of Szeged, Hungary), has recently been published by Edward Elgar. See
The First Edition of the Milan Investment Arbitration Pre-Moot will take place in Milan on February 14-15, 2020, within the frame of the Frankfurt Investment Arbitration Moot Court (FIAC). For more information, click
Prof. Jean-Marc Thouvenin, Secretary-General of The Hague Academy of International Law, kindly informs us about the Academy’s Centre for studies and research 2020 programme – highly recommended! The Centre for studies and research of The Hague Academy of International Law welcomes applications for its 2020 programme on “Applicable law issues in international arbitration”. International arbitration has […]
Authors: Jie (Jeanne) Huang and Winston Ma Following the promulgation of the judicial interpretation by the Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) on 26 September 2019, Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (“Arrangement”) signed by Mainland […]
Conference on Due Process in International Commercial Arbitration will be held on 18 Oct 2019 at the New York University Lester Pollack Colloquium Room, organised by NYU Centre for Transnational Litigation, Arbitration and Commercial Law. This event will discuss the topics addressed in the national reports drafted on the basis of a questionnaire prepared by Professors […]
Written by Gustavo Becker* During the 26th Willem C. Vis Moot, Dr. Gustavo Moser, counsel at the London Court of International Arbitration and Ph.D. in international commercial law from the University of Basel, coordinated the organization of a seminar regarding choice of law in international contracts and international arbitration. The seminar’s topics revolved around Dr. Moser’s […]
On 7 June 2019, the School of Law at Royal Holloway, University of London and the School of Law at Middlesex University organise a conference on the topic of “Access to Justice and Arbitration”. The conference is hosted at Royal Holloway. The aim of the conference is to initiate a focused debate about access to […]
Prof. Uzelac has published recently an article on the current challenges to investor-state arbitration in Europe. The article comes almost as a birthday present, to celebrate one year after the CJEU published its famous Achmea ruling. The summary of the article reads as follows:
This paper addresses the current challenges to investor-state arbitration in Europe. Two parallel developments are outlined: the current change in the EU policy towards arbitration provisions in multilateral and bilateral investment treaties, and the consequences of the Achmea case decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union in March 2018. The author analyses the critical arguments behind the current European anti-arbitration stance and concludes that while some of them (but not all) may have some foundation, a sufficient number of reasons speak against the radical dismantling of the system of international investment arbitration. An analysis of the proposed alternatives shows that they fail to deliver viable solutions for diagnosed problems. In particular, the replacement of ad hoc tribunals by a multilateral investment court (MIC) seems to be a step in the wrong direction. The ISDS has played an important role in the global fostering of international investment by securing a basically fair system of dispute resolution in a very specific field. Its deficiencies are not beyond repair; on the other hand, the alternatives offered suffer from flaws that are the same or much more troubling. The author concludes that the consequences of the ‘change of tide’ in the approach to investor-state dispute resolution are likely to be detrimental to the very goals of those who advocate the abandoning of investment arbitration.
The article was published in the journal Access to Justice in Eastern Europe (AJEE), and is available in full text here.