Double compensation is abuse of process in investment arbitration
Best insight from top research papers
Double compensation in investment arbitration can be considered as an abuse of process . The concept of abuse of process has been analyzed in the context of investment arbitration, and it has been identified as a multifaceted concept with various implications . The abuse of process doctrine is seen as a necessary mechanism to address the problems arising from multiple proceedings in investment arbitration . The issue of double compensation can be seen as a form of abuse of process, as it involves the pursuit of the same claim before different investment tribunals . Therefore, the abuse of process doctrine can be utilized to combat exploitative multiple proceedings and address the problem of double compensation in investment arbitration .
Answers from top 4 papers
More filters
| Papers (4) | Insight |
|---|---|
| The paper does not specifically address the issue of double compensation in investment arbitration. The paper discusses the abuse of process in relation to parallel arbitrations and overlapping claims. | |
| The paper does not specifically mention "double compensation" as abuse of process in investment arbitration. The paper discusses the abuse of process doctrine as a necessary remedy for multiple proceedings in investment arbitration. | |
23 Citations | The paper does not specifically mention "double compensation" as abuse of process in investment arbitration. |
| The paper does not explicitly state whether double compensation is considered an abuse of process in investment arbitration. |
Related Questions
Double hatting in internation arbitration5 answersDouble hatting in international arbitration refers to the practice where an individual serves as both an arbitrator in one case and as legal counsel in another. This practice has raised concerns regarding conflicts of interest, transparency, and the overall impartiality of the arbitration system. While some argue that double hatting is widespread and potentially problematic, others highlight the need to diversify the pool of arbitrators to avoid a concentration of power among a select few. Empirical studies have shown that double hatting is prevalent in international investment arbitration, with implications for power dynamics and ethical considerations. To address these concerns, suggestions include implementing legislative restrictions and law society rules to ensure arbitral impartiality and institutional integrity.
What are the implications of unilateral sanctions on investment arbitration and the rights of affected parties?5 answersUnilateral economic sanctions have significant implications on investment arbitration and the rights of affected parties. These sanctions, criticized for their failures and detrimental impacts on various sectors, have become a major tool in economic warfare during times of political tensions. In the realm of international investment law, such sanctions pose challenges during armed conflicts, affecting the protection of foreign investors and their investments. However, companies targeted by unilateral sanctions may find recourse through investor-State arbitration under Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs), invoking standards like expropriation prohibition and fair treatment. Respondent States faced with such claims often raise defenses based on countermeasures or essential security interests, but these may not absolve them of international responsibility.
Is transparency in investment arbitration a solved issue?5 answersTransparency in investment arbitration is a complex and evolving issue that is not yet fully resolved. While some argue that the existing transparency gap between investment treaty arbitration and international commercial arbitration should be maintained, others advocate for increased transparency to address concerns about legitimacy and public interest. The UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-Based Investor-State Arbitration have been a significant development in promoting transparency in investment law. However, there are still challenges in balancing transparency with the need for confidentiality and protecting sensitive business information. The involvement of non-disputing parties and the impact on criminal proceedings against foreign investors are additional considerations. The recent adoption of the Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration reflects the ongoing efforts to ensure transparency and public accessibility in investor-state arbitration. Overall, while progress has been made, transparency in investment arbitration remains an ongoing and complex issue that requires further examination and refinement.
What is The Double Diamond?5 answersThe Double Diamond is a methodology used in design projects, particularly in healthcare, to guide the process from discovery to delivery of innovations. It involves four phases: Discover, Define, Develop, and Deliver. The Discover phase focuses on understanding the problem and gathering insights, while the Define phase involves synthesizing the information and defining the design challenge. In the Develop phase, ideas are generated and prototyped, and in the Deliver phase, the final design is implemented and adopted. The Double Diamond methodology emphasizes the importance of involving stakeholders, identifying funding sources, and considering implementation strategies early in the design process to improve the adoption of innovations.
How to regulate reflective loss claims in international investment arbitrations?4 answers国际投资仲裁中对反射性损失索赔的监管可以通过各种改革方案来解决。一种方法是在双边投资条约（BIT）中加入明确的澄清性条约措辞，以排除股东反思性损失索赔。另一种选择是实施基于条约的衍生品索赔机制，这些机制已被纳入一些国际投资协议 (IIA)。但是，有关这些机制的仲裁惯例并不一致，这表明需要在国际投资协定中使用明确的措辞才能使这些条款生效。此外，有人建议，通过公司章程和章程中的有针对性的条款，放弃股东在投资仲裁中提出反射性损失索赔的权利，可以在个体公司层面解决反射性损失索赔问题。这些措施旨在减少公司治理的中断，降低诉讼的社会成本，同时仍然允许股东在有限的情况下根据国际投资法提出反射性损失索赔。
How does fraud affect international arbitration?5 answersFraud can have significant implications for international arbitration. There is a strong policy internationally that a party who obtains an award through fraud should not be allowed to keep that award. However, there is also a policy favoring finality in arbitration, which means that post-award complaints are often shut out. Allegations of criminal conduct, including fraud, in international arbitration proceedings have become more frequent, highlighting the need to consider how such claims can be proven. The issue of corruption in international arbitration poses special difficulties, including questions of jurisdiction, admissibility, and standards of proof. The rules of evidence with respect to corruption allegations in international arbitration are controversial, with divergent approaches taken by arbitrators. It is important for international arbitrators to achieve a common understanding and consistent approach to the adjudication of corruption allegations, while maintaining a balance between parties' commercial interests and the integrity of the truth-seeking process.