International arbitration differs from domestic arbitration. As Jan Paulsson puts it, ‘international arbitration is no more a “type” of arbitration than a sea elephant is a type of elephant’.1 Yet as with sea elephants there are different species of international arbitration. This book is about how the lines by which international arbitration’s principal forms – in the contexts of commercial disputes, disputes between a foreign investor and a State, disputes purely between States, and even between the State and its constituent part – grew separately but whose growth joined and overlapped.2 One misconception should perhaps be dispelled at the outset; that the classifications just mentioned depend upon the identity or status of the parties. For States too, and not just private parties, may become involved in an international commercial dispute. Not just with non-State, private actors but also between themselves. The distinction that matters lies instead in the precise legal relationship giving rise to the dispute submitted to arbitration. Less rare is a dispute under a foreign investment contract between a State and a private party which is submitted to arbitration seated in a neutral place or to ‘delocalised’ International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) arbitration. Thus, for the purposes of this Companion, an inter-State arbitration, properly called, is one whose applicable law is public international law. In the case of intra-State arbitration the precise nature of the parties’ legal relationship – whether that is a matter of domestic law, even domestic private law, or public international law – may form a large part of the issue.

The architecture of the world order that was constructed from the ruins of the World War II has preserved a precarious peace, while allowing historically unprecedented economic growth. In his Nobel Peace Prize speech, Barack Obama warned that “[a] decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats.” It is dispiriting to reflect on how prescient Obama’s words, delivered in 2009, were. Even allowing for the fact that at any moment there will be contrary trends toward and away from goals, key pillars of that world order do seem wobbly and in danger of buckling. Consider just two foundational arrangements. First, the prohibition of conquest and acquisition of territory by force continues to be flouted in an increasing number of cases – Crimea, Nagorno Karabakh, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Abyei, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, Western Sahara, South China Sea, Tibet, the list goes on. Second, judgments of the International Court of Justice are effectively ignored, not by States ordinarily thought to be international renegades but also by sister judiciaries with long-standing claims to championing the rule of law: the US Supreme Court and the Italian Constitutional Court.

Arbitration is often called autonomous – either as a description of reality, or as a desirable situation. This is not at all an uncomplicated claim. What do such claims for autonomous arbitration mean? How does it fit with the history of law and state? Does autonomy exist in practice? Is it conceivable or desirable in theory? And if not, how should we understand the idea of autonomous arbitration instead? These are questions that this chapter addresses, on the basis of well-known debates and topics. The result is that autonomy of arbitration does not exist and probably could not exist. What proponents of autonomy really defend is a particular position for international arbitration.

In Chapter 4 of Community Disaster Recovery: Moving from Vulnerability to Resilience, the role that variation in resources plays in disaster recovery are analyzed. Resources are categorized as existing capacity the local government had prior to the flood and in-flow of external resources during and after emergency response. This chapter explores the resources that Colorado communities had available to them before the flood and how the disaster affected their resources afterwards. Specifically, the pre-existing capacity of communities to withstand such events is explored. In the wake of a disaster, a community’s resources, including financial, technical, administrative, and civic capacity, may propel a community towards more resilient recovery or, alternatively, may constrain the actions taken to rebuild and recover from a disaster. This chapter integrates and clarifies how resources and resource mobilization may influence post-disaster policy change and learning at the local level.

An older narrative may be re-asserting itself. The view that international arbitration is an imperfect realisation of international judicial settlement now lingers. Similarly, there is the sense in some quarters that greater judicial supervision is desirable, not just by national courts but also at the international level. Such views may be expressed in various ways.

The second chapter concentrates on the concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems, providing various ways to conceptualize and define it and then moving on to discuss its importance for supporting economic development. Given the growing body of work on entrepreneurial ecosystems, the chapter first outlines how the field of entrepreneurial ecosystems evolved from existing work on clusters and carries much of its assumptions around homogeneity of actors. In contrast to these assumptions, we demonstrate that actors are not homogenous but heterogeneous and that existing concepts of entrepreneurial ecosystems do not differentiate among entrepreneurs as actors within ecosystems. These arguments are further elaborated on with evidence in the chapters that follow.

Comparisons can be theoretical but they become very practical when one has to choose between two or more options. Given the centrality of party autonomy in arbitration, i.e. the centrality of the parties’ choices, given the great discretion tribunals have in making choices when the parties have not done so, and given the need to understand often unfamiliar chosen laws, it is not surprising that comparative law plays a central role in international arbitration. The importance of comparative law to arbitration was emphasised in an article by Professor René David, one of the most famous professors of comparative law, which was published only a year after the signature of the New York Convention (translation in the footnote)

This chapter outlines the importance and role of institutional factors in the analysis of entrepreneurial ecosystems, particularly in relation to gender. We focus explicitly on informal and formal factors—that is, belief systems as well as economic, political, and legal systems—as important considerations in how entrepreneurial ecosystems are organized and replicated. We conclude this chapter by introducing the concept of ‘ecosystem identity’ as a framework that offers a typology of ecosystems and thereby expands how scholarship attending to entrepreneurial ecosystems can conceptualize and categorize different types of ecosystem. Our goal here is to offer suggestions as to how the institutional organization and identity of an ecosystem can offer different mechanisms and drivers of change towards gender inclusion. We point out that ecosystem identity impacts the possibilities for change, and, on this basis, we offer insights as to challenges as well as opportunities for institutional shifts.

This opening chapter to Community Disaster Recovery: Moving from Vulnerability to Resilience introduces readers to the increasing importance of disasters in the context of climate change. The chapter draws upon examples of various disasters to illustrate the topical importance and to motivate the specific analyses to follow. The discussion articulates the necessity of governments at all scales to cope with preparing for extreme events and provides an overview of what governments go through after a disaster. In particular, whether governments learn lessons in the aftermath of disaster can determine how they choose to rebuild. These decisions can lead to greater resilience for communities, but prior studies have rarely found this observed outcome. This chapter ends by motivating the question that structures the rest of the book – what factors lead a community to learn, make changes, and move towards a more resilient state after it is struck by a disaster?

‘There is nothing new under the sun’, said Ecclesiastes; and this is broadly true of inter-State arbitration (ISA), though some recent developments have perhaps thrown certain issues into greater prominence. So I shall here provide a fairly standard account of the factors which lead States to choose or refuse to arbitrate with other States. In the course of doing so, I shall allude to some issues that have recently arisen. I will consider: whether ISA is even available in a given situation; the need for consent; and the many pros and cons of this form of dispute settlement.