Skip to main content
×
×
Home

What's Human Rights Got To Do With It? An Empirical Analysis of Human Rights References in Investment Arbitration

  • SILVIA STEININGER
Abstract

This article provides a framework for systematically analyzing the practice, function, and consequences of human rights references in investment arbitration. In recent years, investment arbitration witnessed an enormous increase of references to external sources. References to human rights are especially interesting as they defy the alleged inherent conflict of investment and human rights, as well as the presumed fragmentation of international law. By applying both quantitative and qualitative approaches, I analyze how and why human rights references are employed in investor-state arbitration and, ultimately, whether they are able to remedy the legitimacy crisis of investment arbitration.

The empirical analysis is based on 46 awards, which include explicit references to human rights instruments. In the first part, this article examines which human rights instruments are referenced in investment arbitration and how the disputing parties as well as the tribunal engage in human rights referencing. In the second step, the article identifies two strategic functions of referencing human rights: guidance in the determination of substantive provisions and argumentative practice. This article further argues that, from a comparative law perspective, references may help to overcome the indetermination of investment treaties, provide for the balancing of investment and non-investment concerns, and ensure cross-regime consistency. In the third step, this article elaborates on whether those presumed benefits of referencing human rights can be confirmed on the basis of empirical results. It remains to be seen whether the ‘pick and choose’ approach of human rights references is capable of uncovering this legitimating potential.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      What's Human Rights Got To Do With It? An Empirical Analysis of Human Rights References in Investment Arbitration
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      What's Human Rights Got To Do With It? An Empirical Analysis of Human Rights References in Investment Arbitration
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      What's Human Rights Got To Do With It? An Empirical Analysis of Human Rights References in Investment Arbitration
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
References
Hide All

1 Schill, S.W., ‘International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law – An Introduction’, in Schill, S.W. (ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (2010), 3 .

2 Kulick, A., ‘Investment Arbitration, Investment Treaty Interpretation, and Democracy’ (2015) 4 Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law 441 ; Waibel, M. et al. (eds.), The Backlash Against Investment Arbitration: Perceptions and Reality (2010).

3 Brower, C.N. and Schill, S.W., ‘Is Arbitration a Threat or a Boon to the Legitimacy of International Investment Law?’ (2009) 9 Chicago Journal of International Law 471–98; Franck, S.D., ‘The Legitimacy Crisis in Investment Treaty Arbitration. Privatizing Public International Law through Inconsistent Decisions’ (2005) 73 Fordham Law Review 15211625 .

4 Muchlinski, P., ‘Holistic Approaches to Development and International Investment Law: The Role of International Investment Agreements’, in Faundez, J. and Tan, C. (eds.), International Economic Law, Globalization and Developing Countries (2010), 180 ; Schill, S.W., ‘Investitionsschutzrecht als Entwicklungsvölkerrecht’, (2012) 72 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 261308 .

5 See Statement by Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order at the Human Rights Council, 16 September 2015, available at www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16461&LangID=E

, accessed 26 December 2016; see also Alvarez, J., ‘Critical Theory and the North American Free Trade Agreement's Chapter Eleven’, (1997) 28 Inter-American Law Review 303–12.

6 K. Gordon, J. Pohl, and M. Bouchard, ‘Investment Treaty Law, Sustainable Development and Responsible Business Conduct: A Fact Finding Survey’, (2014) OECD Working Papers on International Investment 2014/01 5.

7 Phoenix v. Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award, 15 April 2009, para. 78.

8 For a general overview see Karamanian, S.L., ‘Human Rights Dimensions of Investment Law’, in de Wet, E. and Vidmar, J. (eds.) Hierarchy in International Law: The Place of Human Rights (2012) 236–71.

9 See de Brabandere, E., ‘Human Rights Considerations in International Investment Arbitration’, in Fitzmaurice, M. and Merkouris, P. (eds.) The Interpretation and Application of the European Convention on Human Rights (2013), 183215 ; Reiner, C. and Schreuer, C., ‘Human Rights and International Investment Arbitration’, in Dupuy, P.-M., Petersmann, E.-U., and Francesconi, F. (eds.), Human Rights in International Investment Law and Arbitration (2009) 8296 .

10 See A. Peters, Jenseits der Menschenrechte. Die Rechtsstellung des Individuums im Völkerrecht (2014). See also the tribunal's reasoning in Archer Daniels Midland Company and Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, Inc. v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/04/5, Award, 21 November 2007, para. 170f.

11 See A. von Bogdandy and I. Venzke, In Wessen Namen? Internationale Gerichte in Zeiten Globalen Regierens? (2014).

12 See Schill, S.W. and Tvede, K., ‘Mainstreaming Investment Treaty Jurisprudence. The Contribution of Investment Treaty Tribunals to the Consolidation and Development of General International Law’ (2014) 14 The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 94129 ; V. Vadi, Analogies in International Investment Law and Arbitration (2015).

13 In order to achieve comparability of the cases selected, this article does not cover amicus curiae submissions. For more information on the impact of amicus curiae submissions on investment arbitrations, see J. Harrison, ‘Human Rights Arguments in Amicus Curiae Submissions: Promoting Social Justice?’, in Dupuy, Petersmann, and Francesconi, supra note 9, at 396–421; Levine, E., ‘Amicus Curiae in International Investment Arbitration: The Implications of an Increase in Third-Party Participation’, (2011) 29 Berkeley Journal of International Law 200–24; Schadendorf, S., ‘Human Rights Arguments in Amicus Curiae Submissions: Analysis of ICSID and NAFTA Investor-State Arbitrations’, (2013) 10 Transnational Dispute Management 1 .

14 For an overview, see also M. Hirsch, ‘Investment Tribunals and Human Rights: Divergent Paths’, in Dupuy, Petersmann, and Francesconi, supra note 9, at 97–114.

15 There exist a limited number of empirical analyses of substantive issues in arbitration awards, see, prominently, Franck, S.D., ‘Empirically Evaluating Claims About Investment Arbitration’ (2007) 86 North Carolina Law Review 188 . Most recently from the PluriCourts project at Oslo University, see, among others, Fauchald, O.K., ‘The Legal Reasoning of ICSID Tribunals – An Empirical Analysis’ (2008) 19 European Journal of International Law 301–64; Behn, D., ‘Legitimacy, Evolution and Growth in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Empirically Evaluating the State of the Art’ (2015) 46 Georgetown Journal of International Law 363415 ; M. Langford and D. Behn, ‘Managing Backlash. The Evolving Investment Treaty Arbitrator’, (2016) PluriCourts Research Paper No. 16-14.

16 For instance, ICSID only features the basic parameters of the case.

17 According to UNCTAD, from 1990 until 1999, the number of arbitral decisions issued annually ranged between zero and six. However, starting from the year 2000, the number exponentially increased to around 16 decisions. In the last decade, the annual number of decisions went from 40 to a maximum of 67 in the year 2014. Similar developments can be identified in the number of arbitrations initiated (1990: 0, 2000: 13, 2016: 62) and the follow-on decisions issued (2000: 0, 2016: 23). See also United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, available at investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/ISDS, accessed 6 July 2017.

18 Most empirical research in investment arbitration is using a hypothesis-testing methodology, which can only account for a limited number and specifications of variables, see, for example, G. Van Harten, Sovereign Choices and Sovereign Constraints: Judicial Restraint in Investment Treaty Arbitration (2013). This lends itself to study specific problems of investment arbitration, but not to illustrate the complexities of legal reasoning and other substantive issues of investment awards.

19 See R.A. Stebbins, Exploratory Research in the Social Sciences (2013).

20 Regrettably, neither individual submissions by the parties nor amicus curiae submissions could be included in this article. As arbitration cases differ significantly in the level of transparency regarding the publication of such submissions, coding the available documents would have distorted the data.

21 This means that cases which had human rights implications but did not cite human rights, at least in a general sense, could not be included in the analysis.

22 According to UNCTAD, 528 cases were concluded at the time of writing. See also United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, available at investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/ISDS, accessed 1 October 2017.

23 The PluriCourts Investment Treaty Arbitration Database (PITAD) seems very promising, however, it was not yet publicly accessible at the time of writing.

24 The database is freely accessible online, see also www.arbitration.org, accessed 26 December 2016.

25 The literature search resulted in 21 cases, while the database search produced 24 cases.

26 Every reference to one category counts just once for the whole case, meaning that when the ECHR was referred to multiple times in one case, this still counted as one reference to one category; however, a reference to a different instrument such as the ACHR would count as a second reference to the same case.

27 Al-Warraq v. Indonesia, UNCITRAL, Final Award, 15 December 2014, para. 177.

28 Ibid., para. 521.

29 Ibid., para. 522.

30 EDF International S.A., SAUR International S.A. and León Participaciones Argentinas S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/23, Award, 11 June 2012, para. 192.

31 Ibid., paras. 909–14.

32 Annex, Cases No. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 36, 39, 41, 42, 45, 46.

33 Loewen Group, Inc. and Raymond L. Loewen v. The United States of America, Award, 5 September 2008, para. 165f.

34 In Cases No. 4, 6, 20, and 46, Annex, it was not possible to link the human rights reference to a specific source.

35 Annex, Cases No. 2, 12, 17, 25, 43, 44. In Merrill & Ring Forestry L.P. v. The Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Award, 31 March 2010, para. 201, the tribunal cited ‘major international conventions on human rights’ without mentioning specific treaties, hence, this case only accounted for one reference.

36 See Slaughter, A.M., ‘A Typology of Transjudicial Communication’, (1994) 29 University of Richmond Law Review 99138 ; Slaughter, A.M., ‘Judicial Globalization’, (1999) 40 Virginia Journal of International Law 1103–24; Wiener, A. and Liste, P., ‘Lost Without Translation? Cross-Referencing and a New Global Community of Courts’, (2014) 21 Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 263–96.

37 Annex, Cases No. 2, 12, 13, 23, 25, 30, 37, 40.

38 Al-Warraq v. Indonesia, supra note 27.

39 Annex, Cases No. 30 and 40.

40 Bernhard von Pezold and Others v. The Republic of Zimbabwe, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/15, Award, 28 July 2015, fn. 95.

41 Cases No. 8, 12, 30, and 32, Annex, feature two claimants each.

42 See Franck, supra note 15, at 75–83.

43 Annex, Cases No. 9, 31, 34, 36, 37.

44 CMS Gas Transmission Co. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, 12 May 2005, para. 114.

45 Sempra Energy International v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Award, 28 September 2007, para. 331.

46 Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, Award, 8 July 2016, para. 302.

47 See also, L. Wandahl Mouyal, International Investment Law and the Right to Regulate: A Human Rights Perspective (2016).

48 Impregilo S.p.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/17, Award, 21 June 2011, para. 228.

49 Annex, Cases No. 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 16, 19, 20, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 34, 37, 38, 41, 44, 46.

50 Annex, Cases No. 1, 5, 13, 15, 21, 22, 24, 25, 28, 36, 40, 42, 45.

51 Annex, Cases No. 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, 18, 23, 29, 33, 35, 39, 43.

52 Al-Warraq v. Indonesia, supra note 27, paras. 177–84, 202–4, 240–6.

53 In practice it is very likely that the tribunal raised human rights references earleir in the proceedings, however, it was not possible to code this in the available data.

54 In those cases, the reference was first introduced by the respondent or the claimant.

55 Annex, Cases No. 2, 14, 18, 35, 39, 43.

56 Annex, Cases No. 3, 12, 16, 19, 26, 30, 34.

57 Annex, Cases No. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 23, 26, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 41, 43, 46.

58 Annex, Cases No. 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 17, 23, 29, 33, 35, 39, 43.

59 Annex, Cases No. 3, 12, 16, 19, 26, 30, 31, 38, 44.

60 Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worlwide v. The Republic of Philippines, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/25, Decision on the Application for Annulment of Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide, 23 December 2010, paras. 188–203, 193.

61 Annex, Cases No. 7, 9, 20, 27, 32, 38.

62 Annex, Cases No. 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 17, 23, 29, 33, 35, 39, 42.

63 Toto Costruzioni Generali S.p.A. v. The Republic of Lebanon, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/12, Decision on Jurisdiction, 11 September 2009, paras. 158–60. ‘ICCPR Commission’ is the wording of the tribunal, the correct designation is the UN Human Rights Committee.

64 Biloune and Marine Drive Complex Ltd v Ghana Investments Centre and the Government of Ghana, UNCITRAL, Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, 27 October 1989, §B Jurisdiction over the Dispute.

65 Pezold v. Zimbabwe, supra note 40, para. 459.

66 Ibid., para. 465.

67 Affaire Association des Personnes Victimes du Systeme S.C. Rompetrol et S.C. Geomin S.A. et Autres v. Roumaine, Application no. 24133/03, Judgment (only available in French), 25 September 2013.

68 The Rompetrol Group N.V. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/3, Award, 6 May 2013, para. 60(d).

69 Ibid.

70 Ibid., para. 87(i).

71 See, for example, Al-Warraq v. Indonesia, supra note 27, para. 177.

72 Channel Tunnel Group Limited and France-Manche SA v. The Secretary of State for Transport of Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Le Ministre de l’Èquipment, des Transports, de l'Amenagement du Territoire, du Tourisme et de la Mer du Gouvernment de la Rèpublique Francaise, PCA, Award, 30 January 2007, para. 109f.; El Paso Energy International Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15, Award, 31 October 2011, para. 238 (also referring to the eponymous textbook by Ian Brownlie).

73 Al-Warraq v. Indonesia, supra note 27, para. 203.

74 Azurix Corp. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12, Award, 14 July 2006, para. 312. The function of ‘relevant guidance’ is also mentioned by Rompetrol v. Romania, supra note 68, in order to assess standards of due process, para. 89(c).

75 Mondev International Ltd. v. The United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/2, 11 October 2002, para. 144.

76 Pezold v. Zimbabwe, supra note 40, para. 459.

77 Ibid., fn. 95.

78 Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. The United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award, 24 July 2008, fn. 170; Continental Casualty Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/9, Award, 5 September 2008, fn. 270; National Grid PLC v. The Argentine Republic, UNCITRAL, Award, 3 November 2008, para. 247; Pezold v. Zimbabwe, supra note 40, para. 453.

79 See, Kriechbaum, U. and Schreuer, C., ‘The Concept of Property in Human Rights Law and International Investment Law’, in Breitenmoser, S et al. (eds.), Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law: Liber Amicorum Lucius Wildhaber (2007), 743–62.

80 G. Bücheler, Proportionality in Investor-State Arbitration (2015), 151. For a critical discussion of Tecmed, see ibid., at 141–51.

81 See critically, Alvarez, J., ‘The Use (and Misuse) of European Human Rights Law in Investor-State Dispute Settlement’, in Ferrari, F. (ed.), The Impact of EU Law on International Commercial Arbitration (2017).

82 See for instance the case of Azurix v. Argentina, supra note 74.

83 Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/2, Award, 29 May 2003, paras. 116, 122.

84 Ibid., para. 116

85 Ibid., para. 122.

86 M. Koskenniemi, ‘Methodology of International Law’, (2007) MPEPIL.

87 Thunderbird v. The United Mexican States, UNCITRAL, NAFTA, Arbitral Award, 26 January 2006, Separate Opinion by Thomas Wälde, para. 141.

88 Schill and Tvede, supra note 12, see also more generally, P.-M. Dupuy, ‘Unification Rather Than Fragmentation of International Law? The Case of International Investment Law and Human Rights Law’, in Dupuy, Petersmann, and Francesconi, supra note 9, at 45–62.

89 M. Koskenniemi, The Politics of International Law (2011), 141

90 J. Gorman, Rights and Reason (2014), 1f.

91 Castillo, Y., ‘The Appeal to Human Rights in Arbitration and International Agreements’, (2012) 12 Anuario Mexicano de Derecho Internacional 4784, at 73.

92 Continental v. Argentina, supra note 78, fn. 407; see also Mondev v. US, supra note 75, para. 141 (‘in a series of decisions’).

93 See Fry, J., ‘International Human Rights Law in Investment Arbitration: Evidence of International Law's Unity’, (2007) 18 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 77149, fn. 15.

94 See Schill, supra note 1; Schill and Tvede, supra note 12; Vadi, V., ‘Critical Comparisons: The Use of Comparative Law in Investment Treaty Arbitration’, (2010) 39 Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 67100, at 69.

95 See M. Bothe, ‘Die Bedeutung der Rechtsvergleichung in der Praxis internationaler Gerichte (1976) Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 280–99; M. Adenas and D. Fairgrieve, Courts and Comparative Law (2015).

96 See Dzehtsiarou, K. and Lukashevich, V., ‘Informed Decision-Making: The Comparative Endeavours of the Strasbourg Court’, (2012) 30 Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 272–98; McCrudden, C., ‘Using Comparative Reasoning in Human Rights Adjudication: The Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights Compared’, (2012-2013) 15 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 383416 .

97 See Benvenisti, E. and Downs, G.W., ‘The Empire's New Clothes: Political Economy and the Fragmentation of International Law’, (2007) 60 Stanford Law Review 595631 ; M. Koskenniemi, ‘Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising From the Diversification and Expansion of International Law’, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, 13 April 2006. See also R. Hofmann and C.J. Tams, International Investment Law and General International Law. From Clinical Isolation to Systematic Integration? (2011).

98 See Schill, supra note 1; Schill, S.W., ‘Enhancing International Investment Law's Legitimacy: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations of a New Public Law Approach’, (2011) 52 Virginia Journal of International Law 57102 ; Vadi, supra note 12.

99 See Schill, supra note 98, at 88.

100 See Vadi, supra note 12, at 18f.

101 Ibid.

102 Ibid.

103 Ibid.

104 See Schill, supra note 98, at 88.

105 Koskenniemi, supra note 86.

106 See Section 3.1.

107 See Section 3.2

108 See also Alvarez, supra note 5, at 308.

109 See Bray, H.L., ‘ICSID and the Right to Water: An Ingredient in the Stone Soup’, (2014) 29 ICSID Review 474–83.

110 Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26, Award, 8 December 2016, para. 1195.

111 Ibid., para. 1199, see also para. 1209ff.

112 Ibid., para. 1200.

113 Ibid., para. 1210.

114 See also E. Guntrip, ‘Urbaser v Argentina: The Origins of a Host State Human Rights Counterclaim in ICSID Arbitration?’ EJIL: Talk!, 10 February 2017, available at www.ejiltalk.org/urbaser-v-argentina-the-origins-of-a-host-state-human-rights-counterclaim-in-icsid-arbitration/, accessed 27 October 2017.

115 See Clementownia “Nowa Huta” S.A. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/06/2, Award, 17 September 2009, §98.

116 See also Brown, C., ‘Investment Treaty Tribunals and Human Rights Courts’, (2016) 15 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 287304 .

117 See Affaire Association des Personnes Victimes du Systeme S.C. Rompetrol et S.C. Geomin S.A. et Autres v. Roumaine, supra note 67.

118 Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. Russia, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. AA 227.

119 OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia, Application no. 14902/04. In the case sample, the Yukos case at the ECtHR was repeatedly referred to in Hulley v. Russia, Renta, Quasar de Valors et al. v. Russia, and RosInvestCo v. Russia.

120 Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Corporation v. Ecuador, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2009-23.

121 See the Request for Precautionary Measures before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights by the Lago Aggio plaintiffs on 9 February 2012.

122 See Hirsch, M, ‘The Sociology of International Investment Law’, in Douglas, Z., Pauwelyn, J., and Vinuales, J.E. (eds), The Foundations of International Investment Law: Bringing Theory Into Practice (OUP 2014); M. Hirsch, Invitation to the Sociology of International Law (OUP 2015).

123 See Koskenniemi, M., ‘The Politics of International Law – 20 Year Later’, (2009) 20 European Journal of International Law 11 .

124 Ibid., 13.

* Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law []. I am very grateful for many helpful comments by Michael A. Becker, Franz Ebert, Matthias Garbert, Szilárd Gáspár-Szilágyi, Matthias Goldmann, Raphael Marbach, Stephan Schill, the participants of the workshop ‘Authority in International Dispute Settlement’ at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law at the University of Cambridge on 20 March 2017, the participants of the workshop ‘International Public Authority’ at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public and International Law in Heidelberg on 21 October 2017 and the two anonymous reviewers. Many thanks to Kanad Bagchi for language editing.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Leiden Journal of International Law
  • ISSN: 0922-1565
  • EISSN: 1478-9698
  • URL: /core/journals/leiden-journal-of-international-law
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed