Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T00:29:43.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interpretational Methods as an Instrument of Control in International Investment Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Anne van Aaken
Anne van Aaken*
Affiliation:
Legal Theory, Public International Law, and European Law, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland (anne.vanaaken@unisg.ch)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Paradigmatic Changes in the Settlement of International Investment Disputes?
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 108 , 2014 , pp. 196 - 198
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For an overview of the recent discussion, see Reform of Investor-State Dispute Settlement: In Search of a Roadmap (special issue), 11 Transnat’l Disp. Mgmt. (2014).

2 van Aaken, Anne, Delegating Interpretative Authority in Investment Treaties: The Case of Joint Commissions, 11 Transnat’l Disp. Mgmt. (2014)Google Scholar.

3 For an application to IIAs, see van Aaken, Anne, International Investment Law Between Commitment and Flexibility: A Contract Theory Analysis, 12 J. Int’l Econ. L. 507 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Ortino, Federico, Refining the Content and Role of Investment ‘Rules’ and ‘Standards’: A New Approach to International Investment Treaty Making, 28 ICSID Rev. 152 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, as well as the remarks of Friedrich Rosenfeld, supra at 191.

4 Grimm, Dieter, Methode als Machtfaktor, in Recht und Staat der Bürgerlichen Gesellschaft 347 (Grimm, Dieter ed. 1987)Google Scholar.

5 Roberts, Anthea, Subsequent Agreements and Practice: The Battle Over Interpretive Power, in Nolte, Georg ed., Treaties and Subsequent Practice, (Oxford, Oxford University Press 2013), p. 95.Google Scholar

6 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331.

7 Dörr, Oliver, Article 31, in Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary 523 (Dörr, Oliver & Schmalenbach, Kirsten eds., 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 For details, see Richard K. Gardiner, Treaty Interpretation (2008).

9 “Object” (l’objet) can be read to mean the substantive content of a treaty (rights and obligations), whereas the purpose (le but) refers to the general result which the parties want to achieve. Buffard, Isabelle & Zemanek, Karl, The “Object and Purpose” of a Treaty: An Enigma?, 3 Austrian Rev. Int’l & Eur. L. 311, 318 (1998)Google Scholar (extensively reviewing jurisprudence and scholarly literature).

10 E.g., Siemens A.G. v. Argentine Rep., ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8, Decision on Jurisdiction, Aug. 3, 2004, para. 81.

11 SGS Société Générale de Surveillance SA v. Phil., ICSID Case No. ARB/02/6, Jan. 29, 2004, para. 116; Noble Ventures v. Rom., ICSID Case No. ARB/01/11, Award, Oct. 12, 2005, para. 52.

12 Cf. Jeswald W. Salacuse, The Law of Investment Treaties 114 (2010).

13 For details, see Roberts, Anthea, Subsequent Agreements and Practice: The Battle over Interpretive Power, in Treaties and Subsequent Practice 95 (Nolte, Georg ed., 2013)Google Scholar.

14 Study Group of the Int’l Law Comm’n, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law (by Koskenniemi, Martti), A/CN.4/L.682 (Apr. 13, 2006)Google Scholar.

15 van Aaken, Anne, Fragmentation of International Law: The Case of International Investment Law, 17 Fin. Y.B. Int’l L. 91 (2008)Google Scholar.

16 MacLachlan, Campbell, The Principle of Systematic Integration and Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention, 54 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 279, 281 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.