GR Semicolon EN

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author
Gavriilidou, Chrysoula
en
dc.date.accessioned
2015-06-11T11:21:17Z
dc.date.available
2015-09-27T05:57:05Z
dc.date.issued
2015-06-11
dc.identifier.uri
https://repository.ihu.edu.gr//xmlui/handle/11544/271
dc.rights
Default License
dc.title
Annulment of Arbitral Awards in Investment Arbitration –Distinctiveness of the ICSID Regime
en
heal.type
masterThesis
heal.language
en
heal.access
free
el
heal.license
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
heal.recordProvider
School of Economics, Business Administration and Legal Studies, LLM in Transnational and European Commercial Law, Mediation, Arbitration and Energy Law
heal.publicationDate
2013-12
heal.bibliographicCitation
Chrysoula Gavriilidou, 2013, Annulment of Arbitral Awards in Investment Arbitration –Distinctiveness of the ICSID Regime,Master's Dissertation, International Hellenic University
en
heal.abstract
This dissertation focuses primarily in investment arbitration and the several procedural vehicles through which review of awards is realised. It examines the various procedural options that the parties in investment arbitration may deploy in cases where a frustrated party seeks to annul or set aside an award, which does not satisfy his interests. These procedural review mechanisms have mainly been created to enhance transparency and consistency in the decision – making process. They ultimately provide for a higher level of legitimacy with the arbitration system. However, as you go through this paper, you will observe the specified way prescribed by the various legal instruments, that these mechanisms operate. They are essentially based on a limited and restrained function of the review process, with limited and narrowly – interpreted grounds for review of awards. In this way, finality of awards, as the ultimate purpose of all investment treaties and legal instruments, is fostered and the advantages of investment arbitration are preserved; efficiency and speed of the proceedings. This paper also highlights the importance of consistency and correctness of arbitral decisions, which eventually cannot be absolutely sacrificed for finality. After all, it is legal certainty and accuracy of the decision – making that contribute to an increased legitimacy of the system. In this context, the practice and roles of ad hoc Committees in ICSID annulment procedure will be analysed, especially through past and recent practice, with reference to cases of utmost significance. Reference has also been made to the possibility of reform of the system, by introducing a more substantive review of awards mainly through an appellate mechanism. As interesting and outstanding as it may look, this is quite unlikely for the time being, since investors and States have a keen desire to – as Mr Gaillard has stated - ‘close the books’ of a case instead of giving rise to perpetual proceedings.
en
heal.tableOfContents
Introduction……………………………………………………………………...…....1 1. Favor Arbitrandum………………………………………………………...….3 2. State sovereignty as the most important legal hurdle to the actual execution of awards – One step before annulment and enforcement review………………..4 3. Different systems of review………………………………………………...…5 A. Judicial Review of Awards – Enforcement Review……………………………….5 B. Function of Annulment Under the ICSID Regime…………………………….…..8 C. Annulment versus Enforcement Review………………………………….……….9 4. A Proper Balance Between “Finality” and “Correctness”…………………...12 A. “Finality” over “Correctness” or Vice-Versa?....................................................12 B. Ad hoc Committees’ Practice – A Striking Discrepancy in their Approach of “Finality” and “Correctness”?............................................................................13 5. The ICSID System and The ad hoc Committee’s Mandate………………….15 A. Restrained powers of the ad hoc Committees under the ICSID Convention…....15 B. The ad hoc Committees’ approach through recent case law and practice……...17 C. The complexity of the tasks of an ad hoc Committee is a reality……………….21 6. The exhaustively listed grounds for annulment under Article 52(1) of the ICSID Convention………………………………………………..…………..22 Limited grounds for review under Article 52(1)…………………….........………....22 I. Manifest Excess of Powers…...………………………………………...….23 i) Lack, Excess or Non – Exercise of jurisdiction………...……………...….24 ii) Failure to apply the proper law…………………………………..……..…25 II. Failure to State Reasons…………………………………………..……..27 III. Serious Departure from a Fundamental Rule of Procedure…………………………………………………………......…29 i) ‘Impartiality’ falling within the ground of procedural violations….…...30 ii) The ‘right to present one’s case’ as a ground for annulment………...…30 General remarks………………………………………………...………..…31 7. Is There a Need for Reform?............................................................................31 Conclusions…………………………………………………..………...…....34
en
heal.advisorName
Kaissis, Athanasios
en
heal.committeeMemberName
Kaisis, Athanasios
en
heal.committeeMemberName
Dirk, Otto
en
heal.committeeMemberName
Komninos, Komnios
en
heal.academicPublisher
School of Economic and Business Administration,LL.M in Transnational and European Commercial Law and Alternative Dispute resolutions
en
heal.academicPublisherID
ihu
heal.numberOfPages
42
heal.fullTextAvailability
true


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Related Items