abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

这页面没有简体中文版本,现以English显示

文章

2016年9月21日

作者:
Angeline Welsh & Katrina Limond, Matrix Chambers & Allen & Overy LLP

Cohesion between the international human rights and international investment regimes – is a standing court necessary?

查看所有标签

... Given that investment treaty claims can call for the determination of human rights issues and other important questions of public policy, this article looks at whether international arbitration is the appropriate forum for investment treaty disputes or whether a standing court would be more appropriate. This issue is pertinent in light of the European Commission’s draft investment chapter for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the EU and the U.S. (TTIP) which has been the subject of recent negotiations with the U.S.3 The Commission has proposed establishing a new investment court system comprising a tribunal of first instance with 15 jointly appointed judges (five U.S. judges, five EU judges and five judges from third-party countries) and an appeal tribunal with six jointly appointed judges ...

时间线