跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(18.204.48.64) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/07/30 08:38
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:陳愷璘
研究生(外文):Kailin Chen
論文名稱:論比例原則於國際投資仲裁若干議題之適用
論文名稱(外文):The Application of the Principle of Proportionality in Certain Issues of International Investment Arbitration
指導教授:羅昌發羅昌發引用關係
指導教授(外文):Chang-fa Lo
口試委員:林彩瑜楊培侃
口試委員(外文):Tsai-yu LinPei-kan Yang
口試日期:2015-02-02
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:法律學研究所
學門:法律學門
學類:一般法律學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2015
畢業學年度:103
語文別:中文
論文頁數:271
中文關鍵詞:國際投資仲裁比例原則投資者與國家間仲裁國際投資雙邊投資協定國際投資協定間接徵收公平與公正待遇基本安全例外條款不排除措施條款賠償補償審查密度
外文關鍵詞:international investment arbitrationprinciple of proportionalityinvestor-state dispute settlement (ISDS)bilateral investment treatie (BITs)international investment treaties (IIAs)indirect expropriationfair and equitable treatment (FET)non-precluded measures clausesindemnitydamagescompensationstandard of review
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:605
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
國際投資仲裁是國際法近期快速發展的領域,隨著雙邊投資協定的簽訂,許多投資條約不僅包括紛爭解決條款,也包括投資者得直接透過雙邊投資協定主張地主國違反義務而損害其權益的程序,投資者與國家間仲裁案例的增加也使目前糾紛所涉議題越來越多樣。
惟國際投資仲裁體制不斷發展的同時,亦出現極具爭議性的案例,經常涉及地主國的管制權行使,而已經超越了傳統爭議,漸漸有為了保護私人財產權,而無形中漸漸蠶食了地主國管制裁量權之仲裁判斷,形成投資者保護與地主國管制權間之緊張關係,有學者以國際投資仲裁制度中的「正當性危機」稱呼之。阿根廷因為其在2001年至2002年間對其國內嚴重經濟危機的因應措施而被許多投資者訴諸國際仲裁,也正是該緊張關係的體現。
面對系爭體制挑戰,實務上仲裁庭漸漸發展出使用比例原則來處理國家與投資者間仲裁爭端。在該體制緊張關係中,比例原則因此而成為可得調和系爭緊張關係的論述工具,在利益平衡的追求上,可望扮演關鍵角色。
比例性概念在許多國家內國法中已被確認為重要法律原則,惟在國際法中,比例原則的方法論、實體權利等議題仍較為模糊。因此,本文嘗試建立比例原則於國際投資仲裁之適用基礎,檢視其於投資法若干議題中是否得發揮何種功能;探討重點著重於「間接徵收」認定、「不排除措施」條款、「公平與公正待遇」以及救濟階段之償金認定;其次,若得肯定比例原則於國際投資仲裁之適用,則進一步檢視比例原則在仲裁庭實務適用上產生何種影響,並探討其中的影響因素主要係出於何者;就此,本文主張比例原則於國際投資仲裁適用上的關鍵因素,在於操作比例原則時所適用之審查密度,若得選擇適當的審查密度,仍可望得在平衡投資者保護與地主國管制權之際,保留給地主國適當的政策管制空間。


International investment arbitration is a burgeoning field of International law, with more than three thousand Bilateral Investment Treaties signed, the provisions of which include not only dispute settlement clauses, but also allowing foreign investors to claim against host countries without exhausting domestic remedies, which makes the issues related to investor-state dispute settlements more and more variant and complex.
However, at the same time, there are several significantly controversial cases, more than the traditional issues of international investment law such as expropriation, which aimed at the protection of investors, while criticized for inappropriately intrusive for the general exercising of host countries’ regulatory rights. As to the tension between foreign invstors and host countries, some called “legitimacy crisis.” The Argentina cases relating to the emergency measures it took in reaction to the 2001/2002 economic crises exemplified the tension between the two actors in international investments law.
Faced with the challenges as above, the investment tribunals tried to mediate the tension between the protection of investors and the discretionary powers of host countries, and one of instruments employed by tribunals was proportionality analysis. It could play a key role in the balance of competing interests of investors and host countries.
As to the principle of proportionality, it has been considered a constitutional principle in many countries, yet the methodology and substantive content of it is still somewhat ambiguous. Consequently, this article tries to argue that the principle of proportionality is an “emerging” general principle of law at least. On this basis, as to the application of principle of proportionality, this article tries to focus on four key issues of international investment law, including indirect expropriation, non-precluded measures clauses, fair and equitable treatment and the amount of indemnity, discussing the practical application and the pros and cons as well. Furthermore, base on the discoveries discussed, to preserve adequate regulatory space for host countries, this articles tries to argue that the key element in applying principle of proportionality in international investment law is to choose the appropriate standard of review.


謝辭 I
摘要 III
Abstract V
第一章 論緒 1
第一節 研究動機 1
第二節 研究目的 4
第三節 研究範圍 4
第四節 研究方法 5
第五節 名詞定義 7
第一項 「比例原則」 7
第二項 「國際投資仲裁」 9
第二章 國際投資法基礎問題暨近期發展趨勢 10
第一節 國際投資法發展背景 10
第一項 國家與投資者形塑國際投資法秩序 10
第一款 地主國利益 10
第二款 投資者利益 11
第三款 投資者母國 12
第二項 利益衝突與配置 13
第二節 投資條約之宗旨與目的 14
第一項 投資保護 15
第二項 促進投資 16
第三項 小結 17
第三節 現今國際投資仲裁體制所面臨之挑戰 19
第一項 國際法的「破碎化」(fragmentation) 19
第二項 外國投資者保護與地主國管制權的緊張關係 20
第三項 涉及國家公權力行使之投資仲裁定性 22
第四項 投資仲裁判斷正當性缺失 26
第五項 小結 28
第四節 雙邊投資協定因應體制挑戰的近期發展趨勢 29
第一項 「投資者母國」與「地主國」漸趨重疊 30
第二項 各國開始重新評估或改變國際投資政策 31
第三項 條款規定越趨細膩 32
第四項 逐步重視投資以外之目標 33
第五項 比例原則於雙邊投資協定明文化之發展 36
第五節 仲裁庭面對體制挑戰的近期實務發展──比例原則之引用 37
第六節 比例原則於國際投資仲裁之適用性探討 40
第一項 以比例原則意義觀察其於國際投資仲裁之適用 41
第一款 「比例性」 41
第二款 「原則」 42
第二項 以仲裁判斷課責觀察比例原則於國際投資仲裁之適用 44
第三項 以「國際法的破碎化」與《維也納條約法公約》觀察比例原則於國際投資仲裁的適用性 45
第四項 小結 47
第三章 比例原則之一般內涵與其適用 49
第一節 比例原則之起源與流布 49
第二節 比例原則之內涵 50
第一項 傳統德國法體系下之比例原則 51
第一款 適合性原則 52
第二款 必要性原則 54
第三款 狹義比例原則 55
第四款 「三階理論」的不同見解 57
第二項 傳統德國法體系比例原則之修正理論:目的審查 58
第三項 其他國家之比例原則理論建構與實踐 59
第一款 美國 59
1. 美國法司法違憲審查基準 59
2. 美國法中的比例性概念 60
第二款 加拿大「另類比例原則」 61
第三款 綜合比較暨小結 62
第三節 比例原則之功能 64
第一項 控制與限制裁量權 64
第二項 法律規範的範圍 65
第三項 衡平相衝突之權利與利益 67
第四項 構成司法審查標準 67
第五項 合理化法官權力同時予以限制 67
第四節 比例原則適用上疑慮 68
第五節 區分審查密度 69
第四章 比例原則國際法地位之確認與適用於國際投資法之依據 74
第一節 比例原則於傳統國際法之地位 75
第二節 比例原則於不同國際法律體系中之運用 76
第一項 海域劃界 76
第二項 反制措施 77
第三項 武裝衝突 79
第一款 「武力使用的合法性」(jus and bellum) 81
第二款 「戰爭法」(jus in bello) 83
第四項 WTO裁決 85
第一款 一般例外條款「必要」(necessary)標準的演變 87
第二款 第20條前言 89
第三款 審查密度 91
第五項 歐盟法院 93
第一款 比例原則之架構與內涵 93
第二款 審查密度 95
第六項 歐洲人權法院 97
第一款 比例原則之架構與內涵 97
第二款 比例原則與裁量餘地 99
第三款 財產權保護制度 101
1. 裁量餘地 101
2. 財產干預類型 103
3. 補償 103
第七項 小結:比例原則已廣泛應用於國際法諸多領域 105
第三節 比例原則國際法地位之確認 106
第一項 國際投資仲裁庭引用依據與學者見解:一般法律原則 106
第二項 「一般文明國家認可的法律原則」 106
第一款 國際法院規約第38條第1項第(c)款性質爭議 107
第二款 一般法律原則於國際法之重要性 109
第三款 一般法律原則於國際法之功能與適用路徑 110
第三項 比例原則之國際法地位 112
第一款 發展過程:內國法與國際法的水平與垂直互動 113
第二款 比例原則實踐:法律本質上的統一性 113
第四節 國際投資法法源之特點 114
第一項 「特別規則」的重要性 115
第二項 一般法律原則的重新崛起 116
第三項 仲裁判斷成為投資保護規範的發展機構 117
第五節 國際法於國際投資仲裁之可適用性 119
第一項 ICSID公約第42(1)條第1句:當事人自主 119
第二項 ICSID公約第42(1)條第2句 120
第三項 國際投資仲裁中所得適用國際法之情形 121
第六節 小結暨比例原則於國際投資仲裁中之適用路徑 124
第一項 整體解釋下指引法律「詮釋與適用方向」 125
第二項 「適用於當事國間關係之任何有關國際法規則」 126
第三項 小結 126
第五章 仲裁庭引用比例原則解釋投資協定若干規定之可行性 128
第一節 比例原則與「間接徵收」認定 128
第一項 「徵收」 129
第二項 管制行為與「間接徵收」之認定 131
第一款 單一效果理論 132
第二款 警察權理論 133
第三款 調和警察權理論 134
第三項 比例原則之應用 136
第一款 Tecmed v. Mexico 案 136
1. 案件背景 136
2. 間接徵收之審查與比例原則之角色 137
3. 仲裁庭方法論之不足與審查密度 138
第二款 Tecmed v. Mexico 案後的發展 141
第二節 不排除措施(NPM)條款與比例原則 147
第一項 歷史背景 149
第二項 投資協定中之基本安全例外(NPM)條款 150
第一款 NPM條款的詮釋 151
第二款 NPM條款的組成 153
1. 「關聯性要件」 153
2. 適用範圍 154
3. 允許之目標 155
第三款 NPM條款與比例原則適用 155
第四款 NPM條款「關聯性要件」之詮釋與審查密度 156
1. 非自行裁決(non-self-Judging)NPM條款 157
2. 自行裁決(self-Judging) 159
第五款 小結:NPM條款的風險分配與審查密度 160
第三項 阿根廷經濟危機所涉投資仲裁案件於必要性之詮釋 161
第一款 NPM條款與危急情況抗辯同一解釋:CMS 案、Enron 案、Sempra 案 161
1. 個案仲裁判斷 161
2. 個案撤銷委員會 164
第二款 NPM條款為危急情況抗辯之特別法:LG&E 案、Continental 案 167
1. LG&E 案 167
2. Continental 案 168
第三款 小結 171
第六章 比例原則作為國際投資仲裁之補充規範 174
第一節 比例原則作為「公平與公正待遇標準」之補充規範 174
第一項 投資條款中之「公平與公正待遇標準」 174
第一款 程序原則 176
1. 正當程序 176
2. 透明度 177
第二款 實體原則 178
1. 穩定性、一致性與正當期待 178
2. 絕對的穩定性與一致性 180
3. 彈性考量的需求與比例原則之運用 181
第二項 比例原則完整適用於「公平與公正待遇標準」 184
第一款 Glamis v. U.S. 185
第二款 Occidental v. Ecuador II 187
1. 本案事實 187
2. 主要爭點 188
3. 仲裁判斷 188
4. 本案分析 191
第三項 其他比例原則次概念與「公平與公正待遇標準」 191
第一款 適合性審查 193
第二款 最小限制手段審查 194
第三款 狹義比例性審查(衡平性) 196
第四項 小結 201
第二節 比例原則作為所受損害與補償額度之補充規範 202
第一項 救濟階段償金數額 202
第一款 徵收償金:「全有全無」模式的兩難 202
第二款 衡平考量公共利益 204
第三款 適當運用仲裁庭裁量權 206
第二項 投資協定與仲裁庭實務上救濟階段之衡平方式 208
第三項 償金認定中相衝突利益之調和 209
第一款 Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine 209
第二款 其他調和方式 212
第三款 比例原則調和償金認定利益衝突之依據與實踐 214
第四項 小結 216
第七章 試析比例原則適用於國際投資仲裁之疑慮與可行性 217
第一節 適用比例原則之批評 217
第二節 比例原則與審查密度之關聯 218
第三節 國際投資法中之審查密度 221
第一項 「民主正當性」與「接近性」 223
第二項 「相對機關職能」與「專業性」 225
第四節 國際投資仲裁中比例原則操作中之審查密度 226
第一項 目標合法性審查 227
第二項 適合性審查 228
第三項 必要性分析 230
第四項 狹義比例性審查(衡平性審查) 232
第五節 比例原則可能之適用界限 237
第八章 結論 239
中文參考文獻 243
References 247


中文參考文獻
一、專書
丘宏達(2006)。《現代國際法》。台北:三民。
李鴻禧(1999)。《違憲審查論》。台北:元照。
杜蘅之(1991)。《國際法大綱》上冊。台北:台灣商務。
杜蘅之(1991)。《國際法大綱》下冊。台北:台灣商務。
姜皇池(2008)。《國際公法導論》。台北:新學林。
許宗力(2007)。《法與國家權力(二)》。台北:元照。
陳新民(1999)。《憲法基本權利之基本理論》上冊。台北:元照。
鄧衍森(2006)。《法治與人權》。台北:新學林。
羅昌發(2010)。《國際貿易法》。台北:元照。
二、書之篇章
李建良(2014)。〈論國際條約的國內法效力與法位階定序 ── 國際條約與憲法解釋之關係的基礎課題〉,廖福特編,《憲法解釋之理論與實務》第八輯,頁頁175-275。台北:中央研究院法律學研究所。
張宏誠(2001)。〈論歐洲人權公約對同性戀者之保障〉,何春蕤編,《同志研究》,頁117-182。台北:巨流。
許宗力(1997)。〈憲法與政治〉,李鴻禧敎授六秩華誕祝賀論文集編輯委員會編輯,《現代國家與憲法:李鴻禧敎授六秩華誕祝賀論文集》,頁39-92。台北:月旦。
陳淳文(2000)。〈比例原則〉,台灣行政法學會編,《行政法爭議問題研究》上冊,頁91-115。台北:五南。
陳愛娥(1999)。〈大法官憲法解釋權之界限-由功能法的觀點出發〉,司法院大法官書記處編,《台灣大法官釋憲五十週年學術研討會紀錄》,頁307-388。台北:司法院。
湯德宗(2009)。〈違憲審查基準體系建構初探——「階層式比例原則」構想〉,廖福特編,《憲法解釋之理論與實務》第六輯(下冊),頁581-660。台北:中央研究院法律學研究所籌備處。
黃錦堂(2000)。〈「自由權保障之實質論證之檢討-以德國基本權衝突判決為初步探討〉,李建良、簡資修主編,《「憲法解釋之理論與實務》第二輯,頁189-234。台北:中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所。
三、期刊論文
王玉葉(2000)。〈歐洲聯盟之輔助原則〉,《歐美研究》,30卷2期,頁1-30。
王玉葉(2007)。〈歐洲人權法院審理原則──國家裁量餘地原則〉,《歐美研究》,37卷3期,頁485-511。
王立達、許翠玲(2012),〈違法聯合行為協議之私法上效力— 競爭法與民法第71條之雙向實證與釋義分析〉,《中研院法學期刊》,11期,頁65-127。
王服清(2013)。〈論預防原則的應用與問題〉,《憲政時代》,39卷1期,頁33-119。
田力品(2013)。〈由比例原則檢驗武裝衝突理由及手段之正當性〉,《軍法專刊》,59卷5期,頁180-192。
李建良(1997)。〈論司法審查的政治界限──美國「政治問題原則」初探〉,《人文及社會科學集刊》,9卷4期,頁65-110。
李建良(1998)。〈特別犧牲與損失補償〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,36期,頁24-25。
李貴英(2014)。〈能源憲章條約、德國廢核爭端與國際投資仲裁:Vattenfall v. Germany一案之探討〉,《歐美研究》,44卷3期,頁305-358。
林明鏘(2014)。〈比例原則之功能與危機〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,231期,頁65-79。
林彩瑜(2011)。〈論 WTO 與區域貿易協定爭端解決機制之衝突與調和〉,《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》,40卷1期,頁393-451。
俞寬賜(2000)。〈沿海國家間的海域劃界法制之研究〉,《臺大法學論叢》,29卷2期,頁1-41。
范世平(2009)。〈主權財富基金發展與影響的政治經濟分析〉,《問題與研究》,48卷3期,頁123-154。
許宗力(2003)。〈基本權的保障與限制(下)〉,《月旦法學教室》,14期,頁50-6。
陳言博(2006)。〈WTO爭端解決程序中審查基準之爭議——以反傾銷協定第十七‧六(ii)條為中心〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,135期,頁86-109。
陳愛娥(2004)。〈繼受法國家中的法比較-以憲法解釋作為觀察對象〉,《月旦民商法雜誌》,4期,頁5-15。
陳新民(1992)。〈論憲法人民基本權利的限制(續)〉,《律師通訊》,156期,頁43-55。
陳麗娟(2005)。〈歐洲共同體競爭法與商品自由流通原則--從歐洲法院之案例法論歐洲共同體在共同市場內維持自由貿易之機制〉,《東海大學法學研究》,23期,頁223-249。
陳麗娟(2012)。〈歐盟產品安全法對於進出口商品交易之影響〉,《貿易政策論叢》,18期,頁199-224。
黃居正(2014)。〈多瑙河水閘系統計畫案:條約之遵守與違反〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,248期,頁53-60。
黃昭元(2003)。〈司法違憲審查的正當性爭議-理論基礎與方法論的初步檢討〉,《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》,32卷6期,頁105-153。
黃昭元(2004)。〈憲法權利限制的司法審查標準—美國類型化多元標準模式的比較分析〉,《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》,33卷3期,頁45-148。
黃舒芃(2006)。〈「功能最適」原則下司法違憲審查權與立法權的區分德國功能法論述取向(funktionell-rechtlicher Ansatz)之問題與解套〉,《政大法學評論》,91期,頁99-144。
廖元豪(2008)。〈高深莫測,抑或亂中有序?--論現任大法官在基本權利案件中的「審查基準〉,《中研院法學期刊》,2期,頁211-274。
趙國材(2010)。〈論國際人道法適用於內戰之發展〉,《軍法專刊》,56卷4期,頁122-153。
蔡宗珍(1999)。〈公法上之比例原則初論--以德國法的發展為中心〉,《政大法學評論》,62期,頁75-103。
蔣大偉(2006)。〈武裝衝突法中的平民保護〉,《軍法專刊》,52卷5期,頁47-78。
鄧衍森(2012)。〈國際法的規範向度〉,《司法新聲》,104期,頁7-19。
四、翻譯著作
Andreas von Arnauld。劉權譯(2014),〈歐洲基本權利保護的理論與方法——以比例原則為例〉,《比較法研究》,2014年01期,頁182-200。
Christian Starck著,李建良譯(2006)。〈憲法解釋〉,《法學、憲法法院審判權與基本權利》,頁241-272。台北:元照。
Christian Starck著,李建良譯(2011)。〈全民基本共識與憲法法院審判權〉,《法的起源》,頁287-302。台北:元照。
George A. Bermann著,法治斌譯(1994)。〈比例原則〉,國立政治大學法律學系法學叢書編輯委員會編輯,《人權保障與司法審查-憲法專論(二)》,頁335-353。台北:月旦。
五、學位論文
周珮娟(2008)。《比例原則之分析與實踐-以歐洲人權法院審理德國被訴案件為例》,國立臺北大學法律學系碩士論文。
林倫帆(2004)。《WTO貨品貿易協定中「必要性」概念之研究》,國立臺灣大學法律學系碩士論文。
康夙如(2007)。《歐盟法比例原則適用之研究》,淡江大學歐洲研究所碩士論文。
劉蘋儀(2006)。《論歐盟共同市場內貨物自由流通》,淡江大學歐洲研究所碩士論文。
六、網路資料及其他
台灣歐洲聯盟中心(2010),《歐盟和諧化思維對兩岸與亞洲整合的啟發國際學術研討會》,http://www.eutw.org.tw/file/12910838653.pdf(最後瀏覽日:05/19/2015)。

References
Books
ALEXY, ROBERT (2002), A THEORY OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
BARAK, AHARON (2012), PROPORTIONALITY: CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND THEIR LIMITATIONS.
BARNARD, CATHERINE (2013), THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW OF THE EU: THE FOUR FREEDOMS.
BOYLE, ALAN & CHRISTINE CHINKIN (2007), THE MAKING OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.
BROWNLIE, IAN (1963), INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE USE OF FORCE BY STATES.
BROWNLIE, IAN (2003), PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW, 6th ed.
C. YOUROW, HOWARD (1996), THE MARGIN OF APPRECIATION DOCTRINE IN THE DYNAMICS OF EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS JURISPRUDENCE.
CHENG, BIN (2006), GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW AS APPLIED BY INTERNATIONAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS.
CHRISTOFFERSEN, JONAS (2009), FAIR BALANCE: PROPORTIONALITY, SUBSIDIARITY AND PRIMARITY IN THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS.
CRAIG, PAUL (2006), EU ADMINISTRATIVE LAW.
DOLZER, RUDOLF & CHRISTOPH SCHREUER (2008), PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW.
DWORKIN, RONALD (1978), TAKING RIGHTS SERIOUSLY.
EMILIOU, NICHOLAS (1996), THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY IN EUROPEAN LAW, A COMPARATIVE STUDY.
ESCARCENA, SEBASTIÁN LÓPEZ (2014), INDIRECT EXPROPRIATION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW.
FOLEY, BRIAN (2008), DEFERENCE AND THE PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY.
FRANCK, THOMAS (1995), FAIRNESS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND INSTITUTIONS.
FRIEDMANN, WOLFGANG (1964), THE CHANGING STRUCTURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.
HARTEN, GUS VAN (2007), INVESTMENT TREATY ARBITRATION AND PUBLIC LAW.
HARTEN, GUS VAN (2013), SOVEREIGN CHOICES AND SOVEREIGN CONSTRAINTS: JUDICIAL RESTRAINT IN INVESTMENT TREATY ARBITRATION.
HERCZEGH, GÉZA (1969), GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ORDER.
HIGGINS, ROSALYN (1994), PROBLEMS AND PROCESS: INTERNATIONAL LAW AND HOW WE USE IT.
KJOS, HEGE ELISABETH (2013), APPLICABLE LAW IN INVESTOR-STATE ARBITRATION: THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW.
KLÄGER, ROLAND (2013), ‘FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT’ IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW.
KLATT, MATTHIAS & MORITZ MEISTER (2012), THE CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE OF PROPORTIONALITY.
KULICK, ANDREAS (2014), GLOBAL PUBLIC INTEREST IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW.
LEGG, ANDREW (2012), THE MARGIN OF APPRECIATION IN INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW: DEFERENCE AND PROPORTIONALITY.
LORD MCNAIR (1961), THE LAW OF TREATIES.
MACCORMICK, NEIL (1978), LEGAL REASONING AND LEGAL THEORY.
MÖLLER, KAI (2012), THE GLOBAL MODEL OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
MONTT, SANTIAGO (2009), STATE LIABILITY IN INVESTMENT TREATY ARBITRATION – GLOBAL CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW IN THE BIT GENERATION.
NEWTON, MICHAEL & LARRY MAY (2014), PROPORTIONALITY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW.
OESCH, MATTHIAS (2004), STANDARDS OF REVIEW IN WTO DISPUTE RESOLUTION.
PAULSSON, JAN (2005), DENIAL OF JUSTICE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW.
PAUWELYN, JOOST (2003), CONFLICT OF NORMS IN PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW: HOW WTO LAW RELATES TO OTHER RULES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.
RIPINSKY, SERGEY & KEVIN WILLIAMS (2008), DAMAGES IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW.
SALACUSE, JESWALD W. (2010), THE LAW OF INVESTMENT TREATIES.
SCHREUER, CHRISTOPH H. (2001), THE ICSID CONVENTION: A COMMENTARY.
SHAW, MALCOLM (2006), INTERNATIONAL LAW, 5th ed.
SULLIVAN, E. THOMAS & RICHARD S. FRASE (2008), PROPORTIONALITY PRINCIPLES IN AMERICAN LAW: CONTROLLING EXCESSIVE GOVERNMENT ACTIONS.
TRIDIMAS, TAKIS (2006), THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF EU LAW, 2nd ed.
VAN DIJK, PIETER et al. (1998), THEORY AND PRACTICE OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 72-74, 3rd ed.
YANNACA-SMALL, KATIA (2010), ARBITRATION UNDER INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT: AGREEMENTS A GUIDE TO THE KEY ISSUES.
Articles/ Working Papers

Abbott, Kenneth W. et al. (2000), The Concept of Legalization, 54(3) INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION 401.
Alexy, Robert (2000), On the Structure of Legal Principles, 13(3) RATIO JURIS 294.
Alexy, Robert (eds.) (2009), The Reasonableness of the Law, in REASONABLENESS AND LAW 3.
Alvarez, Guillermo Aguilar & William W. Park (2003), The New Face of Investment Arbitration: NAFTA Chapter 11, 28 YALE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 365.
Alvarez, José E. & Kathryn Khamsi (ed.) (2009), The Argentine Crisis and Foreign Investors: A Glimpse into the Heart of the Investment Regime, in YEARBOOK ON INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW AND POLICY 2008-2009 379.
Alvarez, José E. & Tegan Brink (2012), Revisiting the Necessity Defense: Continental Casualty v. Argentina, 9(3) TRANSNATIONAL DISPUTE MANAGEMENT 319.
Ambrus, Monika (2009), Comparative Law Method in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in the Light of the Rule of Law, 2(3) ERASMUS LAW REVIEW 353.
Andenas, Mads & Stefan Zleptnig (2007), Proportionality: WTO Law: in Comparative Perspective, 42(3) TEXAS INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL 371.
Anderson, David (1999), Compensation for Interference with Property, 6 EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW543.
Bodansky, Daniel (2007), The Concept of Legitimacy in International Law (UGA Legal Studies Research Paper No. 07-013).
Bokor-Szego, H. (ed.) (1991), General Principles of Law, in INTERNATIONAL LAW: ACHIEVEMENTS AND PROSPECTS 213.
Brabandere, Eric De (eds.) (2012), Arbitral Decisions as a Source of International Investment Law, in INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW: THE SOURCES OF RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS 245.
Brower, Charles N. & Stephan W. Schill (2009), Is Arbitration a Threat or a Boon to the Legitimacy of International Investment Law?, 9(2) CHICAGO JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 471.
Buchanan, Allen & Robert O. Keohane (2006), The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions, 20(4) ETHICS & INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 405.
Burke-White, William (2008), The Argentine Financial Crisis: State Liability Under BITs and the Legitimacy of the ICSID System, 3(1) ASIAN JOURNAL OF WTO & INTERNATIONAL HEALTH LAW AND POLICY 199.
Burke-White, William W. & Andreas von Staden (2008), Investment Protection in Extraordinary Times: The Interpretation and Application of Non-Precluded Measures Provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties, 48(2) VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 307.
Burke-White, William W. & Andreas Von Staden (2010), Private Litigation in a Public Law Sphere: The Standard of Review in Investor-State Arbitrations, 35(2) YALE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 283.
Butler, Petra (2008), Margin of Appreciation – A Note Towards a Solution for the Pacific?, 39(4) VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON LAW REVIEW 687, 703.
Cai, Congyan (2009), China-US BIT Negotiations and the Future of Investment Treaty Regime: A Grand Bilateral Bargain with Multilateral Implications, 12(2) JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW 457.
Calamita, N. Jansen (ed.) (2013), International human rights and the interpretation of international investment treaties: constitutional considerations, in THE INTERACTION OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW WITH OTHER FIELDS OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 164.
Cali, Basak (2007), Balancing Human Rights - Methodological Problems with Weights, Scales and Proportions, 29(1) HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY 251.
Cannizzaro, Enzo (2001), The Role of Proportionality in the Law of International Countermeasures, 12 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 889.
Chayes, Abram (1976), The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation, 89(7) HARVARD LAW REVIEW 1281.
Cheyne, Ilona (eds.) (2014), Deference and the Use of the Public Policy Exception in International Courts and Tribunals, in DEFERENCE IN INTERNATIONAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS: STANDARD OF REVIEW AND MARGIN OF APPRECIATION 38.
Choudhury, Barnali (2008), Recapturing Public Power: Is Investment Arbitration’s Engagement of the Public Interest Contributing to the Democratic Deficit?, 41 VANDERBILT JOURNAL OF TRANSNATIONAL LAW 775.
Cohn, Margit (2010), Legal Transplant Chronicles: The Evolution of Unreasonableness and Proportionality Review of the Administration in the United Kingdom, 58 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LAW 583.
Cottier, Thomas et al. (2012), The Principle of Proportionality in International Law 4 (University of Bern, World Trade Institute Working Paper No 2012/38).
Craig Paul (2010), Proportionality, Rationality and Review, 2010 (2) NEW ZEALAND LAW REVIEW 265.
Craig, Paul (ed.) (1999), Unreasonableness and Proportionality in UK Law, in THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY IN THE LAWS OF EUROPE 85.
Crawford, Emily (2012), Proportionality, in THE MAX PLANCK ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW, vol. VIII 533.
Croley, Steven P. & John H. Jackson (1996), WTO dispute procedures: standard of review, and deference to national governments, 90 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 193.
de Búrca, Gráinne (1993), The Principle of Proportionality and its Application in EC Law, 13(1) YEARBOOK OF EUROPEAN LAW 105.
Delbrück, Jost (ed.) (1984), Proportionality, in ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW, VOL. III 1140.
Desierto, Diane (2012), Human Rights and Investment in Economic Emergencies: Conflict of Treaties, Interpretation, Valuation Decisions 46 (Society of International Economic Law, Working Paper No. 2012/47).
Desmedt, Axel (2001), Proportionality in WTO Law, 4(3) JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW 441.
Dolzer, Rudolf (2002), Indirect Expropriations: New Developments?, 11(1) N.Y.U. ENVIRONMENTAL LAW JOURNAL 64.
E., Lauterpacht (1990), Issues of compensation and nationality in the taking of energy investments, 8(4) JOURNAL OF ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAW 241.
Elliott, Mark (eds.) (2010), Proportionality and Deference: The Importance of a Structured Approach, in EFFECTIVE JUDICIAL REVIEW: A CORNERSTONE OF GOOD GOVERNANCE 264.
Engle, Eric (2012), The History of the General Principle of Proportionality: An Overview, 10(1) DARTMOUTH LAW JOURNAL 1.
Faccio, Sondra (2014), The Application of the Principle of Proportionality to Assess Compensation: Some Reflections Arising from the Case of Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine, 13(2) THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF INTERNATIONAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS 199.
Fallon, M. & J. Meeusen (eds.) (2002), Private international law in the European Union and the exception of mutual recognition, in YEARBOOK OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW, VOL. IV 37.
Fauchald, Ole Kristian (2008), The Legal Reasoning of ICSID Tribunals – An Empirical Analysis, 19(2) THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 301.
Feldman, David (ed.) (1999), Proportionality and the Human Rights Act 1998, in THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY IN THE LAWS OF EUROPE 117.
Follesdal, Andreas (2009), The Legitimacy of International Human Rights Review: The Case of the European Court of Human Rights, 40(4) JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY 595.
Franck, Susan D. (2005), The Legitimacy Crisis in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Privatizing Public International Law Through Inconsistent Decisions, 73(4) FORDHAM LAW REVIEW 1521.
Franck, Thomas (2010), Proportionality in International Law, 4(2) LAW & ETHICS OF HUMAN RIGHTS 231.
Gagné, Gilbert & Jean-Frédéric Morin (2006), The Evolving American Policy on Investment Protection: Evidence from Recent FTAs and the 2004 Model BIT, 9(2) JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW 357.
Garcia-Bolivar, Omar E. (2005), The Teleology of International Investment Law: The Role of Purpose in the Interpretation of International Investment Agreements, 6(5) THE JOURNAL OF WORLD INVESTMENT AND TRADE 751.
Gardam, Judith Gail (1993), Proportionality and Force in International Law, 87(3) THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 391.
Garner, Bryan (ed.) (2009), BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY.
Gazzini, Tarcisio (2009), General Principles of Law in the Field of Foreign Investment, 10(1) THE JOURNAL OF WORLD INVESTMENT AND TRADE 103.
Gazzini, Tarcisio (eds.) (2012), Bilateral Investment Treaties, in INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW: THE SOURCES OF RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS 99.
Gerards, Janneke (2011), Pluralism, Deference and the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine, 17(1) EUROPEAN LAW JOURNAL 80.
Gordon, Kathryn & Joachim Pohl (2015), Investment Treaties over Time - Treaty Practice and Interpretation in a Changing World (OECD Working Papers on International Investment 2015/02).
Grossman, Nienke (2010), Legitimacy and International Adjudicative Bodies, 41 GEORGE WASHINGTON INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW 107.
Han, Xiuli (2007), The Application of the Principle of Proportionality in Tecmed v. Mexico, 6(3) CHINESE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 635.
Harbo, Tor-Inge (2010), The Function of the Proportionality Principle in EU Law, 16(2) EUROPEAN LAW JOURNAL 158.
Harten, Gus Van & Martin Loughlin (2006), Investment Treaty Arbitration as a Species of Global Administrative Law, 17(1) EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 121.
Henckels, Caroline (2012), Indirect Expropriation and the Right to Regulate: Revisiting Proportionality Analysis and the Standard of Review in Investor-State Arbitration 15(1) JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW 223.
Henckels, Caroline (2012), Proportionality and the Standard of Review in Fair and Equitable Treatment Claims: Balancing Stability and Consistency with the Public Interest (Society of International Economic Law, Working Paper No. 2012/27).
Herwig, Alexia & Asja Serdarevic (eds.) (2014), Standard of Review for Necessity and Proportionality Analysis in EU and WTO Law, in DEFERENCE IN INTERNATIONAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS: STANDARD OF REVIEW AND MARGIN OF APPRECIATION 210.
Higgins, Rosalyn (1983),The Taking of property by the state : recent developments in international law, 176 RECUEIL DES COURS, COLLECTED COURSES OF THE HAGUE ACADEMY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 1982-III 259.
Hilf, Meinhard (2001), Power, rules and principles - which orientation for WTO/GATT law?, 4(1) JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW111.
Hoecke, Mark Van (2002), Deep Level Comparative Law 10-11 (European University Institute Working Paper LAW No.2002/13).
Hueckel, Julia (2012), Rebalancing Legitimacy and Sovereignty in International Investment Agreements, 61 EMORY LAW JOURNAL 601.
J. Tams, Christian (eds.) (2012), The Sources of International Investment Law: Concluding Thoughts, in INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW: THE SOURCES OF RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS 319.
Jans, Jan H. (2000), Proportionality Revisited, 27(3) LEGAL ISSUES ECONOMIC INTEGRATION 239.
Jeswald W. Salacuse (eds.) (1990), Host Country Regulation and Promotion of Joint Ventures and Foreign Investment, in INTERNATIONAL JOINT VENTURES: A PRACTICAL APPROACH TO WORKING WITH FOREIGN INVESTORS IN THE U.S. AND ABROAD 107.
Joseph, Sarah (eds.) (2009), Democratic Deficit, Participation and the WTO, in THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS: INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES 313.
Kantor, Mark (2004), The New Draft Model U.S. BIT: Noteworthy Developments, 21(4) JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION 383.
Katja Gehne & Romulo Brillo (2014), Stabilization Clauses in International Investment Law: Beyond Balancing and Fair and Equitable Treatment (University of Bern, World Trade Institute Working Paper No 2013/46).
Kaufmann-Kohler, Gabrielle (2007), Arbitral Precedent: Dream, Necessity or Excuse?, 23(3) ARBITRATION INTERNATIONAL 357.
Kaushal, Asha (2009), Revisiting History: How the Past Matters for the Present Backlash Against the Foreign Investment Regime, 50(2) HARVARD INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL 491.
Kennedy, David (1994), The International Style in Postwar Law and Policy, 1994(1) UTAH LAW REVIEW 7.
Kingsbury, Benedict & Stephan W. Schill (2009), Investor-State Arbitration as Governance: Fair and Equitable Treatment, Proportionality and the Emerging Global Administrative Law (NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 09-46).
Kingsbury, Benedict & Stephan W. Schill (ed.) (2010), Public Law Concepts to Balance Investors’ Rights with State Regulatory Actions in the Public Interest—the Concept of Proportionality, in INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW AND COMPARATIVE PUBLIC LAW 75.
Kolb, Robert (eds.) (2006), General Principles of Procedural Law, in THE STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE: A COMMENTARY 793.
Kratochvíl, Jan (2011), The Inflation of the Margin of Appreciation by the European Court of Human Rights, 29(3) NETHERLANDS QUARTERLY OF HUMAN RIGHTS 324.
Kriebaum, Ursula (2007), Regulatory Takings: Balancing the Interests of the Investor and the State, 8(5) THE JOURNAL OF WORLD INVESTMENT & TRADE 717.
Krommendijk, Jasper & John Morijn (eds.) (2010), ‘Proportional’ by What Measure(s)? Balancing Investor Interests and Human Rights by Way of Applying the Proportionality Principle in Investor-State Arbitration, in HUMAN RIGHTS IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW AND ARBITRATION 422.
Kurtz, Jurgen (2010), Adjudging the Exceptional at International Investment Law: Security, Public Order and Financial Crisis, 59(2) INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW QUARTERLY 325.
Leonhardsen, Erlend M. (2012), Looking for Legitimacy: Exploring Proportionality Analysis in Investment Treaty Arbitration, 3(1) JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE SETTLEMENT 95.
Levinson, L. Harold (1989), The Public Law/Private Law Distinction in the Courts, 57 THE GEORGE WASHINGTON LAW REVIEW 1579.
Lindsay, Peter (2003), The Ambiguity of GATT Article XXI: Subtle Success or Rampant Failure, 52(6) DUKE LAW JOURNAL 1277.
Mahoney, Paul (1990), Judicial Activism and Judicial Self-Restraint in the European Court of Human Rights: Two Sides of the Same Coin, 11 HUMAN RIGHTS LAW JOURNAL 57.
Marboe, Irmgard (2006), Compensation and Damages in International Law The Limits of “Fair Market Value”, 7(5) JOURNAL OF WORLD INVESTMENT AND TRADE 723.
Marboe, Irmgard (ed.) (2010), State Responsibility and Comparative State Liability for Administrative and Legislative Harm to Economic Interests, in INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW AND COMPARATIVE PUBLIC LAW 377.
Martin, Anne Marie (2014), Proportionality: An Addition to the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes’ Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard, 37(3) BOSTON COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW REVIEW 58.
Mathews, Jud & Alec Stone Sweet (2011), All Things in Proportion? American Rights Doctrine and the Problem of Balancing, 60(4) EMORY LAW JOURNAL 799.
Mclachlan, Campbell (2005), The Principle of Systemic Integration and Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention, 54(2) INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW QUARTERLY 279.
McLachlan, Campbell (2008), Investment Treaties and General International Law, 57(2) INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW QUARTERLY 361.
McNelis, Natalie (2010), The role of the judge in the EU and WTO. Lessons from the BSE and hormones cases, 4(1) JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW 189.
McRae, Donald M. (eds.) (2000), GATT Article XX and the WTO Appellate Body, in NEW DIRECTIONS IN INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW: ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF JOHN H. JACKSON 219.
Miles, Kate (2008), International Investment Law and Climate Change: Issues in the Transition to a Low Carbon World (Society of International Economic Law, Working Paper No. 27/08).
Mitchell, Andrew D. & Caroline Henckels (2013), Variations on a Theme: Comparing the Concept of ''Necessity'' in International Investment Law and WTO Law, 14(1) CHICAGO JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 93.
Mountfield, Helen (2002), Regulatory Expropriations in Europe: The Approach of the European Court of Human Rights, 11(1) NEW YORK UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENTAL LAW JOURNAL 136.
Neumann, Jan & Elizabeth Türk (2003), Necessity Revisited: Proportionality in World Trade Organization Law after Korea—Beef, EC—Asbestos and EC—Sardines, 37(1) JOURNAL OF WORLD TRADE 199.
Newcombe, Andrew (205), The Boundaries of Regulatory Expropriation in International Law, 20(1) ICSID REVIEW-FOREIGN INVESTMENT LAW JOURNAL 1.
Oesch, Matthias, Standards of Review in WTO Dispute Resolution, 6(3) JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW 635 (2003).
Pager, Sean (2003), Strictness vs. Discretion: The European Court of Justice''s Variable Vision of Gender Equality, 51 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LAW 553.
Parra, Antonio (2001), Applicable Substantive Law in ICSID Arbitrations Initiated Under Investment Treaties, 16(1) ICSID REVIEW—FOREIGN INVESTMENT LAW JOURNAL 20.
Paul, Joel R. (1988), The Isolation of Private International Law, 7 WISCONSIN INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL 149.
Paulsson, Jan & Zachary Douglas (eds.) (2004), Indirect Expropriation in Investment Treaty Arbitrations, in ARBITRATING FOREIGN INVESTMENT DISPUTES: PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE LEGAL ASPECTS 145.
Perju, Vlad (2012), Constitutional Transplants, Borrowing, and Migrations 34 (Boston College Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 254).
Peter Lindsay, The Ambiguity of GATT Article XXI: Subtle Success or Rampant Failure, 52(6) DUKE LAW JOURNAL 1277, 1278-79, 1310-1313 (2003).
Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich (2009), International Rule of Law and Constitutional Justice in International Investment Law and Arbitration, 16(2) INDIANA JOURNAL OF GLOBAL LEGAL STUDIES 513.
Piper, Don C. (1979), New Directions in the Protection of American Owned Property Abroad, 4(2) MARYLAND JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 315.
Radi, Yannick (2013), The ‘Human Nature’ of International Investment Law (Leiden Law School, Grotius Centre Working Paper 2013/006-IEL).
Ratner, Steven R. (2008), Regulatory Takings in Institutional Context: Beyond the Fear of Fragmented International Law, 102(3) AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 475.
Regan, Donald H. (2007), The Meaning of ''Necessary'' in GATT Article XX and GATS Article XIV: The Myth of Cost-Benefit Balancing, 6(3) WORLD TRADE REVIEW 347.
Ripinsky, Sergey (2007), State of Necessity: Effect on Compensation, 4(6) TRANSNATIONAL DISPUTE MANAGEMENT 1.
Roberts, Anthea (2013), Clash of Paradigms: Actors and Analogies Shaping the Investment Treaty System, 107(1) AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 45.
Ruiz Fabri, Hélène (2003), The Approach Taken by the European Court of Human Rights to the Assessment of Compensation for “Regulatory Expropriations” of the Property of Foreign Investors, 11(1) NYU ENVIRONMENTAL LAW JOURNAL 148.
Salacuse, Jeswald W. (eds.) (2004), Towards a Global Treaty On Foreign Investment: The Search for a Grand Bargain, in ARBITRATING FOREIGN INVESTMENT DISPUTES: PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE LEGAL ASPECTS 51.
Schill, Stephan W. (2006), Revisiting a Landmark: Indirect Expropriation and Fair and Equitable Treatment in the ICSID Case Tecmed, 3(2) TRANSNATIONAL DISPUTE MANAGEMENT 1.
Schill, Stephan W. (2011), Enhancing International Investment Law’s Legitimacy: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations of a New Public Law Approach, 52(1) VIRGINIA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 57.
Schill, Stephan W. (2012), Deference in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Re-conceptualizing the Standard of Review through Comparative Public Law (Society of International Economic Law, Working Paper No. 2012/33).
Schill, Stephan W. (eds.) (2012), General Principles of Law and International Investment Law, in INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW: THE SOURCES OF RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS 133.
Schreuer, Christoph & Matthew Weiniger (eds.) (2008), A Doctrine of Precedent?, in THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW 1188.
Schreuer, Christoph & Ursula Kriebaum (2007), The Concept of Property in Human Rights Law and International Investment Law, in HUMAN RIGHTS, DEMOCRACY AND THE RULE OF LAW: LIBER AMICORUM LUZIUS WILDHABER 743.
Schreuer, Christoph (2005), Fair and Equitable Treatment in Arbitral Practice, 6(3) THE JOURNAL OF WORLD INVESTMENT & TRADE 357.
Scott, Joanne (2004), European Regulation of GMOs: Thinking about ‘Judicial Review’ in the WTO (NYU School of Law, Jean Monnet Working Paper 04/04).
Serkin, Christopher (2005), The Meaning of Value: Assessing Just Compensation for Regulatory Takings, 99 NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 677.
Shany, Yuval (2005), Toward a General Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in International Law?, 16(5) EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 907.
Shelton, Dinah (2003), Legal Norms to Promote the Independence and Accountability of International Tribunals, 2(1) LAW AND PRACTICE OF INTERNATIONAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS 27.
Sloane, Robert D. (2012), On the Use and Abuse of Necessity in the Law of State Responsibility, 106 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 447.
Sornarajah, Muthucumaraswamy (eds.) (2011), Evolution or revolution in international investment arbitration? The descent into normlessness, in EVOLUTION IN INVESTMENT TREATY LAW AND ARBITRATION 631.
Spears, Suzanne A. (eds.) (2011), Making way for the public interest in international investment agreements, in EVOLUTION IN INVESTMENT TREATY LAW AND ARBITRATION 271.
Stokke, Olav Schram (2001), The Interplay of International Regimes: Putting Effectiveness Theory to Work (Fridtjof Nansens Institutt, FNI Report 14/2001).
Stone Sweet, Alec & Giacinto Della Cananea (2104), Proportionality, General Principles of Law, and Investor-State Arbitration: A Response to Jose Alvarez (Yale Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 507).
Stone Sweet, Alec & Jud Mathews (2008), Proportionality Balancing and Global Constitutionalism, 47 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF TRANSNATIONAL LAW 73.
Stone Sweet, Alec (2010), Investor-State Arbitration: Proportionality’s New Frontier, 4(1) LAW & ETHICS OF HUMAN RIGHTS 48.
Strm, Kaare (eds.) (2003), Parliamentary Democracy and Delegation, in DELEGATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACIES 55.
Takis Tridimas (ed.) (1999), Proportionality in Community Law: Searching for the Appropriate Standard of Scrutiny, in THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY IN THE LAWS OF EUROPE 65.
The Rt. Hon. Lord Hoffmann (ed.) (2006), The influence of the European principle of proportionality upon UK law, in THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY IN THE LAWS OF EUROPE 107.
Thirlway, Hugh (2005), The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960–1989: Supplement, 2005: Parts One and Two, 76(1) BRITISH YEARBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 1.
Trachtman, Joel & Chad Bown (2009), Brazil—Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres: A Balancing Act, 8(1) WORLD TRADE REVIEW (SPECIAL ISSUE 1) 85
van Aaken, Anne (2009), Defragmentation of Public International Law through Interpretation: a Methodological Proposal, 16(2) INDIANA JOURNAL OF GLOBAL LEGAL STUDIES 483.
Van Aaken, Anne (ed.) (2010), Primary and Secondary Remedies in International Investment Law and National State Liability: a Functional and Comparative view, in INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW AND COMPARATIVE PUBLIC LAW 721.
Vandevelde, Kenneth (ed.) (2009), A Comparison of the 2004 and 1994 U.S. Model BITs: Rebalancing Investor and Host Country Interests, in YEARBOOK ON INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW & POLICY 2008-2009 283.
Voigt, Christina (2008), The Role of General Principles in International Law and their Relationship to Treaty Law, 31(2) RETFÆRD ÅRGANG 3.
von Bogdandy (2003), Armin, Doctrine of Principles (Jean Monnet Working Paper 9/03).
Von Staden, Andreas (2010), Towards Greater Doctrinal Clarity in Investor-State Arbitration: The CMS, Enron, and Sempra Annulment Decisions, 2 CZECH YEARBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 207
Wälde, Thomas & Abba Kolo (2011), Environmental Regulation, Investment Protection and ‘Regulatory Taking’ in InternationalLaw, 50(4) INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW QUARTERLY 811.
Ward, Kenneth D. (eds.) (2005), Introduction, in THE JUDICIARY IN AMERICAN DEMOCRACY: ALEXANDER BICKEL, THE COUNTERMAJORITARIAN DIFFICULTY, AND CONTEMPORARY CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY 1.
White, Robin C. A. (1981), Expropriation of the Libyan Oil Concessions. Two Conflicting International Arbitrations, 30(1) INTERNATIONAL & COMPARATIVE LAW QUARTERLY 1.
Yannaca-Small, Catherine (2004), “Indirect Expropriation” and the “Right to Regulate” in International Investment Law (OECD Working Papers on International Investment 2004/04).
Yowell, Paul (eds.) (2013), Proportionality in United States Constitutional Law, in REASONING RIGHTS: COMPARATIVE JUDICIAL ENGAGEMENT.
Zleptnig, Stefan (2002), The Standard of Review in WTO Law: An Analysis of Law, Legitimacy and the Distribution of Legal and Political Authority, 13(5) EUROPEAN BUSINESS LAW REVIEW 427.
ICSID/ UNCITRAL Cases
ADC Affiliate Ltd. and ADC & ADMC Management Ltd. v. Republic of Hungary, ICSID ARB/03/16, Award (October 2, 2006).
Alex Genin, Eastern Credit Limited, Inc. and A.S. Baltoil v. Estonia, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/2, Award (June 25, 2001).
Alex Genin, Eastern Credit Limited, Inc. and A.S. Baltoil v. Republic of Estonia, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/2, Award (June 25, 2001).
Amco Asian Corporation and Others v. Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Award (November 20, 1984), 89 ILR. 405 (1992).
Amco v. Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Decision on the Application for Annulment (May 16, 1986), 1 ICSID Reports 509 (1990).
American Manufacturing & Trading v. Republic of Zaire, ICSID Case No. ARB/93/1 (February 10, 1997).
Archer Daniels Midland Company and Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, Inc. v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/04/5, Award (November 21, 2007).
Azurix Corp. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12, Award (July 14, 2006).
Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi A.S. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/29, Decision on Jurisdiction (November 14, 2005).
Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi A.S. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/29, Award (Augusr 27, 2009).
BG Group Plc. v. Republic of Argentina, Final Award (UNCITRAL, December 24, 2007).
Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award (July 24, 2008).
CME Czech Republic B.V. v. Czech Republic, Partial Award (UNCITRAL, September 13, 2001).
CME Czech Republic B.V. v. Czech Republic, Partial Award, ¶ 604 (UNCITRAL, September 13, 2001).
CME Czech Republic B.V. v. Czech Republic, Separate Opinion on the issues at the quantum phases of CME v. Czech Republic by Ian Brownlie, C.B.E., Q.C. (March 14, 2003).
CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Award (May 12, 2005).
CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Decision of the ad hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment of the Argentine Republic (September 25, 2007).
Compañía del Desarrollo de Santa Elena, S.A. v. Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB/96/1, Final Award (February 17, 2000).
Continental Casualty Company v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/9, Award (September 5, 2008).
Duke Energy Electroquil Partners & Electroquil S.A. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/19, Award (August 18, 2008).
EDF (Services) Ltd. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/13, Award (October 8, 2009).
El Paso Energy International Company v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15, Decision on Jurisdiction (April 27, 2006).
El Paso v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15, Award (October 31, 2011).
Emilio Agustín Maffezini v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7, Award (November 13, 2000).
EnCana Corporation v. Republic of Ecuador, LCIA Case No. UN3481, Award (UNCITRAL, February 3, 2006).
Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Award (May 22, 2007) [also known as Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentine Republic].
Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Decision on the Application for Annulment of the Argentine Republic (July 30, 2010) [also known as Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentine Republic].
Eureko B.V. v. Republic of Poland, Partial Award (August 19, 2005).
Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/02/01, Award (July 17, 2006).
Frontier Petroleum Services Ltd. v. Czech Republic, Final Award (UNCITRAL, November 12, 2010).
Gami Investments, Inc. v. Mexico, Final Award (UNCITRAL/ NAFTA, November 15, 2004).
Gemplus S.A., SLP S.A., Gemplus Industrial S.A. de C.V. v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/04/3, Award (June 16, 2010).
Glamis Gold, Ltd. v. United States of America, Award (UNCITRAL, June 8, 2009).
Impregilo S.p.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/17, Award (June 21, 2011).
International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v. Mexico, Arbitral Award (UNCITRAL, January 26, 2006).
International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v. Mexico, Separate Opinion of Thomas Wälde (December 1, 2005).
Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13, Decision on Jurisdiction (June 16, 2006).
Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18, Award (March 28, 2011).
Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18, Award (March 28, 2011).
Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability (January 14, 2010).
Klöckner v. Cameroon, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/2, Decision on Annulment (May 3, 1985), 14 ICSID Reports 101 (2009).
L.E.S.I. S.p.A. and ASTALDI S.p.A. v. République Algérienne Démocratique et Populaire, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/3, Award (November 12, 2008).
LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp., and LG&E International, Inc. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, Decision on Liability (October 3, 2006).
M.C.I. Power Group L.C. and New Turbine v. of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/6, Decision on Annulment (October 19, 2009).
Marvin Roy Feldman Karpa v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/1, Award (December 16, 2002).
Metalclad Corporation v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1, Award (August 30, 2000).
Metalpar S.A. and Buen Aire S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/5, Award on the Merits (Spanish) (June 6, 2008).
Methanex Corporation v. United States, Final Award (UNCITRAL/ NAFTA, August 3, 2005).
Middle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co. S.A. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/6, Award (April 12, 2002).
MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7, Award (May 25, 2004).
MTD v. Chile, ICSID Case No ARB/01/7, Decision on Annulment (March 21, 2007).
National Grid plc v. Argentine Republic, Award (UNCITRAL, November 3, 2008).
Noble Ventures, Inc. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/11, Award (October 12, 2005).
Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador, LCIA Case No. UN3467, Final Award (UNCITRAL, July 1, 2004).
Occidental Petroleum & Occidental Exploration & Production v. Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11, Dissenting Opinion, ¶ 1, 4 (September 20, 2102).
Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11, Award (October 5, 2012).
Parkerings-Compagniet AS v. Lithuania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8, Award (September 11, 2007).
Pope & Talbot Inc. v. Canada, Interim Award (UNCITRAL, June 26, 2000).
Pope & Talbot v. Canada, Award on the Merits of Phase 2 (UNCITRAL, April 10, 2001).
Ronald S. Lauder v. Czech Republic, Final Award (UNCITRAL, September 3, 2001).
S.D. Myers, Inc. v. Canada, Partial Award (UNCITRAL/ NAFTA, November 13, 2000).
S.D. Myers, Inc. v. Canada, Separate Opinion by Dr. Bryan Schwartz (in the Partial Award) (UNCITRAL/ NAFTA, November 12, 2000).
Saluka Investments B.V. v. Czech Republic, Partial Award (UNCITRAL, March 17, 2006).
Sempra Energy International v. Arg. Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Decision on the Argentine Republic’s Request for Annulment of the Award (June 29, 2010).
Sempra Energy International v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Award (September 28, 2007).
SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Philippines, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/6, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction (January 29, 2004).
Siemens A.G. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8, Award (January 27, 2007).
Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v. Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/84/3, Award (May 20, 1992).
Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A., & InterAgua Servicios Integrales del Agua S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/17, Separate Opinion of Arbitrator Pedro Nikken (July 30, 2010).
Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A., & InterAgua Servicios Integrales del Agua S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/17, Decision on Liability (July 30, 2010).
Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A.and Vivendi Universal, S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, and AWG Group v. Argentine Republic, UNCITRAL Arbitration, Order in Response to a Petition by Five Non-Governmental Organizations for Permission to make an amicus curiae Submission (February 12, 2007).
Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A.and Vivendi Universal, S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, and AWG Group v. Argentine Republic, UNCITRAL Arbitration, Decision on Liability (July 30, 2010).
Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A.and Vivendi Universal, S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, and AWG Group v. Argentine Republic, UNCITRAL Arbitration, Separate Opinion of Arbitrator Pedro Nikken (July 30, 2010).
Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A.and Vivendi Universal, S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, and AWG Group v. Argentine Republic, UNCITRAL Arbitration, Amicus Curiae Submission (April 4, 2007).
Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/2, Award (May 29, 2003).
Total S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/01, Decision on Liability (December 27, 2010).
Waste Management, Inc. v. Mexico (No. 2), ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/3, Award (April 30, 2004).
Wena Hotels Ltd. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4, Award (December 8, 2000).
WTO Cases
Appellate Body Report, Argentina – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear, WT/DS121/AB/R (December 14, 1999).
Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres, WT/DS332/AB/R (December 3, 2007).
Appellate Body Report, China – Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials, WT/DS394/AB/R, WT/DS395/AB/R, WT/DS398/AB/R (January 30, 2012)
Appellate Body Report, Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the Importation and Internal Sale of Cigarettes, WT/DS302/AB/R (April 25, 2005).
Appellate Body Report, European Communities – EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products, WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R (January 16, 1998).
Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Products Containing Asbestos, WT/DS135/AB/R (March 12, 2001).
Appellate Body Report, Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef, WT/DS161/AB/R, WT/DS169/AB/R (December 11, 2000).
Appellate Body Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R (October 12, 1998).
Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services, WT/DS285/AB/R (April 7, 2005).
Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products, WT/DS381/AB/R (May 16, 2012).
Appellate Body Report, United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/9 (May 20, 1996).
Appellate Body Reports, China – Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products, WT/DS363/AB/R (December 21, 2009).
Appellate Body Reports, Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages, WT/DS308/AB/R (March 6, 2006).
Panel Report, Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres, WT/DS332/R (June 12, 2007).
Panel Report, Thailand – Customs and Fiscal Measures on Cigarettes from the Philippines, WT/DS371/R (November 15, 2010).
Panel Report, United States – Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) Requirements, WT/DS384/R, WT/DS386/R (November 18, 2011).
Panel Report, United States – Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) Requirements, WT/DS384/R, WT/DS386/R (November 18, 2011).
Panel Report, United States – Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, WT/DS186 (January 16, 1989).
Panel Report, United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/R (January 29, 1996).
ECR/ ECtHR/ ICJ/ Other Cases
Air Canada v. United Kingdom, 316-A Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser.A) (1995).
Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and Others v. Portugal, 2000-I Eur. Ct. H.R. 135.
Anglo-French Continental Shelf (United Kingdom v. France), 54 I.L.R. 6 (1977).
Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), 2005 I.C.J. 168 (Judgment of Decemebr 19).
Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964).
Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Ltd (Belgium v. Spain) (2nd Phase), 1970 I.C.J. 3 (February 5).
Beyeler v. Italy, 2000-I Eur. Ct. H.R. 1.
Broniowski v. Poland, 2004-V Eur. Ct. H.R. 1.
Bubić v. Croatia, App. 23677/07 (Eur. Ct. H.R. July 9, 2009).
C-183/95, Affish, 1997 E.C.R. I-4315.
C-36/02, Omega Spielhallen- Und Automatenaufstellungs-Gmbh v. Oberbürgermeisterin Der Bundesstadt Bonn, 2004 E.C.R. I-9609.
Case 120/78, Rewe-Zentral AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (Cassis de Dijon), 1979 E.C.R. 649.
Case 120/86, Mulder v. Minister van Landbouw en Visserij, 1988 E.C.R. 2321.
Case 170/86, von Deetzen v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas, 1988 E.C.R. 2355.
Case 240/83, Procureur v. Association de défense des brûleurs d''huiles usagées, 1985 E.C.R. 531.
Case 261/81, Walter Rau Lebensmittelwerke v. De Smedt PVBA, 1982 E.C.R. 3961.
Case 302/86, Commission of the European Communities v. Denmark, 1988 E.C.R. 4607.
Case 331/88, Queen v. Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ex parte Fedesa and others, 1990 E.C.R. I-4023, I-4063.
Case 40/82, Commission v. United Kingdom, 1982 E.C.R. 2793.
Case 40-72, Schroeder v. Germany, 1973 E.C.R. I-125.
Case 43/72, Merkur v. Commission, 1973 E.C.R. 1055.
Case 52/81, W. Faust v. Commission, 1982 E.C.R. 3745, 3762.
Case 55/75, Balkan-Import-Export GmbH v Hauptzollamt Berlin-Packhof, 1976 E.C.R. 19.
Case 74/74, CNTA v. Commission, 1975 E.C.R. 533.
Case C-110/05, Commission v. Italy (Trailers), 2009 E.C.R. I-519.
Case C-120/94, Commission v. Greece, 1996 E.C.R. 1513 (per Advocate General Jacobs).
Case C-124/97, Läärä, 1999 E.C.R. I-6067.
Case C-152/88, Sofrimport Sàrl v. Commission, 1990 E.C.R. I-2477.
Case C-159/90 Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Ireland Ltd v. Stephen Grogan and others, 1991 E.C.R. I-4685.
Case C-169/91, Council of the City of Stoke-on-Trent and Norwich City Council v. B & Q plc, 1992 E.C.R. I-06635.
Case C-180/96, United Kingdom v. Commission, 1998 E.C.R. I-2265.
Case C-189/01, Jippes and others, 2001 E.C.R. I-5689.
Case C-275/92, Her Majesty''s Customs and Excise v Gerhart Schindler and Jörg Schindler, 1994 E.C.R. I-1039.
Case C-308/90, Advanced Nuclear Fuels v. Commission, 1993 E.C.R. I-309.
Case C-313/90 CIRFS and others v. Commission, 1993 E.C.R. I-1125.
Case C-384/93, Alpine v. Minister van Financiën, 1995 E.C.R. I-1141.
Case C-491/06, Danske Svineproducenter, 2008 E.C.R. I-3339.
Case C-62/90, Commission v. Germany (Medicines), 1992 E.C.R. I-2575.
Case C-83/94, Leifer and Others, 1995 E.C.R. I-3231.
Case T-203/96, Embassy Limousines v. European Parliament, 1998 E.C.R. II-4239.
Case T-223/00, Kyowa Hakko Kogy v. Commission, 2003 E.C.R. II-2553.
Case T-65/98, Van den Bergh Foods v. Commission, 2003 E.C.R. II-4653.
Cases C-104/89 & 37/90, Mulder v. Council and Commission, 1992 E.C.R. 1-3061.
Chorzów Factory (Germany v. Poland), 1928 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 17.
Continental Shelf (Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), 1982 I.C.J. 18, 60 (Judgment of February 24, 1982).
Dangeville v. France, App. No. 36677/97, 2002-III Eur. Ct. Hr. 71.
de Freitas v. Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Lands and Housing, [1999] 1 A.C. 69 (P.C. 1998).
Depalle v. France, 2010-III Eur. Ct. H.R. 233.
Dickson v. United Kingdom, App. No. 44362/04, 20000-V Eur. Ct. H.R. 99.
Djidrovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, App. No. 46447/99, (Judgment of February 24, 2005).
Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, App. No. 7525/76, 4 Eur. H.R. Rep. 149 (1981).
Former King of Greece v. Greece, 2000-XII Eur. Ct. H.R. 119.
Frizen v. Russia, App. No. 58254/00, 42 Eur. H.R. Rep. 19 (2006).
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), 1997 I.C.J. 7 (September 25).
Guillemin v. France, 25 Eur. H.R. Rep.435 (1997).
Handyside v. United Kingdom, 24 Eur. Ct. H. R. (ser. A) (1976).
Hansen v. The Queen, [2007] 3 N.Z.L.R. 1 (S.C.).
Heaney v. Ireland, [1994] 3 I.R. 593 (Ireland).
Hentrich v. France, 296 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1994).
Holy Monasteries v. Greece, 301 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1994).
Jahn and Others v. Germany, 2005-VI Eur. Ct. H.R. 55.
James v. United Kingdom, 98 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1986).
José María Cantos v. Argentina, 2002 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser.C ) No. 97 (November 28, 2002)
Joined Cases C-133/93, C-300/93 and C-362/93, Crispoltoni, 1994 E.C.R. I-4863.
Joined Cases C-267/88 to C-285/88, Wuidart and Others, 1990 E.C.R. I-435.
Kozacioğlu v. Turkey, App. 2334/03 (Eur. Ct. H.R. February 19, 2009).
Leander v. Sweden, 116 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1987).
Lithgow v. United Kingdom, 102 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1986).
Matos e Silva, Lda. v. Portugal, 1996-IV Eur. Ct. H.R.; 24 Eur. H.R. Rep. 573 (1996).
Mellacher & Others v. Austria, 169 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1989).
Mellacher and Others v. Austria, 169 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1989).
Military and Paramilitary Activities (Nicaragua v. United States), 1986 I.C.J. 14 (Merits) (Judgment of June 27).
Ministry of Transport v. Noort, [1992] 3 N.Z.L.R. 260 (C.A.).
North Sea Continental Shelf (Germany v. Netherlands), 1969 I.C.J. 3.
Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), 2003 I.C.J. 161 (Judgment of Novemebr 6).
Perdigão v. Portugal, App. No 24768/06, Judgment (November 16, 2010).
Pincová and Pinc v. Czech Republic, 2002-VIII Eur. Ct. H.R. 311.
Pine Valley Developments and Others v. Ireland, 222 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1991).
Pressos Compañía Naviera and Others v. Belgium, 332 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1995).
Pretto v. Italy, App. No. 7984/77, 6 Eur. H.R. Rep. 182 (1984).
R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103 (Canada).
Relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium” v. Belgium, 6 Eur. Ct. Hr. (ser. A) (1968) [Belgian Linguistic].
Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, 1949 I.C.J. 174 (April 11).
Responsabilité de l’Allemagne à raison des dommages causés dans les colonies portugaises du sud de l’Afrique (Portugal v. Germany) [The Naulilaa Arbitration], 8 Trib. Arb. Mixtes 409 (1928), 2 R. Int’l Arb. Awards 1011 (1949).
Rock v. Ireland, [1997] 3 I.R. 484 (Ireland).
S v.Manamela and Another (Director-General of Justice Intervening) 2000 (3) SA 1 (CCT 25/99) (South Africa).
Scordino v. Italy (no. 1), 2006-V Eur. Ct. H.R. 91.
Soering v. United Kingdom, App. No 14038/88, 11 Eur. H.R. Rep. 439 (1989).
Spadea & Scalabrino v. Italy, 21 Eur. Ct. H.R. 482 (1995).
Sporrong & Lönnroth v. Sweden, 52 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1982).
Stretch v. United Kingdom, App. No. 44277/98, 38 Eur. H.R. Rep. 12 (2004).
Sunday Times v. United Kingdom (No. 1), 2 Eur. H.R. Rep. 245 (1980).
Veselinski v. former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, App. No. 45658/99 (Judgment of February 24, 2005).
Vo v. France, App. No. 53924/00, 2004-VIII Eur. Ct. H.R. 67.
Wingrove v. United Kingdom, 24 Eur. H.R. Rep. 1 (1997).
Treaties
Agreement between the Government of the French Republic and the Government of the Argentine Republic on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments, July 3, 1991, 1728 U.N.T.S. 298.
Agreement on encouragement and reciprocal protection of investments between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, April 29, 1991.
Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Antidumping Agreement, April 15, 1994,1868 U.N.T.S. 201.
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, April 15, 1994, 1868 U.N.T.S. 120.
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, April 15, 1994, 1867 U.N.T.S. 493.
Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community, Decemebr 13, 2007, 2007 O.J. (C306) 1 [Treaty of Lisbon].
American Convention on Human Rights [Pact of San José, Costa Rica], November 22, 1969, 1144 U.N.T.S. 144.
Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, March 30, 2010, 2010 O.J. (C 83) 47.
Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land [Hague Convention IV], October 18, 1907, 36 Sat. 2677.
Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, June 10, 1958, 330 U.N.T.S. 38.
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, November 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 222.
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, April 15, 1994, 1867 U.N.T.S. 187.
General Agreement on Trade in Services, April 15, 1994, 1869 U.N.T.S. 183.
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts [Additional Protocol I], June 8, 1977, 1125 U.N.T.S. 3.
Statute of the International Court of Justice, 3 Bevans 1179, 59 Stat. 1031, T.S. No. 993.
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331.
Treaty on European Union, February 7, 1992, 1992 O.J. (C191) 1, 31 I.L.M. 253.
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 2, April 15, 1994, 1869 U.N.T.S. 401.
United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, October 24, 1945, 1 UNTS XVI.
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, April 24, 1963, 596 U.N.T.S. 261.
BIT
Agreement Concerning the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, F.R.G.-U.S.S.R., Protocol (June 13, 1989).
Agreement on the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, Protocol, P.R.C.–F.R.G. (December 1, 2003).
Agreement on the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, India-Croat. (May 4, 2001).
Agreement on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments, Uganda-Belg.-Lux., February 1, 2005.
BLEU (Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union) - Colombia BIT (February 4, 2009).
Canada Model BIT (2004).
Canada–Cameroon BIT (March 3, 2014).
Canada–Colombia Free Trade Agreement (November 21, 2008).
Canada–Côte d''Ivoire BIT (November 30, 2014).
Canada–Korea Free Trade Agreement (March 11, 2014).
Canada–Mali BIT (November 28, 2014).
Canada–Nigeria BIT (May 6, 2014).
Canada–Peru BIT (Novemebr 14, 2006).
Canada–Senegal BIT (November 27, 2014)
Canada–Serbia BIT (September 1, 2014).
France–Uganda BIT (January 3, 2003).
Free Trade Agreement between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America (February 10, 2011).
Germany–Israel BIT (June 24, 1976) (not enter into force).
Japan–Australia Economic Partnership Agreement (July 8, 2014).
Korea–Australia Free Trade Agreement (April 8, 2014).
Netherlands-Venezuela BIT (October 22, 1991) (terminated).
New Zealand-China BIT (November 22, 1988).
Norway Model BIT (2007) (abandoned).
Russian Federation-Hungary BIT (March 6, 1995).
Taiwan-Japan Bilateral Investment Arrangement (September 22, 2011).
Treaty between the United States of America and the Republic of Ecuador concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment, U.S.-Ecuador (August 27, 1993).
Treaty Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment, U.S.-Bahr. (September 29, 1999).
Treaty Concerning the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Capital Investment, Protocol, F.R.G.-Haiti (August 14, 1973).
United Kingdom-Venezuela BIT (March 15, 1995).
United States–Singapore Free Trade Agreement (January 15, 2003).
US Model BIT (2004).
Statues and Arbitration Rules
ICSID Rules of Procedures for Arbitration Proceedings (Arbitrations Rules).
International Organization Documents
Decision Concerning Article XXI of the General Agreement, November 30, 1982, L/5426 GATT B.I.S.D. (29th Supp.) (1983).
European Commission [EC], Staff Working Report: Online public consultation on investment protection and investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (TTIP), SWD(2015)3/F1 (January 13, 2015).
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development [IBRD], Report of the Executive Directors on the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of other States (May 18, 1965),1 ICSID Reports 23 (1965).
International Law Commission [ILC], Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with commentaries, in YEARBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION, VOL. II 187 (1966).
International Law Commission [ILC], Fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law, UN Doc A/CN.4/L682 (April 13, 2006).
North American Free Trade Agreement Free Trade Commission [NAFTA FTC], Notes of Interpretation of Certain Chapter 11 Provisions (July 31, 2001).
The International Law Commission [ILC], Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries, U.N. GAOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 10, U.N. Doc A/56/10 (2001).
United Nations Conference on Trade And Development [UNCTAD], Bilateral Investment Treaties in the Mid-1990s (1998).
United Nations Conference on Trade And Development [UNCTAD], Expropriation: UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II, UNCTAD/DIAE/IA/2011/7 (July 2012).
United Nations Conference on Trade And Development [UNCTAD], Fair and Equitable Treatment: UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II, UNCTAD/DIAE/IA/2011/5 (December 31, 2010).
United Nations Conference on Trade And Development [UNCTAD], Recent Trends in IIAs and ISDS [IIA Issue Note, No. 1, 2015], UNCTAD/WEB/DIAE/PCB/2015/1 (February 19, 2015).
United Nations Conference on Trade And Development [UNCTAD], Recent Developments in Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) [IIA Issue Note, No. 1, 2014], UNCTAD/WEB/DIAE/PCB/2014/3 (April 7, 2014).
United Nations General Assembly [UN GA], G.A. Res. 1803 (XVII) U.N. GAOR, 17th Sess., Supp. No.17, U.N. Doc. A/5217 (December 14, 1962).
World Trade Organization Committee on Trade and Environment [WTO CTE], Note by the Secretariat:GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement Practice relating to GATT Art XX, paragraphs (b), (d) and (g), WT/CTE/W/203 (March 8, 2002).
World Trade Organization Working Group on the Relationship between Trade and Investment, Communication from India, WT/WGTI/W/86 (June 22, 2000).
Internet, and Other Sources
Andreas von Staden, Deference or No Deference, That is the Question: Legitimacy and Standards of Review in Investor-State Arbitration, INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (July 19, 2012), https://www.iisd.org/itn/2012/07/19/deference-or-no-deference-that-is-the-question-legitimacy-and-standards-of-review-in-investor-state-arbitration/.
Devaney, Margaret B., Remedies in Investor-State Arbitration: A Public Interest Perspective, INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (March 22, 2013), https://www.iisd.org/itn/2013/03/22/remedies-in-investor-state-arbitration-a-public-interest-perspective.
Investment Treaties with Senegal, Zaire, Morocco, Turkey, Cameroon, Bangladesh, Egypt, and Grenada, S. EXEC. DOC. NO. 100-32 (1988).
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinions, 1996 I.C.J. 226 (July 8).
Pietro, Domenico Di, Applicable Law Under Article 42 of the ICSID Convention, Transnational Notes, NYU LAW (October 19, 2011), http://blogs.law.nyu.edu/transnational/2011/10/applicable-law-under-article-42-of-the-icsid-convention.
Tai-Heng Cheng & Lucas Bento, ICSID’s Largest Award in History: An verview of Occidental Petroleum Corporation v. the Republic of Ecuador, KLUWERARBITRATIONBLOG (December 19, 2012), http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/blog/2012/12/19/icsids-largest-award-in-history-an-overview-of-occidental-petrole
um-corporation-v-the-republic-of-ecuador.
Thouvenin, Jean-Marc, European Governance 2 : The Principle of proportionality, PROFESSEURJEAN-MARCTHOUVENIN, http://lewebpedagogique.com/jmthouvenin/european-governance-2-program/european-governance-2-the-principle-of-proportionality/.
Rosa, Paolo Di, The New 2012 U.S. Model BIT: Staying the Course, KLUWERARBITRATIONBLOG (January 1, 2012), http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/blog/2012/06/01/the-new-2012-u-s-model-bit-staying-the-course/.
Webb, Matthew, Treaty Shopping: How Philip-Morris Cherry-Picked Worst Case BITs, INFOJUSTICE (December 2, 2012), http://infojustice.org/archives/28044.
Zhan, James X., Director, Investment & Enterprise, UNCTAD, OECD MEETING: Investment Treaties: policy goals and public support 2 (March 16, 2015), http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Upload/Documents/James%20Zhan%20speech%20at%20OECD%20on%20IIA%20regime-16-3-2015_1.pdf.


QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 王玉葉(2000)。〈歐洲聯盟之輔助原則〉,《歐美研究》,30卷2期,頁1-30。
2. 王玉葉(2007)。〈歐洲人權法院審理原則──國家裁量餘地原則〉,《歐美研究》,37卷3期,頁485-511。
3. 王立達、許翠玲(2012),〈違法聯合行為協議之私法上效力— 競爭法與民法第71條之雙向實證與釋義分析〉,《中研院法學期刊》,11期,頁65-127。
4. 王服清(2013)。〈論預防原則的應用與問題〉,《憲政時代》,39卷1期,頁33-119。
5. 田力品(2013)。〈由比例原則檢驗武裝衝突理由及手段之正當性〉,《軍法專刊》,59卷5期,頁180-192。
6. 李建良(1997)。〈論司法審查的政治界限──美國「政治問題原則」初探〉,《人文及社會科學集刊》,9卷4期,頁65-110。
7. 李貴英(2014)。〈能源憲章條約、德國廢核爭端與國際投資仲裁:Vattenfall v. Germany一案之探討〉,《歐美研究》,44卷3期,頁305-358。
8. 林明鏘(2014)。〈比例原則之功能與危機〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,231期,頁65-79。
9. 林彩瑜(2011)。〈論 WTO 與區域貿易協定爭端解決機制之衝突與調和〉,《國立臺灣大學法學論叢》,40卷1期,頁393-451。
10. 范世平(2009)。〈主權財富基金發展與影響的政治經濟分析〉,《問題與研究》,48卷3期,頁123-154。
11. 陳言博(2006)。〈WTO爭端解決程序中審查基準之爭議——以反傾銷協定第十七‧六(ii)條為中心〉,《月旦法學雜誌》,135期,頁86-109。
12. 陳愛娥(2004)。〈繼受法國家中的法比較-以憲法解釋作為觀察對象〉,《月旦民商法雜誌》,4期,頁5-15。
13. 陳新民(1992)。〈論憲法人民基本權利的限制(續)〉,《律師通訊》,156期,頁43-55。
14. 陳麗娟(2005)。〈歐洲共同體競爭法與商品自由流通原則--從歐洲法院之案例法論歐洲共同體在共同市場內維持自由貿易之機制〉,《東海大學法學研究》,23期,頁223-249。
15. 陳麗娟(2012)。〈歐盟產品安全法對於進出口商品交易之影響〉,《貿易政策論叢》,18期,頁199-224。
 
無相關點閱論文