Reformen bei der Beilegung internationaler Investitionsstreitigkeiten – afrikanische Sonderwege?

Ludwig Gramlich

doi:10.5771/2363-6270-2020-2-125

Contents
- Chapter Expand | CollapseAuthorsPage
- 123–124 Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis 123–124
- 125–276 Abhandlungen • Articles • Articles 125–276
  - 125–214 Reformen bei der Beilegung internationaler Investitionsstreitigkeiten – afrikanische Sonderwege? Ludwig Gramlich Ludwig Gramlich 125–214
  - 215–247 Participatory Democracy as a Constitutional Requirement: Experiences with Citizen Participation in Post-Revolutionary Tunisia Eva Diehl Eva Diehl 215–247
  - 248–276 La justice administrative de proximité au Cameroun Olivier Fandjip Olivier Fandjip 248–276
- 277–278 Berichte • Reports • Rapports 277–278
  - Mitteilungen aus der Gesellschaft für afrikanisches Recht (2020) Harald Sippel Harald Sippel
- 279–279 Impressum 279–279
Durchsuchen Sie das Werk
Geben Sie ein Keyword in die Suchleiste ein
CC-BY-NC Access

RiA Recht in Afrika | Law in Africa | Droit en Afrique , page 125 - 214

Reformen bei der Beilegung internationaler Investitionsstreitigkeiten – afrikanische Sonderwege?

Autoren

Ludwig Gramlich

DOI
- doi.org/10.5771/2363-6270-2020-2-125
- ISSN: 1435-0963
- ISSN online: 2363-6270
Zusammenfassung

Institutions and mechanisms for settlement of international investment disputes are manifold. For sure, rules, principles and core standards for decisions at international level laid down in various documents of public international law are widely agreed upon in general but are rather vague in determining applicable law in specific cases. So, complementing the discussion of the general framework for international investment law in the first part of this study (RiA 2020, 3), the focus will now change to the “architecture” of settlement because effective functioning of judicial, arbitral and (other non-judicial) alternative dispute resolution procedures is most important for an attractive climate for sustainable investment. Although there are many similarities between both concepts, it is necessary to separate mechanisms for private (commercial) arbitration from intergovernmental institutions which deal with ISDS issues. Therefore, structures and procedures, forms of settlement and enforcement of awards as well as other final results of dispute resolution concerning foreign investors and investment abroad will be described and assessed more detailedly by focussing in particular upon African examples. Another core problem is balancing the relationship between intergovernmental and non-governmental dispute settlement and national (including supranational) judiciary in order to get proper efficiency. At last, “Africanization” trends as well as other ways for better and more acceptable impartial and fair ISDS will be evaluated which may comply with legitimate expectations of all relevant stakeholders, not least the general public.

Abstract

Institutions and mechanisms for settlement of international investment disputes are manifold. For sure, rules, principles and core standards for decisions at international level laid down in various documents of public international law are widely agreed upon in general but are rather vague in determining applicable law in specific cases. So, complementing the discussion of the general framework for international investment law in the first part of this study (RiA 2020, 3), the focus will now change to the “architecture” of settlement because effective functioning of judicial, arbitral and (other non-judicial) alternative dispute resolution procedures is most important for an attractive climate for sustainable investment. Although there are many similarities between both concepts, it is necessary to separate mechanisms for private (commercial) arbitration from intergovernmental institutions which deal with ISDS issues. Therefore, structures and procedures, forms of settlement and enforcement of awards as well as other final results of dispute resolution concerning foreign investors and investment abroad will be described and assessed more detailedly by focussing in particular upon African examples. Another core problem is balancing the relationship between intergovernmental and non-governmental dispute settlement and national (including supranational) judiciary in order to get proper efficiency. At last, “Africanization” trends as well as other ways for better and more acceptable impartial and fair ISDS will be evaluated which may comply with legitimate expectations of all relevant stakeholders, not least the general public.
Share