view
Abstract: What is the appropriate forum for the settlement of foreign invest- ment disputes? Is it the host State’s judicial system or the international arbi- tration system? How could one resolve the conflict between an investment agreement, which asserts the exclusive jurisdiction of the domestic courts, and an international treaty to which the host State and the investor’s state of nationality are parties, which gives the investor the discretion of choosing between domestic adjudication and international arbitration? How may a del- icate balance between domestic and international dispute resolution mecha- nisms be struck, ensuring that the forum selection is made on some clear and workable principles? This article argues that the practice of forum selection with respect to foreign investment disputes has evolved a pragmatic jurispru- dence which, based on fundamental principles of international law, envisages the employment of various criteria to ensure finality of awards and discour- age duplicative litigation. This article shows how, in order to ensure access to international arbitration, investor-state arbitration jurisprudence has adopted an interpretation of “fork in the road” and “waiver” provisions in investment treaties with a view to preserving, as far as possible, the jurisdiction of inter- national arbitral tribunals. It examines how tribunals have resorted to the “tri- ple identity” test or the “fundamental basis” test in determining whether a particular investment dispute is more appropriate for settlement at domestic level or through international arbitration. In the process, questions concern- ing the determination of jurisdiction, nature of the dispute and the governing law aid the development of the law of forum selection and serve to resolve investment disputes with certainty and finality.
Keywords: Bilateral investment treaties, foreign investment protection, fork in the road, forum selection, ICSID Convention, international arbitration, investor-state dispute settlement, waiver of local remedies
JICL welcomes full length articles (generally not exceeding 13,000 words inclusive of footnotes), shorter contributions in the form of notes and comments (generally not exceeding 8,000 words inclusive of footnotes) and book review articles of not more than 6,000 words.
We accept contributions for consideration on an exclusive submission basis. When submitting an article please certify that it is an unpublished article (that is, it has not been previously published in substantially similar form or with substantially similar content) and that it is not under consideration by any other journal.
To facilitate anonymous review, please give the names of authors and their short biographical information and acknowledgments in a separate page.
Authors retain copyright in the words used, but upon submission of material for publication, grant Sweet & Maxwell a licence to publish the submission in print and/or digital formats. Sweet & Maxwell retains copyright in the design, format and layout of all material published in JICL.
Once submissions are published, authors are entitled to one copy of the issue, 10 offprint copies and a PDF version of the submission.
Authors who send articles published in JICL to other publishers or media must include a reference to the publication of the article by JICL and Sweet & Maxwell.
Contributions and book reviews should be submitted in Microsoft Word format by way of email attachment to Professor Anton Cooray at Anton.cooray.1@city.ac.uk.
Authors should follow the OSCOLA citation system (http://www.law.ox.ac.uk/publications/oscola.php), except that we prefer authors to use indenting sparingly.
JICL uses the following heading levels: Main headings are in bold and preceded by a Roman numeral; second-level headings are in bold and italics and preceded by an uppercase alphabet; third-level headings are preceded by an Arabic numeral; and fourth-level headings are in italics and preceded by a lowercase alphabet.