Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 4

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  BIT
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Implementing Achmea: The Quest for Fundamental Change in International Investment Law

100%
Kułaga Ł.
Polish Yearbook of International Law
|
2019
|
vol. 39
227-250
EN
The judgment of the Court of Justice in the Achmea case evoked significant repercussions regarding the application and operation of the bilateral investment treaties (BITs) concluded between EU Member States. As a result of this decision, EU Member States have decided to terminate almost 190 intra-EU BITs. Nevertheless, full implementation of the Achmea judgment remains a complex issue, entangled in political and legal controversies concerning intra-EU BITs which have been present for more than a decade. On a more general level, the implementation process is simultaneously entwined in two other significant debates: the specifics of the rights of investors, and the relationship between EU law and international law.
2

INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT ARBITRATION AND BILATERAL TREATIES ON PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF FOREIGN INVESTMENTS (Medzinarodna arbitraz investicnych sporov a dvojstranne dohody o ochrane investicii)

100%
Chovancova K.
Právny obzor. Teoretický časopis pre otázky štátu a práva (Juridical Review. Theoretical journal for the questions of state and law)
|
2009
|
vol. 92
|
issue 5
437-456
EN
Direct foreign investments create an inseparable part of international economy. The core of all 'FDIs' lies in the transfer of foreign investor's both tangible and intangible assets from one country to another country with the aim of use of these assets in a host state, while bearing in mind the main goal to gain the profit. Simultaneously, the owner of the FDI will retain the whole or at least the partial control over transferred assets, located in the host state. The article submitted focuses on a small aspect of the puzzle of how the international investment arbitration interacts with bilateral investment treaties, or so called 'BITs'. Specifically, it will consider the development as well as the current position of BITs while focusing on one of the most important BIT's provision, namely, the settlement of investment disputes. First, the article provides a background on the definition of foreign investments together with the short characteristics of the foreign investment under the rules that have crystallized over the years. Secondly, the article will address an issue of risk in foreign investments, spreading before the reader several categories of risk investors have to cope up with when investing abroad. The article then analyses the issue of the state's responsibility when actively participating in international trade, dividing between public acts of the state and its purely commercial and private acts. After defining an international investment dispute, the article then incorporates basic features of investment arbitration, stressing out the complicated matter of the state's capability to be the party in the arbitration agreement. The article then gathers the basic characteristics of the BITs, going back awhile to the era of the first FCN concluded in the USA, continuing with the description of modern BITs. In addition, the article ultimately comments on the current controversial doctrines regarding the role of the BITs in international investment and the progress of less developed host states. Finally, it develops a model formula, laying down the circle of interconnected relationships between multinational corporations, foreign direct investments, the international investment arbitration and the international public law. At the very end, the article suggests a reasonably considered role of the BITs and its influence on the international foreign investment law.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Konwencja singapurska a rozwiązywanie sporów inwestycyjnych

100%
Kożuch M.
internetowy Kwartalnik Antymonopolowy i Regulacyjny
|
2021
|
vol. 10
|
issue 3
91-107
PL
Międzynarodowa przestrzeń prawna wzbogaciła się w roku 2020 nowym instrumentem prawnym, jakim jest konwencja singapurska o mediacji. Jej zastosowanie w polubownym rozwiązywaniu sporów zależne jest od aktywności państw oraz UE, które mogą do niej przystąpić lub pozostać poza obszarem jej oddziaływania. Na rynku prawnym UE po wydaniu przez TSUE orzeczenia C-284/16 wejście w życie konwencji mogłoby uzupełnić przestrzeń o instrument, który spełnia podobne cele do orzecznictwa sądów arbitrażowych w sprawach inwestycyjnych. Przejecie tego instrumentu wymaga jednak myślenia poza dotychczasowym schematem rozwiązań prawnych.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

INTERPRETATION OF AMBIGUOUS PROVISIONS OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT TREATIES AUTHENTICATED IN TWO OR MORE LANGUAGES

59%
BALCERZAK F.
Comparative Legilinguistics
|
2014
|
vol. 18
75-87
PL
W artykule poruszono problematykę interpretacji międzynarodowych traktatów o popieraniu i ochronie inwestycji, które zostały sporządzone w dwóch lub więcej językach. Treść traktatów o popieraniu i ochronie inwestycji powoduje wątpliwości interpretacyjne, ponieważ brzmienie poszczególnych postanowień tychże traktatów w dwóch lub więcej językach, w których zostały sporządzone, nie jest identyczne. Zakres analizy artykułu został zawężony do postanowień  dotyczących jurysdykcji trybunałów arbitrażowych, co jest uzasadnione doniosłością tych kwestii z perspektywy przebiegu postępowania arbitrażowego. W pierwszej części artykułu wyjaśniono zasady interpretacji traktatów prawa międzynarodowego uregulowane w Konwencji wiedeńskiej o prawie traktatów z 1969 r. Druga część artykułu stanowi analizę przypadków, w których poruszana problematyka była przedmiotem analizy trybunałów arbitrażowych, na przykładzie spraw Kilic Insaat v. Turkmenistan, Berschader v. Russia oraz Daimler v. Argentina. Wnioski wysunięte w artykule mogą być wykorzystane przy stosowaniu postanowień traktatów o popieraniu i ochronie w praktyce postępowań arbitrażowych na linii inwestor – państwo.
EN
The presented article identifies and offers solutions to problems related to interpretation of international investment treaties, which have been authenticated in two or more languages. It focuses on situations when the provisions of investment treaties cause interpretational doubts because their wording is not identical in the official languages of the particular treaty. The scope of the analysis is narrowed down to the provisions concerning the jurisdiction of tribunals, which is justified due to practical implications of jurisdictional considerations in the course of arbitral proceedings. The first part of the article explains relevant applicable general principles of treaty interpretation as expressed in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The second part is a case study, which analyses the problems faced by tribunals in the Kilic Insaat v. Turkmenistan, Berschader v. Russia and Daimler v. Argentina cases. The conclusions presented in the article may serve as a tool in the practice of investor – state arbitration, when implementation of specific provisions of international investment treaties occurs in the course of arbitral proceedings.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.