Mohammad Habibi Majandeh; afife gholami
Abstract
Environmental considerations have always been a challenge for foreign investment. The need to observe environmental minimums from the beginning to the end of the investment is also a concern of environmental law activists. In the meantime, the host state faces sometimes conflicting commitments. State ...
Read More
Environmental considerations have always been a challenge for foreign investment. The need to observe environmental minimums from the beginning to the end of the investment is also a concern of environmental law activists. In the meantime, the host state faces sometimes conflicting commitments. State dual obligations to foreign investors on the one hand, and the whole citizens on the other, has in many cases led to disputes, rooted in environmental norms. The main question is how the arbitration mechanism can take an active stand in the face of such disputes? The main purpose of this study is to examine the reflection of these conflicts in investment arbitration and the importance and role of arbitration in improving the environmental status. The authors of this paper believe that the arbitration system has tools that it can use in resolving disputes to balance these conflicting obligations. Some of these legal tools are directly or indirectly related to investment agreements, and others are beyond the treaty and based on international principles, rules, customs and practices.
Elham Amidimehr; Jamal Seifi
Abstract
The attributability of actions to states within the context of investment treaty disputes and to focus on the roles played by international and domestic laws in such attributions have caught the attention of jurists in recent years. The ILC Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally ...
Read More
The attributability of actions to states within the context of investment treaty disputes and to focus on the roles played by international and domestic laws in such attributions have caught the attention of jurists in recent years. The ILC Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, and particularly, article 3 points to the main outcome of this debate, where it does not consider domestic law irrelevant in internationally wrongful acts and stipulates that the issue is subject to international law and it will take into account the relevance of domestic law. Thus, although the characterization of an act of a State as internationally wrongful is an independent function of international law and such characterization is not affected by the characterization of the same act as lawful by domestic law, it does not mean that domestic law is irrelevant to such description; on the contrary, it may be related in various ways. The present article attempts to examine the challenging junction of domestic and international law with regard to the attributability of actions taken within the framework of investment treaties, specifically by state-owned and para-statal entities that exercise elements of state authority.
seyd ghasem zamani; mona sadat mirzadeh
Volume 16, Issue 43 , February 2015, , Pages 81-108
Abstract
Attribution of private-person’s act to a state is accepted in international law insome exceptional matters. Acting under the direction or control of the state is oneof those exceptional cases; by proving state control over private persons andentities, their actions are attributable to the state. ...
Read More
Attribution of private-person’s act to a state is accepted in international law insome exceptional matters. Acting under the direction or control of the state is oneof those exceptional cases; by proving state control over private persons andentities, their actions are attributable to the state. However for understanding therequired level of the control and direction, we shall review and inquiry the judicialjurisprudence in order to make these theoretical concepts more tangible. Iran-U.Sclaims tribunal, as the most prominent international arbitration, has separatedjurisdiction and the merit phase in some of its cases.From jurisdictional point ofview, the tribunal has applied a looser standard while in the merit, tribunal’sapproach has more affinity for theory of effective control. In such cases, as ageneral rule,stateshave notbeenliable for the conduct of non-state actors unlessthe tribunal could find the conduct in question intensely controlled by the state.Indeed the tribunal, in place of determining standard of control in these kinds ofcases, has not lowered the threshold for imputing private acts to statesbut treatedwith it in an exceptional manner. The purpose of present article is to examinestandard of direction and control, while the focus is on the jurisprudence of Iran-U.S claims tribunal.
