No right without a remedy

Foundations of investor-state arbitration

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This Article explores a fundamental aspect of modern international investment law: its remedy to enforce a breach. I argue that investorstate arbitration is subject to different conceptualizations that may animate the way in which adjudicators understand what type of right is conferred to investors when granted the invocation of responsibility against a host state. I explore the consequences of the three distinct conceptualizations (i.e., direct right, beneficiary right, or agency) by reference to the current debate regarding to whom countermeasures are opposable under international law. I show how the three dimensions imply that the construction of substantive law entails important assumptions about the procedures that will apply when that substantive law is ultimately enforced. In this sense, the Article evidences some of the methodological limitations of the 'procedural-substantive' distinction often encountered in international law analysis.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)829-861
Number of pages33
JournalUniversity of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law
Volume35
Issue number3
StatePublished - 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

arbitration
investor
remedies
international law
Law
responsibility
evidence
Investors
Remedies
Arbitration
Conceptualization
International law

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous)
  • Law

Cite this

No right without a remedy : Foundations of investor-state arbitration. / Puig, Sergio.

In: University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, Vol. 35, No. 3, 2014, p. 829-861.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e9c4814c8a414f3f83e7687ad990afc2,
title = "No right without a remedy: Foundations of investor-state arbitration",
abstract = "This Article explores a fundamental aspect of modern international investment law: its remedy to enforce a breach. I argue that investorstate arbitration is subject to different conceptualizations that may animate the way in which adjudicators understand what type of right is conferred to investors when granted the invocation of responsibility against a host state. I explore the consequences of the three distinct conceptualizations (i.e., direct right, beneficiary right, or agency) by reference to the current debate regarding to whom countermeasures are opposable under international law. I show how the three dimensions imply that the construction of substantive law entails important assumptions about the procedures that will apply when that substantive law is ultimately enforced. In this sense, the Article evidences some of the methodological limitations of the 'procedural-substantive' distinction often encountered in international law analysis.",
author = "Sergio Puig",
year = "2014",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "35",
pages = "829--861",
journal = "University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law",
issn = "1938-0283",
publisher = "University of Pennsylvania Law School",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - No right without a remedy

T2 - Foundations of investor-state arbitration

AU - Puig, Sergio

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - This Article explores a fundamental aspect of modern international investment law: its remedy to enforce a breach. I argue that investorstate arbitration is subject to different conceptualizations that may animate the way in which adjudicators understand what type of right is conferred to investors when granted the invocation of responsibility against a host state. I explore the consequences of the three distinct conceptualizations (i.e., direct right, beneficiary right, or agency) by reference to the current debate regarding to whom countermeasures are opposable under international law. I show how the three dimensions imply that the construction of substantive law entails important assumptions about the procedures that will apply when that substantive law is ultimately enforced. In this sense, the Article evidences some of the methodological limitations of the 'procedural-substantive' distinction often encountered in international law analysis.

AB - This Article explores a fundamental aspect of modern international investment law: its remedy to enforce a breach. I argue that investorstate arbitration is subject to different conceptualizations that may animate the way in which adjudicators understand what type of right is conferred to investors when granted the invocation of responsibility against a host state. I explore the consequences of the three distinct conceptualizations (i.e., direct right, beneficiary right, or agency) by reference to the current debate regarding to whom countermeasures are opposable under international law. I show how the three dimensions imply that the construction of substantive law entails important assumptions about the procedures that will apply when that substantive law is ultimately enforced. In this sense, the Article evidences some of the methodological limitations of the 'procedural-substantive' distinction often encountered in international law analysis.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84939488901&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84939488901&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 35

SP - 829

EP - 861

JO - University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law

JF - University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law

SN - 1938-0283

IS - 3

ER -