Source: https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derest/article/view/5665
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 21:19:46+00:00

Document:
The proposed Investment Court System: does it really solve the problems?
Charris Benedetti, J. 2018. The proposed Investment Court System: does it really solve the problems?. Revista Derecho del Estado. 42 (nov. 2018), 83-115. DOI:https://doi.org/10.18601/01229893.n42.04.
En los últimos años, el régimen de inversión extranjera ha sido objeto de un creciente número de críticas del público. Las sumas significativas de dinero en juego y el posible impacto de los laudos en los poderes regulatorios del Estado han puesto al actual Sistema de Resolución de Controversias entre Inversores y el Estado bajo la lupa. En respuesta a ello, la Unión Europea ha propuesto una reforma de gran alcance mediante la introducción de un Sistema de Corte de Inversiones (sci). El nuevo sistema constituye un mecanismo innovador de resolución de controversias internacionales destinado a remediar los problemas centrales que acarrea el sistema actual, mediante la combinación de elementos tradicionales del arbitraje con rasgos judiciales.
En este contexto, el presente escrito pretende analizar si el nuevo enfoque de la Unión Europea constituye una mejora efectiva del actual mecanismo de resolución de controversias de inversiones y del futuro del régimen de inversión internacional. Para dicho propósito, el artículo comienza con una descripción general del actual Sistema de Resolución de Controversias entre Inversores y el Estado; seguido de una sinopsis de sus principales críticas; continúa con un resumen de las principales características del Sistema de Corte de Inversiones, así como de su inclusión en la nueva generación de acuerdos internacionales de inversión en negociación por la Unión Europea; y, finalmente, hace una referencia a las principales críticas y posibles obstáculos que afrontará la introducción del nuevo Sistema de Corte de Inversiones.
Butler, N. Possible Improvements to the Framework of International Investment Arbitration. The Journal of World Investment & Trade. Vol. 14, 2013.
Gleason, E. International Arbitral Appeals: What are we so afraid of? Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal. Vol. 7, 2007. Available at: http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/drlj/vol7/iss2/5 (Accessed 17 July 2017).
Horvath, G. J. and Berzero, R. Arbitrator and Counsel: The Double-Hat Dilemma. Transnational Dispute Management (tdm). 2017. Available at: https://www.transnationaldispute-management.com/article.asp?key=1985 (Accessed 19 August 2017).
Koeth, W. Can the Investment Court System (ics) save ttip and ceta. European Institute of Public Administration (eipa) Working Papers. 2016. Available at: http://publications.eipa.eu/en/details/&tid=1860 (Accessed 16 July 2017).
Laird, I. and Askew, R. Finality versus Consistency: Does Investor State Arbitration need an Appellate System? The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process. Vol. 7, 2005.
Lenk, H. An Investment Court System for the New Generation of EU Trade and Investment Agreements: A Discussion of the Free Trade Agreement with Vietnam and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Canada. European Papers. 1, 2016. Available at: http://www.europeanpapers.eu/en/europeanforum/investment-courtsystem-new-generation-eu-trade-and-investment-agreements (Accessed 16 July 2017).
Mann, H. et al. Comments on icsid Discussion Paper, “Possible Improvements of the Framework for icsid Arbitration”. International Institute for Sustainable Development (iisd), 2004.
Reinisch, A. Will the EU’s Proposal Concerning an Investment Court System for ceta and ttip Lead to Enforceable Awards? - The Limits of Modifying the icsid Convention and the Nature of Investment Arbitration. Journal of International Economic Law. Vol. 19, 2016.
Stone Sweet, A., Chung, M. and Saltzman, A. Arbitral Lawmaking and State Power: An Empirical Analysis of Investment Arbitration. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2919723 (Accessed 17 July 2017).
Law Journal. Vol. 50, 2012.
Webb Yackee, J. Toward a Minimalist System of International Investment Law. Suffolk Transnational Law Review. 303, 2009.
cme Czech Republic B.V. v. Czech Republic. uncitral Rules, Award, 14 March 2003.
Lauder v. Czech Republic. uncitral Rules, Final Award, 3 September 2001.
sgs Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan. icsid Case No. arb/01/13. Decision on Jurisdiction, 6 August 2003.
sgs Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Republic of the Philippines. icsid Case No. arb/02/6. Decision on Jurisdiction, 29 January 2004.
Metalclad Corporation v. United Mexican States. icsid Case No. arb(AF)/97/1, Award, 30 August 2000.
S.D. Myers, Inc. v. Government of Canada. uncitral Case, Partial Award, 13 November 2000 (nafta Arbitration).
Fábrica de Vidrios Los Andes, CA and Owens-Illinois de Venezuela v. Bolivarian Republic Venezuela. icsid Case No. ARB/12/21.
Arbitral Rules - Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator (Investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org, 2017). Available at: http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/isds/FilterByRulesAndInstitution (Accessed 20 July 2017).
Process Overview (Icsid.worldbank.org, 2017). Available at: https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/process/Overview.aspx (Accessed 6 July 2017).
icsid Rules (Icsid.worldbank.org, 2017). Available at: https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/icsiddocs/icsid-Rules.aspx (Accessed 4 July 2017).
icsid Additional Facility Rules (Icsid.worldbank.org, 2017). Available at: https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/icsiddocs/icsid-Additional-Facility-Rules.aspx (Accessed 4 July 2017).
unctad. Trade and Development Report. United Nations, 2014. Available at: http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/tdr2014_en.pdf (Accessed 8 July 2017).
Malmström, C. Concept Paper: Investment in ttip And Beyond – The Path for Reform. European Commission, 2015.
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Possible Improvements of the Framework for icsid Arbitration. icsid Secretariat, 2004.
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Suggested Changes to the icsid Rules and Regulations. icsid Secretariat, 2005.
Report Presented Today: Consultation on Investment Protection In EU-US Trade Talks - Trade - European Commission (Trade.ec.europa.eu, 2017). Available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1234 (Accessed 6 July 2017).
European Commission. Discussion on Investment in ttip at the Meeting of the International Trade Committee of the European Parliament. 2015. Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_speech-15-4624_en.htm (Accessed 10 July 2017).
The Shortcomings of the Proposal for an “International Court System” (ics). efila Blog, 2017. Available at: https://efilablog.org/2016/02/02/the-shortcomings-of-the-proposalfor-an-international-court-system-ics/ (Accessed 16 July 2017).
European Commission. ceta: EU and Canada Agree on New Approach on Investment in Trade Agreement. 2016. Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-399_en.htm (Accessed 12 July 2017).
European Commission. Memorandum: ‘Key elements of the EU-Singapore trade and investment agreements’. 2018. Available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1827 accessed 8 July 2018.
European Commission. Memorandum: ‘Key features of the EU-Mexico trade agreement’. 2018. Available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1831 (Accessed 8 July 2018).
Practical Law – Arbitration Blog. Update on the European Commission’s Drive for Investment Courts. 2017. Available at: http://arbitrationblog.practicallaw.com/update-onthe-european-commissions-drive-for-investment-courts/ (Accessed 12 January 2018).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.