Arbitration In International Arbitration

4082 Words17 Pages
ANALYSING DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM IN INVESTMENT TREATIES INTRODUCTION The notion of investment, and its definition are vague and the meanings of this term in economics and investment treaties are quite different. In economics, investment is the accumulation of newly produced physical entities, such as factories, machinery, houses, and goods inventories. By investment, economists mean the production of goods which will be used to produce other goods. But the international investment treaties and national investment laws have a different concept of investment. There is no particular definition of ‘investment’ as it has been defined in different ways under different treaties. Under NAFTA reads: investment means: (a) an enterprise; (b)…show more content…
Minimizing this problem will require more than piecemeal rules created on a case by case basis; it will require a deep analysis of the proper hierarchy between international law and domestic courts, as well as the duties arbitrators should assume as private law fills much of the space once reserved for the state. Reducing parallel proceedings would help solve practical problems, such as the waste of money and undermining of legal certainty that occur when adjudicating in multiple forums. More importantly, it might also ease some of the political opposition to international arbitration by showing that domestic and international law can harmoniously coexist in the age of globalization. This article is relevant for my research because I also see the same problem as there are a lot of forums, each one having its own pros and cons but which should be followed remains unsolved. ICSID proceedings are more transparent as compared to the UNCITRAL proceedings but for appeal against awards, UNCITRAL allows for it but ICSID makes it binding. So which forum should be followed remains…show more content…
Arbitration is an out of court settlement procedure and the parties themselves choose which forum they will follow for deciding their disputes and courts are not resorted for solving the dispute. But the courts do intervene in the matters of arbitration, particularly during the enforcement stage of the award. The author in this paper has analysed the judicial intervention in arbitration cases, specifically from the Indian perspective with the help of case studies and has concluded that India, being a developing country, lacks adequate experience and faith in the system of alternative dispute resolution. To revive the choice of India as a preferred destination for international commercial arbitration, necessary legislative changes must be brought into force whereby the Indian courts are allowed jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings only with the inclusion of a specific and unambiguous provision to this effect. An active role by the legislature and judiciary is essential for the establishment of a pro arbitration regime in India and to ensure the underlying principle of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of minimizing the supervisory role of the courts in the arbitral process
Open Document