Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T16:14:39.543Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2015

Caroline Henckels
Caroline Henckels
Affiliation:
University of New South Wales, Sydney
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Proportionality and Deference in Investor-State Arbitration
Balancing Investment Protection and Regulatory Autonomy
 , pp. 198 - 220
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexy, R, A Theory of Constitutional Rights (Oxford University Press, Rivers, J trans., 2002)Google Scholar
Alexy, R ‘On Balancing and Subsumption: A Structural Comparison’ (2003) 16 Ratio Juris 433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexy, R ‘Balancing, Constitutional Review, and Representation’ (2005) 3 International Journal of Constitutional Law 572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexy, R ‘Thirteen Replies’ in Pavlakos, G (ed.), Law, Rights and Discourse: The Legal Philosophy of Robert Alexy (Oxford: Hart, 2007) 333Google Scholar
Allan, T R S, ‘Human Rights and Judicial Review: A Critique of Due Deference’ (2006) 65 Cambridge Law Journal 671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allan, T R S ‘Deference, Defiance and Doctrine: Defining the Limits of Judicial Review’ (2010) 60 University of Toronto Law Journal 41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allan, T R S ‘Judicial Deference and Judicial Review: Legal Doctrine and Legal Theory’ (2011) 127 Law Quarterly Review 96Google Scholar
Allan, T R S The Sovereignty of Law: Freedom, Constitution and Common Law (Oxford University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, J E, ‘Review: Investment Treaty Arbitration and Public Law by Gus Van Harten’ (2008) 102 American Journal of International Law 909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, J E ‘The Return of the State’ (2011) 20 Minnesota Journal of International Law 223Google Scholar
Alvarez, J E ‘Beware: Boundary Crossings’ (2014) in T Kahana and A Schnicov (eds.), Boundaries of Rights, Boundaries of State (forthcoming) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2498182Google Scholar
Alvarez, J E and Brink, T, ‘Revisiting the Necessity Defense: Continental Casualty v. Argentina’ in Sauvant, K P (ed.), Yearbook on International Investment Law and Policy 2010–2011 (Oxford University Press, 2011) 319Google Scholar
Alvarez, J E and Khamsi, K, ‘The Argentine Crisis and Foreign Investors: A Glimpse into the Heart of the Investment Regime’ in Sauvant, K P (ed.), Yearbook on International Investment Law and Policy 2008–2009 (Oxford University Press, 2009) 379Google Scholar
American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law Third, Foreign Relations of the United States, Volume 1 (Philadelphia, PA: American Law Institute, 1987)Google Scholar
Andenas, M and Zleptnig, S, ‘Proportionality: WTO Law in Comparative Perspective’ (2007) 42 Texas International Law Journal 371Google Scholar
Andenas, M and Zleptnig, S ‘The Rule of Law and Proportionality in WTO Law’ in Shan, W, Simons, P and Singh, D (eds.), Redefining Sovereignty in International Economic Law (Oxford: Hart, 2008) 171Google Scholar
Arai-Takahashi, Y, The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the ECHR (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2002)Google Scholar
Arato, J, ‘The Margin of Appreciation in International Investment Law’ (2014) 54 Virginia Journal of International Law 545Google Scholar
Aust, A, Modern Treaty Law and Practice (Cambridge University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barak, A, Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and Their Limitations (Cambridge University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barak, A ‘Proportionality (2)’ in Rosenfeld, M and Sajo, A (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law (Oxford University Press, 2012) 739Google Scholar
Bartels, L, ‘The Chapeau of the General Exceptions in the WTO GATT and GATS Agreements: A Reconstruction’ (2015) 109 American Journal of International Law 95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baudenbacher, C and Clifton, M, ‘Courts of Regional Economic and Political Integration Agreements’ in Romano, C, Alter, K and Shany, Y (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication (Oxford University Press, 2014) 250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Been, V and Beauvais, J C, ‘The Global Fifth Amendment? NAFTA's Investment Protections and the Misguided Quest for an International “Regulatory Takings” Doctrine’ (2003) 78 New York University Law Review 30Google Scholar
Behrens, P, ‘Towards the Constitutionalization of International Investment Protection’ (2007) 45 Archiv des Völkerrechts 153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beloff, M, ‘The Concept of Deference in Public Law’ (2006) 11 Judicial Review 213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benvenisti, E, ‘Margin of Appreciation, Consensus, and Universal Standards’ (1999) 31 International Law and Politics 843Google Scholar
Bermann, G A, ‘Proportionality and Subsidiarity’ in Barnard, C and Scott, J (eds.), The Law of the Single European Market: Unpacking the Premises (Oxford: Hart, 2002) 75Google Scholar
Bilchitz, D, Poverty and Fundamental Rights: The Justification and Enforcement of Socio-Economic Rights (Oxford University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binder, C and Reinisch, A, ‘Economic Emergency Powers: A Comparative Law Perspective’ in Schill, S W (ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (Oxford University Press, 2010) 503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjorklund, A K, ‘Investment Treaty Arbitral Decisions as Jurisprudence Constante’ in Picker, C, Bunn, I and Arner, D (eds.), International Economic Law: The State and Future of the Discipline (Oxford: Hart, 2008) 265Google Scholar
Bjorklund, A K ‘The National Treatment Obligation’ in Yannaca-Small, K (ed.), Arbitration Under International Investment Agreements: A Guide to the Key Issues (Oxford University Press, 2010) 411Google Scholar
Bohanes, J and Lockhart, N, ‘Standard of Review in WTO Law’ in Bethlehem, D, McRae, D, Neufeld, R and Van Damme, I (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Trade Law (Oxford University Press, 2009) 378Google Scholar
Bomhoff, J, ‘Balancing, the Global and Local: Judicial Balancing as a Problematic Topic in Comparative (Constitutional) Law’ (2008) 31 Hastings International and Comparative Law Review 555Google Scholar
Bomhoff, J ‘Genealogies of Balancing as Discourse’ (2010) 4 Law and Ethics of Human Rights 108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bomhoff, J Balancing Constitutional Rights: The Origins and Meanings of Postwar Legal Discourse (Cambridge University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bongiovanni, G, Sartor, G and Valentini, C, ‘Introduction’ in Bongiovanni, G, Sartor, G and Valentini, C (eds.), Reasonableness and Law (Dordrecht: Springer, 2009) xiCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonnitcha, J, Substantive Protection under Investment Treaties (Cambridge University Press, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bown, C P and Trachtman, J P, ‘Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres: A Balancing Act’ (2009) 8 World Trade Review 85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, A D P, Proportionality and Deference under the UK Human Rights Act: An Institutionally Sensitive Approach (Cambridge University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brauch, J A, ‘The Margin of Appreciation and the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: Threat to the Rule of Law’ (2005) 11 Columbia Journal of European Law 113Google Scholar
Brems, E and Lavrysen, L, ‘“Don't Use a Sledgehammer to Crack a Nut”: Less Restrictive Means in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights’ (2015) 15 Human Rights Law Review 139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brower, C H, ‘Structure, Legitimacy, and NAFTA's Investment Chapter’ (2003) 36 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 37Google Scholar
Brower, C H ‘Obstacles and Pathways to Consideration of the Public Interest in Investment Treaty Disputes’ in Sauvant, K P (ed.), Yearbook on International Investment Law & Policy 2008–2009 (Oxford University Press, 2009) 274Google Scholar
Brower, C N and Schill, S W, ‘Is Arbitration a Threat on a Boon to the Legitimacy of International Investment Law?’ (2009) 9 Chicago Journal of International Law 471Google Scholar
Brown, C, ‘The Inherent Powers of Courts and Tribunals’ (2005) 76 British Yearbook of International and Comparative Law 195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke-White, W W and von Staden, A, ‘Investment Protection in Extraordinary Times: The Interpretation and Application of Non-Precluded Measures Provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties’ (2008) 48 Virginia Journal of International Law 307Google Scholar
Burke-White, W W and von Staden, A ‘Private Litigation in a Public Law Sphere: The Standard of Review in Investor-State Arbitrations’ (2010) 35 Yale Journal of International Law 283Google Scholar
Burke-White, W W and von Staden, A ‘The Need for Public Law Standards of Review in Investor-State Arbitrations’ in Schill, S W (ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (Oxford University Press, 2010) 689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Button, C, The Power to Protect: Trade, Health and Uncertainty in the WTO (Oxford: Hart, 2004)Google Scholar
Calamita, N J, ‘International Human Rights and the Interpretation of International Investment Treaties: Constitutional Considerations’ in Baetens, F (ed.), Investment Law within International Law: Integrationist Perspectives (Cambridge University Press, 2013) 164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Çali, B, ‘Balancing Human Rights? Methodological Problems with Weights, Scales and Proportions’ (2007) 29 Human Rights Quarterly 251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, T, Ewing, K and Tomkins, A (eds.), Sceptical Essays on Human Rights (Oxford University Press, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carozza, P G, ‘Subsidiarity as a Structural Principle of International Human Rights Law’ (2003) 97 American Journal of International Law 38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, C, ‘Deference, Expertise and Information-Gathering Powers’ (2013) 33 Legal Studies 598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, T, ‘The Standard of Review and the Roles of ICSID Arbitral Tribunals in Investor-State Dispute Settlement’ (2012) 5 Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal 23Google Scholar
Cheng, T, ‘Precedent and Control in Investment Treaty Arbitration’ (2006) 30 Fordham International Law Journal 1014Google Scholar
Cheyne, I, ‘Deference and the Use of the Public Policy Exception in International Courts and Tribunals’ in Gruszczynski, L and Werner, W (eds.), Deference in International Courts and Tribunals: Standard of Review and Margin of Appreciation (Oxford University Press, 2014) 38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christie, G C, ‘What Constitutes a Taking of Property Under International Law?’ (1962) 38 British Yearbook of International Law 307Google Scholar
Christoffersen, J, Fair Balance: Proportionality, Subsidiarity and Primarity in the European Convention on Human Rights (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Çoban, A R, Protection of Property Rights within the European Convention on Human Rights (London: Ashgate, 2004)Google Scholar
Cohen-Eliya, M and Porat, I, ‘American Balancing and German Proportionality: The Historical Origins’ (2010) 8 International Journal of Constitutional Law 263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen-Eliya, M and Porat, I Proportionality and Constitutional Culture (Cambridge University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corten, O, L'utilisation du “raisonnable” par le juge international: discours juridique, raison et contradictions (Brussels: Emile Bruylant, 1997)Google Scholar
Corten, O ‘The Notion of “Reasonableness” in International Law: Legal Discourse, Reason and Contradictions’ (1999) 48 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, P, ‘Unreasonableness and Proportionality in UK Law’ in Ellis, E (ed.), The Principle of Proportionality in the Laws of Europe (Oxford: Hart, 1999) 85Google Scholar
Craig, P EU Administrative Law (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed., 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, P Administrative Law (London: Thomson, 7th ed., 2012)Google Scholar
Crawford, J, The International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and Commentaries (Cambridge University Press, 2002)Google Scholar
Crawford, J Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, 8th ed., 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croley, S P and Jackson, J H, ‘WTO Dispute Procedures, Standard of Review, and Deference to National Governments’ (1996) 90 American Journal of International Law 193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalhuisen, J H and Guzman, A T, ‘Expropriatory and Non-Expropriatory Takings under International Investment Law’ (2013) Transnational Dispute ManagementCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, P, A Theory of Deference in Administrative Law (Cambridge University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Búrca, G, ‘The Principle of Proportionality and its Application in EC Law’ (1993) 13 Yearbook of European Law 105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
del Moral, I D, ‘The Increasingly Marginal Appreciation of the Margin-of-Appreciation Doctrine’ (2006) 7 German Law Journal 611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
della Cananea, G, ‘Reasonableness in Administrative Law’ in Bongiovanni, G, Sartor, G and Valentini, C (eds.), Reasonableness and Law (Dordrecht: Springer, 2009) 295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Nanteuil, A, L'expropriation indirecte en droit international de l'investissement (Paris: Pedone, 2014)Google Scholar
De Sena, P, ‘Economic and Non-Economic Values in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights’ in Dupuy, P, Petersmann, E and Francioni, F (eds.), Human Rights in International Investment Law and Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2009) 208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desierto, D A, ‘Necessity and “Supplementary Means of Interpretation” for Non-Precluded Measures in Bilateral Investment Treaties’ (2010) 31 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law 827Google Scholar
Desierto, D A Necessity and National Emergency Clauses: Sovereignty in Modern Treaty Interpretation (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desmedt, A, ‘Proportionality in WTO Law’ (2001) Journal of International Economic Law 441Google Scholar
Diebold, N F, Non-Discrimination in International Trade in Services (Cambridge University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diebold, N F ‘Standards of Non-Discrimination in International Economic Law’ (2011) 60 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diehl, A, The Core Standard in International Investment Protection: Fair and Equitable Treatment (Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer, 2012)Google Scholar
DiMascio, N and Pauwelyn, J, ‘Nondiscrimination in Trade and Investment Treaties: Worlds Apart or Different Sides of the Same Coin?’ (2008) 102 American Journal of International Law 48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolzer, R, ‘Indirect Expropriations: New Developments?’ (2002) 11 New York University Environmental Law Journal 64Google Scholar
Dolzer, R and Schreuer, C, Principles of International Investment Law (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed., 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du, M M, ‘Autonomy in Setting Appropriate Level of Protection under the WTO Law: Rhetoric or Reality?’ (2010) 13 Journal of International Economic Law 1077Google Scholar
Duhaime, B, ‘Subsidiarity in the Americas: What Room Is There for Deference in the Inter-American System?’ in Gruszczynski, L and Werner, W (eds.), Deference in International Courts and Tribunals: Standard of Review and Margin of Appreciation (Oxford University Press, 2014) 289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, R, Taking Rights Seriously (London: Duckworth, 1977)Google Scholar
Dworkin, R ‘Rights as Trumps’ in Waldron, J (ed.), Theories of Rights (Oxford University Press, 1984)Google Scholar
Ehlermann, C and Lockhart, N, ‘Standard of Review in WTO Law’ (2004) 7 Journal of International Economic Law 491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eissen, M, ‘The Principle of Proportionality in the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights’ in Macdonald, R S, Matscher, F and Petzold, H (eds.), The European System for the Protection of Human Rights (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 1993) 125Google Scholar
Elliott, M, ‘The HRA 1998 and the Standard of Substantive Review’ (2002) 7 Judicial Review 97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, M ‘Proportionality and Deference: The Importance of a Structured Approach’ in Forsyth, C, Elliott, M, Jhaveri, S, Ramsden, M and Scully Hill, A (eds.), Effective Judicial Review: A Cornerstone of Good Governance (Oxford University Press, 2010) 264Google Scholar
Emberland, M, The Human Rights of Companies: Exploring the Structure of ECHR Protection (Oxford University Press, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emiliou, N, The Principle of Proportionality in European Law: A Comparative Study (London: Kluwer, 1996)Google Scholar
Engle, E, ‘History of the General Principle of Proportionality: An Overview’ (2012) 10 Dartmouth Law Journal 1Google Scholar
Fallon, R H Jr., ‘Strict Judicial Scrutiny’ (2006) 54 UCLA Law Review 1267Google Scholar
Fauchald, O K, ‘The Legal Reasoning of ICSID Tribunals – An Empirical Analysis’ (2008) 19 European Journal of International Law 301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, D, ‘Proportionality and the Human Rights Act 1998’ in Ellis, E (ed.), The Principle of Proportionality in the Laws of Europe (Oxford: Hart, 1999) 117Google Scholar
Feldman, D ‘The Impact of Human Rights on the UK Legislative Process’ (2004) 25 Statute Law Review 91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnis, J, ‘Natural Law and Legal Reasoning’ (1990) 38 Cleveland State Law Review 1Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, G, ‘The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice: Treaty Interpretation and Certain Other Treaty Points’ (1951) 28 British Yearbook of International Law 1Google Scholar
Flett, J, ‘WTO Space for National Regulation: Requiem for a Diagonal Vector Test’ (2013) 16 Journal of International Economic Law 37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortier, Y and Drymer, S L, ‘Indirect Expropriation in the Law of International Investment: I Know It When I See It, or Caveat Investor’ (2004) 19 ICSID Review 293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, C E, ‘Burden of Proof in International Courts and Tribunals’ (2010) 29 Australian Yearbook of International Law 27Google Scholar
Foster, C E ‘Adjudication, Arbitration and the Turn to Public Law “Standards of Review”: Putting the Precautionary Principle in the Crucible’ (2012) 3 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, C E ‘Diminished Ambitions? Public International Legal Authority in the Transnational Economic Era’ (2014) 17 Journal of International Economic Law 355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, C E ‘A New Stratosphere? Investment Treaty Arbitration as “Internationalized Public Law”’ (2015) 64 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franck, S D, ‘The Legitimacy Crisis in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Privatizing Public International Law Through Inconsistent Decisions’ (2005) 73 Fordham Law Review 1521Google Scholar
Franck, T M, ‘Legitimacy in the International System’ (1988) 82 American Journal of International Law 705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franck, T M The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations (Oxford University Press, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franck, T M Fairness in International Law and Institutions (Oxford University Press, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franck, T M ‘On Proportionality of Countermeasures in International Law’ (2008) 102 American Journal of International Law 715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franck, T M ‘Rights, Balancing and Proportionality’ (2010) 4 Law and Ethics of Human Rights 230Google Scholar
Frankenburg, G, ‘Critical Comparisons: Re-thinking Comparative Law’ (1985) 26 Harvard International Law Journal 411Google Scholar
Freeman, E M, ‘Regulatory Expropriation Under NAFTA Chapter 11: Some Lessons from the European Court of Human Rights’ (2003) 42 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 177Google Scholar
Fuentes, X, ‘Proportionality Analysis and Disproportionate Damages: Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. The Republic of Ecuador’(2015) Journal of World Investment and Trade 315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukunaga, Y, ‘Standard of Review and “Scientific Truths” in the WTO Dispute Settlement System and Investment Arbitration’ (2012) 3 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, L L, ‘The Forms and Limits of Adjudication’ (1978) 92 Harvard Law Review 353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gantz, D A, ‘An Appellate Mechanism for Review of Arbitral Decisions in Investor-State Disputes: Prospects and Challenges’ (2006) 39 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 39Google Scholar
Gardiner, R, Treaty Interpretation (Oxford University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazzini, T, ‘General Principles of Law in the Field of Foreign Investment’ (2007) 10 Journal of World Investment and Trade 103Google Scholar
Gerards, J, ‘Pluralism, Deference and the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine’ (2011) 17 European Law Journal 80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerards, J ‘How to Improve the Necessity Test of the European Court of Human Rights’ (2013) 11 International Journal of Constitutional Law 466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grando, M, Evidence, Proof and Fact-finding in WTO Dispute Settlement (Oxford University Press, 2010)Google Scholar
Greer, S, The Margin of Appreciation: Interpretation and Discretion under the European Convention on Human Rights (Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2000)Google Scholar
Greer, S The European Convention on Human Rights: Achievements, Problems and Prospects (Cambridge University Press, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruszczynski, L, Regulating Health and Environmental Risks under WTO Law: A Critical Analysis of the SPS Agreement (Oxford University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruszczynski, L and Vadi, V, ‘Standard of Review and Scientific Evidence in WTO Law and International Investment Arbitration: Converging Parallels?’ in Gruszczynski, L and Werner, W (eds.), Deference in International Courts and Tribunals: Standard of Review and Margin of Appreciation (Oxford University Press, 2014) 152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunn, T J, ‘Deconstructing Proportionality in Limitations Analysis’ (2005) 19 Emory International Law Review 465Google Scholar
Guzman, A T, ‘International Tribunals: A Rational Choice Analysis’ (2008) 157 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 171Google Scholar
Guzman, A T ‘Determining the Appropriate Standard of Review in WTO Disputes’ (2009) 42 Cornell International Law Journal 45Google Scholar
Habermas, J, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Rehg, W trans., 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamrock, K J, ‘The ELSI Case: Toward an International Definition of “Arbitrary” Conduct’ (1992) 27 Texas International Law Journal 837Google Scholar
Han, X, ‘The Application of the Principle of Proportionality in Tecmed v. Mexico’ (2007) 6 Chinese Journal of International Law 635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harbo, T, ‘The Function of the Proportionality Principle in EU Law’ (2010) 16 European Law Journal 158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, D J, O'Boyle, M, Bates, E P and Buckley, C M, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford University Press, 3rd ed., 2014)Google Scholar
Harvard Law School, Draft Convention on the International Responsibility of States for Injuries to Aliens (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961)Google Scholar
Heiskanen, V, ‘Arbitrary and Unreasonable Measures’ in Reinisch, A (ed.), Standards of Investment Protection (Oxford University Press, 2008) 87Google Scholar
Henckels, C, ‘Indirect Expropriation and the Right to Regulate: Revisiting Proportionality Analysis and the Standard of Review in Investor-State Arbitration’ (2012) 15 Journal of International Economic Law 223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertogh, M and Halliday, S (eds.), Judicial Review and Bureaucratic Impact: International and Interdisciplinary Perspectives (Cambridge University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickman, T, ‘The Reasonableness Principle: Reassessing Its Place in the Public Sphere’ (2004) 63 Cambridge Law Journal 166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickman, T ‘The Substance and Structure of Proportionality’ (2008) Public Law 694Google Scholar
Hickman, T Public Law after the Human Rights Act (Oxford: Hart, 2010)Google Scholar
Higgins, R, ‘The Taking of Property by the State: Recent Developments in International Law’ (1982) 176 Recueil des Cours 267Google Scholar
Higgins, R Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (Oxford University Press, 1994)Google Scholar
Howse, R, ‘Adjudicative Legitimacy and Treaty Interpretation in International Trade Law: The Early Years of WTO Jurisprudence’ in Weiler, J H H (ed.), The EU, the WTO and the NAFTA: Towards a Common Law of International Trade (Oxford University Press, 2000) 35Google Scholar
Hudec, R E, ‘GATT/WTO Constraints on National Regulation: Requiem for an “Aim and Effects” Test’ (1998) 31 International Lawyer 619Google Scholar
Hunt, M, ‘Sovereignty's Blight: Why Contemporary Public Law Needs the Concept of “Due Deference”’ in Bamworth, N and Leyland, P (eds.), Public Law in a Multi-Layered Constitution (Oxford: Hart, 2003) 341Google Scholar
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes Secretariat, Possible Improvements of the Framework for ICSID Arbitration (Washington, DC: World Bank Group, 2004)Google Scholar
International Law Commission, Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1980 (Geneva: International Law Commission, 1981)Google Scholar
International Law Commission, Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2001, Volume II, Part Two (Geneva: International Law Commission, 2007)Google Scholar
Jackson, V C, ‘Being Proportional about Proportionality: Review of Beatty, The Ultimate Rule of Law’ (2004) 21 Constitutional Commentary 803Google Scholar
Jans, J J, ‘Proportionality Revisited’ (2000) 27 Legal Issues of Economic Integration 239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, D and de Villars, A, Principles of Administrative Law (Toronto: Carswell, 5th ed., 2009)Google Scholar
Jones, T, ‘The Devaluation of Human Rights Under the European Convention’ (1995) Public Law 430Google Scholar
Kapterian, G, ‘A Critique of the WTO Jurisprudence on “Necessity”’ (2010) 59 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katselas, A T, ‘Do Investment Treaties Prescribe a Deferential Standard of Review?’ (2012) 34 Michigan Journal of International Law 87Google Scholar
Kaufmann-Kohler, G, ‘Arbitral Precedent: Dream, Necessity or Excuse?’ (2007) 23 Arbitration International 357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kavanagh, A, ‘Deference or Defiance? The Limits of the Judicial Role in Constitutional Adjudication’ in Huscroft, G (ed.), Expounding the Constitution: Essays in Constitutional Theory (Cambridge University Press, 2008) 184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kavanagh, A Constitutional Review under the UK Human Rights Act (Cambridge University Press, 2009)Google Scholar
Kavanagh, A ‘Defending Deference in Public Law and Constitutional Theory’ (2010) 126 Law Quarterly Review 222Google Scholar
Kavanagh, A ‘Judicial Restraint in the Pursuit of Justice’ (2010) 60 University of Toronto Law Journal 23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kavanagh, A ‘Reasoning about Proportionality under the Human Rights Act 1998: Outcomes, Substance and Process’ (2014) 130 Law Quarterly Review 235Google Scholar
Kavanagh, A ‘Proportionality and Parliamentary Debates: Exploring Some Forbidden Territory’ (2014) 34 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, J, ‘The Pervasiveness of Polycentricity’ (2008) Public Law 101Google Scholar
King, J ‘Institutional Approaches to Judicial Restraint’ (2008) 28 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, J ‘Proportionality – A Halfway House’ (2010) New Zealand Law Review 332Google Scholar
King, J Judging Social Rights (Cambridge University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingsbury, B and Schill, S W, ‘Investor-State Arbitration as Governance: Fair and Equitable Treatment, Proportionality, and the Emerging Global Administrative Law’ in Van Den Berg, A J (ed.), 50 Years of the New York Convention (Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer, 2009) 5Google Scholar
Kingsbury, B and Schill, S W ‘Public Law Concepts to Balance Investors’ Rights with State Regulatory Actions in the Public Interest – The Concept of Proportionality’ in Schill, S W (ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (Oxford University Press, 2010) 75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinnear, M, Bjorklund, A and Hannaford, J, Investment Disputes Under NAFTA: An Annotated Guide to NAFTA Chapter 11 (Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer, 2006)Google Scholar
Kläger, R, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment’ in International Investment Law (Cambridge University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klatt, M and Meister, M, The Constitutional Structure of Proportionality (Oxford University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinlein, T, ‘Judicial Lawmaking by Judicial Restraint? The Potential of Balancing in International Economic Law’ (2011) 12 German Law Journal 1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kretzmer, D, ‘The Inherent Right to Self Defence and Proportionality in Jus Ad Bellum’ (2013) 24 European Journal of International Law 235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kriebaum, U, ‘Regulatory Takings: Balancing the Interests of the Investor and the State’ (2007) 8 Journal of World Investment and Trade 717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kriebaum, U ‘Is the European Court of Human Rights an Alternative to Investor-State Arbitration?’ in Dupuy, P, Petersmann, E and Francioni, F (eds.), Human Rights in International Investment Law and Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2009) 219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krommendijk, J and Morijn, J, ‘“Proportional” by What Measure(s)? Balancing Investor Interests and Human Rights by Way of Applying the Proportionality Principle in Investor-State Arbitration’ in Dupuy, P, Petersmann, E and Francioni, F (eds.), Human Rights in International Investment Law and Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2009) 422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulick, A, ‘Review: Stephan W. Schill (ed.). International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law’ (2011) 22 European Journal of International Law 917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulick, A Global Public Interest in International Investment Law (Cambridge University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumm, M, ‘Political Liberalism and the Structure of Rights: On the Place and Limits of the Proportionality Requirement’ in Pavlakos, G (ed.), Law, Rights and Discourse: The Legal Philosophy of Robert Alexy (Oxford: Hart, 2007) 131Google Scholar
Kurtz, J, ‘The Use and Abuse of WTO Law in Investor-State Arbitration: Competition and Its Discontents’ (2009) 20 European Journal of International Law 749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurtz, J ‘Access to Justice, Denial and Justice and International Investment Law: A Reply to Francesco Francioni’ (2009) 20 European Journal of International Law 1077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurtz, J ‘Adjudging the Exceptional at International Investment Law: Security, Public Order and Financial Crisis’ (2010) 59 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurtz, J ‘The Merits and Limits of Comparativism: National Treatment in International Investment Law and the WTO’ in Schill, S W (ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (Oxford University Press, 2010) 243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurtz, J ‘The Shifting Landscape of International Investment Law and Its Commentary’ (2012) 106 American Journal of International Law 686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurtz, J ‘On the Evolution and Slow Convergence of International Trade and Investment Law’ in Sacerdoti, G (ed.), General Interests of Host States in International Investment Law (Cambridge University Press, 2014) 104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang, A, World Trade Law after Neoliberalism: Reimagining the Global Economic Order (Oxford University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legg, A, The Margin of Appreciation in International Human Rights Law: Deference and Proportionality (Oxford University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonhardsen, E M, ‘Looking for Legitimacy: Exploring Proportionality Analysis in Investment Treaty Arbitration’ (2011) Journal of International Dispute Settlement 1Google Scholar
Leonhardsen, E M ‘Treaty Change, Arbitral Practice and the Search for a Balance: Standards of Review and the Margin of Appreciation in International Investment Law’ in Gruszczynski, L and Werner, W (eds.), Deference in International Courts and Tribunals: Standard of Review and Margin of Appreciation (Oxford University Press, 2014) 135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Letsas, G, A Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewans, M, ‘Deference and Reasonableness Since Dunsmuir’ (2012) 38 Queen's Law Journal 59Google Scholar
Lovric, D, Deference to the Legislature in WTO Challenges to Legislation (Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer, 2010)Google Scholar
Lowenfeld, A F, ‘The ICSID Convention: Origins and Transformation’ (2010) 38 Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 47Google Scholar
Luban, D, ‘Incommensurable Values, Rational Choice, and Moral Absolutes’ (1990) 38 Cleveland State Law Review 65Google Scholar
Macdonald, R S, ‘The Margin of Appreciation’ in Macdonald, R S, Matscher, F and Petzold, H (eds.), The European System for the Protection of Human Rights (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1993) 83Google Scholar
Maduro, M P, We the Court: The European Court of Justice and the European Economic Constitution (Oxford: Hart, 1998)Google Scholar
Mamolea, A, ‘Good Faith Review’ in Gruszczynski, L and Werner, W (eds.), Deference in International Courts and Tribunals: Standard of Review and Margin of Appreciation (Oxford University Press, 2014) 74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marboe, I, Calculation of Compensation and Damages in International Investment Law (Oxford University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marceau, G and Trachtman, J P, ‘A Map of the World Trade Organization Law of Domestic Regulation of Goods’ in Bermann, G and Mavroidis, P (eds.), Trade and Human Health and Safety (Cambridge University Press, 2006) 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, S, ‘Civil Liberties at the Margin: the UK Derogation and the European Court of Human Rights’ (1995) 15 Oxford Journal of Legal Systems 69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathis, J H, ‘Balancing and Proportionality in US Commerce Clause Cases’ (2009) 35 Legal Issues of Economic Integration 273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, J and Stone Sweet, A, ‘All Things in Proportion? American Rights Review and the Problem of Balancing’ (2011) 60 Emory Law Journal 101Google Scholar
Maupin, J, ‘Differentiating Among International Investment Disputes’ in Douglas, Z, Pauwelyn, J, and Viñuales, J E (eds.), The Foundations of International Investment Law: Bringing Theory into Practice (Oxford University Press, 2014) 468Google Scholar
Mbengue, M M, ‘Scientific Fact-finding by International Courts and Tribunals’ (2012) 3 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGrady, B, ‘Necessity Exceptions in WTO Law: Retreaded Tyres, Regulatory Purpose and Cumulative Regulatory Measures’ (2009) 12 Journal of International Economic Law 153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGrady, B Trade and Public Health: The WTO, Tobacco, Alcohol and Diet (Cambridge University Press, 2010)Google Scholar
McHarg, A, ‘Reconciling Human Rights and the Public Interest: Conceptual Problems and Doctrinal Uncertainty in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights’ (1999) 62 Modern Law Review 671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKean, W A, ‘The Meaning of Discrimination in International and Municipal Law’ (1970) 44 British Yearbook of International Law 177Google Scholar
McLachlan, C, Shore, L and Weiniger, M, International Investment Arbitration: Substantive Principles (Oxford University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNair, A, International Law Opinions, Volume 2 (Cambridge University Press, 1956)Google Scholar
McRae, D, ‘The WTO Appellate Body: A Model for an ICSID Appeals Facility?’ (2010) 1 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mead, D, ‘Outcomes Aren't All: Defending Process-Based Review of Public Authority Decisions under the Human Rights Act’ (2012) Public Law 61Google Scholar
Meron, T, Human Rights and Humanitarian Norms as Customary Law (Oxford University Press, 1989)Google Scholar
Michaels, R, ‘The Functionalist Method of Comparative Law’ in Reimann, M and Zimmermann, R (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law (Oxford University Press, 2006) 339Google Scholar
Miles, K, The Origins of International Investment Law: Empire, Environment and the Safeguarding of Capital (Cambridge University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, T J and Sunstein, C R, ‘The Real World of Arbitrariness Review’ (2008) 75 University of Chicago Law Review 761Google Scholar
Mitchell, A D, ‘Proportionality and Remedies in WTO Disputes’ (2007) 17 European Journal of International Law 985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, A D and Henckels, C, ‘Variations on a Theme: Comparing the Concept of “Necessity” in International Investment Law and WTO Law’ (2013) 14 Chicago Journal of International Law 93Google Scholar
Moloo, R and Jacinto, J, ‘Environmental and Health Regulation: Assessing Liability Under Investment Treaties’ (2011) 29 Berkeley Journal of International Law 101Google Scholar
Moloo, R and Jacinto, J ‘Standards of Review and Reviewing Standards: Public Interest Regulation in International Investment Law’ in Sauvant, K P (ed.), Yearbook of International Investment Law and Policy 2011–2012 (Oxford University Press, 2013) 539Google Scholar
Montt, S, State Liability in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Global Constitutional and Administrative Law and the BIT Generation (Oxford: Hart, 2009)Google Scholar
Mostafa, B, ‘The Sole Effects Doctrine, Police Powers and Indirect Expropriation under International Law’ (2008) 15 Australian International Law Journal 267Google Scholar
Mountfield, H, ‘Regulatory Expropriations in Europe: The Approach of the European Court of Human Rights’ (2002) 11 New York University Environmental Law Journal 136Google Scholar
Muchlinski, P, Multinational Enterprises and the Law (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed., 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NAFTA Free Trade Commission, Note of Interpretation of Certain Chapter 11 Provisions (2001)Google Scholar
Neumann, J and Türk, E, ‘Necessity Revisited: Proportionality in World Trade Organization Law After Korea-Beef, EC-Asbestos and EC-Sardines’ (2003) 37 Journal of World Trade 199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newcombe, A and Paradell, L, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standards of Treatment (Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer, 2009)Google Scholar
Newton, M and May, L, Proportionality in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2013)Google Scholar
New Zealand Government, ‘Government Moves Forward with Plain Packaging of Tobacco Products’, media release, 19 February 2013, www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government-moves-forward-plain-packaging-tobacco-productsGoogle Scholar
Oesch, M, Standards of Review in WTO Dispute Resolution (Oxford University Press, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Draft Convention on the Protection of Foreign Property and Resolution of the Council of the OECD on the Draft Convention (Paris: OECD, 1967)Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, National Treatment for Foreign-Controlled Enterprises (Paris: OECD, 1992)Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, ‘Indirect Expropriation’ and the ‘Right to Regulate’ in International Investment Law (Paris: OECD, 2004)Google Scholar
Ortino, F, Basic Legal Instruments for the Liberalisation of Trade: A Comparative Analysis of EC and WTO Law (Oxford: Hart, 2004)Google Scholar
Ortino, F ‘The Social Dimension of International Investment Agreements: Drafting a New BIT/MIT Model?’ (2005) 7 International Law FORUM du Droit International 243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortino, F ‘From “Non-Discrimination” to “Reasonableness:” A Paradigm Shift in International Economic Law?’ (2005) 1 New York University School of Law Jean Monnet Working PapersGoogle Scholar
Ortino, F ‘Legal Reasoning of International Investment Tribunals: A Typology of Egregious Failures’ (2012) 3 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortino, F ‘The Investment Treaty System as Judicial Review’ (2013) 24 American Review of International Arbitration 437Google Scholar
Paine, J ‘The Project of System-Internal Reform in International Investment Law: An Appraisal’ (2015) 6 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panaccio, C, ‘In Defence of Two-Step Balancing and Proportionality in Rights Adjudication’ (2011) 24 Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paparinskis, M, ‘Inherent Powers of ICSID Tribunals: Broad and Rightly So’ in Laird, I and Weiler, T (eds.), Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law (New York: JurisNet, 2012) 11Google Scholar
Paparinskis, M The International Minimum Standard and Fair and Equitable Treatment (Oxford University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pauwelyn, J, ‘Comment: The Unbearable Lightness of Likeness’ in Panizzon, M, Pohl, N and Sauvé, P (eds.), GATS and the Regulation of International Trade in Services (Cambridge University Press, 2008) 358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pauwelyn, J ‘At the Edge of Chaos? Foreign Investment Law as a Complex Adaptive System, How It Emerged and How It Can Be Reformed’ (2014) 29 ICSID Review 372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peel, J, ‘Of Apples and Oranges (and Hormones in Beef): Science and the Standard of Review in WTO Disputes under the SPS Agreement’ (2012) 61 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkams, M, ‘The Concept of Indirect Expropriation in Comparative Public Law – Searching for Light in the Dark’ in Schill, S W (ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (Oxford University Press, 2010) 107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, L E, ‘Liability Ruling in Oxy v Ecuador Arbitration Puts Spotlight on Need for States to Mete Out Treatment that is Proportionate’ (2012) Investment Arbitration ReporterGoogle Scholar
Peterson, L E ‘After Settling Some Awards, Argentina Takes More Fractious Path in Bond-Holders Case, with New Bid to Disqualify Arbitrators’ (2013) Investment Arbitration ReporterGoogle Scholar
Pirker, B, Proportionality Analysis and Judicial Review: A Comparative Study in Domestic Constitutional, European and International Economic Law (Groningen: Europa, 2013)Google Scholar
Pita, C, ‘Right to Property, Investments and Environmental Protection: The Perspectives of the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights’ in Treves, T, Seatzu, F and Trevisanut, S (eds.), International Investment Law and Common Concern (New York: Taylor and Francis, 2013) 553Google Scholar
Poole, T, ‘Of Headscarves and Heresies: The Denbigh High School Case and Public Authority Decision Making under the Human Rights Act’ (2005) Public Law 685Google Scholar
Popelier, P and Van De Heyning, C, ‘Procedural Rationality: Giving Teeth to the Proportionality Analysis’ (2013) 9 European Constitutional Law Review 230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porges, A and Trachtman, J P, ‘Robert Hudec and Domestic Regulation: The Resurrection of Aim and Effects’ (2003) 37 Journal of World Trade 783Google Scholar
Potestà, M, ‘Legitimate Expectations in Investment Treaty Law: Understanding the Roots and the Limits of a Controversial Concept’ (2013) 28 ICSID Review 88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qin, J Y, ‘Defining Non-Discrimination Under the Law of the World Trade Organization’ (2005) 23 Boston University International Law Journal 215Google Scholar
Radi, Y, ‘Realizing Human Rights in Investment Treaty Arbitration: A Perspective from within the International Investment Law Toolbox’ (2012) 37 North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation 1107Google Scholar
Ranieri, N W, ‘Investors’ Rights, Legal Concepts and Public Policy in the NAFTA Context’ in Trakman, L E and Ranieri, N W (eds.), Regionalism in International Investment Law (Oxford University Press, 2013) 400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranjan, P, ‘Using the Public Law Concept of Proportionality to Balance Investment Protection with Regulation in International Investment Law: A Critical Reappraisal’ (2014) 3 Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law 853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratner, S R, ‘Regulatory Takings in Institutional Context: Beyond the Fear of Fragmented International Law’ (2008) 102 American Journal of International Law 475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raz, J, The Morality of Freedom (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986)Google Scholar
Raz, J Engaging Reason (Oxford University Press, 2001)Google Scholar
Regan, D H, ‘Further Thoughts on the Role of Regulatory Purpose Under Article III of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade: A Tribute to Bob Hudec’ (2003) 37 Journal of World Trade 737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regan, D H ‘The Meaning of “Necessary” in GATT Article XX and GATS Article XIV: The Myth of Cost–Benefit Balancing’ (2007) 6 World Trade Review 347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinisch, A, ‘Expropriation’ in Muchlinski, P, Ortino, F and Schreuer, C (eds.), The Oxford Handbook on International Investment Law (Oxford University Press, 2008) 407Google Scholar
Reinisch, A ‘Necessity in Investment Arbitration’ (2010) 41 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 137Google Scholar
Rivers, J, ‘A Theory of Constitutional Rights and the British Constitution’ in Alexy, R, A Theory of Constitutional Rights (Oxford University Press, Rivers, J trans., 2002) xviiGoogle Scholar
Rivers, J ‘Proportionality and Variable Intensity of Review’ (2006) 65 Cambridge Law Journal 174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivers, J ‘Proportionality, Discretion and the Second Law of Balancing’ in Pavlakos, G (ed.), Law, Rights and Discourse: The Legal Philosophy of Robert Alexy (Oxford: Hart, 2007) 167Google Scholar
Rivers, J ‘Proportionality and Discretion in International and European Law’ in Tsagourias, N (ed.), Transnational Constitutionalism: European and International Models (Cambridge University Press, 2007) 107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivers, J ‘The Presumption of Proportionality’ (2014) 77 Modern Law Review 409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, A, ‘Power and Persuasion in Investment Treaty Arbitration: The Dual Role of States’ (2010) 104 American Journal of International Law 179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, A ‘The Next Battleground: Standards of Review in Investment Treaty Arbitration’ in Van Den Berg, A J (ed.), Arbitration – The Next Fifty Years, ICCA Congress Series No. 16 (Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer, 2012) 170Google Scholar
Roberts, A ‘Clash of Paradigms: Actors and Analogies Shaping the Investment Treaty System’ (2013) 107 American Journal of International Law 45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roessler, F, ‘Beyond the Ostensible – A Tribute to Professor Robert Hudec's Insights Under the National Treatment Provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade’ (2003) 37 Journal of World Trade 771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabahi, B and Duggal, K, ‘Occidental Petroleum v Ecuador (2012): Observations on Proportionality, Assessment of Damages and Contributory Fault’ (2013) 28 ICSID Review 279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacerdoti, G, ‘BIT Protections and Economic Crises: Limits to Their Coverage, the Impact of Multilateral Financial Regulation and the Defence of Necessity’ (2013) 28 ICSID Review 351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacerdoti, G ‘The Application of BITs in Time of Economic Crisis: Limits to their Coverage, Necessity and the Relevance of WTO Law’ in Sacerdoti, G (ed.), General Interests of Host States in International Investment Law (Cambridge University Press, 2014) 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacerdoti, G ‘Trade and Investment Law: Institutional Differences and Substantive Similarities’ (2014) 9 Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salacuse, J W, The Law of Investment Treaties (Oxford University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauter, W, ‘Proportionality in EU Law: A Balancing Act?’ (2013) 15 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schill, S W, ‘Revisiting a Landmark: Indirect Expropriation and Fair and Equitable Treatment in the ICSID Case Tecmed’ (2006) 3 Transnational Dispute ManagementGoogle Scholar
Schill, S W ‘International Investment Law and the Host State's Power to Handle Economic Crises – Comment on the ICSID Decision in LG&E v. Argentina’ (2007) 24 Journal of International Arbitration 265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schill, S W The Multilateralization of International Investment Law (Cambridge University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schill, S W ‘International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law – An Introduction’ in Schill, S W (ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (Oxford University Press, 2010) 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schill, S W ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment, the Rule of Law, and Comparative Public Law’ in Schill, S W (ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (Oxford University Press, 2010) 151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schill, S W‘Enhancing International Investment Law's Legitimacy: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations of a New Public Law Approach’ (2011) 52 Virginia Journal of International Law 57Google Scholar
Schill, S W ‘Deference in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Re-Conceptualizing the Standard of Review’ (2012) 3 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schill, S W ‘General Principles of Law and International Investment Law’ in Gazzini, T and De Brabandere, E (eds.), International Investment Law – The Sources of Rights and Obligations (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2012) 133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schill, S W ‘Cross-Regime Harmonization through Proportionality Analysis: The Case of International Investment Law, the Law of State Immunity and Human Rights’ (2014) 27 ICSID Review 87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schill, S W ‘The Sixth Path: Reforming Investment Law from Within’ in Kalicki, J E and Joubin-Bret, A (eds), Reshaping the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System: Journeys for the 21st Century (Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, 2015) 621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schill, S and Briese, R, ‘“If the State Considers”: Self-Judging Clauses in International Dispute Settlement’ (2009) 13 Max Planck United Nations Yearbook 61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneiderman, D, Constitutionalizing Economic Globalization (Cambridge University Press, 2008)Google Scholar
Schneiderman, D ‘The Global Regime of Investor Rights: Return to the Standards of Civilised Justice?’ (2014) 5 Transnational Legal Theory 60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schønberg, S J, Legitimate Expectations in Administrative Law (Oxford University Press, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreuer, C, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary (Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed., 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schueler, B, ‘Methods of Application of the Proportionality Principle in Environmental Law’ (2008) 35 Legal Issues of Economic Integration 231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarze, J, European Administrative Law (London: Sweet and Maxwell, revised 1st ed., 2006)Google Scholar
Shaffer, G and Trachtman, J, ‘Interpretation and Institutional Choice at the WTO’ (2011) 52 Virginia Journal of International Law 103Google Scholar
Shany, Y, ‘Toward a General Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in International Law?’ (2006) 16 European Journal of International Law 907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, M, International Law (Cambridge University Press, 6th ed., 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shirlow, E, ‘Deference and Indirect Expropriation Analysis in International Investment Law: Observations on Current Approaches and Frameworks for Future Analysis’ (2014) 29 ICSID Review 595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, I, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Manchester University Press, 2nd ed., 1984)Google Scholar
Sloane, R D, ‘On the Use and Abuse of Necessity in the Law of State Responsibility’ (2012) 106 American Journal of International Law 447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sornarajah, M, The International Law on Foreign Investment (Cambridge University Press, 3rd ed., 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sornarajah, M‘Evolution or Revolution in International Investment Arbitration? The Descent into Normlessness’ in Brown, C and Miles, K (eds.), Evolution in Investment Treaty Law and Arbitration (Cambridge University Press, 2011) 631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spears, S, ‘The Quest for Policy Space in a New Generation of International Investment Agreements’ (2010) 13 Journal of International Economic Law 1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, J, ‘Arbitrariness, the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard, and the International Law of Investment’ (2012) 25 Leiden Journal of International Law 77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone Sweet, A, The Judicial Construction of Europe (Oxford University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone Sweet, A ‘Investor-State Arbitration: Proportionality's New Frontier’ (2010) 4 Law and Ethics of Human Rights 47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone Sweet, A‘Arbitration and Judicialization’ (2011) 1 Oñati Socio-Legal Series 16Google Scholar
Stone Sweet, A and della Cananea, G, ‘Proportionality, General Principles of Law, and Investor-State Arbitration: A Response to José Alvarez’ (2014) 46 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 911Google Scholar
Stone Sweet, A and Grisel, F, ‘Transnational Investment Arbitration: From Delegation to Constitutionalization?’ in Dupuy, P, Petersmann, E and Francioni, F (eds.), Human Rights in International Investment Law and Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2009) 118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone Sweet, A and Matthews, J, ‘Proportionality Balancing and Global Constitutionalism’ (2008) 47 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 72Google Scholar
Sullivan, E T and Frase, R S, Proportionality Principles in American Law: Controlling Excessive Government Actions (Oxford University Press, 2009)Google Scholar
Sunstein, C, After the Rights Revolution: Reconceiving the Regulatory State (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990)Google Scholar
Sykes, A O, Product Standards for Internationally Integrated Goods Markets (Washington, DC: Brookings, 1995)Google Scholar
Sykes, A O ‘The Least Restrictive Means’ (2003) 70 University of Chicago Law Review 403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taggart, M, ‘Proportionality, Deference, Wednesbury’ (2008) 1 New Zealand Law Review 423Google Scholar
Tams, C J, ‘An Appealing Option? The Debate about an ICSID Appellate Mechanism’ (2006) 57 Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenburg Beiträge zum Transnationalen WirtschaftsrechtGoogle Scholar
Thomas, R, Legitimate Expectations and Proportionality in Administrative Law (Hart: Oxford, 2000)Google Scholar
Tienhaara, K, ‘Regulatory Chill and the Threat of Arbitration: A View from Political Science’ in Brown, C and Miles, K (eds.), Evolution in Investment Treaty Law and Arbitration (Cambridge University Press, 2011) 607Google Scholar
Tomuschat, C, ‘The European Court of Human Rights and Investment Protection’ in Binder, C, Kriebaum, U, Reinisch, A and Wittich, S (eds.), International Investment Law for the 21st Century: Essays in Honour of Christoph Schreuer (Oxford University Press, 2009) 636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trachtman, J P, ‘Trade and…Problems, Cost-Benefit Analysis and Subsidiarity’ (1998) 9 European Journal of International Law 32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trachtman, J P ‘Regulatory Jurisdiction and the WTO’ (2007) 10 Journal of International Economic Law 631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tridimas, T, ‘Proportionality in Community Law: Searching for the Appropriate Standard of Scrutiny’ in Ellis, E (ed.), The Principle of Proportionality in the Laws of Europe (Oxford: Hart, 1999) 65Google Scholar
Tridimas, T The General Principles of EU Law (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed., 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsakyrakis, S, ‘Proportionality: An Assault on Human Rights?’ (2009) 7 International Journal of Constitutional Law 468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, National Treatment (Geneva: UNCTAD, 1999)Google Scholar
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, The Protection of National Security in IIAs (Geneva: UNCTAD, 2009)Google Scholar
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Fair and Equitable Treatment: A Sequel (Geneva: UNCTAD, 2012)Google Scholar
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development (Geneva: UNCTAD, 2012)Google Scholar
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, World Investment Report 2012: Towards a New Generation of Investment Policies (Geneva: UNCTAD, 2012)Google Scholar
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Expropriation: A Sequel (Geneva: UNCTAD, 2012)Google Scholar
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Recent Developments in Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) (Geneva: UNCTAD, 2014)Google Scholar
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, World Investment Report 2014: Investing in the SDGs: An Action Plan (Geneva: UNCTAD, 2014)Google Scholar
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Recent Trends in IIAs and ISDS (Geneva: UNCTAD, 2015)Google Scholar
Vadi, V, ‘Critical Comparisons: The Role of Comparative Law in Investment Treaty Arbitration’ (2010) 39 Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 67Google Scholar
Vadi, V and Gruszczynski, L, ‘Standards of Review in International Investment Law and Arbitration: Multilevel Governance and the Commonweal’ (2013) 16 Journal of International Economic Law 613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Aaken, A, ‘International Investment Law Between Commitment and Flexibility: A Contract Theory Analysis’ (2009) 12 Journal of International Economic Law 507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Aaken, A ‘Defragmentation of Public International Law Through Interpretation: A Methodological Proposal’ (2009) 16 Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Aaken, A ‘Primary and Secondary Remedies in International Investment Law and National State Liability: A Functional and Comparative View’ in Schill, S W (ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (Oxford University Press, 2010) 721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Aaken, A ‘Control Mechanisms in International Investment Law’ in Douglas, Z, Pauwelyn, J and Viñuales, J E (eds.), The Foundations of International Investment Law: Bringing Theory into Practice (Oxford University Press, 2014) 409Google Scholar
Van Aaken, A and Kurtz, J, ‘Prudence or Discrimination? Emergency Measures, the Global Financial Crisis and International Economic Law’ (2009) 12 Journal of International Economic Law 859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Damme, I, Treaty Interpretation by the WTO Appellate Body (Oxford University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van den Bossche, P, ‘Looking for Proportionality in WTO Law’ (2008) 35 Legal Issues of Economic Integration 283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, P, van Hoof, G, Van Rijn, A and Zwaak, L, Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford: Intersentia, 4th ed., 2006)Google Scholar
Van Gerven, W, ‘The Effect of Proportionality on the Actions of Member States of the European Community: National Viewpoints from Continental Europe’ in Ellis, E (ed.), The Principle of Proportionality in the Laws of Europe (Oxford: Hart, 1999) 37Google Scholar
Van Harten, G, Investment Treaty Arbitration and Public Law (Oxford University Press, 2007)Google Scholar
Van Harten, G ‘Investment Treaty Arbitration, Procedural Fairness and the Rule of Law’ in Schill, S W (ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (Oxford University Press, 2010) 627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Harten, G Sovereign Choices and Sovereign Constraints: Judicial Restraint in Investment Treaty Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Harten, G ‘Investment Arbitrators’ Evident Lack of Restraint’ (2014) 5 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Harten, G and Loughlin, M, ‘Investment Treaty Arbitration as a Species of Global Administrative Law’ (2006) 17 European Journal of International Law 121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhoosel, G, National Treatment and WTO Dispute Settlement: Adjudicating the Boundaries of Regulatory Autonomy (Oxford: Hart 2002)Google Scholar
Vierdag, E W, The Concept of Discrimination in International Law: With Special Reference to Human Rights (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viñuales, J E, ‘Foreign Investment and the Environment in International Law: An Ambiguous Relationship’ (2010) 80 British Yearbook of International Law 244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Staden, A, ‘Deference or No Deference, That is the Question: Legitimacy and Standards of Review in Investor-State Arbitration’ (2012) 2 Investment Treaty News 3Google Scholar
von Staden, A ‘The Democratic Legitimacy of Judicial Review Beyond the State: Normative Subsidiarity and Judicial Standards of Review’ (2012) 10 International Journal of Constitutional Law 1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vranes, E, Trade and the Environment: Fundamental Issues in International Law, WTO Law, and Legal Theory (Oxford University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, M, ‘Law Talk v. Science Talk: The Languages of Law and Science in WTO Proceedings’ (2012) 35 Fordham International Law Journal 151Google Scholar
Wagner, M‘Regulatory Space in International Investment Law and International Trade Law’ (2015) 36 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law 1Google Scholar
Waibel, M, ‘Two Worlds of Necessity in ICSID Arbitration: CMS and LG&E’ (2007) 20 Leiden Journal of International Law 637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waibel, M ‘Opening Pandora's Box: Sovereign Bonds in International Arbitration’ (2007) 101 American Journal of International Law 711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wälde, T W, ‘Investment Arbitration under the Energy Charter Treaty: An Overview of Selected Key Issues Based on Recent Litigation Experience’ in Horn, N and Kröll, S (eds.), Arbitrating Foreign Investment Disputes (The Hague: Kluwer, 2004) 193Google Scholar
Webber, G C N, The Negotiable Constitution: On the Limitation of Rights (Cambridge University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webber, G C N ‘Proportionality, Balancing and the Cult of Constitutional Rights Scholarship’ (2010) 23 Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weeramantry, J R, Treaty Interpretation in Investment Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2012)Google Scholar
Weiler, J H H, ‘The Rule of Lawyers and the Ethos of Diplomats: Reflections on the Internal and External Legitimacy of WTO Dispute Settlement’ (2002) 13 American Review of International Arbitration 177Google Scholar
Weiler, J H H ‘Comment: Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres’ (2009) 8 World Trade Review 137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, A S, ‘Indirect Expropriation: The Need for a Taxonomy of “Legitimate” Regulatory Purposes’ (2003) 5 International Law FORUM du droit international 166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, R C A and Ovey, C, The European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford University Press, 5th ed., 2010)Google Scholar
Whytock, C A, ‘Legal Origins, Functionalism, and the Future of Comparative Law’ (2009) 34 Brigham Young University Law Review 1879Google Scholar
Wildhaber, L, ‘The Protection of Legitimate Expectations in European Human Rights Law’ in Monti, M, von und zu Liechtenstein, Prinz N, Versterdorf, B, Westbrook, J and Wildhaber, L (eds.), Economic Law and Justice in Times of Globalisation: Festschrift for Carl Baudenbacher (Sinzheim: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2007) 253Google Scholar
Wildhaber, L, Hjartarson, A and Donnelly, S, ‘No Consensus on Consensus? The Practice of the European Court of Human Rights’ (2011) 33 Human Rights Law Journal 248Google Scholar
Yannaca-Small, K, ‘Indirect Expropriation and the Right to Regulate: How to Draw the Line?’ in Yannaca-Small, K (ed.), Arbitration Under International Investment Agreements: A Guide to the Key Issues (Oxford University Press, 2010) 445Google Scholar
Young, A L, ‘Will You, Won't You, Will You Join the Deference Dance?’ (2014) 34 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yourow, H C, ‘The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in the Dynamics of the European Human Rights Jurisprudence’ (1988) 3 Connecticut Journal of International Law 111Google Scholar
Zhou, W, ‘US–Clove Cigarettes and US–Tuna II (Mexico): Implications for the Role of Regulatory Purpose Under Article III:4 of the GATT’ (2012) 15 Journal of International Economic Law 1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zleptnig, S, ‘The Standard of Review in WTO Law: An Analysis of Law, Legitimacy and the Distribution of Legal and Political Authority’ (2002) 6 European Integration Online PapersGoogle Scholar
Zweigert, K, ‘Des solutions identiques par des voies différentes (Quelques observations en matière de droit comparé)’ (1966) 18 Revue internationale de droit comparé 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zweigert, K and Kötz, H, Introduction to Comparative Law (Oxford University Press, 3rd ed., Weir, T trans., 1998)Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bibliography
  • Caroline Henckels, University of New South Wales, Sydney
  • Book: Proportionality and Deference in Investor-State Arbitration
  • Online publication: 05 October 2015
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316104378.008
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bibliography
  • Caroline Henckels, University of New South Wales, Sydney
  • Book: Proportionality and Deference in Investor-State Arbitration
  • Online publication: 05 October 2015
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316104378.008
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bibliography
  • Caroline Henckels, University of New South Wales, Sydney
  • Book: Proportionality and Deference in Investor-State Arbitration
  • Online publication: 05 October 2015
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316104378.008
Available formats
×