Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T20:31:42.650Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Remarks by William S. Dodge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

William S. Dodge
William S. Dodge*
Affiliation:
University of California, Hastings College of the Law
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract 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
Investment Disputes and Nafta Chapter 11
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 95 , 2001 , pp. 207 - 209
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2001

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

1 See generally W. Michael Reisman, Systems of Control in International Adjudication and Arbitration (1992).

2 Id. at 1-3.

3 Id. at 8-9.

4 NAFTA, supra note 1, Art. 1136(3)(b).

5 Id. at (3) (a).

6 United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, June 10, 1958, 330 UNTS 38.

7 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 24 ILM 1302 (1985).

8 Amore indirect version of the same control mechanism exists under Article 1128, which permits NAFTA parties besides the respondent to “make written submissions to a Tribunal on a question of interpretation of this Agreement.” Id., Art. 1128. If all three parties’ submissions showed agreement on a question of interpretation, this might constitute a “subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty” under Article 31 (3) (a) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature May 23, 1969, 1155 UNTS 331, reprinted in 8 ILM 679 (1969).

9 See NAFTA, supra note 1, Art. 1110(1).

10 Metalclad Corp. v. Mexico, Merits, Award (NAFTA Ch. 11 Arb. Trib., Aug. 30, 2000), available at <http://www.worldbank.org/icsid/cases/rn.m-award-e.pdf>.

11 Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Canada Interim Award (NAFTA Ch. 11 Arb. Trib., June 26, 2000), available at <http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/tna-nac/nafta-e.asp>.

12 S.D. Myers, Inc. v. Canada, Partial Award (NAFTA Ch. 11 Arb. Trib., Nov. 13,2000), available at <http://www.appletonlaw.com/4b2myers.htm>.

13 In the end, two of the tribunals agreed with the governments, while the third did not make its position clear.

14 Waste Management, Inc. v. Mexico, Award (NAFTA Ch. 11 Arb. Trib., June 2, 2000), 15 ICSID Rev. Foreign Investment L.J. 214 (2000), available at <http://www.worldbank.org/icsid/cases/waste_award.pdf>.

15 Ethyl Corp. v. Canadajurisdiction, Award (NAFTA Ch. 11 Arb. Trib., June 24,1999), reprinted in 38 ILM 708 (1999).

16 Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Canada, Award in Relation to Preliminary Motion by Government of Cauada to Strike Paras. 34 and 103 of the Statement of Claim from the Record of Feb. 24, 2000, 23 Hastings Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 447 (2000).

17 William S. Dodge, Case Report: Waste Management, Inc. v. Mexico, 95 AJIL 186, 190-91 (2001).

18 NAFTA, supra note l, Art. 1136(1) (stating that “an award made by a Tribunal shall have no binding force except between the disputing parties and in respect of the particular case.”).