Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-13T10:00:27.526Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Impact of the Singapore Convention on the Development of Non-adjudicative Forms of International Dispute Resolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2021

Andrea Schneider
Andrea Schneider*
Affiliation:
Professor of Law and Director of the Dispute Resolution Program, Marquette University Law School.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The impact of the Singapore Convention might affect both state and companies’ behaviors even more than encouraging mediation. We have had for a long time the phrase “bargaining in the shadow of the law,” and then more recently, in particular when we look at international investment, it is bargaining in the shadow of international arbitration. We know that a dispute could end up in arbitration and therefore impact behaviors before that. I want us to think about what bargaining might look like in the shadow of mediation.

Type
The Singapore Convention on Mediation: Considering The Future
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 114 , 2020 , pp. 123 - 126
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The American Society of International Law.

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 Robert H. Mnookin & Lewis Kornhauser, Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: The Case of Divorce, 88 Yale L.J. (1979).

2 Jill I. Gross, Bargaining in the (Murky) Shadow of Arbitration, 24 Harv. Negot. L. Rev. 186 (2019); Jill I. Gross, Negotiating in the Shadow of Adhesive Arbitration, in The Negotiator's Desk Reference (Chris Honeyman & Andrea Kupfer Schneider eds., 2017).

3 Andrea Kupfer Schneider & Nancy A. Welsh, Bargaining in the Shadow of Investor-State Mediation: How the Threat of Mediation Will Improve Conflict Management, Univ. St. Thomas L.J. (forthcoming); Nancy A. Welsh & Andrea K. Schneider, The Thoughtful Integration of Mediation into Bilateral Investment Treaty Arbitration, 18 Harv. Negot. L. Rev. 71 (2013).

4 Roberto Echandi, The Debate on Treaty-Based Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Empirical Evidence (1987–2017) and Policy Implications, 34 ICSID Rev. 32 (2019).

5 See Susan D. Franck, Using Investor-State Mediation Rules to Promote Conflict Management: An Introductory Guide, 29 ICSID R. - Foreign Inv. L.J. 66, 70 (2014).

6 Mark Califano remarks, ASIL Panel on The Singapore Convention on Mediation and the Future of Appropriate Dispute Resolution (June 9, 2020).

7 ISDS Mediation Working Group, Unlocking Value Through Stakeholder Engagement: New Forms to Resolve Investor-State Disputes, 2020 ISDS Mediation Working Group Report 6 (2020), at https://www.imimediation.org/2020/06/18/harvard-investor-state-mediation-report.

8 World Bank Group, Retention and Expansion of Foreign Direct Investment: Political Risk and Policy Responses (2019).

9 Mariana Hernandez Crespo G., A New Chapter in Natural Resource-Seeking Investment: Using Shared Decisions System Design (“SDSD”) to Strengthen Investor-State and Community Relationships, 18 Cardozo J. Conflict Res. 551 (2016).

10 World Bank Group, supra note 8.

11 Roberto Echandi, Remarks at St. Thomas University Law School Symposium (Feb. 21, 2020); see also Roberto Echandi & Priyanka Kher, Can International Investor-State Disputes Be Prevented? Empirical Evidence from Settlements in ICSID Arbitration, 29 ICSID Rev. 41 (2014).