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 .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
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.
No governing international text or generally accepted doctrine defines the procedure to be applied by international courts and tribunals. Yet these institutions’ tasks pose common challenges: providing notice of a dispute, defining its nature and scope, determining the legal rules, marshalling and assessing evidence, finding facts and applying legal rules to them, and then recording and communicating the result. There often is substantial similarity – indeed, convergence – in how courts and tribunals go about these tasks. This chapter examines some of the factors and institutions that contribute to this procedural harmonization among institutions dealing with disputes between parties from different countries and legal cultures. It looks at the shared historical foundations of important procedural practices, the influence of intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations, the roles individuals sometimes play in transmitting “legal technology” between institutions, and the effect of competition among institutions seeking to meet the needs of their “customers.” It also notes areas where procedure can diverge, as users look for new ways to address procedural problems.
This essay outlines a quandary facing international investment dispute settlement (IIDS): the tension between the wish to curb “dual hatting” and the wish to increase the diversity of those appointed as arbitrators in IIDS cases. Thoughtful observers are concerned by the effect on IIDS, either in fact or as a matter of appearance, of lawyers who wear “dual hats”—one as arbitrator in IIDS cases, and a second as counsel representing clients in other IIDS matters. Concurrently, other thoughtful observers are concerned that appointments to IIDS predominantly go to a small cadre of established arbitrators caricatured as “pale, male and stale.” This concern has prompted efforts to increase the pool of female and minority arbitrators. However, these individuals would be drawn primarily from the ranks of younger practicing lawyers who must continue to practice unless and until they receive sufficient appointments to make full-time service as arbitrators economically feasible.
I want to raise a quandary facing international investment dispute settlement: the tension between the wish to curb “dual hatting” and the wish to increase the diversity of persons appointed as arbitrators.
John Crook's remarks highlighted key recurring problems faced by mass claims programs. His remarks drew on his personal experience, but also on the writings of experts who have designed and administered mass claims programs, notably Dr. Norbert Wühler, whose visa apparently fell victim to “extreme vetting” because of his work for the International Organization for Migration (IOM) on a mass claims program in Iraq.