نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی - پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشیار دانشکدۀ حقوق، دانشگاه مفید قم
2 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق بینالملل عمومی، دانشکدۀ علوم انسانی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد قم
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Individual opinions of the judges/ Arbitrators are one of the main forms of Legal Doctorin, which assist to determine the rules of law. However, the International Court of Justice and Investor- State Arbitration are two different systems, but both of them belong to dispute settlement legal system and recognized the individual opinions. Therefore, comparative study of these two systems on functions and effects of individual opinions of judges/arbitrators is a step for finding the differentials and similarities of jurisprudences in this two systems and development of legal literature of dispute settlement as well. The Judges of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) by their individual opinions, both in contentious and advisory judgments contributed in development and determination of rules of international law and have taken role as safeguard of court, and also have had role in accrediting the decisions of the court as well as international justice through development of judicial activism, law-making, dialogue of law and removing the gaps of law. Vice-versa, the functions & performances of Individual Opinions of arbitrators in investor-state arbitration (in particular ICSID) faces with various challenges. Because on one hand the arbitrators withdrawals of individual opinions in particular dissent, and on the other hand the dissent is often a tool for looser party to conduct the case on the way of null procedures, and this caused unreliability on these opinions in arbitrations. Due to thelack of the appeal mechanism in investment arbitrations, the awards would be fallen in annulment process just for minor reasons. According to research which has been taken on awards of the ICSID, the arbitrators announced their dissents in most cases in favor of the party who loosed the case fully or partially. For this reasons, the concerns has been increased about individual opinions of arbitrators. Therefore it cannot be expected that individual opinions in investor –state arbitration would be in favor of development of international law. Other important point which should be taken in to account, is the independency of the judges in comparison to arbitrators. Since in the international Court of Justice (ICJ) as the focal point for resolving the disputes among States and the parties have less interference in selection of the judges, therefore judges have enough independency and they have some privileges and immunities as well, based on the status of (ICJ) which backup them to provide their individual opinions, in particular dissents. But in investor-state arbitrations, since the arbitrators are designated by the parties, they are under the influence of the parties and face with some challenges in providing the dissents. With regard to the complexity of the investment cases, the use of the individual opinions in correct forms like (ICJ) is necessary, but achieving this aim needs some changes and amendments in investment arbitrations mechanism. One of the proposals which proposed for decreasing the challenges in this respect is the establishment of the Investment International permanent court. This mechanism has already included in some of the new agreements like as Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership-(TTIP), Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement(CETA),Trans-Pacific Partnership-(TPP), etc. It seems that the establishment of this mechanism will pave the way for the judges/ arbitrators to provide their individual opinions with more independency.
کلیدواژهها [English]
الف) فارسی
ب) خارجی
7 Jan Van Der Berg, Albert (2010), "Dissenting Opinions by Party- Appointed Arbitrators in Investment Arbitration", Essays on International Law in Honor of W. Michael Reisman, Editors:Mahnoush H. Arsanjani,Jacob Cogan,Robert Sloane and Siegfried Wiessner, Publisher: Brill | Nijhoff, 15 Oct 2010,Printed in Netherland,ISBN:9789004173613,P. 821-843.
8 Jenings, Robert (1988),"The Internal Judicial Practice of the International Court of Justice",British Yearbook of International Law, Volume 59, Issue 1, 1988, https://doi.org/10.1093/bybil/59.1.31.
9 Helen International Hotel A/S v. Arab Republic of Egypt, (2008),ICSID Case No.5/19,.
10 International Rompetrol Group N.V v. Romania, (2008), ICSID Case No.ARB/06/3, April 18,
11 Iran and United State, (1984),Case No.A/18,Decision No.DEC 32-A18-FT,,
12 .I.C.J.Rep,(1955), Case Concerning the Aerial Incident (Israel v. Bulgaria), Separate opinions of Judge Armand-Ugon and of Judge Badawi.
13 ICJ Report,(1970), Case Concerning Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company,Limited, ,
14 Klaockner v. Cameroon, (1988),ICSID Case No.ARB/81/2 (2) October
15 Lheureux- Dube, Claire, (2000),"The Dissenting Opinion: Voice of the Future?" Osgoode Hall Law Journal, Volum 38, Number 3. P. 496-517, http//digitalcommons.osgoode.ca/ohlj/vol38/iss3/4
16 Loewen v. United States of America, (2010),ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/98/3.
17 Mohanty, Gautam (2017), Dissenting Opinions in International Commercial Arbitrations,LLM Short Thesis in International Business Law (IBL), Central Europe University,105/ Budapest/Nador Utca9,Hungary
18 Mosk, Richard M; Ginsburg, Tom (1999),"Dissenting Opinions in International Arbitration", International Law Association, Finland Branch, ISBN:951-97892-2-7, P. 259-284
19 Redfern, Alan (2004),"Dissenting Opinions in International Commercial Arbitration: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly", 20(3) Arbitration International Law, p. 223-242
20 Shahabuddeen, Mohamed (2007), Precedent in the World Court, Cambridge University Press,University of Cambridge, Research Center for International Law.ISBN:0 521 56310 0
21 Strezhnev Anton (2015),"You Only Dissent Once: Re-Appointment and Legal Practices in Investment Arbitration", Harvard University, Department of Government, P. 1-20
22 Zarbiyev, Fuad (2012), "Judicial Activism in International Law- A Conceptual Framework for Analysis", Journal of International Dispute Settlement, Oxford University Press,doi:10.1093/jnlids/ids005, P. 1-32
)
