Crossing the “Public/Private” Divide: Saipem v. Bangladesh and Other Crossover Cases
Files
Description
It is now widely accepted that commercial arbitration and investor-state arbitration are two different species of adjudication, even though the latter was based on the procedures used for the former. Commentators as different as Toby Landau and Gus Van Harten have argued that while commercial arbitration is merely an alternative form of dispute resolution that may be an attractive option to private parties, investor-state arbitration, especially when it emerges from a state's pre-existing commitment in an investment protection agreement such as a bilateral investment treaty (BIT), is a species of “public” adjudication. The “publicness” of investor-state arbitration is said to result from the fact that it invariably involves a government as one of the litigants and often implicates regulatory issues of wide public interest, has greater potential effect on the public fisc, and typically generates arbitral rulings that are treated as de facto “precedents.”
Source Publication
International Arbitration: The Coming of a New Age?
Source Editors/Authors
Albert Jan van den Berg
Publication Date
2013
Recommended Citation
Alvarez, José E., "Crossing the “Public/Private” Divide: Saipem v. Bangladesh and Other Crossover Cases" (2013). Faculty Chapters. 64.
https://gretchen.law.nyu.edu/fac-chapt/64
