POKOJNÉ ŘEŠENÍ SPORŮ V MEZINÁRODNÍM PRÁVU
states, which are not particularly peaceful vacation spots. As the current controversy over investment treaty arbitration takes its toll, while the claims continue to drip down from within, the IOCs get spooked by the prospect of losing their favorite DSM. Besides, some NOCs have already succeeded in proving to be good host states’ wea- pons, when juxtaposed against IOCs and most weapons do what they’re told to do, as most weapons on both sides in every game can be controlled. Not all of them. CHAPTER 10 The Importance of the Awards of Mixed Claims Commissions for Decision- Making in the Contemporary International Investment Arbitration Zdeněk Nový The chapter offers some thoughts on the relevance of the awards of mixed claims commissions for the current international investment law. The authors of academic publications in the field of international investment law base their arguments, without any further explanation, on the opinions expressed by commissioners in their awards. Moreover, investors and states refer to the awards of mixed claims commissions in real investment cases. Therefore, Zdeněk Nový seeks to examine whether and to what extent it might be justifiable to use the awards in the process of decision-making in the contemporary international investment law. The paper somehow contradicts the prevailing narrative that international investment law came into existence as a sort of big bang. The point of departure is that the commissions’ awards are not binding on the investment tribunals. Nevertheless, there are at least three reasons why the current arbitral tribunals may have regard to the commissions’ awards. First, the combination of generic language of investment treaties with infinite varieties of factual scenarios in investment cases increases the likelihood that the issue before the investment tribunal has not been thus far resolved. If a mixed claims commission has already resolved such issue, the investment tribunal may consider endorsing its reasoning. Second, mi- xed arbitral commissions did not have a bias in favour of aliens. Therefore, it may help to increase the legitimacy of the system of international investment arbitration, if investment arbitrators consider the legal conclusions of mixed claims commissions. Thereby, investment arbitrators would demonstrate their awareness of the fact that international investment arbitration forms an integral part of public international law. The third reason is continuity and coherence. When commissions decided on a parti- cular legal question in a similar way, it might be sensible for an investment tribunal to follow such solution, unless this would contradict the law applicable to the investment arbitration at hand.
252
Made with FlippingBook Learn more on our blog