Civil Society in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Status and Prospects provides an overview of the evolution of civil societyâs participation as amicus curiae before ICSID tribunals and ad hoc tribunals applying the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. That evolution fits within a broader movement towards transparency in investment treaty arbitration. By looking at the procedural roles available to civil society before other jurisdictions, the book questions whether the amicus role could be expanded. El-Hosseny ultimately shows how substance and procedure closely intertwine. The issue of civil societyâs participation in investment treaty arbitration transcends the procedural realm. It is equally about arbitral tribunalsâ openness vis-Ã -vis public interest, environmental protection and human rights issuesâa crucial consideration in ongoing debates over the legitimacy, and future, of investor-state arbitration.
Farouk El-Hosseny, Ph.D. (Leiden University, 2016) is an international arbitration practitioner. He has co-authored a number of articles and chapters on international arbitration, including Amicus Acceptance and Relevance: The Distinctive Example of Philip Morris v. Uruguay (Netherlands International Law Review, 2016) and Non-Compensatory Damages in Civil and Common Law (Global Arbitration Review Guide to Damages, 2016).
List of Abbreviations
Introduction
â1âConcepts and Definitions
ââiâThe Concept of âcivil societyâ
ââiiââAmicus curiaeâ and âthird party interventionâ Procedures
â2âApproach and Methodology
ââiâApproach
ââiiâMethodology
â3âStructure
Part 1: Civil Society Participation before Investor-state Tribunals
âIntroductory Remarks
â1âIdentifying the âpublic interestâ in an Investor-state Arbitration Context
ââ1.1âA Structural Stress Test: âpublic interestâ Pressure on Foreign Investorsâ Rights and Host Statesâ Obligations
ââ1.2âPlenty of âhard lawâ Rights, Few âsoft lawâ Obligations: A Look at the International Framework on Foreign Investment Protection
ââ1.3âEarlier Examples of Public Interest Issues Raised in Investor-state Disputes
ââ1.4âAdjudication à sens unique? Some of the Earlier Criticism of Investor-state Tribunalsâ Awards
ââ1.5âImpact of the International Commercial Arbitration Model on Investor-state Arbitration and Civil Societyâs Role
â2âProcedural Rules Governing Civil Societyâs Participation as micus curiae
ââ2.1âAcceptance of Civil Societyâs Participation as Amicus curiae
ââ2.2âFormalization of Amicus curiae Participation â The Opening Up to âthird personsâ
â3âFrom Theory to Practice: Investor-state Tribunalsâ Decisions on Amicus curiae Participation
ââ3.1âEarlier Tribunals Inspired by the Methanex Precedent
ââ3.2âTribunals That Applied Amended and Recently-Adopted Rules
ââ3.3âCommon (Procedural) Grounds
â4âCivil Society Participation: Where Procedure Intertwines with Substance
ââ4.1âAre Environmental Protection and Human Rights Issues Relevant to the Adjudication of Investor-state Disputes?
ââ4.2âThe leitmotiv of Environmental Protection
ââ4.3âCivil Society as a Human Rights Advocate
ââ4.4âRepresenting the Under-represented: Civil Society and Indigenous Groups
â5âAn Appraisal of Civil Societyâs Amicus curiae Role
ââ5.1âProcedural Developments: Amicus curiae Intervention Crystallized
ââ5.2ââMixed resultsâ â Do Investor-state Tribunals Consider Amiciâs Substantive Arguments?
â6âConcluding Remarks
Part 2: Civil Society Participation before Other Jurisdictions: Four Models
âIntroductory Remarks
â1âAbsent, but Not Entirely: Indirect Participation at the icj
ââ1.1âContentious Proceedings
ââ1.2âAdvisory Proceedings
â2âStanding before International Human Rights Jurisdictions
ââ2.1âCivil Society as a Victim of Human Rights Violations before the ECtHR
ââ2.2âRepresentation of Victims of Human Rights Violations before the IACtHR and achpr
â3âA âfriend of the courtâ Outside the Realm of Investor-state Arbitration
ââ3.1âThe amicus curiae Procedure â A Common Law Inspiration
ââ3.2âwto Panels and the Appellate Bodyâs Restrictive Approach
ââ3.3âInternational Human Rights Jurisdictionsâ Liberalism
â4âThe Peculiar Case of Third Party Intervention
ââ4.1âThird Party Intervention â A Look at the us Model
ââ4.2âThird Party Intervention as Practiced before International Jurisdictions
ââ4.3âTowards a Common Understanding of âthird party interventionâ?
â5âConcluding Remarks
Part 3: An Enhanced Role for Civil Society before Investor-state Tribunals?
âIntroductory Remarks
â1âTranscending amicus curiae Submissions
ââ1.1âThe Inherent Limitations of the amicus curiae Role â A Comparative Perspective
ââ1.2âTo be an amicus or Not to be: Fundamental Differences with Third Party Intervention
â2âLooking for a Procedure to Uphold Third Partiesâ Direct Interest in Investor-state Arbitration
ââ2.1âThe Impossibility of âadding strangers to the arbitrationâ â ups v. Canada
ââ2.2âExtreme Circumstances, Standard Limitations â Aguas del Tunari v. Bolivia
ââ2.3âJurisdictional Barriers Set by the ups and Bechtel Tribunals
â3âThe Access to Justice Principle: The Basis for Civil Societyâs Third Party Intervention?
ââ3.1âAccess to Justice under International Law
ââ3.2âIs There a Civil Society ius standi before Investor-state Tribunals?
â4âWhat Conditions Would Govern Civil Societyâs Third Party Intervention?
ââ4.1âRationalizing Civil Societyâs Third Party Intervention in Investor-state Arbitration
ââ4.2âProcedural Void and Substantive Barriers: How to Reconcile Third Party Intervention with the Investor-state Arbitration Regime?
â5âConcluding Remarks
Conclusion
Bibliography Summary Curriculum Vitae
All interested in issues of transparency and third party participation in investment treaty arbitration, including practitioners submitting, or dealing with, amicus curiae briefs.