REPOZYTORIUM UNIWERSYTETU
W BIAŁYMSTOKU
UwB

  1. Repozytorium Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku
  2. Czasopisma naukowe / Journals
  3. Białostockie Studia Prawnicze
  4. Białostockie Studia Prawnicze, 2020, Vol. 25 nr 3

Szukanie zaawansowane
  • Zespoły i Kolekcje


  • Zaloguj się
  • Zarejestruj się
  • Mój RUB
  • FAQ
  • Polityka
  • Regulamin
  • DOI
  • Instrukcja
  • Aspekty prawne
  • Open Access
  • Archiwum


  • Kontakt
  • O Dspace
  • Strona Biblioteki
  • Strona Uczelni



    • Proszę używać tego identyfikatora do cytowań lub wstaw link do tej pozycji: http://hdl.handle.net/11320/10059
    Pełny rekord metadanych
    Pole DCWartośćJęzyk
    dc.contributor.authorGlavanits, Judit-
    dc.date.accessioned2021-01-18T13:17:39Z-
    dc.date.available2021-01-18T13:17:39Z-
    dc.date.issued2020-
    dc.identifier.citationBiałostockie Studia Prawnicze, Vol. 25 nr 3, 2020, s. 43-53pl
    dc.identifier.issn1689-7404-
    dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11320/10059-
    dc.description.abstractInvestment-state dispute resolution has been a hot topic recently, as we can observe a shift in the international trade agreements – both on the side of politics and economics. The European Union has started to negotiate several new trade agreements – some succeeded, some failed, and among the latter we find the TTIP with the USA. This article focuses on the neuralgic point of ISDS in the trade policy of the EU and the USA and summarizes the arguments for and against the ISDS mechanism reflecting also on the latest scientific literature and statistics.pl
    dc.language.isoenpl
    dc.publisherWydział Prawa Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku, Temida 2pl
    dc.rightsUznanie autorstwa-Użycie niekomercyjne-Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 Unported*
    dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.pl*
    dc.subjectinvestor-state dispute resolutionpl
    dc.subjectISDSpl
    dc.subjectTTIPpl
    dc.subjectCETApl
    dc.titleDispute Resolution That Divides: The EU-USA Conflict on Investment-State Dispute Resolutionpl
    dc.typeArticlepl
    dc.rights.holderUznanie autorstwa-Użycie niekomercyjne-Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0);-
    dc.identifier.doi10.15290/bsp.2020.25.03.03-
    dc.description.Emailgjudit@sze.hupl
    dc.description.BiographicalnoteJudit Glavanits – PhD, associate professor, head of Department of Public and European Law, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, Széchenyi István University, Hungary.pl
    dc.description.AffiliationSzéchenyi István University, Hungarypl
    dc.description.referencesBottini G., Reform of the Investor-State Arbitration Regime: The Appeal Proposal, (in:) J.E. Kalicki, A. Joubin-Bret (eds.), Reshaping the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System, BRILL, 2015, pp. 455–473, doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004291102_021.pl
    dc.description.referencesBown Ch.P., On the Economic Success of GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement, “The Review of Economics and Statistics”, 2004, Vol. 86, No. 3, pp. 811–823.pl
    dc.description.referencesBussière M., Pérez-Barreiro E., Straub R., Taglioni D., Protectionist responses to the crisis – global trends and implications, ECB Occasional Paper, No. 110 (2010), European Central Bank (ECB), Frankfurt a. M.pl
    dc.description.referencesCaporal, Jack: What Is Former Vice President Biden’s Policy on Trade? Center for Strategic s Policy on Trade? Center for Strategic & International Studies, 12 February, 2020.pl
    dc.description.referencesCaytas J.,: From Shield to Sword: TTIP’s Lessons on Democratic Legitimacy for International Investment Arbitration,„Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems: Common Law” (Apr. 23, 2015),https://ssrn.com/abstract=2685501.pl
    dc.description.referencesDe Ville F., Siles-Brügge G., Why TTIP is a game-changer and its critics have a point, „Journal of European Public Policy”, 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2016.1254273.pl
    dc.description.referencesGarcia-Duran P., Eliasson L.J., The Public Debate over Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and Its Underlying Assumptions,„Journal of World Trade”, 2017, Vol 51 No. 1, pp. 23–42.pl
    dc.description.referencesGaukrodger D., Adjudicator Compensation Systems and Investor-State Dispute Settlement, OECD Working Papers on International Investment, 2017/05, OECD Publishing, Paris,http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/c2890bd5-en.pl
    dc.description.referencesHallak I., Multilateral Investment Court – Overview of the reform proposals and prospects, European Parliament Research Service, PE 646.147, January 2020, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/646147/EPRS_BRI(2020)646147_EN.pdf.pl
    dc.description.referencesHodgson M., Campbell A., Damages and costs in investment treaty arbitration revisited, “Global Arbitration Review”, 14 December 2017,http://www.itd.or.th/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Annex-2-Allen-and-Overy-Damages-and-costs-in-investment-treaty-arbitration-revisited-December-2017.pdf.pl
    dc.description.referencesHorváthy B., Potential Impacts of Transatlantic Trade Negotiations on the EU Environmental Policy, “Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies”, 2016, Vol. 57. No. 4, pp. 401–415, doi: https://doi.org/10.1556%2F2052.2016.57.4.1.pl
    dc.description.referencesICC, Dispute Resolution 2019 Statistics, Paris, 2020.pl
    dc.description.referencesJohnson L., Sachs L., Sach J., Investor-State Dispute Settlement, Public Interest and U.S. Domestic Law, Columbia Center of Sustainable Developement, CCSI Policy Paper, May 2015,https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D82N52TP.pl
    dc.description.referencesJugmittag, Andre, Welfens, Paul J.J.: EU-US trade post-trump perspectives: TTIP aspects related to foreign direct investment and innovation. International Economics and Economic Policy, 2020/17. pp. 259–294.pl
    dc.description.referencesKohler W., Stähler F., The economics of investor protection: ISDS versus national treatment, “Journal of International Economics”, 2019, Volume 121, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2019.103254.pl
    dc.description.referencesWallach L., The US Drops ISDS, “The Globalist”, 24 January, 2020, https://www.theglobalist.com/united-states-european-union-trade-isds-usmca-uncitral-mic/.pl
    dc.description.referencesMcRae D., What is the future of WTO Dispute Settlement, “Journal of International Economic Law”, 2004, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 3–21.pl
    dc.description.referencesMerrils J.G., International Dispute Settlement, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2005.pl
    dc.description.referencesMitchell A.D., Legal Principles in WTO Disputes, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008.pl
    dc.description.referencesMoses M.L., The Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration, Cambridge University Press, 2017.pl
    dc.description.referencesRivkin, D.W., Enforceability of Arbitral Awards Based on Lex Mercatoria, “Arbitration International”, 1993, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 67–84.pl
    dc.description.referencesSchreuer Ch.H. et al, The ISCID Convention: A Commentary, Cambridge University Press, 2009.pl
    dc.description.referencesVan Grasstek C., The Trade Policy of the United States under the Trump Administration, EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2019/11, https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/60889/RSCAS_2019_11.pdf.pl
    dc.description.referencesYang H., The EU’s Investment Court System and Prospects for a New Multilateral Investment Dispute Settlement System (October 12, 2017), “KIEP Research Paper”, No. Policy References 17–06, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3063843.pl
    dc.description.volume25pl
    dc.description.number3pl
    dc.description.firstpage43pl
    dc.description.lastpage53pl
    dc.identifier.citation2Białostockie Studia Prawniczepl
    dc.identifier.orcid0000-0003-1357-8314-
    Występuje w kolekcji(ach):Białostockie Studia Prawnicze, 2020, Vol. 25 nr 3

    Pliki w tej pozycji:
    Plik Opis RozmiarFormat 
    BSP_25_3_J_Glavanits_Dispute_Resolution_That_Divides.pdf244,08 kBAdobe PDFOtwórz
    Pokaż uproszczony widok rekordu Zobacz statystyki


    Pozycja ta dostępna jest na podstawie licencji Licencja Creative Commons CCL Creative Commons