- Table of Cases
- Table of International Treaties and Conventions
- Table of Rules and Resolutions
- Table of Legislation
- List of Contributors
- Policy Issues
- Investment, Investor, Nationality, and Shareholders
- Applicable Law
- Multilateral Investment Rules Revisited
- Interactions Between Investment and Non-investment Obligations
- Trade and Investment
- Admission and Establishment
- Standards of Treatment
- Coverage of Taxation Under Modern Investment Treaties
- Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment
- Emergency Exceptions: State of Necessity and <i>Force Majeure</i>
- Investment Insurance
- State Responsibility and Attribution
- Regulatory Transparency
- Corporate Social Responsibility
- Methods of Dispute Resolution
- Procedural Transparency
- Independence, Impartiality, and Duty of Disclosure of Arbitrators.
- Consent to Arbitration
- Jurisdiction and Admissibility
- The Jurisdictional Threshold of a Prima-Facie Case
- The Relationship between International Tribunals and Domestic Courts
- Parallel Proceedings
- Compensation, Damages, and Valuation
- Review of Awards
- An Appellate System in International Investment Arbitration?
- Compliance and Enforcement
- A Doctrine of Precedent?
- Tribunal's Powers versus Party Autonomy
Abstract and Keywords
This article discusses the precedent in international law and marks the evidence of a coherent case-law as it strengthens the predictability of decisions and enhances their authority. Investment treaty awards can thus play a role in counteracting the increasing fragmentation of international law. It emphasizes that the terms of each treaty should be carefully analysed to determine the exact scope of the consent expressed by the two parties. The tribunal examines a number of previous decisions that it finds to be in line with its own conclusions. This article also discusses the inconsistency in decisions and shows that in some cases tribunals did not follow earlier decisions but adopted different solutions while at times, they simply adopted a different solution without distancing themselves from the earlier decision. Finally, it ends with a brief discussion of the plans to create institutionalized mechanisms to achieve uniform interpretations.
Christoph Schreuer is a graduate of the Universities of Vienna, Cambridge and Yale. He is a former Professor at Johns Hopkins University and University of Vienna, member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration and ICSID Panel of Arbitrators, arbitrator in ICSID and UNCITRAL cases.
Matthew Weiniger is Partner, Herbert Smith LLP, London.
Access to the complete content on Oxford Handbooks Online requires a subscription or purchase. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription.
If you have purchased a print title that contains an access token, please see the token for information about how to register your code.