Abstract

The contemporary international law discourse has for many years been captured by the unity/ fragmentation debate. Yet, these concepts are of little help when one tries to understand how the international legal order really works, i.e., how the various entities and their interests interact on the international plane. This article argues that the concept of ‘coherence’ manages to reach such an understanding. In support of this statement, this article analyses how this Aristotelian concept allows one to conceive of the synchronic and diachronic balancing of interests which characterizes the making of international law. To do so, it focuses on international investment law. More precisely, it first describes the various interests at stake in investment treaty arbitration. It then examines how they are synchronically balanced by arbitrators to settle a dispute. Finally, it investigates how they are diachronically balanced by the arbitration practice as a whole. Thereby, this article addresses various issues. In particular, it conceptualizes the conflicts that arise from investment disputes as conflict of interests and not as normative conflicts. Furthermore, it studies the role of legitimate expectations and “distinct investment-backed expectations” as methods of balancing. Last but not least, it emphasizes the systemization of the international investment law regime and the importance of “jurisprudences constantes”.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call