Mass Claims Research Articles

Whose war is it anyway? Proportionate reparations in wars of aggression

Abstract This article proposes a hybrid legal framework combining jus ad bellum and jus in bello to govern the attribution of State responsibility for reparations at the end of a war of aggression. To this end, the article considers former international mass claims processes and proposes a complementary approach that, on the one hand, acknowledges the role of the aggressor State in waging the war, and on the other, takes a cautionary approach to prevent a disproportionate burden of compensation being imposed on the aggressor State as a form of collective punishment. The consequences of respective violations of the prohibition of the use of force and the law of war are blurred in a war of aggression, resulting in complexities around liability for aggressor States. In response, this article concludes with a nuanced proposal to calculate compensation based on (1) the aggressor party's capacity to comply with jus in bello; (2) the extent of damage caused by the war of aggression, factoring in jus ad bellum considerations if a party is found to be intentionally maximizing destruction; and (3) the incorporation of tort law principles for equitable attribution of responsibility.

The Dutch Preliminary Ruling Procedure in the Light of the European Directive on Representative Actions

Abstract Dutch civil law allows courts of first and second instance to refer preliminary questions to the Supreme Court. In mass claim disputes there may be a concurrence between the safeguards of the preliminary ruling procedure and the protection provided by Directive 2020/1828 on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers. This working paper addresses several issues regarding this concurrence. These include legal certainty, the influence of non-parties, the costs and the duration. The authors come to the conclusion that the preliminary ruling procedure can be very useful in mass claim disputes, albeit that both the lower courts and the Supreme Court need to align their practice more closely with the safeguards of the Directive on a number of points. These findings may be relevant for other European jurisdictions that recently introduced a preliminary ruling procedure, or that are about to insert a preliminary ruling procedure in their civil procedural law system.

Situating Reparations for Ukraine within a Broader Transitional Justice Process

ABSTRACT∞ The principle of external coherence dictates that different measures in a transitional justice process should be coordinated so as to foster synergies and avoid gaps and tensions. This article explains what lessons on external coherence have crystallized from transitional justice scholarship and practice and explores to what extent they are transferrable to reparations efforts in the shape of international mass claim commissions, specifically the one to be established for Ukraine in response to the Russian aggression. The article illustrates how the principle of external coherence influences specific decisions in the design of this reparations scheme.

From recipe to reality: the Polish way of collective redress

In comparison to other Member States, Poland has had experience in dealing with mass claims for quite some time, having introduced the Act of Pursuing Claims in Group Proceedings way back in 2009. This paper includes a brief overview of the legislative framework for collective redress in Poland with special consideration of consumer claims. Further, it examines the evidence-based reality of group proceedings with the purpose of identifying and addressing the problems in functioning of this mechanism in practice. To achieve this aim, it delves into a case study of one of the most significant group proceedings so far – that related to the so-called ‘Swiss loan crisis’ in Poland.

Interpretation of “Investments” and “Investors” in the Russia-Belgium/Luxembourg BIT: Seeking Ways to Resolve the Case of NSD

The paper addresses jurisdictional issues on the case of NSD initiating investment arbitration against Belgium/Luxembourg. Under the Russia-Belgium/Luxembourg BIT, the states undertake to prevent expropriation of investments and, if it does happen, to pay timely and fair compensation. Such “expropriation” may also occur due to sanctions. Being a Russian intermediate custodian for a number of foreign securities, the NSD has accounts with the centralized European securities Euroclear/Clearstream depositories. Since the inclusion of the NSD in the list of entities provided for in Annex I of EU Regulation no. 269/2014 in June 2022, transactions with the securities were suspended, NSD’s account with Euroclear/Clearstream was blocked. Because the NSD accounts with foreign securities depositories were blocked, it became impossible to transfer non-Russian securities from a securities account opened with the NSD to another Russian or foreign securities depository. One of the ways to challenge the consequences of Euroclear/Clearstream actions is to file a claim with the investment tribunal against Belgium/Luxembourg. The case has two potential solutions: mass claim from the end-investors or one single claim by the NSD as a “nominee holder” of the end-investors’ securities. The first option might seem time- and resource-costly, which is why a claim by the NSD might seem more attractive. Hence, using the interpretation instruments of public international law, the paper aims at assessing the perspectives of initiating investment arbitration proceedings by the NSD, thereby focusing on interpretation of the two central terms in the Russia-Belgium/Luxembourg BIT — “investor” and “investment”. The paper concludes that prima facie the investment tribunal would have jurisdiction over the case rationae personae nonetheless the “nominee holder” status of the NSD, as well as jurisdiction ratione materiae, where the blocked securities could constitute an “investment” in the sense of the BIT. Consequently, the paper defines the legal capacity of nominee holders to initiate arbitration. Since the issue has never been raised before, the paper draws an analogy with the case law on shell companies.

Whose Bond Is It Anyway? Interrogating the Tribunal Majority’s Application of Article 25(1) of the ICSID Convention in Adamakopoulos v Cyprus

The Decision on Jurisdiction in Theodoros Adamakopoulos and Others v Republic of Cyprus is now three years old. Alongside Marcelo Kohen’s dissent, this decision triggered much discussion regarding (i) the alleged incompatibility of the relevant bilateral investment treaties (bit s) vis- à- vis the European Union (EU) treaties and (ii) the implications of mass claims brought under icsid Rules. With an award looming on the horizon, it is necessary to address a different aspect of the decision: the majority’s qualification of certain bonds and other indirect expressions of such assets as an ‘investment’ under Article 25 (1) of the icsid Convention. This article will argue that the Tribunal majority’s analysis – relying as it does on a series of incompatible decisions – manifestly fails to establish that contingent convertible Bank of Cyprus and Laiki Bank bonds held by Claimant bondholders qualify as an ‘investment’ under the icsid Convention. The Tribunal majority thereby undermined jurisdiction ratione materiae for a significant class of Claimants, creating an opening for adverse Annulment Committee review upon release of the final award.

Safety in Numbers or Lost in the Crowd? Litigation of Mass Claims and Access to Justice in Ontario

Safety in Numbers or Lost in the Crowd? Litigation of Mass Claims and Access to Justice in Ontario

Ukraine's tenurial tangle: Housing, land and property restitution in the Russian war

AbstractThe severity of the population dislocation and destruction of housing, land and property (HLP) in the Ukraine war has driven efforts for starting reconstruction planning prior to the war's end. This comes with the realization that recovery will entail considerable preparation, including efforts at using seized Russian assets to finance it. Engaging in HLP restitution and compensation will be a primary recovery challenge, with the Ukrainian government moving forward with legislation for facilitating this. However, the government's current approach to processing what will be millions of HLP claims for restitution and compensation faces a daunting challenge. Housing, land and property rights prior to the war comprised a dense tangle of confusion, corruption, and inadequate documentation; such that attempting to untangle each claim on a case‐by‐case basis as currently planned is highly problematic and risks instability. This article describes this tangle as five categories of problems: (1) the post‐Soviet transition, (2) rule of law problems, (3) administrative tangles, (4) corruption, and (5) war‐related issues. The article then recommends that the government and international community pursue a ‘mass claims and transitional justice’ approach to large‐scale HLP restitution which is aligned with international best practice and able to supersede the tenurial tangle.

Reconsidering International Compensation in Historical Context

Abstract There is growing interest in the push for individuals to seek direct remedies, notably compensation, for violations of international law. Yet, there is more for scholars to glean from the historical antecedents of compensation for individuals as a recurring idea in international law. The notion of ‘international claims’ can be traced back to the late 18th century. International claims commissions began as ad hoc arrangements that tended to follow wars. In contrast to existing historical accounts, however, the author shows there is more at work in the international law precedents for present-day mass claims than a simple rise and fall of a single idea of compensation, with the occasional isolated contemporary resurfacing. The author contends instead that the history of compensation is deeply linked to its context—meaning different things in different periods—and reflected in four models of compensation (Collateral Private Claims, Arbitration–Diplomatic Protection, Reparations and Institutional-Transition).

Critical Mass Claims and Ideological Divides Among Women in the U.S. House of Representatives

Critical mass theories predict that women in government will sponsor and vote for more women and feminist bills as their numbers increase. Using Voteview.com data of roll-call votes measuring left–right ideology from 1977 to 2019 this paper shows that ideological divides among women in the U.S. House of Representatives have deepened rather than veered in a liberal direction. Republican women have moved rightward over time and more conservative ones are winning elections. Belonging to a politicized generation, older Silent Generation and Boomer women are more ideologically extreme than younger women. Parties are also elevating their more ideological female members. As their numbers increase, female House members are expected to remain ideologically diverse in a polarized legislative environment. Critical mass theories are deficient in failing to place female political actors in a dynamic workplace.

Mass claims in international investment arbitration

Following the economic crisis in Argentina international investment tribunals faced a new challenge: mass claims characterized with multiple claimants bringing the significant amount of homogeneous investment protection claims against the host state. Neither the 1965 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States, nor applicable bilateral investment treaties cover the tribunals’ power to resolve mass claims. They are silent on crucial questions of jurisdiction and consent and do not address important procedural issues either. In these circumstances arbitral tribunals face the inevitablegap-filling process, which boils down to the critically important question of legal nature of mass claims. If mass claims are nothing more than a mere variety of “ordinary” claims, than the issues of special or “secondary” consent are irrelevant, since the general consent for arbitration will suffice for the tribunal to find itself competent to resolve the dispute. By contrast, if mass claims are different in their legal nature from “ordinary” bi- or multiparty arbitration, they cannot “fit” into the scope of parties’ general consent. In controversial Abaclat decision the majority ruled that the questions of tribunal’s powers to decide on mass claim brought by Italian investors against Argentina pertain to the sphere of admissibility rather than jurisdiction. This analysis was not accepted by dissenting arbitrator G. Abi-Saab. Interestingly, other multi-party “Argentinian” awards followed the line of argument which significantly differed from both the majority opinion in Abaclat and G. Abi-Saab’s dissent. This only highlights the controversial nature of mass claims in international investment arbitration. This article is dedicated to analysis of jurisdictional issues raised in the course of “Argentinian” arbitrations. Since this analysis is strongly intertwined with two other systems of resolution of mass claims, namely American class arbitration and public international law mechanisms dealing with the compensations for states’ international wrongdoings, these two mechanisms are also explored to provide better context and understanding.

What is an appropriate measure of litigation? Quantification, qualification and differentiation of dispute resolution

This article reviews the claims about rates of litigation in the United States, as either “too much” or “too little” (e.g. “The Vanishing Trial”). While we need to understand aggregate litigation rates to assess access to justice, it may be more important to understand litigation rates in the context of differentiated case types. Litigation, in some cases, produces too “brittle” (binary) or costly outcomes, which is what led to the American “A” (alternative/appropriate) Dispute Resolution movement. This movement (now moving across the globe) may provide “process pluralism” with greater flexibility in outcome and cost variations, (now often called “a”ccesible dispute resolution”). However, litigation is still important in a variety of justice-seeking contexts (e.g. for new rights creation, old rights enforcement, and precedent elaboration). This article suggests that the question of how much litigation is appropriate in any legal culture is dependent on a variety of factors that goes beyond simple aggregate counting. The article concludes with a critique of recent American legal practices in restricting litigation through mandatory arbitration, non-disclosure agreements, class action limitations, privatized mass claim settlements, and restrictive jurisdictional interpretations in judicial decision making and legislation.

Theodoros Adamakopoulos and Others v. Republic of Cyprus, ICSID Case No ARB/15/49, Decision on Jurisdiction, 7 February 2020

This case note examines the findings of the Tribunal in the Decision on Jurisdiction in Adamakopoulos v. Cyprus, focusing on Respondent’s objections based on the alleged incompatibility of the BIT S and the EU Treaties, and the mass claim nature of the proceeding. The decision of the majority of the Tribunal in dismissing the EU law objection adds to a body of investment arbitration jurisprudence in which similar reasoning has been used to dismiss comparable objections. However, the dissenting opinion of Marcelo Kohen is the first time that an arbitrator, presented with an intra- EU investment arbitration claim, has considered that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction on the basis of the incompatibility between the relevant BIT S and EU law. Furthermore, Adamakopoulos is one of the few ‘mass claim’ arbitrations brought under the ICSID Rules. If it proceeds to the merits stage as planned, it will provide an opportunity for the Tribunal to resolve questions regarding the management of the procedure under the ICSID framework with such a large group of claimants, whilst maintaining the right to be heard, procedural equality and fairness.

Theodoros Adamakopoulos and Others v. Republic of Cyprus, ICSID Case No ARB/15/49, Decision on Jurisdiction, 7 February 2020

This case note examines the findings of the Tribunal in the Decision on Jurisdiction in Adamakopoulos v. Cyprus, focusing on Respondent’s objections based on the alleged incompatibility of the BITs and the EU Treaties, and the mass claim nature of the proceeding. The decision of the majority of the Tribunal in dismissing the EU law objection adds to a body of investment arbitration jurisprudence in which similar reasoning has been used to dismiss comparable objections. However, the dissenting opinion of Marcelo Kohen is the first time that an arbitrator, presented with an intra-EU investment arbitration claim, has considered that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction on the basis of the incompatibility between the relevant BITs and EU law. Furthermore, Adamakopoulos is one of the few ‘mass claim’ arbitrations brought under the ICSID Rules. If it proceeds to the merits stage as planned, it will provide an opportunity for the Tribunal to resolve questions regarding the management of the procedure under the ICSID framework with such a large group of claimants, whilst maintaining the right to be heard, procedural equality and fairness.

U.S. Class Actions v. U.K. Mass Claims

In recent times, much has been made in U.S. arbitration law of the Supreme Court's effective prohibition of class actions in the face of arbitration clauses that do not provide for this type of proceeding.

The (un)detectability of absolute Newtonian masses

Absolutism about mass claims that mass ratios obtain in virtue of absolute masses. Comparativism denies this. Dasgupta (in: Bennett, Zimmerman (eds), Oxford studies in metaphysics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013) argues for comparativism about mass, in the context of Newtonian Gravity. Such an argument requires proving that comparativism is empirically adequate. Dasgupta equates this to showing that absolute masses are undetectable, and attempts to do so. This paper develops an argument by Baker to the contrary: absolute masses are in fact empirically meaningful, that is detectable (in some weak sense). Additionally, it is argued that the requirement of empirical adequacy should not be cashed out in terms of undetectability in the first place. The paper closes by sketching the possible strategies that remain for the comparativist. Along the way a framework is developed that is useful for thinking about these issues: Ozma games—how could one explain to an alien civilisation what an absolute mass is?

Class Arbitration in Australia: A Bright Future or a Pipe Dream?

Class arbitration has been a hotly debated issue in academic circles since the turn of the century throughout the world. Much literature has recognized that class arbitration could be an effective means of resolving the ever-increasing number of mass claims with cross-border implication. However, the cross-border advantage of class arbitration is dependent on the legal community’s ability to craft a procedure that is acceptable across a diverse tapestry of legal systems around the world. In continental European legal systems there appears to be a jurisprudential battle underway with some supporting class arbitration, and many fundamentally objecting to it (some authors have even argued that class arbitration would be unconstitutional). These objections have not halted the development of alternative collective redress regimes in EU Member States, (albeit they are disparate and often incomplete) demonstrating an underlying appetite for collective redress. Australia has had a wealth of experience with judicial class actions, whilst there is little literature considering the possibility of class arbitration. This paper: (1) considers whether class arbitration would even be possible under Australian law, and (2) proposes a ‘less is more’ class arbitration regime that would be harmonious on an international level.

Road Traffic Nuisance in Slovenia: State Liability for Non-pecuniary Damage

This paper presents and critically analyses the case law of the Slovenian courts with regard to mass individual claims against the state due to nuisance from public roads and railroads. The courts have largely upheld these claims. In awarding monetary compensation for non-pecuniary loss, they have considered the fundamental right to a healthy environment to be a personality right. Moreover, they have held that the state is under a guarantee-like obligation towards the population in that noise arising from public roads and railways will not exceed the limit levels set by the Regulation on Limit Values of Environmental Noise Indicators. As a consequence, new mass claims are being filed, exposing the state to considerable liability. The author considers the approach taken by the civil courts in Slovenia to be misguided on several levels. A fair balance between should be sought public and individual interests. Upholding claims in full by individuals who did nothing to mitigate noise is inappropriate. The problem would be better dealt with by way of regulating noise protection; compensation by way of analogy to (partial) expropriation in the public interest should only be sought if noise protection measures are ineffective or disproportionate.

Collective redress in the EU: a rainbow behind the clouds?

In early 2018, the tortuous process towards the establishment of a framework for collective redress at the EU level reached new milestones. In January, the European Commission published its long-awaited report assessing the practical implementation of the 2013 Recommendation. As many had predicted, the Recommendation has failed to secure a consistent and coherent framework for collective redress in the EU and national legal landscapes remain highly fragmented. In April, the Commission presented new measures supporting collective redress for consumers in the context of its ‘New deal for consumers’. In particular, a new draft Directive intends to maximise the potential of injunctions orders to facilitate redress in mass harm situations. The question is now whether the proposed instrument is likely to successfully put an end to the collective redress conundrum and to provide an effective tool for resolving mass claims in the EU.

Beyond Abaclat: Mass Claims in Investment Treaty Arbitration and Regulatory Governance for Sovereign Debt Restructuring

Abstract Whereas investment treaties and arbitration rules do not usually provide any explicit provision for mass claims in investment treaty arbitration, the Tribunal in Abaclat v Argentina established a landmark jurisprudence that allowed a massive 60,000 investors to bundle and bring their claims before a single arbitral tribunal. However, its reasoning has been severely criticised for its conclusion, which apparently favours bondholder protection at the expense of financial policy leeway of defaulted sovereigns: investment arbitration may adversely affect the orderly implementation of sovereign debt restructuring. This article attempts to take a more balanced approach towards this issue, by focusing on regulatory aspects of arbitral proceedings. A ‘regulatory’ investment treaty arbitration will not only provide creditor protection by opening the door for mass claims, but will also show a deference to an orderly restructuring by closing the door if circumstances so require.