Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Stephan W. Schill

Print publication date: 2010

Print ISBN-13: 9780199589104

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2011

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199589104.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2021. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 25 January 2021

The Need for Public Law Standards of Review in Investor-State Arbitrations

The Need for Public Law Standards of Review in Investor-State Arbitrations

(p.689) 22 The Need for Public Law Standards of Review in Investor-State Arbitrations
International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law

William Burke-White

Andreas von Staden

Oxford University Press

In recent years, investment arbitration has increasingly moved from its private law origins into the realm of public law adjudication, but the standards of review applied by ad hoc arbitral tribunals have generally not followed step to take account of this development. This chapter argues that public law standards of review should be more deferential to determinations made at the national level than those applicable to disputes of a purely commercial and private law nature, and highlights institutional expertise in public law matters as a key criterion to support this claim. Reviewing select standards of review applied by other international courts and tribunals, the margin of appreciation developed by the European Court of Human Rights is identified as the most preferable alternative to strict scrutiny review, an alternative that provides respondent states with sufficient freedom of action in public law matters while preserving the supervisory role of the international judiciary.

Keywords:   public law, standard of review, strict scrutiny, margin of appreciation, least restrictive alternative, good faith, Argentina, European Court of Human Rights, expertise, proportionality

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .