Procedural Transparency in the Settlement of Treaty-Based Investment Disputes in EVIPA and CPTPP

[1] Micula (and others) v. Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20)Search in Google Scholar

[2] World Duty Free Company v Republic of Kenya (ICSID Case No. Arb/00/7) Award (4 October 2016)Search in Google Scholar

[3] Philip Morris Asia Limited v. The Commonwealth of Australia, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2012-12, Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (17 December 2015)Search in Google Scholar

[4] Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. The Republic of the Philippines (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/25) Award (10 December 2014)Search in Google Scholar

[5] Eli Lilly and Company v. Canada (ICSID Case No. UNCT/14/2)Search in Google Scholar

[6] Philip Morris Brands SARL and others v. Republic of Uruguay (ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7)Search in Google Scholar

[7] Bernhard von Pezold and Others v. Republic of Zimbabwe (ICSID Case No. ARB/10/15)Search in Google Scholar

[8] Pope & Talbot Inc. v. The Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Award in Respect of Costs (26 Nov 2002) [11]-[13]Search in Google Scholar

[9] Bianchi A. and Peters A. (eds) (2013), Transparency in International Law, Cambridge University Press, p. 160Search in Google Scholar

[10] Euler D. et al. (eds.) (2015), Transparency in International Investment Arbitration: A Guide to the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-Based Investor-State Arbitration, Cambridge University Press, p.79, p. 324Search in Google Scholar

[11] Nuemann T. and Simma B. (2013), ‘Transparency in International Adjudication’, in Bianchi A. and Peters A. (eds), Transparency in International Law, Cambridge University Press, pp. 436-43710.1017/CBO9781139108843.025Search in Google Scholar

[12] CIEL (2010), Webcasting as a tool to increase transparency in dispute settlement proceeding, p. 6Search in Google Scholar

[13] CIEL and IISD (2007), ‘Revising UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules to Address Investor-State Arbitrations’, p. 4Search in Google Scholar

[14] UNCITRAL, ‘Report of Working Group II (Arbitration and Conciliation) on the work of its fifty-seventh session’, UN Doc. A/CN.9/760, 12 October 2012, 102Search in Google Scholar

[15] UNCITRAL, ‘Report of Working Group II (Arbitration and Conciliation) on the work of its fifty-fifth session’, UN Doc. A/CN.9/736, 3-7 October 2011, p. 45Search in Google Scholar

[16] UNCITRAL, ‘Report of Working Group II (Arbitration and Conciliation) on the work of its fifty-third session’, UN Doc. A/CN.9/712, 20 Oct 2010, 69Search in Google Scholar

[12] Calamita N. J. (2014), ‘Dispute Settlement Transparency in Europe’s Evolving Investment Treaty Policy - Adopting the UNCITRAL Transparency Rules Approach’, Journal of World Investment & Trade, pp. 652-653, p.656, p.659.Search in Google Scholar

[15] Ishikawa T. (2010), ‘Third Party Participation in Investment Treaty Arbitration’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 39, pp. 378-388.10.1017/S0020589310000059Search in Google Scholar

[17] Magraw D. B. and Amerasinghe N. M. (2009), ‘Transparency and Public Participation in Investor-State Arbitration’, ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law, No. 15:2, p.349, pp. 352-356Search in Google Scholar

[18] Malanczuk P. (2015), ‘China and the Emerging Standard of Transparency in Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)’, in New Zealand Association for Comparative Law: hors série Vol XIX, 2015. Retrieved from http://www.victoria.ac.nz/law/research/publications/about-nzacl/publications/special-issues/hors-serie-volume-xvi,-2013/Malanczuk.pdf [accessed 15 July 2019], p. 93Search in Google Scholar

[25] Yu H.-L. and Giupponi B. O. (2016), ‘The Pandora’s Box Effects under the UNCITRAL Transparency Rules’, The Journal of Business Law, 2016 (5), p. 349, p. 352Search in Google Scholar

[14] Guidelines of the UNICTRAL Transparency Registry, Article D(2). Retrieved from http://www.uncitral.org/transparency-registry/en/guidelines.html [accessed 11 May 2017]Search in Google Scholar

[16] Laird I. A. (2014), ‘Transparency in investor-state arbitration’, OUP blog. Retrieved from https://blog.oup.com/2014/03/transparency-in-investor-state-arbitration/ [accessed 9 May 2017]Search in Google Scholar

[19] McGowan G. V., ‘Sanctions in US and International Arbitrations: Old Law In Modern Context’, Kluwer Arbitration Blog. Retrieved from http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/2013/10/10/sanctions-in-us-and-international-arbitrations-old-law-in-modern-context/ [accessed 9 May 2020]Search in Google Scholar

[17] Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 16 December 2013 [on the report of the Sixth Committee (A/68/462)] 68/109. United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration and Arbitration Rules (as revised in 2010, with new article 1, paragraph 4, as adopted in 2013). UN Doc. A/RES/68/109, 18 December 2013. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/68/109 [accessed 15 July 2019]Search in Google Scholar

[20] UNCITRAL Transparency Registry, ‘Introduction’. Retrieved from http://www.uncitral.org/transparency-registry/en/introduction.html [accessed 22 June 2020]Search in Google Scholar