Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

The Bifurcation of Jurisdictional and Admissibility Objections in Investor-State Arbitration

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

The practice of arbitral tribunals is notably consistent with respect to articulating the fundamental values which need to be balanced in deciding whether to bifurcate preliminary objections with respect to jurisdiction or admissibility. Moreover, there is substantial consensus on the issues or factors which ought to be evaluated by arbitral tribunals exercising their discretion under the relevant rules. What the decisions appear to lack, however, is rigorous evaluation of the likely time and costs effects of the decision to bifurcate or not. Ensuring that the parties produce information relevant to the decision whether to bifurcate rests with tribunals and the way in which they manage the proceedings before them. Tribunals ought not rely upon the parties to produce such information on their own. Instead, tribunals can and should proactively request such information in order to better carry out their judicial function. Improving the analytical rigour and depth of the analysis behind bifurcation decisions would not only improve tribunals’ conclusions, but also bolster the legitimacy of those decisions.

Affiliations: 1: Centre for International Law, National University of SingaporeFaculty of Law, National University of Singapore n.j.calamita@nus.edu.sg ; 2: Centre for International Law, National University of Singapore ciles@nus.edu.sg

10.1163/15718034-12341341
/content/journals/10.1163/15718034-12341341
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
10
5
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/15718034-12341341
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/15718034-12341341
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/15718034-12341341
2017-06-21
2018-10-20

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation