Manifestations of Coherence and Investor-State Arbitration

359 Pages·2022·1.812 MB·English

by  Charalampos Giannakopoulos

MANIFESTATIONS OF COHERENCE AND
–
INVESTOR STATE ARBITRATION
Coherenceishighlyvaluedinlaw.Itisespeciallysoughtafterininvestor–
statedisputesettlement,wherechargesofincoherenceinarbitralawards
have long been raised by states and scholars. Yet coherence is a largely
underexplorednotionininternationallaw.Often,coherenceistreatedas
amereidealtostrivetowardsorsimplyasadifferentwaytodescribethe
legal consistency of judicial outcomes. This book takes a different
approach. It views coherence as an independent concept having two
dimensions: a substantive and a methodological one. Both are critical
for legal reasoning by international courts and tribunals, including by
investor–state tribunals, and the book illustrates through several case
studiessomeofthewaysthisconclusionisborneoutinpractice.Afuller
understandingofcoherenceininternationallawhasimplicationsforthe
way we should understand the concept of law, the practice of legal
reasoning,andjudicialprofessionalethics.
CharalamposGiannakopoulosisapost-doctoralfellowattheCentrefor
International Law, National University of Singapore. He received his
doctoratefromtheGraduateInstituteofInternationalandDevelopment
Studies, and has been a Grotius Research Scholar at the University of
MichiganLawSchool,aswellasalegalconsultantattheUnitedNations
ConferenceonTradeandDevelopment(UNCTAD).
blih d li b C bid i i
blih d li b C bid i i
MANIFESTATIONS OF
–
COHERENCE AND INVESTOR
STATE ARBITRATION
CHARALAMPOS GIANNAKOPOULOS
CentreforInternationalLaw,NationalUniversityofSingapore
blih d li b C bid i i
ShaftesburyRoad,CambridgeCB28BS,UnitedKingdom
OneLibertyPlaza,20thFloor,NewYork,NY10006,USA
477WilliamstownRoad,PortMelbourne,VIC3207,Australia
314–321,3rdFloor,Plot3,SplendorForum,JasolaDistrictCentre,NewDelhi–110025,India
103PenangRoad,#05–06/07,VisioncrestCommercial,Singapore238467
CambridgeUniversityPressispartofCambridgeUniversityPress&Assessment,
adepartmentoftheUniversityofCambridge.
WesharetheUniversity’smissiontocontributetosocietythroughthepursuitof
education,learningandresearchatthehighestinternationallevelsofexcellence.
www.cambridge.org
Informationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9781009153850
DOI:10.1017/9781009153874
©CharalamposGiannakopoulos2022
Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexceptionandtotheprovisions
ofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,noreproductionofanypartmaytake
placewithoutthewrittenpermissionofCambridgeUniversityPress&Assessment.
Firstpublished2022
AcataloguerecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.
ISBN978-1-009-15385-0Hardback
CambridgeUniversityPress&Assessmenthasnoresponsibilityforthepersistence
oraccuracyofURLsforexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhis
publicationanddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuchwebsitesis,orwill
remain,accurateorappropriate.
blih d li b C bid i i
CONTENTS
Preface and Acknowledgements ix
Table of Cases xi
Table of International Conventions xxiii
Table of International Investment Agreements xxiv
Table of Procedural Rules xxvii
List of Abbreviations xxviii
Introduction 1
I.1 ThreeReasonstoInvestigateCoherence 2
I.2 Coherence,fromthe‘Bottom-up’ 5
I.3 TheThesisinaNutshell 8
I.4 OutlineoftheBook’sChapters 9
1 The Content of Coherence 11
1.1 Introduction 11
1.2 APrimeronConceptTypes 12
1.3 CoherenceandRelatedConcepts 14
1.4 CoherenceandtheDimensionsofSubstanceandMethod 30
1.5 Conclusion:ExpandingtheDebateonCoherence 33
2 Coherence and Legal Reasoning 36
2.1 Introduction 36
2.2 TwoPointsofDeparture 37
2.3 IstheFormatofLegalReasoning‘Theoretical’or‘Practical’? 43
2.4 CoherenceandtheFormatofPracticalLegalReasoning 53
2.5 Conclusion 62
3 Two Models for Coherence 64
3.1 Introduction 64
3.2 TheTwoDimensionsofLaw 65
3.3 TwoModelsforthePlaceofCoherencewithinLegalReasoning 69
v
blih d li b C bid i i
vi 
3.4 AssessingtheTwoModelsforCoherence 79
3.5 Conclusion 92
4 Coherence and the Interpretation of Treaties 95
4.1 Introduction 95
4.2 ISDSandtheProblemofInterpretationandJustificationunderthe
VCLTRule 97
4.3 TheRoleforCoherenceintheVCLTRule 103
4.4 CoherenceasContextualHarmonisation:PracticalExamples 120
4.5 Conclusion 144
5 Coherence and Analogical Reasoning 146
5.1 Introduction 146
5.2 TheFormatofAnalogicalInference 147
5.3 BorrowingMeaning:TheDefenceofNecessityunderCustomary
InternationalLaw 162
5.4 BorrowingGuidingPrinciples:UPSv.CanadaandthePrincipleof
EqualityofCompetitiveOpportunityunderWTOLaw 171
5.5 BorrowingMethods:ProportionalityandtheQuestionoftheStandard
ofReview 181
5.6 Conclusion 205
6 Coherence as Reflexivity 207
6.1 Introduction 207
6.2 ComponentsofReflexivity 208
6.3 ReflexivityatPlay:DissectingNationalityPlanning
Jurisprudence 227
6.4 Conclusion 249
7 Coherence as Moral Responsibility 252
7.1 Introduction 252
7.2 TheChallengeofCollectiveReflexivity 253
7.3 TowardsJudicialMoralResponsibilityinISDS 260
7.4 TheVirtueofFaith 267
7.5 TheVirtueofHumility 273
7.6 TheVirtueofAcquiescence 278
7.7 TheVirtuesofIntegrityandCandour 285
7.8 Conclusion 293
blih d li b C bid i i
 vii
Coda: Coherence and Investor–State Dispute
Settlement Reform 296
C.1 ISDSReformatUNCITRAL 296
C.2 AnAssessmentoftheISDSReformDebatethroughthePrism
ofCoherence 298
Epilogue 303
Bibliography 308
Index 324
blih d li b C bid i i
blih d li b C bid i i
PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This book is a product of my doctoral studies, which I undertook at the
Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies.
Interestingly, coherence was not the topic I had initially chosen to
pursue. This was, rather, general principles of law and their use in
investor–state arbitration. I came to coherence almost by accident.
Coherence kept turning up in my readings, often in vague and under-
analysed ways but undoubtedly as an important concept.
Indeed,coherenceisalargelyunderexaminedconceptininternational
law.Itisfrequentlyseenasagoodthingandasanidealtowardswhichto
strive,butthereappearstobelittlestudyonanyotheraspectsofitoron
anyimplicationsthatitmayhaveinthelegalfield.Internationallawyers
agree that coherence is a desirable goal to pursue but tend to stop there
and do not scrutinise the matter further. Legal reasoning is therefore an
especially fruitful area for one to examine coherence. In international
investmentlawinparticular, therelevance andpotentialpractical impli-
cations of coherence for legal reasoning are demonstrated in the debate
on investor–state dispute settlement reform taking place at Working
Group III of the United Nations Commission on International Trade
Law(UNCITRAL).TheWorkingGroup’smandateistoimprove,among
other concerns, the coherence of investor–state awards.
Thepresentstudy thusseeks totakethefirststepstowardsunpacking
coherence and identifying its implications – both theoretical and prac-
tical–forlegalreasoningininternationallaw.Whilemyprimaryfocusin
this book is on investor–state arbitration, my intention has been to also
contribute to the international legal field more generally. Indeed, the
remarksmadeinthebookcanbeextrapolatedandmadetocovergeneral
internationallawwithonlyminormodifications.Atthesametime,Ialso
wanted my examination of coherence to be attuned to the latter’s theor-
etical dimensions. This has often resulted in the book’s chapters having
to perform a balancing act between theory and practice, as well as
between international investment and general international law. Every
ix
h d i 0 0 9 8 009 38 400 blih d li b C bid i i