Везде
Kompensaciya kak sredstvo pravovoj zashhity` v mezhdunarodny`x investicionny`x otnosheniyax: poslednie tendencii
Table of contents
Annotation Estimate Publication content
References Comments
Share
QR
Metrics
Kompensaciya kak sredstvo pravovoj zashhity` v mezhdunarodny`x investicionny`x otnosheniyax: poslednie tendencii
Annotation
PII
S1026-94520000617-6-1
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Aleksandr Iukhno 
Edition
Issue 7
Pages
117-122
Abstract
the article addresses the issue of compensation in the international investment relations. Based on the analysis of the international practice it is concluded that compensation is the most widespread legal remedy in international proceedings.
Keywords
international economic law, compensation, restitution, Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, International Law Commission
Date of publication
01.07.2012
Number of purchasers
1
Views
1096
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite   Download pdf Download JATS

References



Additional sources and materials

1. Sabahi B. Compensation and Restitution in Investor-State Arbitration: Principles and Practice. New York, 2011. R. 2. 
 
 2. Vel'yaminov G.M. Mezhdunarodnoe ehkonomicheskoe pravo i protsess. Akadem. kurs. M., 2004. 
 
 3. Ripinskij S.Yu. Imuschestvennaya otvetstvennost' gosudarstva za vred, prichinyaemyj predprinimatelyam. M., 2002. S. 16. 
 
 4. Labin D.K., Shumilov V.M., Mel'nichuk I.P. i dr. Mezhdunarodnoe ehkonomicheskoe pravo. Uchebn. pos. dlya vuzov / Pod red. A.N. Vylegzhanina. M., 2012. S. 207-212. 
 
 5. Farkhutdinov I.Z. Mezhdunarodnoe investitsionnoe pravo: teoriya i praktika primeneniya. M., 2005. S. 271. 
 
 6. Lukashuk I.I. Pravo mezhdunarodnoj otvetstvennosti. Predislovie. M., 2004. 
 
 7. Marboe I. Compensation and Damages in International Law The Limits of "Fair Market Value" // Journal of World Investment and Trade. 2007. Vol. 7. No. 5. R. 723. 
 
 8. Marboe I. Compensation and Damages in International Law The Limits of "Fair Market Value" // Journal of World Investment and Trade. 2007. Vol. 7. No. 5. R. 724. 
 
 9. Farkhutdinov I.Z. Ukaz. soch. S. 266. 
 
 10. Case concerning the Factory at Chorzґow (Germany v. Poland), Judgement, 1928. PCIJ. A/17 1928. R. 29. 
 
 11. Walde T.W. and Sabahi B. Compensation, Damages and Valuation in International Investment Law // Transnational Dispute Management Journal. 2007. No. 7. R. 6 // http://www.transnational-disputemanagement.com 
 
 12. Norwegian Shipowners Claims case (Norway v. U.S.), 1922. 1 R. Int'l Arb. Awards 307. 
 
 13. Marboe I. Calculation of Compensation and Damages in International Investment Law. R. 296. 
 
 14. Stat'i ob otvetstvennosti gosudarstv za mezhdunarodno-protivopravnye deyaniya, st. 34 // http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/477/99/PDF/N0147799.pdf?OpenElement 
 
 15. Ripinsky S. Damages in International Investment Law. London, 2008. R. 4. 
 
 16. Marboe I. Calculation of Compensation and Damages in International Investment Law. R. 705. 
 
 17. Marboe I. Calculation of Compensation and Damages in International Investment Law. R. 706. 
 
 18. Printsipy mezhdunarodnykh kommercheskikh dogovorov UNIDRUA 2010 // http://www.unidroit.org/english/principles/contracts/principles2010/translations/blackletter2010-russian.pdf 
 
 19. Southern Pacifi c Properties (Middle East) Limited v. the Arab Republic of Egypt, Award, May 20, 1992. ICSID Case No. ARB/84/3.183 para // http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=showDoc&docId=DC671_En&caseId=C135 
 
 20. ADC Affi liate Limited and ADC & ADMC Management Limited v the Republic of Hungary, Award, October, 2, 2006. ICSID Case No. ARB/03/16 // http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=showDoc&docId=DC648_En&caseId=C231 
 
 21. Ibid. 481 para. 
 
 22. LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp. and LG&E International Inc. v. Argentine Republic, Award, July, 25, 2007. ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1. 38 para // http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=showDoc&docId=DC786_En&caseId=C208 
 
 23. Walde T.W., Sabahi B. Op. cit. R. 2. 
 
 24. Reports on State Responsibility by the Special Rapporteur, 30 May 2000. Third Report, Addendum 1 (A/CN.4/507/Add.1). 158 par // http://www.lcil.cam.ac.uk/projects/state_responsibility_document_collection.php#6 
 
 25. Commission J.P. Precedent in Investment Treaty Arbitration: A Citation Analysis of a Developing Jurisprudence // Journal of International Arbitration. 2007. No. 24 (2). R. 141. 
 
 26. Waste Management, Inc. v. United Mexican States, Award, June, 2, 2000. ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/98/2 // http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=showDoc&docId=DC570&caseId=C166 
 
 27. Yukhno A.S. Zontichnye ogovorki v praktike mezhdunarodnykh arbitrazhnykh tribunalov: poslednie tendentsii // Mezhdunarodnoe publichnoe i chastnoe pravo. 2010. № 5. 
 
 28. Steger D. International Investment Law // http://www.economia-snci.gob.mx/sphp_pages/importa/sol_contro/consultoria/Casos_Mexico/Waste_2_management/laudo/laudo_ingles.pdf 
 
 29. North American Free Trade Agreement, January, 1, 1994. UPL: http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/en/view.aspx?x=343&mtpiID=ALL#A1135 // http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/nafta/chap-112.asp 
 
 30. USA Model Bilateral Investment Treaty, 2004 // http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/117601.pdf 
 
 31. Rainbow Warrior case (New Zealand v. France), France-New Zealand Arbitration Tribunal, Award, April, 30, 1990 // http://untreaty.un.org/cod/riaa/cases/vol_XX/215-284.pdf 
 
 32. Ibid. 114 para. 
 
 33. Enron Creditors Recovery Corporation and Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentine Republic, Decision on jurisdiction, January 14, 2004. ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3. 79 para // http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/Enron-Jurisdiction_000.pdf 
 
 34. Ripinsky S. Op. cit. R. 51. 
 
 35. Lukashuk I.I. Ukaz. soch. S. 217. 
 
 36. Ripinsky S. Op. cit. R. 53. 
 
 37. Ripinsky S. Op. cit. R. 55. 
 
 38. Case concerning the Factory at Chorzґow (Germany v. Poland), Judgement, 1928. PCIJ. A/17 1928. 
 
 39. Stat'i ob otvetstvennosti gosudarstv za mezhdunarodno-protivopravnye deyaniya, st. 36. 
 
 40. Stat'i ob otvetstvennosti gosudarstv za mezhdunarodno-protivopravnye deyaniya, st. 35. 
 
 41. Kommentarii k stat'yam ob otvetstvennosti gosudarstv za mezhdunarodno-protivopravnye deyaniya. S. 97 // http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/reports/2001/2001report.htm 
 
 42. Kommentarii k stat'yam ob otvetstvennosti gosudarstv za mezhdunarodno-protivopravnye deyaniya. S. 96. 
 
 43. Kommentarii k stat'yam ob otvetstvennosti gosudarstv za mezhdunarodno-protivopravnye deyaniya. S. 98. 
 
 44. LIAMCO v. Libya, Ad Hoc Tribunal (Draft Convention on Arbitral Procedure, ILC 1958), Arbitral Award, April 12, 1977. 
 
 45. Konventsiya ob uregulirovanii investitsionnykh sporov mezhdu gosudarstvami i fizicheskimi ili yuridicheskimi litsami drugikh gosudarstv (Vashingtonskaya Konventsiya), 1965. Na nastoyaschij moment Konventsiya byla podpisana 157 gosudarstvami (vklyuchaya Rossijskuyu Federatsiyu), ratifitsirovana 147 gosudarstvami (Rossijskaya Federatsiya ne ratifitsirovala) // http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=ShowHome&pageName=MemberStates_Home 
 
 46. Tam zhe. st. 54. 
 
 47. Ripinsky S. Op. cit. R. 57, 58. 
 
 48. Lukashuk I.I. Ukaz. soch. S. 217.

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate