About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

2 J. Int'l Disp. Settlement 1 (2011)

handle is hein.journals/jloildte2 and id is 1 raw text is: Journal of International Dispute Settlement, Vol. 2, No. 1 (2011), pp. 1-3 doi:10.1093/jnlids/idq026 EDITORIAL International dispute settlement today contains a proliferation of forms. It is not (yet) the case that every type of economic relationship is potentially subject to an international jurisdiction, but the possibilities are now vast. From the most mundane commercial transactions between consumers and business, to foreign direct investment, to trade between States on the largest scale, a great diversity of subject matter may give rise to disputes subject to an international dispute settlement mechanism. This issue of the Journal of International Dispute Settlement-the first of volume II-contains articles which examine, inter alia, WTO panels, ICSID arbitration, international commercial arbitration and the role of European public law as a framework for arbitration under consumer contracts. The reader will find detailed analysis here of a number of contemporary problems, and also consideration of some long-standing issues confronting parties, advocates and arbitrators. The contributors to this issue address, among other themes, how international dispute settlement mechanisms can achieve that modicum of consistency and predictability expected under the rule of law. The proliferation of forms means a proliferation of decision-makers, of parties and of substantive rules. Yet it cannot be that every arbitration, every investment treaty, and, for example, every occurrence of an expression like 'most-favoured nation treatment' equates to a novel result, isolated from others and independent of any system. At the same time, arbitral jurisdiction exists by virtue of the consent of the parties; parties are justifiably dissatisfied, if the arbitrator forgets the limits of that consent. Several contributors to this issue consider problematic contrasts. Gilbert Guillaume, former President of the International Court of Justice, considers stare decisis and jurisprudence constant-concepts whose distinction and application particularly have perplexed lawyers from the common law countries when they seek to identify the relevance of past decisions of the Court-not to mention, when they ask what, if any, relevance the decisions of one international jurisdiction might have when developing arguments under another jurisdiction. Michael Reisman contrasts 'law jobs' in which it is perfectly proper, even necessary, to consider propositions which are, as yet, only in statu nascendi as rules; and others, in which such so-called 'soft law' must be set aside in deference to rules already fully crystallized as such. And Anastasios Gourgourinis asks how to distinguish interpretation from application-a distinction some have denied matters and others have struggled to effectuate in practice. © The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most