About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

4 McGill J. Disp. Resol. 1 (2017-2018)

handle is hein.journals/mgjdp4 and id is 1 raw text is: 

VOL 4 (2017-2018), 1

    McGILL   JOURNAL                                         REVUE   DE REGLEMENT
OF DISPUTE   RESOLUTION                                   DES DIFFERENDS   DE McGILL

ProblematizingAbaciat's Mass Claims Investment

       Arbitration Using Domestic Class Actions

                                 Relia Radovic*

The  2011 decision on jurisdiction and admissibility
in Abaclat  and  Others v Argentina has  started a
discussion about mass claims processes in investment
treaty  arbitration. The  tribunal concluded  that
although proceedings were initiated in aggregate, the
continuance  of the case contained a representative
feature. This determination led them to declare that
the applicable procedure could and had to be adapted.
Today, the legacy of Abaclat and the availability of
mass  claims procedural devices in investment treaty
arbitration remain  questionable: can mass  claims
investment arbitration be qualified as 'class-like'?Ifso,
does it satisfy thefundamental principles ofarbitration
(particularly the principle of consent)? This article
takes a  comparative approach  to answering  these
questions by putting mass claims investment arbitration
procedures and  United States class actions processes
side-by-side. It argues that mass claims arbitration
as  construed in Abaclat cannot satisfy fundamental
arbitration principles because it fails to observe
the  inextricable link between the parties' consent,
representative procedure, and representative relief It
is therefore wrong to view mass claims arbitration as
an available device for investors in investment treaty

La decision de 2011 dansAbaclat et autres c. Argentine
concernant lajuridiction et l'admissibilite a initid une
discussion sur lesprocessus de riclamations collectives
en arbitrage relatif aux traitis d'investissement. Le
tribunal a conclu que malgre que  la procedure ait
ddbutie en jonction, la continuation du cas contenait
une  caracteristique representative. Ceci a mend
le tribunal a declarer que la procedure applicable
pouvait,  et  devait,  tre adaptie.  Aujourd'hui,
I'hdritage d 'Abaclat, et la disponibilite des dispositifs
proceduraux des rdclamations collectives en arbitrage
relatifaux traitis d'investissement demeurent douteux:
est-ce que les reclamations collectives en arbitrage
d'investissement peuvent  8tre  qualifides comme
etant ((collectives))? Le cas echeant, est ce qu'ils
satisfont aux principes fondamentaux de l'arbitrage
(particulierement le principe de consentement)? Cet
article adopte une  approche comparative  afin de
rdpondre a ces questions en mettant la procedure des
reclamations collectives en arbitrage d'investissement
et la procedure des recours collectifs des Etats-Unis
c6te a  c6te. L'article avance que l'arbitrage des
reclamations collectives, tel que congu dansAbaclat,
ne peut  satisfaire aux principes fondamentaux de
I'arbitrage, ne respectantpas le lien inextricable entre
le consentement, la procedure representative et la
decision representatif Il est donc faux de considerer
l'arbitrage des  reclamations  collectives comme
etant un moyen  disponible pour les investisseurs en
arbitrage relatifaux traitis d'investissements.

* PhD  Candidate at the University ofLuxembourg. The author is grateful to Bayak BaglIayan and Johannes Hendrik
Fahner for their kind comments and suggestions during the work on this article. The present research is supported by
the National Research Fund, Luxembourg.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 3,000 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 with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most