Theorizing the Cooling-Off Provision as an Additional Standard of Investment Protection

Most of International Investment Agreements (IIAs) contains a cooling-off period provision requiring both parties to an investment dispute to make an attempt to settle their differences amicably within a clear time frame, before initiating arbitration. The cooling-off period is triggered by the noti...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Danilo Di Bella
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Ubiquity Press 2021-03-01
Series:Utrecht Journal of International and European Law
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.utrechtjournal.org/articles/523
id doaj-76a19234651243c3b8d9f1b46e6d7cc6
record_format Article
spelling doaj-76a19234651243c3b8d9f1b46e6d7cc62021-04-27T07:23:39ZengUbiquity PressUtrecht Journal of International and European Law2053-53412021-03-0136110.5334/ujiel.523168Theorizing the Cooling-Off Provision as an Additional Standard of Investment ProtectionDanilo Di Bella0Bottega Di Bella (law firm)Most of International Investment Agreements (IIAs) contains a cooling-off period provision requiring both parties to an investment dispute to make an attempt to settle their differences amicably within a clear time frame, before initiating arbitration. The cooling-off period is triggered by the notice of dispute sent by the investor to the host-State and can range from several months up to one year. At times arbitral tribunals have considered this provision as an optional procedural requirement, others, as a condition precedent for tribunals’ jurisdiction. In either case, tribunals have exclusively focused on the consequences for the investor, whenever the investor had not complied with this waiting period by filing the arbitration prior to its elapse. However, can the cooling-off provision be construed as a procedural standard of investment protection whenever the Respondent-State does not comply with this provision by refusing to engage in consultations with the investor? This article argues so by examining the function, character and content of this provision and by shifting the focal point of arbitral precedents. Indeed, from the investor’s perspective, this provision may well be a treaty-based procedural standard of investment protection to find a cost-effective and prompt solution to a dispute whose breach may call for redress.https://www.utrechtjournal.org/articles/523cooling-off provisioninvestment arbitrationprocedural standard of investment protection
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Danilo Di Bella
spellingShingle Danilo Di Bella
Theorizing the Cooling-Off Provision as an Additional Standard of Investment Protection
Utrecht Journal of International and European Law
cooling-off provision
investment arbitration
procedural standard of investment protection
author_facet Danilo Di Bella
author_sort Danilo Di Bella
title Theorizing the Cooling-Off Provision as an Additional Standard of Investment Protection
title_short Theorizing the Cooling-Off Provision as an Additional Standard of Investment Protection
title_full Theorizing the Cooling-Off Provision as an Additional Standard of Investment Protection
title_fullStr Theorizing the Cooling-Off Provision as an Additional Standard of Investment Protection
title_full_unstemmed Theorizing the Cooling-Off Provision as an Additional Standard of Investment Protection
title_sort theorizing the cooling-off provision as an additional standard of investment protection
publisher Ubiquity Press
series Utrecht Journal of International and European Law
issn 2053-5341
publishDate 2021-03-01
description Most of International Investment Agreements (IIAs) contains a cooling-off period provision requiring both parties to an investment dispute to make an attempt to settle their differences amicably within a clear time frame, before initiating arbitration. The cooling-off period is triggered by the notice of dispute sent by the investor to the host-State and can range from several months up to one year. At times arbitral tribunals have considered this provision as an optional procedural requirement, others, as a condition precedent for tribunals’ jurisdiction. In either case, tribunals have exclusively focused on the consequences for the investor, whenever the investor had not complied with this waiting period by filing the arbitration prior to its elapse. However, can the cooling-off provision be construed as a procedural standard of investment protection whenever the Respondent-State does not comply with this provision by refusing to engage in consultations with the investor? This article argues so by examining the function, character and content of this provision and by shifting the focal point of arbitral precedents. Indeed, from the investor’s perspective, this provision may well be a treaty-based procedural standard of investment protection to find a cost-effective and prompt solution to a dispute whose breach may call for redress.
topic cooling-off provision
investment arbitration
procedural standard of investment protection
url https://www.utrechtjournal.org/articles/523
work_keys_str_mv AT danilodibella theorizingthecoolingoffprovisionasanadditionalstandardofinvestmentprotection
_version_ 1721506110659100672