ASSIGNMENT SAMPLE ON LLM M31613 INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL AND INVESTMENT ARBITRATION
1. Introduction
The thesis statement of this essay is to critically evaluate the legal nature as well as core definition of amicus curiae status. Based on the given case study details, this study is going to answer the given question which effectively introduces significant cases as it merely involves “amicus curiae” under the guideline of “the International Court of Justice (ICJ)”. In addition, this essay also evaluates the ultimate state of “investment arbitration”. In terms of privacy merely provided by the range of “international arbitration”, it can effectively be helpful to allow some directly involved groups as well as opposition parties to participate in these recent proceedings.
2. Main body
The tribunal was well aware of the fact that the claims made by “Thevet” regarding the circumstances in “Filmoria” have led to the creation of a significant amount of attention as well as controversy both abroad and within “Filmoria”. It was due to this reason that the Tribunal invited interested parties for submitting an “amicus submission” as per the “Rule 37” of the Arbitration Rules of ICSID [1]. In addition to this, it was stated earlier that any submission cannot be more than five pages and must be addressing the criteria for getting accepted as per “Rule 37”. On the other hand, the controversial problem has been effectively presented to the panel as well as “the Appellate Body” which can easily consider and accept some kind of unsolicited submissions. The selected part of submission has been received from the resource of entities as that not listed under a party or any third party to the area of legal dispute. In this regard, the chosen submission is eventually referred to in the form of an amicus curiae submission which means “Friend of the Court”.
It is up to the Tribunal to consider the acceptance of the amicus submission, after taking into consideration the disputing parties views. In addition to this, the Tribunal has the power to decide the weightage of the submissions but not without considering the views of the parties concerned in the dispute. The “Global Society for Rainforest Preservation (“GSRP”)” had submitted to the Tribunal for the arbitration between “Filmoria” and ”Thevet”[2]. This organisation is known and is dedicated to protecting the rainforests around the world. It does so by doing scientific research, fundraising and community outreach for saving the endangered species in the rainforests. On the other hand, “Arbitral tribunals” have usually identified its stronger power in terms of accepting the participation of “amicus curiae”[3]. Along with this, the chosen participation has stabilised in several types of rules as well as instruments. The selected rules include a statement by “Free Trade Commission” under “The North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”)” on the chosen legal context of participation of a non-disputing party in the year 2003 [4].
Based on the recent case of legal jurisdiction, it has been underlined that an “amicus curiae” is a kind of persuasive legal document which is respectively filled by another entity or person in the chosen case. In this regard, usually, the legal case has an appeal that is not a party however it has a core interest in the presenting outcome under the jurisdiction rule of High Court law. Along with this, it is formally established by the High Court based on its ruling part. Based on a key concept regarding the given case study scenario, it has been evaluated that, the offered Baytown Road is directly combined with intersects the main habitat of “Filmorian Tamarin”. In this regard, it is also conceptualised that Tamarins is strongly territorial as well as the Baytown Road has forced the “Filmorian Tamarin” in terms of establishing new advanced habitat by surviving.
“The Department of Filmorian Agriculture (“DFA”)” has merely begun in terms of constructing a kind of modern asphalt roads, as it is actually beneficial to connect the area of northers as well as southeast Filmoria. On the other hand, the case study has explained that “GSRP” has a kind of particular core interest that helps to preserve the form of “Filmorian rainforest” as well as effectively protect the entire endangered Filmorian Tamarin [5]. In this case, the major destruction regarding rainforest as well as Filmorian Tamarin Habitat critically poses a kind of crucial risk with respect to Filmorian health along with the entire environment. Under a prohibited act in 2007, the chief minister of DFA has announced a form of construction in the area of Baytown Road which is active needs major destruction of approximately thousands of acres regarding rainforest. However, the term of DFA was critically able in terms of finishing the road area of Ocean city as it is nearly a hundred miles shorter than the chosen projected area of Baytown Road. Along with this, the chosen submission has been actively provided with a term of factual information as well as in the perspective of legal analysis, it can easily assist the area of a tribunal in terms of reaching a final decision.
The formula deadline in terms of filing the amicus brief in order to strongly support the appellant or petitioner is a minimum of thirty days after forming the case. The filed case has been effectively placed on the area of the docket or the area of High Court call regarding the purpose of getting their opinion whichever is later. In terms of overviewing the entire case study, it has been analysed that the road related case is critically considered as a civil matter. In this regard, the High Court can easily appoint any amicus curiae in case they assume that it is necessary for this case. The case then listed under the unrepresented party as well as the High Court also appoint any amicus curiae in terms of any civil or legal matter of general public importance. On the other hand, a type of amicus brief is listed under a part of a legal document which accordingly fills in the resource of appellate court cases through involving a third party who gives their personal opinion. The chosen people are not ideally litigants in this involved case although it showed a core interest as well as a type of subjective matter[6]. In this case, the present arbitration revolves around the area of legal rules and restrictions that are listed under Article II in respect to “Filmoria-U.K”. According to observing the case study details, it has been assumed that Filmoria has a legal right in order to strongly regulate. The regulation has been presented by good acknowledgement in the form of “international law” which is a type of inherent feature regarding the aspect of sovereignty.
Investment agreements, as well as international trade, cannot merely diminish a form of legal right for critically regulating both parties who are strongly involved in the case under the jurisdiction of “the principles of sovereignty”[7]. Along with this, some foreign investors have connected with a wider set of legal relationships within the area of host governments containing any government of sub-national level. In addition, GSRP has not actively idealised any legal authority of “international investment law” which is strongly helpful to pose problems domestic investors face. “The 2007 Act” has enacted some particular purpose in respect to protect the core integrity for the “Central Valley Rainforest”. In this case, the Filmorian population has carefully acknowledged that construction regarding the projected area of the Baytown road has been devastated. Moreover, the pristine quality of the chosen aspect of the rainforest as well as wreak heavy damage on the area of the whole Filmorian environment along with the entire ecosystem.
Based on the case study information, it can be recorded that the part of “Filmorian Tamarin Habitat’ has been protectively restoring all the areas of sustain main ecological diversity. Along with this, individual species of insect, animal as well as plant sedimentary constitute an interwoven as well as complex system that effectively supports homeostasis of earth.
GSRP has been submitted to a Tribunal which can be ideally taken into a part of the legal account in terms of creating a course of a final determination. In this regard, the “amicus submission” helps to deliver some factual data which was issued under Filmoria that has been violated “the Filmoria-U.K. BIT in “Article II”. Some of the chosen members from the parliament have been actively seduced by the source of unsubstantiated claims in respect to “Filmorian Allegiance”. In addition, “The Filmorian Parliament” has legally passed “the Filmorian Development and Environmental Preservation Act” on 7th April 2007[8]. The above-mentioned provision strongly violates the formation of “the 2005 Purchase Agreement”[9]. On the other hand, IIFI has typically conducted part of independent investigation in terms of critically determining the legal impact from the aspect of investment of Thevet in Filmoria. The case study can help to detect that IIFI has been actively considered several types of factors including the offered statement from the area of Thevet officials which is respectively created during the time of the “Foreign investment conference”. In this regard, another case detail, “Vivendi v. Argentina case” and “Aguas Provinciales de Santa Fe v. Argentina case” help to forecast that Tribunals merely illustrate the fact of right in order to the legal conclusion of “amicus curiae briefs” [10]. The above-mentioned case study details are well enough to admit the fact regarding the ultimate purpose of sake in front of public interest.
Based on the process and legal activities of ongoing jurisdictions, it can be learned major types of treaties have been presented within some limited expectations. In this case, it can be conceptualised that the expectations are ideally depending on the level of the latest “U.S. Model BITs”. In the fact of ICSID under rule 37 has been detected some relevant as well as informative guidance which is actually depending on the major application of the potential standard of discretion[11]. Along with this, rule 37 is highly important in terms of extending the ultimate relevancy of legal submission from the resource of non-party in order to assist the tribunal under factual and legal issues. On the other hand, it can be experienced that granting legal access on the surface of amicus submission has been ultimately delivered amicus within the major opportunity for re-joining more meaningfully[12]. Henceforth, it can be acknowledged that on party submission as well as an amicus has been listed as an effective part to add better knowledge with formal preceding. In this case, the tribunal also partly acted as a responsible body in order to directly evaluate whether to allow the form of amicus submissions with better proceeding purposes[13]. Along with this, there are several types of instances during generating third party submission through showing a vested interest. Henceforth, it is listed as a part of a highly crucial tribunal in order to directly evaluate the main background, ultimate motive along with critical nature of the non-party or amicus behind the fact of submission[14].
According to the details of the given case study, it can be conceptualised that the Baytown Road will be effectively helpful to promote an advanced type of socio-economic development. In this chosen fact, it is also acknowledged that the environmental development resulted in increased accessibility to the area of southern as well as central Filmoria[15]. On the other hand, IIFI is assumed that the Thevet will be greatly useful in the form of any award of damages in the aspect of arbitration for directly restarting the previous Baytown Road operation. Along with this, it can be generalised that it is also shown a better advantage in terms of offering new job offers in respect to indigenous Filmorians around the surface zone of the Baytown region.
3. Conclusion
An entire part of this present essay has critically revolved major issues on acceptance of the Tribunal or the part of not amicus submission. Based on the detailed information from the given case study, it can be illustrated that “amici curiae” is particularly unattended due to a long period for the case of “investment arbitration”. Several parameters have been included in this essay to summarise that the main legal privacy has been granted by the source of “the international arbitration states”. Moreover, the study helped to deliver knowledge that only the directly involving parties showed several instances to renewed attention in respect to issues of the “amici curiae intervention” in the form of “investment arbitration”.
Bibliography
Bracesco I, ‘LOS AMIGOS DEL TRIBUNAL (AMICUS CURIAE) Y LOS SISTEMAS DE JUSTICIA’ (2021) 22 Revista Eletrônica de Direito Processual
Carvalho A, ‘Amicus Curiae No Supremo Tribunal Federal E Sua Relevância Democrática’ (2021) 13 Revista de Direito
Cavalcanti A, ‘O AMICUS CURIAE EM MANDADO DE SEGURANÇA E EM MANDADO DE INJUNÇÃO NO SUPREMO TRIBUNAL FEDERAL À LUZ DA TEORIA DE PETER HÄRBELE’ (2018) 15 Revista de Direito Brasileira
Cross C, and Schliemann-Radbruch C, ‘When Investment Arbitration Curbs Domestic Regulatory Space: Consistent Solutions Through Amicus Curiae Submissions By Regional Organisations’ (2018) 6 The Law and Development Review
Lin W, ‘Safeguarding The Environment? The Effectiveness Of Amicus Curiae Submissions In Investor-State Arbitration’ (2017) 19 International Community Law Review
Nikos Lavranos, ‘The (Ab)Use Of Third-Party Submissions’ (2020) 5 European Investment Law and Arbitration Review Online.
Semanticscholar.org (2022) <https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Counterclaims-Based-on-International-Human-Rights-Abel/72eebf3f50cb85e394323bcc2594725a1baeb066> accessed 3 February 2022.
Siddharth S. Aatreya, ‘Human Rights And The ISDS Regime – Rethinking The Bipartisan Structure Of International Investment Arbitrations’ [2018] SSRN Electronic Journal.
Yseult Marique, ‘British Association Of Comparative Law’ (2020) 1 Amicus Curiae.
[1] Semanticscholar.org (2022) <https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Counterclaims-Based-on-International-Human-Rights-Abel/72eebf3f50cb85e394323bcc2594725a1baeb066> accessed 3 February 2022.
[2] Semanticscholar.org (2022) <https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Counterclaims-Based-on-International-Human-Rights-Abel/72eebf3f50cb85e394323bcc2594725a1baeb066> accessed 3 February 2022.
[3] Carvalho A, ‘Amicus Curiae No Supremo Tribunal Federal E Sua Relevância Democrática’ (2021) 13 Revista de Direito
[4] Semanticscholar.org (2022) <https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Counterclaims-Based-on-International-Human-Rights-Abel/72eebf3f50cb85e394323bcc2594725a1baeb066> accessed 3 February 2022.
[5] Lin W, ‘Safeguarding The Environment? The Effectiveness Of Amicus Curiae Submissions In Investor-State Arbitration’ (2017) 19 International Community Law Review
[6] Bracesco I, ‘LOS AMIGOS DEL TRIBUNAL (AMICUS CURIAE) Y LOS SISTEMAS DE JUSTICIA’ (2021) 22 Revista Eletrônica de Direito Processual
[7] Bracesco I, ‘LOS AMIGOS DEL TRIBUNAL (AMICUS CURIAE) Y LOS SISTEMAS DE JUSTICIA’ (2021) 22 Revista Eletrônica de Direito Processual
[8] Bracesco I, ‘LOS AMIGOS DEL TRIBUNAL (AMICUS CURIAE) Y LOS SISTEMAS DE JUSTICIA’ (2021) 22 Revista Eletrônica de Direito Processual
[9] Cross C, and Schliemann-Radbruch C, ‘When Investment Arbitration Curbs Domestic Regulatory Space: Consistent Solutions Through Amicus Curiae Submissions By Regional Organisations’ (2018) 6 The Law and Development Review
[10] Yseult Marique, ‘British Association of Comparative Law’ (2020) 1 Amicus Curiae.
[11] Nicolette Butler, ‘Non-Disputing Party Participation In ICSID Disputes: Faux Amici?’ (Mendeley, 2022) <https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/0f030b66-d034-3663-99fd-03ab7551a0f4/> accessed 3 February 2022.
[12] Nicolette Butler, ‘Non-Disputing Party Participation In ICSID Disputes: Faux Amici?’ (Mendeley, 2022) <https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/0f030b66-d034-3663-99fd-03ab7551a0f4/> accessed 3 February 2022.
[13] Cavalcanti A, ‘O AMICUS CURIAE EM MANDADO DE SEGURANÇA E EM MANDADO DE INJUNÇÃO NO SUPREMO TRIBUNAL FEDERAL À LUZ DA TEORIA DE PETER HÄRBELE’ (2018) 15 Revista de Direito Brasileira
[14] Nikos Lavranos, ‘The (Ab)Use Of Third-Party Submissions’ (2020) 5 European Investment Law and Arbitration Review Online.
[15] Siddharth S. Aatreya, ‘Human Rights And The ISDS Regime – Rethinking The Bipartisan Structure Of International Investment Arbitrations’ [2018] SSRN Electronic Journal.
Assignment Services Unique Submission Offers:
