Valentina Vadi
Lukasz Gruszczynski (ed.)
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- November 2014
- ISBN:
- 9780198716945
- eISBN:
- 9780191785627
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198716945.003.0009
- Subject:
- Law, Public International Law, Comparative Law
The chapter compares the standards of review applied by WTO panels and investment tribunals in assessing national measures that are based on prior complex factual determinations of a scientific ...
More
The chapter compares the standards of review applied by WTO panels and investment tribunals in assessing national measures that are based on prior complex factual determinations of a scientific character. It shows that the practices in both areas express many similarities. Although none of the systems has developed an abstract and general standard of deference, the analysis of the jurisprudence shows that a considerable degree of deference is granted to States in this specific context. This deference expresses itself in dispute settlement bodies’ focus on ‘reasonableness’ rather than ‘correctness’ of specific scientific claims, showing that these bodies are well aware of their epistemic limitations. On the other hand, the chapter recognizes certain differences existing between the two systems. Investment tribunals remain more concerned with the overall quality of the regulatory process, while WTO panels are more active in testing the internal (scientific) legitimacy of measures.Less
The chapter compares the standards of review applied by WTO panels and investment tribunals in assessing national measures that are based on prior complex factual determinations of a scientific character. It shows that the practices in both areas express many similarities. Although none of the systems has developed an abstract and general standard of deference, the analysis of the jurisprudence shows that a considerable degree of deference is granted to States in this specific context. This deference expresses itself in dispute settlement bodies’ focus on ‘reasonableness’ rather than ‘correctness’ of specific scientific claims, showing that these bodies are well aware of their epistemic limitations. On the other hand, the chapter recognizes certain differences existing between the two systems. Investment tribunals remain more concerned with the overall quality of the regulatory process, while WTO panels are more active in testing the internal (scientific) legitimacy of measures.
Christoph Schreuer
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- January 2016
- ISBN:
- 9780198739807
- eISBN:
- 9780191802775
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198739807.003.0016
- Subject:
- Law, Public International Law, Company and Commercial Law
This chapter deals with inter-temporal questions concerning jurisdiction in international dispute settlement. Drawing on the practice of the International Court of Justice, the Permanent Court of ...
More
This chapter deals with inter-temporal questions concerning jurisdiction in international dispute settlement. Drawing on the practice of the International Court of Justice, the Permanent Court of International Justice, and investment treaty tribunals, it posits that the basic rule is for jurisdiction to exist when the proceedings are initiated. This creates legal certainty as subsequent developments, including acts by the respondent, cannot defeat jurisdiction. This does not mean, however, that subsequent developments are irrelevant. On the contrary, if certain jurisdictional requirements are only met at a later point, this will usually provide the court or tribunal with jurisdiction. In appropriate cases, proceedings should therefore be suspended so that jurisdictional requirements can be met.Less
This chapter deals with inter-temporal questions concerning jurisdiction in international dispute settlement. Drawing on the practice of the International Court of Justice, the Permanent Court of International Justice, and investment treaty tribunals, it posits that the basic rule is for jurisdiction to exist when the proceedings are initiated. This creates legal certainty as subsequent developments, including acts by the respondent, cannot defeat jurisdiction. This does not mean, however, that subsequent developments are irrelevant. On the contrary, if certain jurisdictional requirements are only met at a later point, this will usually provide the court or tribunal with jurisdiction. In appropriate cases, proceedings should therefore be suspended so that jurisdictional requirements can be met.
