Dispute Settlement in International Economic Law - Selected Aspects Abstract At the time of the emergence of investor state arbitration, such regulation of states was seen as necessary to protect Western investors from expropriation of their investments by developing states, in which there was an absence of rule of law and the protections that flow from that. The ICSID Center was established primarily to ensure the availability of an assured impartial and independent dispute resolution service. The increase in the number of cases over the years, together with sometimes expansive, unexpected and inconsistent interpretations of International Investment Agreement provisions by tribunals, had triggered a worldwide debate and a number of countries had adopted reform measures. The EU has proposed a Permanent Investment Court to address criticism, aimed at investment arbitration and to be included as a measure under the TTIP. This concept has been also adopted in the CETA, and if successful, is likely to be adopted in other treaty agreements as the European Parliament has expressed a preference for the proposed investment court under the TTIP to be included in other free trade agreements. The concept of a permanent legal body providing public proceedings and decisions, establishing binding case law to address...

An issue in investment treaty arbitration is the extreme effort needed to obtain recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award. Even though the 1958 New York Convention was signed to simplify the process of recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, in the new digital world, the recognition and enforceability risks of authenticating an investment treaty arbitral award need to be reconsidered. Ultimately, it is the enforceability of the award that gives credence to the entire arbitration process and justifies the costs and time that the parties of a dispute have invested in the resolution process. Thus, upcoming technologies like blockchain could be a part of the future in Investment Treaty Arbitration (ITA) to provide more efficiency and benefits for the rendering an arbitral award. With blockchain, ITA awards could be rooted in digital code, stored in a transparent platform, and protected from removal, tampering, and modification, resolving the necessity to prove the existence of a duly rendered award, previnting additional costs and procedures. The thesis discusses how blockchain could solve recognition and enforcement issues in an investor-state dispute resolution (ISDS) scenario. It introduces legal aspects of the possible application of blockchain technology in investment treaty disputes. It has the purpose to study the possible benefits that blockchain could bring to Investment Treaty Arbitration with particular attention to the recognition and enforcement of investment treaty arbitration awards. The peculiarity of blockchain technology is that it might represent an opportunity to restructure the investments protection paradigm by implementing a trustworthy, transparent, more affordable, highly standardized, time-stamped and automated recognition and enforcement of ITA arbitral awards. Finally, blockchain might not be the solution to all the problems of ISDS. However, it offers a foundation that can bring a new entire value chain by guaranteeing immediate recognition and enforceability of arbitral awards and getting rid of the deficiencies that the actual system has. This would give more legal certainty to the parties of the ITA in the recognition and enforcement of award on investor-state disputes.

Le droit de l’arbitrage conventionnel au Québec a été rythmé par différentes réformes de 1965 à nos jours. L’intervention législative la plus marquante est celle de la Loi de 1986 sur l’arbitrage, fortement inspirée de la Loi type de la CNUDCI de 1985. Avant cette réforme, la procédure d'arbitrage du Code de procédure civile n'était pas très étayée. À l’époque, ce manque de précision s’est traduit par une pratique réticente. Ensuite, le législateur et les juges n’ont cessé de manifester une position favorable à l’arbitrage. Les principales évolutions de l’arbitrage ont permis de mettre en lumière les raisons pour lesquelles ce mode de règlement des différends a perduré au fil des années au sein du Code de procédure civile. L’arbitrage a même été consacré par la dernière réforme du Code de procédure civile de 2016 comme étant une justice privée, érigée au même rang que la justice étatique. Les acquis de la Loi de 1986 ont été maintenus et complétés. La codification des objectifs de la procédure civile, des principes directeurs et l’insertion de nouvelles dispositions procédurales applicables en matière arbitrale et judiciaire, offrent des apports et des perspectives à exploiter, tant pour le processus arbitral que pour l’après-sentence. Les principes directeurs contribuent à renforcer le caractère adéquat de la procédure arbitrale. Quant à l’après-sentence, il s’agit de dissuader les demandes d’annulation des décisions arbitrales qui sont dilatoires ou abusives et de limiter les manquements dits importants à la procédure, afin de réduire les délais d’attente d’exécution des sentences arbitrales. / The Quebec Consensual Arbitration Law has been punctuated by various reforms from 1965 until now. The most significant legislative intervention was the Arbitration Act of 1986, which was strongly inspired from the UNCITRAL Model Law of 1985. Before this reform, the arbitration procedure of the Code of Civil Procedure was not very substantiated. At the time, this lack of accuracy resulted in a reluctant practice. Then, judges and legislators have consistently shown a favourable position to arbitration. The main developments in arbitration have highlighted the reasons why this mode for resolving disputes has been maintained over the years in the Code of Civil Procedure. Arbitration was even enshrined as part of the last reform the Code of Civil Procedure of 2016 as being a private justice, set up at the same level as the state justice. The achievements of the 1986 Act have been kept and supplemented. The codification of the objectives of civil procedure, of the guiding principles and the insertion of new procedural provisions applicable in arbitral and judicial matters, offers contributions and perspectives to be exploited, both for the arbitration process and for the after-award. The guidelines contribute to reinforce the adequacy of the arbitration procedure. As for the post-award, it is a question of dissuading the requests for annulment of the arbitral decisions that are dilatory or abusive, and of limiting substantial breaches of the procedure, in order to reduce the waiting times for execution of the arbitral awards.