This thesis proposes that conscious and increased co-operation and coordination of the relationship between investment tribunals and domestic courts can greatly improve the efficacy of the international investment arbitration system, and further the rule of law. The extent of the power both forums wield, the level of influence both systems have on each other and the critical roles both systems play in the resolution of investment disputes warrant a systematic approach to cooperation and coordination. This study finds justification for this proposition by analyzing the policy implications of investment arbitration outcomes. It goes on to explore the relationship between domestic courts and investment tribunals by examining the roles they play and the areas of jurisdictional friction between the two systems. The core issues addressed include the jurisdiction and competence of international investment tribunals and domestic courts in the resolution of investment disputes; the support roles of domestic courts; anti-suit/anti-arbitration injunctions; pre-conditions to arbitration; the effects and implications of the review of investment tribunals’ decisions by domestic courts, and the review of the lawfulness of the conduct of domestic judicial systems by investment arbitration tribunals. In addressing these issues, the work examines the extent to which domestic courts and international arbitration tribunals should accord deference to each other with respect to their involvement in the resolution of investment disputes. Based on the analysis of the areas of intersection between the domestic and international investment dispute settlement systems, instances of ‘positive interactions’ are highlighted and encouraged. The study also proposes ways in which further cooperation and coordination can take place. In making these proposals, and acknowledging the differences that exist, this thesis considers the collaboration between other international adjudicatory bodies and domestic courts so as to distill lessons for the international investment arbitration system.

This thesis seeks to answer the principal question as to whether international criminal justice systems can serve as adequate truth-ascertaining forums. In doing so, it reviews the practice of three international criminal justice systems: the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and the International Criminal Court (ICC). It is not the purpose of this research to review the black letter law adopted and applied by these international tribunals and court, but rather to review the implementation of the legal principles in practice. It is a socio-legal research project which focuses on the practice of the tribunals and court. It discusses socio-legal, institutional and political issues relating to the ascertainment of the truth in international criminal justice. In addition, it examines the gaps between the theory and practice of ascertaining the truth in the ICTY, ICTR and ICC. It does so principally by exploring the roles of the parties, participants and judges in ascertaining the truth. This includes the obstacles they face in doing so and the responses given, if any, to accommodate these difficulties. Challenges include the politicised climate of most post-conflict societies, the remoteness of the crime base areas from the seat of the Court, the lack of enforcement mechanisms and reliance on State cooperation, as well as the unfamiliarities with the cultural and linguistic features of the affected communities. This thesis reveals that these difficulties are not the principal cause of truth-searching impediments. Indeed, it is asserted that the ascertainment of the truth can be fair and effective notwithstanding these difficulties. It also demonstrates that truth-ascertaining impediments are mainly caused by failures to adequately investigate the crimes and relevant evidence. At the ICTY, investigations have been carried out in the most efficient and fair manner possible under the circumstances. By contrast, the ICTR and ICC investigations are far from adequate and should be improved. The Prosecution should make more efforts to obtain the best evidence available. It further concludes that international justice systems have set their goals too highly. Instead of seeking to meet objectives such as reconciliation, peace and security, they should restrict their focus to the question as to whether the guilt of a particular accused has been established in respect of the crimes charged.

This thesis seeks to systematically examine the contributions made by the dispute settlement bodies established under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to the development of the law of the sea. The two main research questions to be answered are: (i) what kind of contribution have UNCLOS dispute settlement bodies made to the development of the law of the sea? and (ii) what are the factors that impact the performance of UNCLOS dispute settlement bodies in developing the law of the sea? To that end, Chapter 1 provides a working definition for the concept of 'judicial development of international law' in order to establish a framework for an assessment of the contributions of UNCLOS tribunals. Based on this working definition, Chapters 2, 3 and 4 examine the significance of UNCLOS tribunals' decisions in the development of three main areas of the law of the sea, respectively the law on fisheries, the law on the outer continental shelf and the law on marine environmental protection. Based on the findings of these chapters, Chapter 5 analyses the factors that help explain the contributions of UNCLOS tribunals to the law of the sea as identified in the preceding chapters. These factors include: (i) the jurisdictional scope of UNCLOS tribunals, (ii) the institutional design of UNCLOS, (iii) the interpretative method employed by UNCLOS tribunals in deciding their cases and (iv) the perception that UNCLOS tribunals hold regarding their roles. Chapter 6 concludes by taking stock of the contribution of UNCLOS tribunal in these areas and offering some final observations on the role of UNCLOS tribunals in the development of the law of the sea.