You are looking at 1 - 10 of 11,253 items :

  • mass claims x
Clear All
This content is available to you

What are international mass claims commissions?

Righting Wrongs after Conflict

Lea Brilmayer, Chiara Giorgetti and Lorraine Charlton

International Claims Commissions 1.    What are international mass claims commissions? International mass claims commissions (IMCCs) represent a unique and important form of international adjudication established to consider claims resulting from significant international war-related and traumatic historical events. 1 Their principal, but not sole, aim is to determine compensation to individuals and states for certain losses, damages and injuries. 2 This chapter begins by analysing the common features of IMCCs. It then clarifies the differences

You do not have access to this content

Harald Koch and Joachim Zekoll

12. Other mass tort claims perspectives: mass tort settlements in a European context Harald Koch and Joachim Zekoll 1. INTRODUCTION The European perspective may be relevant for the handling of mass tort claims on two levels: First, the domestic laws in various European countries reflect the latter’s own specific experiences with and approaches to mass torts. Second, the (supranational) European law in some special areas of mass tort settlement provides for solutions (i.e. settlement rules) governing at least the cross-border handling of mass tort claims. Hence, a

This content is available to you

Berk Demirkol

Abaclat v Argentina, the first case in the history of investment arbitration where an investment treaty tribunal dealt with a mass claim (a claim initiated by numerous claimants), stimulated many debates even before the tribunal rendered its decision on jurisdiction and admissibility. This article focuses on only one of the matters on which the case triggered discussion, though probably the most important: whether or not an investment treaty tribunal needs special consent for mass claims. The views of the parties and of the majority and dissenting arbitrators in both Abaclat and Ambiente Ufficio diverged as to whether or not special consent is required for mass claims. The discussion rests mainly upon the qualification of mass claims in investment arbitration and their distinction from class arbitration, traditional mass claims processes and other multi-party proceedings. The article explores the merits of the arguments of both camps to determine which gives a more convincing answer to the question.

This content is available to you

Lea Brilmayer, Chiara Giorgetti and Lorraine Charlton

International Claims Commissions Introduction: international mass claims commissions: “build-it-yourself” justice? Why might states or international institutions support the creation of mass claims commissions? Presumably because mass claims commissions achieve results that cannot be accomplished in any other way. 1 The paucity of international adjudicative institutions with compulsory jurisdiction means that there are no standing bodies with jurisdiction and managerial competence that can match the accomplishments of which claims commissions are able

This content is available to you

Manish Aggarwal and Simon Maynard

This article examines the jurisdictional awards in two pending ICSID cases against Argentina—Abaclat and Ambiente—that allowed a multitude of Italian bondholders affected by Argentina's sovereign debt default to collectively use the investment treaty arbitration process, without requiring any additional or specific consent from the state.

Such collective proceedings raise complex issues in relation to the state consent-centric paradigm of international investment law. The article considers the following distinct, but nevertheless interrelated, matters arising from the Abaclat and Ambiente awards, in an attempt to identify a taxonomy of collective or multi-party claims in international investment law: (i) characterisation of the nature of the proceedings; (ii) whether a host state's general consent to arbitration can be taken to include consent to being sued by multiple investors in one and the same arbitral proceeding; (iii) interpretation of the silence regarding the issue of collective proceedings in the current legal framework under the ICSID Convention; and (iv) whether collective proceedings require a certain link or relationship between the co-claimants, their respective investments and/or claims.

You do not have access to this content

Managing the Risk of Offshore Oil and Gas Accidents

The International Legal Dimension

Edited by Günther Handl and Kristoffer Svendsen

This book addresses the international legal dimension of the management of the risk of accidents associated with offshore oil and gas activities. It focuses on the prevention and minimization of harm as well as the post-accident management of loss through liability and compensation arrangements and the processing of mass claims for compensation. Government officials of countries with offshore industries, international civil servants and academics in related fields will find the book a valuable resource.
This content is available to you

T.M.C. Arons

1. Cross-border dimension of collective proceedings in the Brussels Ibis regime: jurisdiction, lis pendens and related actions T.M.C. Arons 1. INTRODUCTION Efficiency is best served in mass damage cases by collective redress. Furthermore, collective redress enhances access to justice. Collective redress means that individual claims that may not be settled out of court, or brought to court in two-party adversarial proceedings, because of litigation costs and risks are dealt with at an aggregate or collective level. This dealing can take the form of litigation in

You do not have access to this content

Why a claims commission?

Righting Wrongs after Conflict

Lea Brilmayer, Chiara Giorgetti and Lorraine Charlton

International Claims Commissions 2.    Why a claims commission? International law offers no formal definition of international mass claims commissions. 1 But there is not much disagreement in practice about what they look like and what they are for. 2 A post-conflict mass compensation claims commission is a particular kind of arbitral tribunal. Set up to award compensation for economic and bodily injuries suffered in the course of some particular transboundary conflict, claims commissions engage the responsibilities of states and act as mechanisms for

You do not have access to this content

The legal and operating structure

Righting Wrongs after Conflict

Lea Brilmayer, Chiara Giorgetti and Lorraine Charlton

about legal structure affect how an IMCC will be set up and operated. The focus in this second section is on the human element – empaneling a tribunal and then creating the support structure that will best assist it. In a later chapter we will discuss how the enterprise might be financed, within the strictures established by the arbitration agreement. The Legal Structure This section concerns the distinctive legal structure of international mass claims commissions. It identifies the legal characteristics shared by all or most IMCCs and shows how these connect

You do not have access to this content

Lea Brilmayer, Chiara Giorgetti and Lorraine Charlton

International Claims Commissions 7.    Remedies and compliance with claims commissions rulings This chapter explores two related subjects: the remedies employed by international mass claims commissions (IMCCs) and the ways that commissions seek to ensure party compliance. The first of these is relatively straightforward. Although other remedies may be appropriate so long as they are consistent with the legal instrument that established the commission and with international law, monetary compensation is, by a wide margin, the remedy most commonly employed