Program for the feasibility of developing a high pressure acoustic levitator

This is the final report for the program for the feasibility of developing a high-pressure acoustic levitator (HPAL). It includes work performed during the period from February 15, 1987 to October 26, 1987. The program was conducted for NASA under contract number NAS3-25115. The HPAL would be used for containerless processing of materials in the 1-g Earth environment. Results show that the use of increased gas pressure produces higher sound pressure levels. The harmonics produced by the acoustic source are also reduced. This provides an improvement in the capabilities of acoustic levitation in 1-g. The reported processing capabilities are directly limited by the design of the Medium Pressure Acoustic Levitator used for this study. Data show that sufficient acoustic intensities can be obtained to levitate and process a specimen of density 5 g/cu cm at 1500 C. However, it is recommended that a working engineering model of the HPAL be developed. The model would be used to establish the maximum operating parameters of furnace temperature and sample density

The EU investment court system. A viable reform initiative?

This thesis studies the Investment Court System - the EU’s response to the backlash against investor-state arbitration, and its contribution to the ongoing multilateral reform initiative in UNCITRAL. It includes, on the one hand, an investigation of the EU legal framework governing the conclusion of agreements with third countries that feature the Investment Court System, and examines, on the other hand, whether this permanent and court-like structure addresses common concerns over the legitimacy of investor-state arbitration and its central actors. Part I explores the historical, economic and political context that led to the emergence of the contemporary investment treaty regime, in which investor-state arbitration became embedded as a central pillar. This part explains further that investment protection finds its roots in the imposition of Western conceptions of property and ownership on developing countries as a means to retain Western influence throughout the post-colonial era. Part III analyses the EU constitutional framework, the EU’s competence to conclude investment agreements with the Investment Court System and the compatibility of these agreements with the EU Treaties in light of recent case law of the Court of Justice. This part illustrates flaws in the Court’s reasoning in Opinion 2/15 on the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, and flags remaining challenges that the Investment Court System must overcome with respect to the EU principles of autonomy and non-discrimination. Part IV discusses the institutional and procedural features of the Investment Court System in light of the often-disputed legitimacy of investor-state arbitration. This part concludes that although the EU addresses many of the deficiencies of the traditional arbitration-based model, it also introduces a range of shortcomings – not least the extensive influence of the contracting states over the process of dispute resolution. Although the Investment Court System constitutes a significant contribution to the reform of investor-state arbitration, the EU’s constitutional framework and EU internal and political developments threaten to undermine the multilateral character of the ongoing reform processes in UNCITRAL by dictating the terms on which this process ought to be carried out. Ultimately, this presents a risk that the Investment Court System provokes resistance from developing countries and other relevant actors that are effectively excluded from shaping the future of investor-state dispute settlement