4 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Cost Allocation in Investment Arbitration: Back Toward Diversification
In 2006, the Thunderbird tribunal, operating under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, called for the harmonization of cost-allocation approaches in commercial and investment arbitration. Subsequent tribunals appear to be heeding Thunderbird's call paving a trend in favor of the so-called "costs follow the event" (CFtE) approach and its variations. Generally, this approach prescribes the shifting of arbitral costs and reasonable legal fees to the unsuccessful party (or based on parties' relative success) and has historically been prevalent in commercial arbitration. By contrast, the more traditional approach in investment arbitration has been to share the costs of arbitration equally, save for special circumstances, with each party covering its own legal fees (traditional approach). In the wake of what appears to be an emerging trend in favor of a default CFtE custom, it is time to revisit the idea of whether a single harmonized approach to cost allocation is really appropriate. We suggest that it most likely is not
Recommended from our members
投资仲裁的成本分摊:回归多元化
在2006年,雷鸟法庭,根据联合国国际贸易法委员会仲裁规则“,呼吁在商业及投资仲裁的协调成本分配方法。随后的法庭似乎要听从雷鸟的呼叫铺路赞成所谓的“成本按照事件”(CFTE)方法及其变化趋势。一般来说,这个办法规定了仲裁费用和合理的法律费用转移到败诉方(或各方的相对成功的基础上),历来盛行于商事仲裁。相比之下,更传统的方法在投资仲裁一直共享同样仲裁费用,除特殊情况下,与各党覆盖它自己的法律费用(传统方法)。在唤醒这似乎是一个新兴的趋势,有利于一个默认CFTE定做,它是一个单一的统一的方法,成本分摊是否真的是合适的时间来重新审视这一观点。我们表明,它最有可能是没有的