株式会社極東書店トップ ＞ 商品一覧 ＞ A Nascent Common Law : The Process of Decisionmaking in International Legal Disputes between States and Foreign Investors.
商品詳細
A Nascent Common Law : The Process of Decisionmaking in International Legal Disputes between States and Foreign Investors. 国家・外国投資家間の国際法上の 紛争における意思決定の手続
・ISBN 978-90-04-28819-5 hard EUR 204.00
￥54,529.- (税込) ※（※）価格はご注文時の参考価格となります。
納品価格につきましては書籍の入荷時点で確定となります。
版元の原価改定、外国為替の変動等により異なる場合がございますので、予めご了承下さい。
お気に入り
★★★
電子版あり 大学・学術機関向け電子ブック（eBook）ISBN 978-90-04-28820-1
| 著者・編者 | Sourgens, Frédéric Gilles, |
|---|---|
| シリーズ | International Litigation in Practice |
| 出版社 | (Brill / Nijhoff, NE) |
| 出版年月 | 2015 |
| ページ数 | xxviii, 398 pp. |
| 言語 | ENG |
| ニュース番号 | ＜622-1155＞ |
解説
In A Nascent Common Law: The Process of Decisionmaking in International Legal Disputes Between States and Foreign Investors Frederic Gilles Sourgens submits that investor-state dispute resolution relies upon an inductive, common law decisionmaking process, which reveals a necessary plurality of first principles within investor-state dispute resolution. Relying upon, amongst others, Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, the book explains how this plurality of first principles does not devolve into arbitrary indeterminacy.
A Nascent Common Law provides an alternative account to current theoretical conceptions of investor-state arbitration. It explains that these theories cannot adequately resolve a key empirical challenge: tribunals frequently reach facially inconsistent results on similar questions of law. Sourgens makes an inductive approach, focused on the manner of decisionmaking by tribunals in the context of specific records that can explain this inconsistency.
A Nascent Common Law provides an alternative account to current theoretical conceptions of investor-state arbitration. It explains that these theories cannot adequately resolve a key empirical challenge: tribunals frequently reach facially inconsistent results on similar questions of law. Sourgens makes an inductive approach, focused on the manner of decisionmaking by tribunals in the context of specific records that can explain this inconsistency.