In this chapter, Rossana Deplano focuses on the peaceful settlement of outer space disputes. This chapter argues that, traditionally, States have resorted to diplomatic, as opposed to legal, means for the settlement of disputes related to space activities. However, with the growing privatisation and commercialisation of space activities, this chapter avers that the current treaty framework for the settlement of space disputes is inadequate to cope with the demands of the new space industry. This chapter examines the principles governing the treaty framework for the peaceful settlement of space disputes as well as the existent dispute settlement mechanisms. It evaluates whether the apparently unstructured character of the UN treaty framework for dispute settlement is sufficient to deal with traditional and emerging space disputes, such as those likely to stem from space-mining operations. The argument is made that, although there is no all-encompassing and binding dispute settlement process, a specialised dispute settlement system endowed with enforcement powers is not desirable.

International investment treaties accord foreign investors and their investments protection from unlawful encroachments by state authorities as well as violence by third parties. From the perspective of investors, this protection becomes especially relevant in times of armed conflict. For states, however, such times make the provision of this protection especially difficult. Arbitral proceedings in the aftermath of the so-called Arab Spring have laid bare unresolved issues and posed new challenges arising from the factual and legal implications of armed conflict. At the same time, international investment law is deeply rooted in issues of war and peace. Not only the first arbitration based on a modern bilateral investment treaty but also the historical precursors of international arbitration have touched upon armed violence and the treatment of aliens. This Introduction presents the themes of the book and provides an initial overview of the relevant legal framework and employed methodology.

International investment treaties accord foreign investors and their investments protection from unlawful encroachments by state authorities as well as violence by third parties. From the perspective of investors, this protection becomes especially relevant in times of armed conflict. For states, however, such times make the provision of this protection especially difficult. Arbitral proceedings in the aftermath of the so-called Arab Spring have laid bare unresolved issues and posed new challenges arising from the factual and legal implications of armed conflict. At the same time, international investment law is deeply rooted in issues of war and peace. Not only the first arbitration based on a modern bilateral investment treaty but also the historical precursors of international arbitration have touched upon armed violence and the treatment of aliens. This Introduction presents the themes of the book and provides an initial overview of the relevant legal framework and employed methodology.

Under current international law, victims of armed conflict have a right to reparation from the responsible parties. Political obstacles may, however, prevent victims from bringing reparation claims before domestic courts. For example, if the victims assert reparation claims before the court of a responsible party, they may reasonably fear discrimination if they were targeted in the armed conflict on ethnic, racial or religious grounds. They may also face real and significant legal and procedural obstacles at the domestic level, in the form of jurisdictional uncertainties, immunities, statutes of limitations, lack of sufficient evidence, or the absence of class or group actions. Giving effect to the right to reparation may in such cases only be practicable in an ad hoc mechanism of some sort. In fact, various precedents for such reparation mechanisms exist. Although reparation mechanisms may take many different forms, most need to address such common issues as who is eligible for reparation; what type of harm will be addressed; and what type of remedies are to be made available. The present chapter examines the common and basic principles which can be extracted by the comparative analysis of past and ongoing fifteen mechanisms.