We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This chapter considers the following two questions about the future of freezing injunctions. First, what changes should be made to the jurisdictional preconditions of freezing injunctions in order to effectively fulfil the international function of the rules of jurisdiction? Second, by what means and on what basis should we allocate regulatory authority in this field? A ‘bold proposal’ for an international agreement is considered. While that would be the ideal solution in this field, some modest solutions are then proposed. Modest solutions rely on the implementation of changes only at the domestic level. The counter-arguments to the proposals based on functional theories of jurisdiction are also considered. The functional theories are heavily dependent on the principle of territoriality. The role of the doctrine of forum non conveniens is discussed in the context of modest proposals.
The international community realizes the possible benefits and contributions of mediation as a means of settling international investment disputes, most notably, its unique trait to deal with sensitive claims relating to national regulatory authority.Discussions to introduce and facilitate mediation in addition to or in lieu of present ISDS proceedings are taking place in various fora at the moment including UNCITRAL and ICSID.These discussions are not intended to replace the ISDS regime with a non-binding mechanism. Rather, the purpose is to supplement the existing system with the addition of a new avenue, where the disputing parties can pursue an amicable resolution. The focal point in the current discussions is how to introduce mediation into international investment agreements in a more structured and systematized manner.Various experiments are being undertaken at the moment.Traditionally, Asian countries have been regarded as being more receptive of the harmonious resolution of disputes and less litigious in settling disputes. This traditional legal culture stands in line with the recent focus on mediation as a means of settling international disputes and, in particular, international investment disputes. Mediation is one of the ISDS reform subjects where Asian countries can contribute their experience and legal culture.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.