About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


12 U. C. Davis J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 7 (2005-2006)
Toward a Complementary Use of Conciliation in Investor-State Disputes - A Preliminary Sketch

handle is hein.journals/ucdl12 and id is 13 raw text is: TOWARD A COMPLEMENTARY USE OF CONCILIATION IN INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTES -A PRELIMINARY SKETCH Jack J. Coe, Jr.* I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 8 II. CONCILIATION-MEANING, PEDIGREE AND ABSTRACT FU N CTIO N S ................................................................................... 14 A . Term inology ........................................................................ 14 B. Abstract Nature of the Technique--Strengths and W eaknesses .......................................................................... 14 III. POSSIBLE CONCILIATOR FUNCTIONS IN THE INVESTOR- STATE C ONTEXT .......................................................................... 18 A . In G eneral ............................................................................. 18 B. Orientating Disputants and Harmonizing Expectations ...... 18 C. Claim Refinement, Issue Clarification and Engaging the P arties ................................................................................. . . 19 D. Mediating Discovery and Other Procedural Disputes ......... 19 E. Drafting Terms of Settlement ............................................ 20 IV. ATTRACTIVE FEATURES AND BY-PRODUCTS-PUBLIC AND P R IV A TE ....................................................................................... 21 A. Avoiding Indeterminacy and Precedent ........................... 21 B. M anaging a Caseload .......................................................... 22 C. Enhanced Confidentiality and Privacy .............................. 23 D. Enlarged Value and Constituencies .................................. 23 V. CONCERNS, OBSTACLES AND CHALLENGES-PUBLIC AND P R IV A TE ....................................................................................... 25 A. Retarding Jurisprudential Growth .................................... 25 B. The Need for Skill, Depth and Choice .............................. 25 C. Transparency and Related Issues ....................................... 26 D. Reduced Corrective Influence ............................................ 27 E. Encouraging Claim s .......................................................... 28 F. Lack of Incentive to Avoid Adjudication ......................... 29 G. Potential for A buse ............................................................ 31 * Professor of Law, Pepperdine University School of Law. I am grateful for the comments received on earlier drafts of this article from Messrs Robert Dobbins, Eric van Ginkle, Robert Wrede, and Gary Sampliner and Professor Lou Wells. Encouragement was supplied by Professor Thomas Walde, who generously shared some of his thoughtful work on the topic. Ana Tagvoryan contributed very capable formatting assistance.