Show simple item record

The role of ex aequo et bono in ICSID arbitration

dc.creatorJovanović, Marko
dc.date.accessioned2024-03-11T15:18:03Z
dc.date.available2024-03-11T15:18:03Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.issn2683-443X
dc.identifier.urihttps://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/1266
dc.description.abstractOvaj rad ispituje ulogu principa ex aequo et bono u arbitraži pred Međunarodnim centrom za rešavanje investicionih sporova (ICSID Centrom). Autor najpre uočava da je broj predmeta u kojima su stranke ugovorile primenu principa ex aequo et bono izuzetno mali. Ipak, uprkos njihovoj malobrojnosti, ovi predmeti omogućavaju izvođenje određenih zaključaka u pogledu načina na koji su stranke ugovarale odlučivanje po pravičnosti i postupanja arbitražnih veća u takvim okolnostima. Posebno se razmatraju dva scenarija: primena ex aequo et bono kao merodavnog pravnog okvira za rešavanje spora i pozivanje na ex aequo et bono u pokušaju da se isposluje poništaj arbitražne odluke. Autor zaključuje da se oprez stranaka u pogledu ugovaranja odlučivanja po pravičnosti može objasniti strahom od nedovoljne predvidljivosti ishoda spora, što je nužna posledica mehanizma primene pravičnosti kao izvora prava. S druge strane, može se očekivati da će stranke nastaviti da pokazuju kreativnost u pokušaju da dokažu da pogrešna primena merodavnog prava u meritornom postupku pred arbitražnim većem zapravo predstavlja neovalšćeno odlučivanje ex aequo et bono, čime bi se otvorio put za poništaj takve arbitražne odluke zbog prekoračenja ovlašćenja arbitražnog veća.sr
dc.description.abstractThis article examines the role of the principle of ex aequo et bono in arbitration before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). At the outset, the author remarks that the cases in which the application of ex aequo et bono was agreed upon by the parties are very scarce. Nevertheless, despite that scarcity, it is possible to draw some conclusions on the way in which equity was invoked by the parties and applied by the ICSID tribunals. Two scenarios are analyzed in particular: the use of ex aequo et bono as the applicable framework for dispute settlement and the reliance on ex aequo et bono in an attempt to nullify the award before an ad hoc Committee. The author concludes that the reluctance of the parties to agree on ex aequo et bono may be explained by the lack of predictability of outcomes that is inherent to this source of law. On the contrary, it might be expected that the parties will continue trying to come up with creative arguments aimed at proving the unauthorized application of ex aequo et bono by the tribunals in their attempts to annul the awards on the basis of excess of powers.en
dc.rightsopenAccess
dc.sourceRevija Kopaoničke škole prirodnog prava
dc.subjectponištaj arbitražne odlukesr
dc.subjectmerodavno pravosr
dc.subjectinvesticiona arbitražasr
dc.subjectICSID Centarsr
dc.subjectex aequo et bonosr
dc.subjectinvestment arbitrationen
dc.subjectICSID Centreen
dc.subjectex aequo et bonoen
dc.subjectapplicable lawen
dc.subjectannulmenten
dc.titleUloga principa ex aequo et bono u ICSID arbitražisr
dc.titleThe role of ex aequo et bono in ICSID arbitrationen
dc.typearticle
dc.rights.licenseARR
dc.citation.epage164
dc.citation.issue1
dc.citation.other3(1): 147-164
dc.citation.spage147
dc.citation.volume3
dc.identifier.doi10.5937/RKSPP2101147J
dc.identifier.fulltexthttps://ralf.ius.bg.ac.rs/bitstream/id/224/1263.pdf
dc.identifier.rcubconv_2860
dc.type.versionpublishedVersion


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record