This paper starts from the assumption that international arbitration easily fits in with a pluralist conception of global law. Globalization has created new informal instruments of regulation, and arbitration is an efficient tool for enforcing them. First, the paper presents a brief analysis of the most noteworthy international initiatives in the area of transnational legal indicators. It will become clear how these indirect regulatory instruments are contributing to the creation of a new regulatory profile in the area of arbitration. Second, anumber of examples will show that both commercial and investment arbitration are receptive to the multiple appearances of legal pluralism in the arbitration arena. Arbitral awards are turning ever more frequently to instruments created and managed by the private sector -i.e., codes of conduct, economic indexes, economic indicators, financial premiums, valuation methods, audits-to resolve the complex disputes arising from international business. Third, sectorial arbitrations are striking examples of how private sector initiatives implement sophisticated private conflict resolution mechanisms. The paper will present a particularly detailed analysis of the international sports sector, in which an interesting symbiosis can be discerned: on the one hand this non-state sector has unilaterally created a large number of new instruments of global regulation -i.e., sports constitutions, charters, statutes, codes-that are resorting to arbitration to increase their independence from the public sector. On the other hand, sports arbitration -essentially, the CAS-is meanwhile significantly contributing to the sector's maturity by actively participating in the consolidation of lex sportiva by means of its awards. Finally, the paper concludes with some reflections and ideas for further discussion.

No abstract

This article starts from the assumption that the future Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) will be shaped by a new and different type of international investment adjudicator (IIA) and focuses on the diversity issues that will need to be addressed during the Court’s creation. In this article, diversity is understood in a broad sense that includes questions related to IIA gender, race, geographical origins and legal background. The article argues that diversity may in fact evolve into one of the MIC’s key collective composition rules. It also sets out some of the grounds in favour of diversity in the MIC, and considers the specific ways in which diversity may permeate the constituent process for the MIC roster and its subsequent modus operandi. A further common thread is provided by the links between diversity and the principle of independence and impartiality, which will be a crucial MIC duty.

No abstract

International audienceIn recent years, the negotiation and conclusion of international investment agreements (IIAs) in Latin America has gone hand-in-hand with a rethinking of investment standards and the elaboration of new IIA models. This is evident, among others, in Brazil’s cooperation and facilitation investment agreements (CFIAs), the continuing negotiations on the creation of a regional dispute settlement centre under the aegis of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), some recently-released investment policy documents and amendments to national arbitration laws for disputes involving the State. The article highlights such developments emphasising the broad spectrum of local approaches that vary from convergence to divergence in order to interpret Latin American countries’ position in the existing investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) system and reveal the role that the sub-continent can play in the future design of ISDS