Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFowler, Dillonen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-11-30T15:07:11Z
dc.date.available2017-11-30T15:07:11Z
dc.date.issued2017-12en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10504/115311
dc.description.abstractThe seismic political shifts of 2016 have threatened the international trading regime in an unprecedented way. Populist backlash against free trade across the developed world has made restructuring how trade and investment agreements are written and interpreted vital in order to protect the gains globalization has brought the world over the past several decades. One of the easiest ways to accomplish this is for international arbitration bodies like ICSID to adopt a broader understanding of when nations should be allowed to temporarily suspend their commitments under trade and investment agreements. In this article, Dillon Fowler argues that the disparate decisions offered by ICSID Tribunals in the aftermath of the Argentine financial crisis provide a blueprint for how the Doctrine of Necessity should be applied in investment disputes, allowing its invocation "to prevent a major breakdown, with all its social and political implications" as the Tribunal decided in CMS v Argentina.en_US
dc.publisherCreighton University School of Lawen_US
dc.rightsCopyrighten_US
dc.subject.otherSchool of Lawen_US
dc.subject.otherMagazineen_US
dc.titleIs this Really Necessary? The Scope of the Doctrine of Necessity in 21st Century Investment Treatiesen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.rights.holderCreighton Universityen_US
dc.description.volume9en_US
dc.publisher.locationOmaha, Nebraskaen_US
dc.title.workCreighton International and Comparative Law Journalen_US
dc.description.pages1-28en_US
dc.date.year2017en_US
dc.date.monthDecemberen_US
dc.description.issue1en_US
dc.program.unitCreighton University School of Lawen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record