Abstrak

Kembali

This article addresses the recent phenomenon in investor-State arbitrations of the argument that the Parties to an international investment agreement have come to a subsequent agreement or engaged in subsequent practice that establishes an agreement on a matter of interpretation under Articles 31(3)(a)–(b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It is argued that such agreement is expressed in the arbitral pleadings of at least one treaty party. This article describes concerns related to such arguments and examines the known international investment law jurisprudence in which these arguments have been raised