Cain and Abel: Congruence and Conflict in the Application of the Denial of Justice Principle
Few concepts of public international law admit of more varied interpretations than denial of justice. Apart from considering the historical development of the concept, this chapter identifies substantive provisions in investment treaties and human rights instruments providing the basis for claimants to advance elements of a denial of justice violation. It then highlights factual underpinnings commonly arising in the investment arbitration and human rights contexts, and suggests that the general thrust and approach of tribunals and organs in these two specialized areas of public international law share similarities. Finally, after considering the extent to which investment and human rights guarantees concerning elements of a denial of justice have been shaped by distinct particularities and practices in the realms of investment and human rights adjudication, the chapter concludes that the concept of denial of justice is considerably more malleable in the former.
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.