Amsterdam Center for International Law

Photographer: Jeroen Oerlemans

prof. dr. S.W.B. (Stephan) Schill

International and Economic Law and Governance
  • Faculty of Law
    Public International Law
  • Visiting address
    Oudemanhuispoort
    Oudemanhuispoort 4-6  Amsterdam
  • Postal address:
    Oudemanhuispoort  4-6
    1012 CN  Amsterdam
  • S.W.B.Schill@uva.nl

Stephan Schill is Professor of International and Economic Law and Governance at the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam. He is also Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of World Investment & Trade, one of the major journals in international economic law.

He has published extensively on international investment law and international dispute settlement, including his monograph The Multilateralization of International Investment Law (Cambridge University Press, 2009) and International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (Oxford University Press, 2010), which he edited. His full list of publications (as of Dec. 2014) is available here.

Stephan Schill's current research focuses on international investment law, investor-state arbitration, European Union law and comparative public law. These fields come together in his European Research Council-funded project on ‘Private-Public Arbitration as Transnational Regulatory Governance: Charting and Codifying the Lex Mercatoria Publica’ (see next tab for more information). 

He also has practical experience in international law and dispute resolution. Being admitted to the bar in Germany (Rechtsanwalt) and in the State of New York (Attorney-at-Law), he serves as expert and arbitrator in international arbitrations, has acted as counsel before the European Court of Human Rights, and advises governments and international organizations on international investment law and policy. Since 2013, he is a Member of the List of Conciliators of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).

Transnational Private-Public Arbitration as Global Regulatory Governance: Charting and Codifying the Lex Mercatoria Publica

Summary

The project analyzes the rising phenomenon of transnational arbitrations between private economic actors and public law bodies (private-public arbitrations) as a mechanism of global regulatory governance. Breaking with the prevailing view that arbitration is only a means to settle individual disputes, it hypothesizes that arbitrators themselves exercise public authority, mainly in two regards: first, by reviewing government acts as to their legality, and second, by incrementally making the rules that govern public-private relations. This takes place, it is hypothesized, rather independently of specific domestic legal systems and their democratic processes; arbitral tribunals, in other words, become important law-makers. The body of law they develop is what the project designates as “lex mercatoria publica” – in allusion to the a-national law generated by arbitral tribunals in international private-private disputes widely called “lex mercatoria”. Private-public arbitrations constitute a largely overlooked field of global regulatory governance even though it affects questions of central concern for the public interest. It affects states the world over and has an equally transformative effect for public governance as the europeanization and internationalization of public law. Against this background, the project will provide a comprehensive (historic, sociological, political, economic, and legal) perspective on private-public arbitration as governance and its legitimacy. It will describe and analyze the content of the lex mercatoria publica by empirically researching into the modern and historic practice of private-public arbitration and develop – mainly through comparative law research ‑ normative criteria to assess the legitimacy of private-public arbitration in democratic societies that are based on the rule of law.

 

Background: Globalization, Privatization, and the Legitimacy of Arbitration as a Governance Mechanism

Globalization fundamentally transforms the relationship between states as representatives and fiduciaries of the public interest and economic actors. What was once understood as a hierarchical relationship, characterized by the unilateral exercise of public authority through legislation, administration, and adjudication, increasingly gives way to varying forms of cooperation between the state and private actors, prompted by the privatization of public functions and increases in public-private-partnerships. This “cooperative paradigm” of state-market relations is precipitated not only by the Washington consensus and the voluntary retreat of the state, but by the increasing dependency of public bodies on private finance and expertise when providing public goods in infrastructure, energy, health, education, etc. It is a policy that is deeply enshrined, for example, in the EU, as reflected in the Europe 2020 strategy (see COM(2010)2020 and COM(2010)546). Public-private cooperation is further precipitated by the fact that domestic law and governance themselves become a negotiable commodity that is subject to competition between states in a globalized market. Competition in taxation, corporate law and corporate governance, environmental regulation, or labor standards are but a few examples that illustrate the dependency of states on acceptance by and cooperation with private economic actors.

The cooperative paradigm affects not only public policy- and decision-making through legislation and administration, but also challenges established ideas about adjudicating disputes between the state and private economic actors. Instead of being resolved in domestic courts, such disputes face pressure towards both internationalization and privatization. Thus, since the beginning of the 1990s we witness a considerable rise in alternative methods of dispute settlement, such as mediation and conciliation, but above all arbitration through party-appointed arbitrators who can settle disputes with binding force in place of the otherwise competent domestic courts. Such disputes are based both on international treaties that provide for the settlement of private-public disputes, above all under international investment treaties, but also on arbitration clauses in contracts between states or state entities and private economic actors.

This development is little problematic when arbitrations only involve private commercial actors. By contrast, when disputes between the state or state entities and private economic actors are involved, matters are fundamentally different. In such cases, fundamental principles of constitutional law – above all the principles of democracy and of the rule of law – are affected because government acts are controlled, and the concrete delineation of private rights and public interests is drawn, not by democratically legitimized domestic courts, but by party-appointed one-off arbitral tribunals. Arbitrations against Uruguay and Australia concerning plain packaging of cigarettes, against Germany’s nuclear power phase-out, against Argentina’s emergency legislation enacted to tackle the country’s 2001/2002 financial crisis, or against the United States, Canada, and Mexico concerning environmental or labor standards illustrate the significant public-policy implications of private-public arbitrations.

These public policy implications are all the more significant as arbitration proceedings do not conform to public law safeguards that are in place in public law adjudication at the domestic level, such as trans­parency of the proceedings, possibilities for third-party participation, limitations on damages as public law remedies, or the need for public law expertise of adjudicators. Instead, arbitration generally follows private law rationales, such as party autonomy and confidentiality of the proceedings. This is critical because arbitral tribunals do not only settle individual disputes, but increasingly become the preferred method of resolving disputes between the state and the private sector in important fields such as energy, public utilities, and infrastructure. Arbitration threatens to replace domestic courts in these matters, posing challenges for the concept of the rule of law. Two interrelated dangers exist: first, that the rise of arbitration results in the loss of jurisprudence and case law, an important public good necessary for legal certainty and legal security; and second, that arbitrations through one-off arbitral tribunals result in incoherent decisions, which equally threatens the predictability of how disputes between the state and private actors would be resolved. Both factors cast central tenets of the concept of the rule of law, and hence the legitimacy of private-public arbitration in general, into question. Furthermore, the rise of arbitration will have the inevitable effect that arbitral tribunals increasingly concretize and develop the normative foundations governing state-market relations. They may even redefine through their dispute settlement activity the relationship between private rights and public interests and bypass public policy choices made by democratically elected public authorities.

 

Research Questions and Aim of the Project

The rise of transnational private-public arbitration thus raises important issues as to its legitimacy. How are arbitrators in such proceedings legitimized? What powers do they, or should they have? What is their proper role when reviewing government acts? How do they actually decide cases and what is the appropriate normative framework to apply? Do they develop a uniform jurisprudence that is predictable or are their decisions incoherent and inconsistent? Is the consent of the disputing parties sufficient to legitimize private-public arbitrations or are farther-reaching transparent and democratic processes necessary as a source of legitimacy? Understanding what arbitrators do, according to which rationales they decide, and how they exercise power over states and state entities – in short: understanding how transnational private-public arbitration functions as a governance mechanism and answering to the legitimacy concerns it raises ‑ will be crucial for many areas of public-private cooperation and thus for the gestalt of the state-market relation and social order in a global market economy more generally.

It is these questions that the research project aims to answer by analyzing private-public arbitrations under investment treaties and public contracts, the substantive and procedural standards applied by arbitral tribunals, by looking in a comparative fashion at the normative framework set up by both domestic and international public law. Ultimately, this is hoped to lead to the formulation of both general principles regarding the conduct of private-public arbitrations as well as a restatement of the rules and principles applied by arbitral tribunals in private-public arbitrations. This analysis of the lex mercatoria publica should enable arbitrators, judges, and other international and national decision-makers to render more predictable, more circumspect, overall better, and fairer decisions concerning private-public arbitration. It will provide solid foundations for enhancing transnational private-public arbitration as an institution of global regulatory governance in the interest of better and more efficient cooperation between states and private economic actors in the global economy.

The Journal of World Investment & Trade

Since 2014, Stephan Schill is Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of World Investment & Trade (JWIT), one of the internationally leading journals on international economic law. For more information on the Journal and for instructions on how to make submissions for publication please visit JWIT's homepage.

Aims and Scope of JWIT

The Journal of World Investment & Trade is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal that focuses on the legal aspects of foreign investment relations in a broad sense. This encompasses the law of bilateral, multilateral, regional and sectoral investment treaties, investor-State dispute settlement, and domestic law relating to foreign investment, but also relevant trade law aspects, such as services, public procurement, trade-related investment measures, and intellectual property, both under the WTO framework and preferential trade agreements. In addition, the Journal aims to embed foreign investment law in its broader context, including its interactions with international and domestic law, both private and public, including general public international law, international commercial law and arbitration, international environmental law, human rights, sustainable development, as well as domestic constitutional and administrative law.

The Journal is institutionally independent and ideologically neutral. It is not attached to specific national jurisdictions, but has a global outreach. It covers both the mainstream of foreign investment law and investment law’s frontiers. It offers a place for the publication of scholarly studies dealing with fundamental and systematic problems of foreign investment relations and their solutions, but also welcomes analyses of current topics, such as international and domestic policy trends, relevant case law, and country- or industry-specific case studies, including in the natural resources and energy sectors. It is open to doctrinal analysis as well as theoretical, conceptual, and interdisciplinary approaches, including law and economics analysis, empirical analysis, historical analysis, political science analysis, or normative analysis. It aims to address scholars, government officials, members of international and non-governmental organizations, and legal practitioners in both capital-exporting and capital-importing countries.

2017

  • Schill, S. W. B. (2017). Editorial: The Constitutional Frontiers of International Economic Law. The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 18(1), 1-8. DOI: 10.1163/22119000-12340044 [details]
  • Tams, C. J., Schill, S. W. B., & Hofmann, R. (2017). International Investment Law and the Global Financial Architecture: Identifying Linkages, Mapping Interactions. In C. J. Tams, S. W. Schill, & R. Hofmann (Eds.), International Investment Law and the Global Financial Architecture. (pp. 3-22). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. [details]

2016

  • Schill, S. W. B. (2016). ‘Shared Responsibility’: Stopping the Irresponsibility Carousel for the Protection of Public Interests in International Investment Law. In A. Reinisch, M. Footer, & C. Binder (Eds.), International Law and ...: Select Proceedings of the European Society of International Law. (pp. 160-169). Oxford: Hart Publishing. [details]
  • Schill, S. W. B., & Bray, H. L. (2016). The Brave New (American) World of International in Investment Law: Substantive Investment Protection Standards in Mega-Regionals. British Journal of American Legal Studies, 5(2), 419-448. DOI: 10.1515/bjals-2016-0015 [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2016). Editorial: US versus EU Leadership in Global Investment Governance. The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 17(1), 1-6. DOI: 10.1163/22119000-01701011 [details] [PDF]
  • Schill, S. W. (2016). In Defense of International Investment Law. In M. Bungenberg, C. Herrmann, M. Krajewski, & J. P. Terhechte (Eds.), European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2016 (pp. 309-341). (European Yearbook of International Economic Law; No. 7). Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-29215-1_13 [details] [PDF]
  • Schill, S. W. (2016). International Investment Law and Public Comparative Law in a Latin American Perspective = Derecho internacional de inversiones y derecho público comparado en una perspectiva latino-americana. In A. Tanzi, A. Asteriti, R. Polanco Lazo, & P. Turrini (Eds.), International investment law in Latin America: problems and prospects = Derecho internacional de las inversiones en América Latina: problemas y perspectivas. (pp. 21-67). (Nijhoff international investment law series; No. 5). Leiden: Brill. DOI: 10.1163/9789004311473_003 [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2016). Maffezini v. Plama: reflections on the jurisprudential schism in the application of most-favored-nation clauses to matters of dispute settlement. In M. Kinnear, G. R. Fischer, J. Mínguez Almeida, L. F. Torres, & M. Uran Bidegain (Eds.), Building international investment law: the first 50 years of ICSID (pp. 251-265). Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer. [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2016). The European Commission’s Proposal of an 'Investment Court System' for TTIP: Stepping Stone or Stumbling Block for Multilateralizing International Investment Law? ASIL Insights, 20(9). [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2016). The Impact of International Investment Law on Public Contracts. In M. Audit, & S. W. Schill (Eds.), Transnational Law of Public Contracts. (pp. 231-258). (Droit administratif = Administrative law). Bruxelles: Bruylant. [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2016). The Rule of Law and the Division of Labour Between National and International Law: The Case of International Energy Relations. In M. Kanetake, & A. Nollkaemper (Eds.), The Rule of Law at the national and international levels: contestations and deference. (pp. 409-442). (Studies in international law; No. 56). Oxford: Hart Publishing. [details]
  • Schill, S. (2016). Sind Regelungen zur Investor-Staat-Streitbeilegung in EU-Freihandelsabkommen sinnvoll? Kölner Schrift zum Wirtschaftsrecht, 7(2), 115-121. DOI: 10.9785/kszw-2016-0207 [details]
  • Audit, M., & Schill, S. W. (2016). Transnational Law of Public Contracts: An Introduction. In M. Audit, & S. W. Schill (Eds.), Transnational Law of Public Contracts. (pp. 3-20). (Droit administratif = Administrative law). Bruxelles: Bruylant. [details]

2015

  • Schill, S. W. B. (2015). Multilateralization: an Ordering Paradigm for International Investment Law. In M. Bungenberg, J. Griebel, S. Hobe, & A. Reinisch (Eds.), International Investment Law: a Handbook (pp. 1817-1838). Baden-Baden: Nomos. [details]
  • Schill, S. W. B. (2015). The Sixth Path: Reforming Investment Law from Within. In J. E. Kalicki, & A. Joubin-Bret (Eds.), Reshaping the investor-state dispute settlement system: journeys for the 21st century (pp. 621-652). (Nijhoff international investment law series; No. 4). Leiden: Brill. DOI: 10.1163/9789004291102_030 [details]
  • Schill, S. W. B., & Tvede, K. R. (2015). Mainstreaming Investment Treaty Jurisprudence: The Contribution of Investment Treaty Tribunals to the Consolidation and Development of General International Law. The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 14(1), 94-129. DOI: 10.1163/15718034-12341287 [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2015). Abordagens jurídicas transnacionais sobre direito administrativo: a conceituação dos contratos públicos na globalização. Revista de Direito Administrativo, 268, 13-53. DOI: 10.12660/rda.v268.2015.50733 [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2015). Conceptions of legitimacy of international arbitration. In D. D. Caron, S. W. Schill, A. C. Smutny, & E. E. Triantafilou (Eds.), Practising virtue: inside international arbitration (pp. 106-124). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2015). Developing a Framework for the Legitimacy of International Arbitration. ICCA Congress Series, 18, 789-827. [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2015). Editorial: Opinion 2/13 - The End for Dispute Settlement in EU Trade and Investment Agreements? The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 16(3), 379-388. DOI: 10.1163/22119000-01603000 [details] [PDF]
  • Schill, S. W. (2015). Editorial: The German Debate on International Investment Law. The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 16(1), 1-9. DOI: 10.1163/22119000-01601001 [details] [PDF]
  • Schill, S. W. (2015). Editorial: The Mauritius Convention on Transparency. The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 16(2), 201-204. DOI: 10.1163/22119000-01602009 [details] [PDF]
  • Schill, S. W. (2015). International Investment Law and the Rule of Law. In J. Lowell, J. C. Thomas, & J. van Zyl Smit (Eds.), Rule of Law Symposium 2014: The Importance of the Rule of Law in Promoting Development (pp. 81-102). Singapore: Academy Publishing. [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2015). Special issue: Dawn of an Asian century in international investment law? An introduction. The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 16(5-6), 765-771. DOI: 10.1163/22119000-01606012 [details] [PDF]
  • Schill, S. W., Tams, C. J., & Hofmann, R. (2015). International investment law and development: friends or foes? In S. W. Schill, C. J. Tams, & R. Hofmann (Eds.), International investment law and development: bridging the gap (pp. 3-42). (Frankfurt investment and economic law series; No. 1). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI: 10.4337/9781784711351.00008 [details]
  • Schill, S. W., & Bray, H. L. (2015). Good faith limitations on protected investments and corporate structuring. In A. D. Mitchell, M. Sornarajah, & T. Voon (Eds.), Good faith and international economic law (pp. 88-116). (International economic law series). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198739791.003.0005 [details]
  • Caron, D. D., Schill, S. W., Smutny, A. C., & Triantafilou, E. E. (2015). Practising virtue: an introduction. In D. D. Caron, S. W. Schill, A. C. Smutny, & E. E. Triantafilou (Eds.), Practising virtue: inside international arbitration (pp. 1-14). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [details]
  • Jacob, M., & Schill, S. W. B. (2015). Fair and Equitable Treatment: Content, Practice, Method. In M. Bungenberg, J. Griebel, S. Hobe, & A. Reinisch (Eds.), International Investment Law: a Handbook (pp. 700-763). Baden-Baden: Nomos. [details]

2014

  • Schill, S. W. B. (2014). Deference in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Towards a Public Law Understanding of the Relationship Between Investment Treaty Tribunals and Host States. Dispute Prevention and Resolution Special Issue, Gujarat National Law University, 81-110. [details]
  • Schill, S. W. B. (2014). Five Times Transparency in International Investment Law (Editorial). The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 15(3-4), 363-374. DOI: 10.1163/22119000-01504001 [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2014). Editorial: The new Journal of World Investment and Trade; Arbitrator independence and academic freedom; In this issue. The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 15(1-2), 1-11. DOI: 10.1163/22129000-01502001 [details] [PDF]
  • Schill, S. W. (2014). Editorial: Towards a normative framework for investment law reform. The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 15(5-6), 795-802. DOI: 10.1163/22119000-01506001 [details] [PDF]
  • Schill, S. W. (2014). Foreign investment in the energy sector: Lessons for international investment law. In E. De Brabandere, & T. Gazzini (Eds.), Foreign investment in the energy sector: balancing private and public interests (pp. 259-282). (Nijhoff international investment law series; No. 2). Leiden: Brill Nijhoff. [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2014). International investment law as international development law. In A. K. Bjorklund (Ed.), Yearbook on international investment law & policy 2012-2013 (pp. 327-355). New York: Oxford University Press. [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2014). Investitionen und Entwicklung. In P. Dann, S. Kadelbach, & M. Kaltenborn (Eds.), Entwicklung und Recht: eine systematische Einführung (pp. 341-376). Baden-Baden: Nomos. [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2014). Ordering Paradigms in International Investment Law: Bilateralism—Multilateralism—Multilateralization. In Z. Douglas, J. Pauwelyn, & J. E. Viñuales (Eds.), The Foundations of International Investment Law: Bringing Theory into Practice (pp. 109-141). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685387.003.0005 [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2014). The Jurisprudence of Investment Treaty Tribunals: Betweeen public good and common concern. In T. Treves, F. Seatzu, & S. Trevisanut (Eds.), Foreign investment, international law and common concerns (pp. 9-25). (Routledge research in international economic law). London: Routledge. [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2014). The interface between national and international energy law. In K. Talus (Ed.), Research handbook on international energy law (pp. 44-76). Cheltenham: Elgar Publishing. DOI: 10.4337/9781781002209.00011 [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2014). The sixth path: Reforming investment law from within. TDM, 11(1). [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2014). Transnational legal approaches to administrative law: Conceptualizing public contracts in globalization. Rivista Trimestrale di Diritto Pubblico, 2014(1), 1-33. [details] [PDF]
  • Jacob, M., & Schill, S. W. (2014). Going soft: Towards a new age of soft law in international investment law? World Arbitration & Mediation Review, 8(1), 1-47. [details]

2013

  • Schill, S. W. (2013). Derecho internacional de inversiones y derecho público comparado: el papel de los principios generales del derecho en la emergencia de un nuevo derecho público global. In F. Piovesan, A. Bogdandy, & M. Morales Antoniazzi (Eds.), Estudos avançados de Direitos Humanos - Direitos humanos, democracia e integração jurídica: Emergência de um novo direito público. (pp. 74-111). Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier. [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2013). International Arbitrators as System-Builders. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting - American Society of International Law, 106, 295-297. DOI: 10.5305/procannmeetasil.106.0295 [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2013). Luxembourg Limits: Conditions for Investor-State Dispute Settlement under Future EU Investment Agreements. In M. Bungenberg, A. Reinisch, & C. Tietje (Eds.), EU and investment agreements: open questions and remaining challenges (pp. 37-54). (Studien zum Internationalen Investitionsrecht; No. 7). Baden-Baden: Nomos. [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2013). The Relation of the European Union and its Member States in Investor-State Arbitration. In L. Trakman, & N. Ranieri (Eds.), Regionalism in international investment law (pp. 374-399). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195389005.003.0013 [details]
  • Schill, S. W., & Jacob, M. (2013). Trends in international investment agreements, 2010-2011: The increasing complexity of international investment law. In K. P. Sauvant (Ed.), Yearbook on international investment law & policy 2011-2012 (pp. 141-179). New York: Oxford University Press. [details] [PDF]
  • Hofmann, R., Schill, S. W., & Tams, C. J. (2013). Preferential Trade and Investment Agreements: From Recalibration to Reintegration. In R. Hofmann, S. W. Schill, & C. J. Tams (Eds.), Preferential Trade and Investment Agreements: From Recalibration to Reintegration. (pp. 9-23). Baden-Baden: Nomos. [details]
  • von Bogdandy, A., & Schill, S. W. B. (2013). Artikel 4 EUV (Neubearbeitung für die 51. Ergänzungslieferung). In E. Grabitz, M. Hilf, & M. Nettesheim (Eds.), Das Recht der Europäischen Union. München: Beck Verlag. [details]

2012

  • Schill, S. W. B. (2012). Cross-Regime Harmonization through Proportionality Analysis: The Case of International Investment Law, the Law of State Immunity and Human Rights. ICSID Review, 27, 87-119. DOI: 10.1093/icsidreview/sis002 [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2012). Deference in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Re-conceptualizing the Standard of Review. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 3(3), 577-607. DOI: 10.1093/jnlids/ids010 [details] [PDF]
  • Schill, S. W. (2012). General Principles of Law and International Investment Law. In T. Gazzini, & E. De Brabandere (Eds.), International investment law: the sources of rights and obligations (pp. 133-181). (Nijhoff international investment law series; No. 1). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. DOI: 10.1163/9789004214538_007 [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2012). Illegal Investments in Investment Treaty Arbitration. The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 11(2), 281-323. DOI: 10.1163/157180312X640697 [details]
  • Schill, S. W., & Kim, Y. I. (2012). Sovereign bonds in economic crisis: Is the necessity defense under international law applicable to investor-State relations? A critical analysis of the decision by the German Constitutional Court in the Argentine bondholder cases. In K. P. Sauvant (Ed.), Yearbook on international investment law & policy 2010-2011 (pp. 485-512). New York: Oxford University Press. [details]

2011

  • Schill, S. W. (2011). Allocating Adjudicatory Authority: Most-Favored-Nation Clauses as a Basis of Jurisdiction: A Reply to Zachary Douglas. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 2(2), 353-371. DOI: 10.1093/jnlids/idr004 [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2011). Enhancing International Investment Law’s Legitimacy: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations of a New Public Law Approach. Virginia Journal of International Law, 52(1), 57-102. [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2011). System-Building in Investment Treaty Arbitration and Lawmaking. German law journal: review of developments in German, European and international jurisprudence, 12(5), 1083-1110. [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2011). W(h)ither Fragmentation? On the Literature and Sociology of International Investment Law. European Journal of International Law, 22(3), 875-908. DOI: 10.1093/ejil/chr062 [details]
  • von Bogdandy, A., & Schill, S. (2011). Overcoming absolute primacy: Respect for national identity under the Lisbon Treaty. Common Market Law Review, 48(5), 1417-1454. [details]

2010

  • Schill, S. W. (2010). Crafting the International Economic Order: The Public Function of Investment Treaty Arbitration and its Significance for the Role of the Arbitrator. Leiden Journal of International Law, 23(2), 401-430. DOI: 10.1017/S0922156510000117 [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2010). Fair and Equitable Treatment, the Rule of Law, and Comparative Public Law. In S. W. Schill (Ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law. (pp. 151-183). New York: Oxford University Press. [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2010). International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law: An Introduction. In S. W. Schill (Ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law. (pp. 3-37). New York: Oxford University Press. [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2010). Umbrella Clauses as Public Law Concepts in Comparative Perspective. In S. W. Schill (Ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law. (pp. 317-344). New York: Oxford University Press. [details]
  • Schill, S. (2010). Der Schutz von Auslandsinvestitionen in Deutschland im Mehrebenensystem: deutsches, europäisches und internationales Recht. Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts, 135(4), 498-540. DOI: 10.1628/000389110793699573 [details]
  • Kingsbury, B., & Schill, S. W. (2010). Public Law Concepts to Balance Investors’ Rights with State Regulatory Actions in the Public Interest - The Concept of Proportionality. In S. W. Schill (Ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law. (pp. 75-104). New York: Oxford University Press. [details]

2009

  • Schill, S. W. (2009). The Multilateralization of International Investment Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511605451 [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2009). Enabling Private Ordering: Function, Scope and Effect of Umbrella Clauses in International Investment Treaties. Minnesota Journal of International Law, 18(1), 1-97. [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2009). Multilateralizing Investment Treaties through Most-Favored-Nation Clauses. Berkeley Journal of International Law, 27(2), 496-569. [details]
  • Schill, S., & Briese, R. (2009). "If the State Considers": Self-Judging Clauses in International Dispute Settlement. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 13, 61-140. [details]
  • Brower, C. N., & Schill, S. W. (2009). Is Arbitration a Threat or a Boon to the Legitimacy of International Investment Law? Chicago Journal of International Law, 9(2), 471-498. [5]. [details]
  • Kingsbury, B., & Schill, S. W. (2009). Investor-State Arbitration as Governance: Fair and Equitable Treatment, Proportionality, and the Emerging Global Administrative Law. ICCA Congress Series, 14, 5-68. [details]

2007

  • Schill, S. W. (2007). Do Investment Treaties Chill Unilateral State Regulation to Mitigate Climate Change? Journal of International Arbitration, 24(5), 469-477. [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2007). International Investment Law and the Host State’s Power to Handle Economic Crises - Comment on the ICSID Decision in LG&E v. Argentina. Journal of International Arbitration, 24(3), 265-286. [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2007). Tearing down the Great Wall - the new generation investment treaties of the people’s republic of China. Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law, 15(1), 73-118. [details]

2006

  • Schill, S. W. (2006). Arbitration risk and effective compliance: Cost-shifting in investment treaty arbitration. The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 7(5), 653-697. DOI: 10.1163/221190006X00351 [details]

2005

  • Schill, S. W. (2005). From Calvo to CMS: Burying an International Law Legacy - Argentina’s Currency Reform in the Face of Investment Protection: The ICSID Case CMS v. Argentina. SchiedsVZ. Zeitschrift für Schiedsverfahren, 3(6), 285-292. [details]

2017

  • Schill, S. W. B. (Author). (2017). The Constitutional Frontiers of International Economic Law. EJIL: Talk!. [details]

2016

  • Schill, S. (Author). (2016). The TTIP Negotiations: US versus EU Leadership in Global Investment Governance. Kluwer Arbitration Blog. [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2016). Changing Geography: Prospects for Asian Actors as Global Rule-Makers in International Investment Law. (Columbia FDI Perspectives; No. 177). New York: Vale Columbia Center on Sustainable International Investment. [details] [PDF]

2015

  • Schill, S. (Author). (2015). A question of democracy: the German debate on international investment law. Kluwer Arbitration Blog. [details]
  • Schill, S. (Author). (2015). Das TTIP-Gericht: Keimzelle oder Stolperstein für echte Multilateralisierung des internationalen Investitionsrechts?. Verfassungsblog. [details] [PDF]
  • Schill, S. (Author). (2015). The Mauritius Convention on Transparency: a model for investment law reform?. EJIL: Talk!. [details]
  • Schill, S. (Author). (2015). The Proposed TTIP Tribunal and the Court of Justice: What Limits to Investor-State Dispute Settlement under EU Constitutional Law?. Verfassungsblog. [details] [PDF]
  • Schill, S. (Author). (2015). Towards a constitutional law framework for investment law reform. EJIL: Talk!. [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (2015). The Overlooked Role of Arbitration in International Adjudication Theory. ESIL Reflections, 4(2). [details] [PDF]

2014

  • Schill, S. W. B. (Author). (2014). Arbitrator Independence and Academic Freedom. EJIL: Talk!. [details]
  • Schill, S. W. B. (Author). (2014). Comparative Public Law Methodology in International Investment Law. EJIL: Talk!. [details]
  • Schill, S. W. B. (Author). (2014). Internationaler Investitionsschutz und Verfassungsrecht. Verfassungsblog. [details]
  • Schill, S. W. B. (Author). (2014). Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit als Zentrum der globalen Judikative. Völkerrechtsblog. [details]
  • Schill, S. W. B. (Author). (2014). The Public Law Approach in the Practice of Investment Treaty Arbitration. EJIL: Talk!. [details]
  • Schill, S. W. B. (Author). (2014). Transparency as a Global Norm in International Investment Law. Kluwer Arbitration Blog. [details]
  • Schill, S. (2014). Auswirkungen der Bestimmungen zum Investitionsschutz und zu den Investor-Staat-Schiedsverfahren im Entwurf des Freihandelsabkommens zwischen der EU und Kanada (CETA) auf den Handlungsspielraum des Gesetzgebers. Berlin: Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie. [details] [PDF]

2013

  • Schill, S. W. (Author). (2013). Reforming International Investment Law: Institutional Change v. System-Internal Adaptation. EJIL: Talk!. [details]
  • Schill, S. W. (Author). (2013). The Virtues of Investor-State Arbitration. EJIL: Talk!. [details]
  • Schill, S. W. B. (Author). (2013). The Public Law Paradigm in International Investment Law. EJIL: Talk!. [details]
  • Schill, S., & Jacob, M. (2013). Common Structures of Investment Law in an Age of Increasingly Complex Treaty-making. (Columbia FDI Perspectives; No. 94). New York: Vale Columbia Center on Sustainable International Investment. [details] [PDF]

2015

  • Schill, S. W. B. (2015). Investor-Staats-Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit im TTIP. EuZW. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 26(3), 105. [details]
  • Schill, S. W. B. (2015). Verstoßen die TTIP-Schiedsgerichte gegen das GG? Contra: Investor-Staat-Schiedsverfahren sind verfassungskonform. Recht und Politik, 51(1), 11. [details]

2013

  • Schill, S. W. (2013). [Review of: A. Dimopoulos (2011) EU Foreign Investment Law]. European Law Review, 38(1), 131-134. [details]

2015

  • Schill, S. W. (2015). Reforming Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS): Conceptual Framework and Options for the Way Forward. (E15Initiative). Geneva: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development/World Economic Forum. [details] [PDF]

Book editor

  • Tams, C. J., Schill, S. W. B., & Hofmann, R. (2017). International Investment Law and the Global Financial Architecture. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. [details]
  • Schill, S. W., Tams, C. J., & Hofmann, R. (2015). International investment law and development: bridging the gap. (Frankfurt investment and economic law series; No. 1). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI: 10.4337/9781784711351 [details]
  • Caron, D. D., Schill, S. W., Smutny, A. C., & Triantafilou, E. E. (2015). Practising virtue: inside international arbitration. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [details]
  • Hofmann, R., Schill, S. W., & Tams, C. J. (2013). Preferential Trade and Investment Agreements: From Recalibration to Reintegration. Baden-Baden: Nomos. [details]
  • Schill, S. W. B. (2010). International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [details]
This list of publications is extracted from the UvA-Current Research Information System. Questions? Ask the library or the Pure staff of your faculty / institute. Log in to Pure to edit your publications.
  • Dr. Stephan Schill Rechtsanwalt
    Legal services, consultancy, editing scientific journal

edit contact information edit tabs