• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.59
• /
• pp.59-78
• /
• 2013

The interpretation and application of investment treaties takes place mostly by ad hoc tribunals. Their composition varies from case to case. But in interpreting and applying investment treaties are bound to exist on a ground rule and coherent criteria. Given summarizing contents of this study, those are as follows. When interpreting investment treaties, (i) most tribunals is based on Article 31 and 32 of the VCLT, (ii) tribunals rely on previous decisions, (iii) tribunals resort to travaux pr$\acute{e}$paratoires, (iv) tribunals consider the interpretative statement. When applying investment treaties, (i) treaties apply only in relation to acts or events that occurred after their entry into force, (ii) tribunals have applied different inter-temporal rules to jurisdictional clauses and substantive provisions in treaties, (iii) the relevant date for purposes of jurisdiction is the date of the institution of proceedings, (iv) Under the ICSID convention, the host state and investor's nationality must be a party to the convention on the date the proceedings are instituted. This study is expected to possibly become guideline in the interpretation and application standards of investment treaties. So future disputes can be prevented and prepared in advance.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.419-442
• /
• 2018

Space Treaty Article 2 stipuates non-appropriation by sovereignty, and in any other means. Interpretative controversies has continued as regards the meaning of any other means. It is not clear whether appropriation by private entity is also prohibited or not. Furthermore, the controverse around the binding force of Article 1 has made worse the controversy regarding such appropriation. U.S. Congress has enacted the law regarding the space resouce mining in 2015. Its main purpose is to alleviate legal unstability which U.S, private companies have faced, and it provides some provisions regarding private rights about space resources. Original bill, H.R. 1508 included the property right. Amendment to the bill is to ensure that an "asteroid resource utilization activity" is inter-preted as on a single asteroid and not on any asteroid. The use of the word "in situ" in defining space resources simply means resources in place in outer space; but any such resource within or on an asteroid would need to be "obtained" in order to confer a property right. The use of the word "in situ" in merely defining a space resource in the bill is not equivalent to claiming sovereignty or control over celestial bodies or portions of space. Further, there is clear Congressional direction in the bill that the President is only to encourage space resources exploration and utilization, including lowering barriers to such activity, "consistent with" and "in accordance with" US international obligations. Federal courts are granted original jurisdiction over entities defined in ${\S}$ 51301(4) and in-situ asteroid resources that have been removed from an asteroid by such entities. Federal courts are not granted jurisdiction over outer space, the Moon, other celestial bodies, or the asteroid from which the in-situ natural resource was removed. It is said that the Space Resource Utilization Exploration Act of 2015, talked about the rights of private players to own-kind of a "finders keepers" law.