
Jacques Werner, Werner & Associés, Geneva
Conference Chairman
Comments by
Marcus C. Boeglin, Lalive & Partners, Geneva
Formerly Managing Director at Sbc Warburg, New YorkPhilippe Boivin
Directeur à la Direction juridique, Alcatel, Paris
Alternate member of the Icc International Court of ArbitrationJakob S. Smid, Maritime and commodities arbitrator, Geneva
Member of the Gafta and FosFa Appeals Boards
Panel discussion including
Geoffrey M. Beresford Hartwell, Engineer and arbitrator, London
Past Chairman of the Chartered Institute of ArbitratorsAntonias Dimolitsa, A. Dimolitsa & Associates, Athens
Member of the Icc International Court of ArbitrationAndré FaurÈs, Coppens Van Ommeslaghe and Faurès, Brussels
Heinz Hintermann, Senior Counsel, Gargill, GenevaHoward Holtzmann, Honorary Chairman, American Arbitration Association, New York – Former Judge, Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal
Laurent Lévy, Brunschwig Witmer, Geneva
The Rt. Hon. The Losd Mustill, Privy Councillor, Essex Court Chambers, London
Mauro Rubino-Sammartano, Rubino Borghesi De Tilla & Valensise, Milan
President of the European Court of Arbitration
Comments by
Edwin Vermulst, Vermulst & Waer, BrusselsFollowed by a panel discussion with
Jacques H.J. Bourgeois, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld Llp, Brussels
Professor, College of Europe, BruggeRobert Howse, Associate Professor of Law, University of Toronto
Petros Mavroidis, Professor of Law, University of Neuchâtel
Jawashree Watal, Former Director, Trade Policy Division, Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, New Dehli
Comments by
William J. Davey, Director, Legal Affairs Division, WtoFollowed by a panel discussion including
Thomas Cottier, Professor of Law, University of Bern
Of counsel, Baker & McKenzie, Geneva
Heather G. Forton, Permanent Mission of Canada, Geneva
WTO PanelistDavid Palmeter, Powell Godlstein Frazer & Murphy Llp, Washington, D.C.
Yukyun Shin, Deputy Director General, International Cooperation Bureau, Korea Custom Service, Seoul
Brigitte Stern, Professor of Law at Paris I
The present economic crisis in Asia and its threat to the world economy are calling the much-heralded advantages of globalization into question; in this growing debate, the multilateral investment conventions, and especially the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (Mai) presently being negotiated within the Oecd, are fingerprinted in various quarters as the vehicle which multinational corporations would use to encroach on governments' sovereignty.
One essential element of these multilateral investment conventions, be they Nafta, the Energy Charter Treaty, or the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, is their settlement dispute system where the host countries are obliged to accept the exclusive jurisdiction of international arbitral tribunals for their disputes with foreign investors. Different from their role in traditional commercial arbitration, the arbitrator's role in these investor-to-State disputes is a perilous one since, as a private person, they will have to render decisions which might disavow the policies carried out by elected officials in the host country.
J-C. Thomas, Thomas and Davies, Vancouver
The MAI dispute settlement system for investment disputes: the French position
Brigitte Stern, Professor at University of Paris I
Panel discussion including
Michel A. Calvo, Calvo & Calvo-Goller, Jerusalem and Paris
Member of the ICC International Court of ArbitrationNagla Nassar, Zaki Hashem & Partners, Cairo
Hans K. Van Houtte
Professor of Law, Leuven University
Member of the Commission on Real Property Claims in Bosnia-Herzegovina, BrusselsGuiguo Wang, Director, Centre for Chinese and Comparative Law, City University of Hong Kong
Conference chairman: Jacques Werner