Page 42 - นิตยสารดุลพาห เล่มที่ ๒-๒๕๖๑-กฎหมาย

ดุลพาห

102
Tribunal Costs is around USD 750,000. There is no reason to believe that
either States or investors would be willing to compromise on quality of legal

representation or legal expense if the investment dispute is brought before an

investment court, as opposed to an arbitral tribunal.

Another factor that makes it difficult to know whether the ICS will

reduce speed is the unclear standard of Appellate Review. In particular, as
an appeal can be lodged for manifest error of fact, if the Appellate Tribunal
can review the facts de novo or subpoena witnesses to re-testify, this could

increase the time of the appeal.

(5) Enforcement of Awards

Under the TTIP and the EU-Vietnam FTA, the “[f]inal awards issued …
by the Tribunal shall be binding between the disputing parties and shall not

be subject to appeal, review, set aside, annulment or any other remedy.” 103
The CETA provides that “[a]n award issued pursuant to this Section shall be

binding between the disputing parties and in respect of that particular case.” 104
Moreover, any Contracting Party has to recognise the “[f]inal award rendered

as binding and “enforce the pecuniary obligation within its territory as if it were
105
a final judgement of a court in that Party.” To ensure enforcement, the ICS
seeks to rely on the established enforcement mechanism for ICSID awards under
Article 54 of the ICSID Convention or the Convention on the Recognition and

Enforcement of Foreign Awards 1958 (“New York Convention”), depending

102. Id.
103. Article 31(1) of the EU-Vietnam FTA (“Final awards issued pursuant to this Section: (a)
shall be binding between the disputing parties and in respect of that particular case; and
(b) shall not be subject to appeal, review, set aside, annulment or any other remedy.”);
Article 30(1) of the TTIP.
104. Article 8.41(1) of the CETA.
105. Article 8.28(9)(d) of the CETA; Article 31(2) of the EU-Vietnam; Article 30(2) of the TTIP.

พฤษภาคม - สิงหาคม ๒๕๖๑ 31