The Legal Policy of Executability in the International Arbitral Tribunal Decision

Rachel Georghea Sentani, Mathijs ten Wolde


The growing number of investment disputes indicates more challenging and controversial matters in the various arbitration practices. However, the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) rules do not entirely solve the problem in the arbitration process. This study aims to explain how the ICSID tribunal’s inherent reconsideration power can be exercised to “fill the gap” in arbitration proceedings. This study concludes that it can be enforced under Article 44 of the ICSID Convention, which decides the question submitted to the tribunal that the ICSID Convention does not cover. Second, in completing this study, the wording of Rules 19 of Arbitration Rules gives an almost similar order to the tribunals in the case of absence in the conduct of proceedings. Third, under Rule 38 (2) Arbitration Rules, the tribunals can exercise the reconsideration power when discovering new facts that decisively affect the case's outcome.


Legal Policy; Executability; Arbitral; Investment.

Full Text:



Alpkokin, P., & Capar, M. S. (2019). Dispute boards in Turkey for infrastructure projects. Utilities Policy, 60, 100958.

Arthur, J. P. H. (2015). The legal value of prior steps to arbitration in international law of foreign investment: Two (different?) approaches, one outcome. Anuario Mexicano de Derecho Internacional, 15(1), 449–491.

Bhagwat, V., Brogaard, J., & Julio, B. (2021). A BIT goes a long way: Bilateral investment treaties and cross-border mergers. Journal of Financial Economics, 140(2), 514–538.

Chisik, R. (2012). Trade disputes, quality choice, and economic integration. Journal of International Economics, 88(1), 47–61.

Chou, J.-S., Hsu, S.-C., Lin, C.-W., & Chang, Y.-C. (2016). Classifying influential information to discover rule sets for project disputes and possible resolutions. International Journal of Project Management, 34(8), 1706–1716.

Deffains, B., Gabuthy, Y., & Lambert, E.-A. (2010). Labour disputes, investment decisions and the judiciary. Labour Economics, 17(2), 424–433.

Gershoni, N. (2021). Individual vs. group decision-making: Evidence from a natural experiment in arbitration proceedings. Journal of Public Economics, 201, 104479.

Gertz, G., Jandhyala, S., & Poulsen, L. N. S. (2018). Legalization, diplomacy, and development: Do investment treaties de-politicize investment disputes? World Development, 107, 239–252.

Gong, X. (2022). Energy security through a financial lens: Rethinking geopolitics, strategic investment, and governance in China’s global energy expansion. Energy Research & Social Science, 83, 102341.

Horn, H., & Tangerås, T. (2021). Economics of international investment agreements. Journal of International Economics, 131, 103433.

Inga Jablonskaitė-Martinaitienė, & Točickienė, N. (2016). Procedure before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal: Specific aspects. International Comparative Jurisprudence, 2(1), 45–54.

Junxia, L. (2019). Investments in the energy sector of Central Asia: Corruption risk and policy implications. Energy Policy, 133, 110912.

Kohler, W., & Stähler, F. (2019). The economics of investor protection: ISDS versus national treatment. Journal of International Economics, 121, 103254.

Nyarko, J. (2019). We’ll See You in . . . Court! The lack of arbitration clauses in international commercial contracts. International Review of Law and Economics, 58, 6–24.

Oseni, U. A., Adewale, A., & Mohd Zain, N. R. B. (2016). Customers’ perceptions on the dispute resolution clauses in Islamic finance contracts in Malaysia. Review of Financial Economics, 31, 89–98.

Pelcastre, I. F. (2016). A tailor-made (Legal) suit? The actual scope, power, and functioning of nafta Chapter 11’s rules and institutions for the settlement of cross-border disputes. Norteamérica, 11(1), 9–42.

Pratomo, E., & Kwik, J. (2020). Good agreements make good neighbours: Settlements on maritime boundary disputes in South East Asia. Marine Policy, 117, 103943.

Puig, S. (2013). Investor-state tribunals and constitutional courts: The Mexican sweeteners saga. Mexican Law Review, 5(2), 199–243.

Rao, W. (2021). Are arbitrators biased in ICSID arbitration? A dynamic perspective. International Review of Law and Economics, 66, 105980.

Salman, S. M. A. (2002). Inter-states water disputes in India: an analysis of the settlement process. Water Policy, 4(3), 223–237.

Thiel, F. (2018). Regulatory or expropriatory? On the implications of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership for the German land policy. Land Use Policy, 77, 778–789.

Thow, A. M., Snowdon, W., Labonté, R., Gleeson, D., Stuckler, D., Hattersley, L., Schram, A., Kay, A., & Friel, S. (2015). Will the next generation of preferential trade and investment agreements undermine prevention of noncommunicable diseases? A prospective policy analysis of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement. Health Policy, 119(1), 88–96.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2021 Rachel Georghea Sentani, Mathijs ten Wolde.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


Print ISSN:  2302-3783
Online ISSN: 2722-4708
Email: cc to
Published by: Universitas Sebelas Maret
Office: Department of Administrative, Faculty of Law, Universitas Sebelas Maret
Ir. Sutami Street, No. 36A, Surakarta, Jawa Tengah 57126- Phone 0271-642595