The next battleground involves the admissibility of sovereign bond claims in investment treaty arbitration, which emerges as a complicated issue particularly when a large group of bondholders bring a case as a bundle against the debtor sovereign. To attain an appropriate balance between bondholder protection and respect for orderly debt restructuring, this study has conceptualised investment arbitration proceedings as a supplemental leverage available for bondholders as a group by which a stay of arbitral proceedings is imposed and lifted amid the fair progress of sovereign debt restructuring processes.

No governing international text or generally accepted doctrine defines the procedure to be applied by international courts and tribunals. Yet these institutions’ tasks pose common challenges: providing notice of a dispute, defining its nature and scope, determining the legal rules, marshalling and assessing evidence, finding facts and applying legal rules to them, and then recording and communicating the result. There often is substantial similarity – indeed, convergence – in how courts and tribunals go about these tasks. This chapter examines some of the factors and institutions that contribute to this procedural harmonization among institutions dealing with disputes between parties from different countries and legal cultures. It looks at the shared historical foundations of important procedural practices, the influence of intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations, the roles individuals sometimes play in transmitting “legal technology” between institutions, and the effect of competition among institutions seeking to meet the needs of their “customers.” It also notes areas where procedure can diverge, as users look for new ways to address procedural problems.

The shift to a more victim-oriented understanding of the right to reparation has been developing in tandem with the successive creation of international criminal judiciaries, as well as ad hoc reparation mechanisms, established since the early 1990s, in parallel with the drafting of relevant UN instruments. However, the abstract question about the existence of such a right is not particularly helpful because the individual substantive right and procedural right are closely intertwined. The concrete content of the right to reparation has to be defined under specific historical circumstances, taking into account the specific challenges of concrete post-conflict constellations. The substance of a right to reparation only can and should be defined as the result of an adequate procedure established under such circumstances. Accordingly, this chapter, based on the analyses of various reparation mechanisms so far established, contributes to identify and elaborate the detailed elements of the right to reparation, including the basic shared principles and methods through which a mechanism could effectively process individual claims. This also clarifies the shifting purpose of reparation not only to deliver remedial justice to victims, but also to realise restorative justice which emphasises reconciliation in States and local communities at the post-conflict stage.

This chapter addresses a second set of answers to parallel proceedings in the context of shareholders’ claims for reflective loss, the risks of double recovery, and the inconsistent decisions they lead to: a broader use of the mechanism of consolidation and mass claims in international investment arbitration. First, the mechanism of consolidation is analyzed in the context of investment arbitration by focusing on treaty practice and investment case law. This chapter explains why this mechanism can be useful to reduce instances of parallel proceedings and why it is particularly well suited in the context of such proceedings created by shareholders’ claims for reflective loss. The same analysis is undertaken with respect to the practice of mass claims in investment arbitration, and for similar reasons as with respect to consolidation, this chapter suggests a broader use of such multiparty proceedings in investment arbitration, especially with respect to shareholders’ claims for reflective loss.