Derecho PUCP

Permanent URI for this communityhttp://54.81.141.168/handle/123456789/179977

ISSN: 0251-3420
e-ISSN: 2305-2546

La revista Derecho PUCP, fundada en 1944, publica artículos de investigación jurídica o interdisciplinaria inéditos y originales, los cuales son revisados por pares externos que han publicado investigaciones similares previamente. Las evaluaciones se realizan de forma anónima (sistema doble ciego) y versan sobre la calidad y validez de los argumentos expresados en los artículos. Cuenta con tres secciones: (i) Sección Principal, (ii) Miscelánea e (iii) Interdisciplinaria.

La periodicidad de Derecho PUCP es semestral, apareciendo, tanto en su soporte físico como en su versión digital, en el primer día del periodo de publicación. El primer número de la revista abarca el periodo de junio a noviembre, y el segundo, de diciembre a mayo.

La revista está incluida en los siguientes índices, base de datos, directorios y catálogos: Scopus, Redalyc, SciELO Perú, Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science), Erih Plus, Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals (IFLP), Dialnet, Worldcat, Hein Online, Primo Central, Latindex, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), JournalTOCS, BASE, CLASE, EbscoHost, Cengage Learning, Vlex, REBUIN, La Referencia y ALICIA (Concytec).

Browse

Subject: search.filters.subject.Arbitraje internacional de inversiones

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    ItemMetadata only
    El tratamiento de los servicios públicos en los arbitrajes de inversión: una propuesta desde la perspectiva del derecho administrativo global
    (Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Fondo Editorial, 2016-05-25) Hernández González, José Ignacio
    The public service has been, traditionally, a domestic concept of the Administrative Law. However, as a consequence of globalization, the public service regulation by the Administration is also subject to the Global Administrative Law, specifically in the context of the international investment arbitration.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    ItemMetadata only
    El arbitraje internacional de inversiones y la lucha internacional contra la corrupción
    (Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Fondo Editorial, 2021-05-26) Carbajal Valenzuela, Christian; Mendoza Neyra, Yolanda
    Within international investment arbitrations, international protection is usually denied to investments that have been made through acts of corruption as the majority of the investment arbitration tribunals do not assume jurisdiction or the claims are considered inadmissible. These decisions, inevitably and indirectly, lead to the exoneration of international responsibility of the defendant States due to the corruption of their public officials, even when these illicit acts are not configured unilaterally, existing, in most cases, shared responsibility between the investor and the State. By not sanctioning corruption, the current crisis in the investment dispute resolution system is aggravated, which, on the contrary, requires urgent and consensual solutions to guarantee a viable reform. Faced with this worrying scenario, this article examines mechanisms to achieve the confluence between International Investment Law, International Anti-Corruption Law and the international standards concerning the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. We argue that if illicit behavior by public officials is found, depending on the circumstances of each case, the investment arbitration tribunals should rule on the international responsibility of the defendant States for failing to comply with the obligations arising from the International Anti-Corruption and Investment Treaties. Likewise, depending on the case, they must sanction investors and States, since both parties may be responsible for committing the illicit acts of corruption. Recognizing the limitations inherent to the powers of arbitral tribunals, it is possible to affirm that they cannot remain outside the international fight against corruption, as it has been agreed by the international community in the treaties that exist on this matter, being this the situation when the tribunals declare their lack of jurisdiction, avoiding to decide on the acts of corruption identified within the specific case.