Detailansicht
The calculation of damages in armed conflict
an assessment of legal standards and methodological approaches in international investment law
Eva Catherine O'Sullivan
Art der Arbeit
Master-Thesis (ULG)
Universität
Universität Wien
Fakultät
Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät
Studiumsbezeichnung bzw. Universitätlehrgang (ULG)
außerordentliches Masterstudium Europäisches und Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht (LL.M.) [Englisch]
Betreuer*in
Gabriel Lentner
DOI
10.25365/thesis.79744
URN
urn:nbn:at:at-ubw:1-20367.90032.578346-5
Link zu u:search
(Print-Exemplar eventuell in Bibliothek verfügbar)
Abstracts
Abstract
(Deutsch)
This thesis contributes to the scholarly and policy discourse in three ways. First, it aims to offer a comprehensive doctrinal synthesis of how investment protection standards operate in armed conflict, and contributing to existing literature which often treats such cases in isolation. Second, it provides a critical evaluation of damages quantification methodologies in these disputes, highlighting both best practices and recurrent shortcomings. Third, it situates this evaluation within the ongoing reform process at UNCITRAL Working Group III, thereby linking case-based analysis to institutional and policy developments that may reshape the field in the coming years. By integrating doctrinal, comparative, and policy perspectives, the study aims to equip arbitrators and counsel with a deeper analytical framework for approaching investor–State disputes arising from armed conflict. This involves not only a more rigorous application of substantive standards and defences, but also a disciplined selection and application of damages valuation methodologies that reflect the evidentiary realities of conflict situations. The research emphasises that methodologically sound decision-making can enhance the legitimacy, predictability, and fairness of awards, particularly in cases where causation and valuation are inherently complex. At the same time, the study is intended to guide treaty negotiators and institutional reform bodies by identifying the risks and opportunities involved in clarifying or revising damages standards. Clearer drafting, more precise definitions, and integration of good faith and proportionality safeguards can reduce inconsistency, protect regulatory space, and ensure that future treaty frameworks balance investor protection with the sovereign imperatives of States during crises.
Abstract
(Englisch)
This thesis contributes to the scholarly and policy discourse in three ways. First, it aims to offer a comprehensive doctrinal synthesis of how investment protection standards operate in armed conflict, and contributing to existing literature which often treats such cases in isolation. Second, it provides a critical evaluation of damages quantification methodologies in these disputes, highlighting both best practices and recurrent shortcomings. Third, it situates this evaluation within the ongoing reform process at UNCITRAL Working Group III, thereby linking case-based analysis to institutional and policy developments that may reshape the field in the coming years. By integrating doctrinal, comparative, and policy perspectives, the study aims to equip arbitrators and counsel with a deeper analytical framework for approaching investor–State disputes arising from armed conflict. This involves not only a more rigorous application of substantive standards and defences, but also a disciplined selection and application of damages valuation methodologies that reflect the evidentiary realities of conflict situations. The research emphasises that methodologically sound decision-making can enhance the legitimacy, predictability, and fairness of awards, particularly in cases where causation and valuation are inherently complex. At the same time, the study is intended to guide treaty negotiators and institutional reform bodies by identifying the risks and opportunities involved in clarifying or revising damages standards. Clearer drafting, more precise definitions, and integration of good faith and proportionality safeguards can reduce inconsistency, protect regulatory space, and ensure that future treaty frameworks balance investor protection with the sovereign imperatives of States during crises.
Schlagwörter
Schlagwörter
(Deutsch)
Investitionsrecht
Schlagwörter
(Englisch)
Investment Law Damages International Investment Arbitration
Autor*innen
Eva Catherine O'Sullivan 
Haupttitel (Englisch)
The calculation of damages in armed conflict
Hauptuntertitel (Englisch)
an assessment of legal standards and methodological approaches in international investment law
Publikationsjahr
2025
Umfangsangabe
82 Seiten
Sprache
Englisch
Beurteiler*in
Gabriel Lentner
AC Nummer
AC17722551
Utheses ID
77853
Studienkennzahl
UA | 999 | 082 | |