Multidisciplinary Musings: Law, Culture, and the Mind in the Digital Era

A month ago, the international sports movement clashed with the state interventionism in a case where the Australian government interfered in the selection of the professional players for the Australian Open under the pretext of the anti-COVID legislation. Regardless of the absurdity of the Australian entry-visa requirements, in such serious cases the sports governing bodies should be held accountable for not ensuring equal access and opportunities and not upholding a "fair game" for all.  The exclusion of N. Djokovic and N. Vikhlyantseva from the Australian Open 2022  The Djokovic & Vikhlyantseva cases involved a world renowned sportsman, ranked no. 1 in the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) rankings and a Russian tennis player, former world no. 54 in the Women's Tennis Association (WTA) rankings. Both players were eligible for the Australia Open (AO) 2022 Tournament or "the happy slam" which along with the French Open, the Wimbledon and the US Op

The ICSID's new rules failed to guide the alternative dispute resolution to the metaverse era unhooking it from the physical seat.    In October 2016, the ICSID launched a large scale process for the amendment of the Centre's Rules. The consultations were effectually  concluded on January 20th, 2022, and the ICSID Member States are expected to cast a vote on the amended rules by March 21, 2022. If approved, the updated rules would go into effect on July 1, 2022.  As for the amendments, they are mainly aiming to deal with a series of diverse issues arisen during the ICSID's almost 60-year experience. Pursuant to the Center , first the changes are intended to modernise the rules based on case experience. Second, the amendments will make the process increasingly time and cost effective while maintaining due process and a balance between investors and States. Third, ICSID hopes that the rule amendments will make the procedure less paper-intensive, with greater use of technolog

Back in 2018, the EU Supreme Court ( CJoEU ) shocked the investment world when it invalidated an arbitration clause  ruling  that the EU legislation can solely be interpreted by the EU state courts. Less than 4 years later, on January 25 th , 2022, the Court  confirmed  the EU’s wary stance towards alternative investment dispute resolution rendering the EU internal market a rather unsafe space for the investors.   The significance of the international investment arbitration   It is a  long practice  of the states to attract investments by committing themselves to bilateral treaties (BIT). The latter aim at creating an investors-friendly stable environment for long term, major financial ventures. In this context, the inclusion of an alternative dispute resolution clause in the BITs has been a cornerstone for the investors’ interests.    The international investment arbitration became even more attractive in 1958 following the conclusion of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforceme