The subject of this book is mixed international arbitration, viz. arbitration where one party is a state and the other is a private person or corporation. The book is split into two basic parts. Part One examines what the author considers to be the central issues in mixed international arbitration—delocalization of both the substantive and the procedural law of the arbitration, recognition and enforcement of awards, and remedies available to arbitral tribunals. Part Two is concerned with what the author believes to be the principal examples of institutional mixed arbitration—International Chamber of Commerce arbitration, arbitration by the World Bank Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, and the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal. It would be fair to say, then, that this is a book whose scope is of considerable breadth and, although there is much therein which practitioners would find of great worth and fascination, it remains essentially an academic work, very obviously rooted in a doctoral thesis.

The underlying premise of the book is that, because of the unequal status of the parties, mixed international arbitration presents unique problems and features which are too often overlooked by writers in this field. There are obviously certain instances where it makes a considerable difference that one of the parties to the arbitration is a state—e.g., the sovereign immunity defence and the act of state defence where recognition or enforcement is sought (both penetratingly analysed in this work). Yet Toope insists that the unique character of this kind of arbitration has particular consequences for most aspects of the arbitral process. Here it is more difficult to accept his thesis. One may thus endorse his support for the aim of the delocalization of the procedural law of the arbitration (or at least the shift of focus to the jurisdiction where enforcement of the award is sought) without necessarily agreeing that it is an issue with peculiar implications for mixed international arbitrations. Equally, while one is free to agree or disagree with his views as to the advisability of attempting to delocalize the substantive law of the arbitration by invoking such standards as general principles of law and lex mercatoria (he is broadly against such expedients), it is hard to see that such matters acquire a new dimension when a state is a party, although it may be conceded that there is perhaps more of a case to answer where international law is sought to be adopted as the substantive law. Equally, in much of the discussion of the New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, one is driven to wonder whether the points made are not equally valid whether mixed international arbitration is involved or not. Still, even if one does not agree with everything the author has to say in this regard (and many may), at worst one is presented with a cogently argued and meticulously