Towards a Republicanisation of International Investment Law?: Conceptualising the Legitimatory Value of Public Participation in the Negotiation and Enforcement of International Investment Agreements

2021 ◽  
pp. 157-173
Author(s):  
Karsten Nowrot ◽  
Emily Sipiorski
Keyword(s):  
Public Participation ◽  
International Investment ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Agreements

The Treatment of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in International Investment Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joachim Karl
Keyword(s):  
Great Majority ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
Internationalization Strategies ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Investment Agreements

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are the backbone of almost all economies, employing the great majority of the workforce, and making the biggest contribution to GDP. To some extent, they are also active as outward foreign investors or are linked to inward foreign investment through supply chains. This chapter analyses the role of international investment law for the internationalization strategies of SMEs. It explores to what extent international investment agreements specifically promote, facilitate, and protect investments involving SMEs, referring to concrete treaty examples. It also examines the risk of potential negative effects of certain IIA provisions on domestic SMEs. On the basis of this analysis, the chapter makes a number of suggestions regarding how international investment law could further improve the situation of SMEs.

An Overview of Sri Lanka’s Bilateral Investment Treaties: Status Quo and Some Insights into Future Modifications

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-318
Author(s):  
Dilini PATHIRANA
Keyword(s):  
Sri Lanka ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Global Context ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Agreements

AbstractSri Lanka is the first country against which a foreign investor has had recourse to international arbitration based on the dispute settlement clause in a bilateral investment treaty (BIT). This was the case of AAPL v. Sri Lanka. Since then, the country has been challenged twice before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), while its latest encounter was in the case of Deutsche Bank AG v. Sri Lanka. In the intervening years between these two cases, Sri Lanka maintained silence and failed to alter its BITs in a global context where the conventional attitude on international investment agreements (IIAs) is being increasingly reconsidered. This paper provides an overview of Sri Lanka’s BITs, which highlights the urgency of reconsidering the country’s investment treaty-making practice. It suggests some modifications to align the country’s investment treaty-making practice with international investment law (IIL) developments.

Africa and the Rethinking of International Investment Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Makane Moïse Mbengue ◽  
Stefanie Schacherer
Keyword(s):  
Sustainable Development ◽  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Reform Process ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Pan African ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Agreements

This chapter seeks to present and to contextualize the Pan-African Investment Code (PAIC) by taking a comparative international law approach. Such approach allows us to assess whether the PAIC is an Africa-specific instrument and whether it is unique today in how it incorporates sustainable development concerns. This is particularly interesting for the ongoing global reform process of international investment law. The chapter is divided into five main sections. Section II provides an overview of international investment agreements concluded by African States. Section III presents the origins of the PAIC. Section IV addresses the important question as to what extent the PAIC incorporates traditional investment standards or breaks with them. Section V explores the most innovative aspects of the PAIC. Section VI examines the PAIC and dispute settlement.

MFN Standard as Substantive Treatment

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mira Suleimenova
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Third Party ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
History Of ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaties ◽  
Investment Agreements ◽  
Comprehensive Study

‘Most favoured nation’ (MFN) treatment is an integral part of virtually all modern investment regimes. MFN clauses in international investment agreements signal to investors that a given state protects them from discrimination; however, in practice, enforcing such guarantees may be challenging. This book represents a comprehensive study on how ‘most favoured nation’ treatment operates as a substantive standard of international investment law. Starting with a history of the development of the concept in international law, the author provides an overview of existing state practices in negotiating MFN clauses in bilateral and international investment treaties. Finally, the work analyses the ability of MFN treatment clauses to prevent de facto discrimination and allow for the ‘import’ of third-party substantive protections in international investor state arbitration. Dr Mira Suleimenova, LL.M. is an international investment lawyer based in Vienna, Austria.

Equity-Based Decision-Making and the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard: Lessons From the Argentine Investment Disputes – Part I

2012 ◽  
pp. 210-255
Author(s):  
Srilal M. Perera
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Investment ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Treatment Standard ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Equitable Treatment ◽  
Investment Agreements

In Part I of this two-part article the author examines the foundations for equity-based decision-making under international law and their relevance to resolving contemporary investment disputes based on the Fair and Equitable Treatment standard (FET standard). He contends that equity-based decision-making in the past has been rare, and in such instances adjudicators have been extremely restrained because of the propensity for subjective judgments. However, in the modern day application of equitable considerations in a large number of investments disputes before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) seeking relief based on the FET standard, the decisions have mostly been inconsistent and conflicting, leading often to inexplicable and excessive remedies. In no other line of cases has this trend been more demonstrated than in the investment disputes following the Argentine economic crisis. They point more to the serious anomalies and omissions and interpretive issues in International Investment Agreements (mostly BITs) which require remedial measures if international investment law itself is to advance.

Korea’s Experience with International Investment Agreements and Investor-State Dispute Settlement

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 952-980 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hi-Taek Shin ◽  
Liz (Kyo-Hwa) Chung
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Developing Economies ◽  
International Investment ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
The Face ◽  
Public Scrutiny ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Agreements ◽  
Korus Fta

Korea’s network of international investment agreements (IIAs), comprising 94 BITs and nine FTAs with investment chapters, demonstrates that attracting foreign investment to Korea and protecting Korean investors overseas has been an important policy aspect. However, little attention was paid to these agreements until 2006 when negotiations for the Korea-United States (KORUS) FTA began. These negotiations sparked public criticism and heated debates of investor-State dispute settlement. Whereas Korea had routinely accepted the IIA provisions presented by developed counter-parties and used them as a template when negotiating with developing economies in the past, Korean IIA practice changed substantially following the KORUS FTA. In the face of heightened public scrutiny, Korea began to critically review key features of its IIAs and developed its own position on some important issues. This article examines these developments, considering that Korea will play a key role in shaping international investment law in the future, particularly in Asia.

National Sovereignty and International Investment Law: Sovereignty Reassertion and Prospects of Reform

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-103
Author(s):  
Georgios Dimitropoulos
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
Reform Process ◽  
National Sovereignty ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Agreements

Abstract The growing tendency among States to terminate their international investment agreements and/or replace them with domestic laws may be understood as a reclamation of national sovereignty vis-à-vis international institutions. The article develops a typology of moves to reassert sovereignty in international investment law, distinguishing: (a) an isolationist reassertion from (b) an international reassertion and in turn from (c) domesticating reassertion. The article further claims that international investment law and its reform needs to be informed by research into domestic systems of governance in order to better conceptualize the ways in which international law principles are implemented alongside and through the use of domestic legal instruments, but also in order to help inform the reform process of international investment law. It finally identifies the ways in which domestic and international law co-exist and mutually influence each other with a view to the substantive and procedural law reform of the investment regime.

Defining a State-Owned Enterprise in International Investment Agreements

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 595-625
Author(s):  
Mark McLaughlin
Keyword(s):  
International Investment ◽  
Investment Activity ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Policy Choices ◽  
Commercial Activities ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Investment Agreements

Abstract The objective of this article is to establish a unified conceptual framework for State-owned enterprises in international investment law. I hope to furnish drafters and negotiators with the tools to define such enterprises in accordance with their policy concerns. The central thesis is that five definitional criteria must be considered: (i) separate legal personality; (ii) extent and form of control; (iii) eligible governmental units; (iv) nature of activity; and (v) purpose of activity. While variations within each criterion can reflect the policy choices of contracting parties, failure to adequately delimit the boundaries of all five will confer discretion on arbitrators to do so. Application of this framework to existing international investment agreements reveals that many bilateral investment treaties are insufficiently precise as to the definition of State-owned enterprises. However, the Trans Pacific Partnership addresses all five criteria, and limits the scope of covered entities to those that are ‘principally engaged in commercial activities’ and have an ‘orientation towards profit making’. China’s strategic initiatives could necessitate a response that would further fragment the international investment regime. Furthermore, interpretive issues remain in relation to the scope of ‘effective influence’ and determining the purpose of investment activity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document