scholarly journals China's Innovative ISDS Mechanisms and Their Implications

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 207-211
Author(s):  
Huiping Chen
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Dominant Mode ◽  
International Strategy ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Chamber Of Commerce ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
International Court ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
International Chamber Of Commerce

International arbitration before Western-based institutions is the dominant mode of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). The Washington-based International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), the Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration, the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, and the International Court of Arbitration of the Paris-based International Chamber of Commerce handle the vast majority of the world's international investment disputes. ICSID alone administers over sixty percent of the cases, while the others account for an additional twenty percent. Yet China has begun to innovate in ISDS over the last few years. These innovations have taken three main forms. The first is the extension of the jurisdiction of existing commercial arbitral institutions in China to cover foreign investment disputes. The second is the creation of new Chinese courts to possibly handle contractual investment disputes. The third is the formation of joint arbitration centers with states in regions where China invests heavily, such as Africa. This essay describes these changes and argues that they should be understood as reflecting an important facet of China's broader international strategy. In particular, the recent innovations aim to furnish adequate protection to Chinese investors in foreign countries, particularly developing states; actively shape international discourses on international investment law; and offer alternative, Chinese-initiated institutions that will break the monopoly of the West.

Part I Investment Treaties and the Settlement of Investment Disputes: The Framework, 3 International Investment Dispute Settlement Mechanisms

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Onwuamaegbu Ucheora
Keyword(s):  
International Trade ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Chamber Of Commerce ◽  
Trade Law ◽  
International Trade Law ◽  
International Court ◽  
International Chamber Of Commerce

This chapter begins by introducing the three institutions under whose auspices treaty-based investor-state arbitration proceedings have most commonly been conducted: the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), and the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC). Following a general overview of the three institutions, it examines certain procedural issues that may be considered by parties in deciding among them, assuming that consent exists. The intention is to highlight certain provisions in their arbitration rules that best demonstrate the main differences between them. Finally, the chapter examines the Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law under which the majority of ad hoc investor-state arbitrations have so far been conducted and draws certain contrasts between them and the rules of the institutions earlier discussed.

Malaysia and Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Learning From Experience

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 890-917 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sufian Jusoh ◽  
Muhammad Faliq Abd Razak ◽  
Mohamad Azim Mazlan
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Direct Investment ◽  
Direct Investment ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Learning From Experience ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaties

Abstract Malaysia is an important destination for foreign direct investment and has signed more than 70 investment guarantee agreements. Most allow investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) and Malaysia has been subject to three claims, including two fully argued cases: Philippe Gruslin and Malaysian Historical Salvor. Yet Malaysian companies have also utilised ISDS provisions: in MTD Equity Bhd v Chile, Telekom Malaysia v Ghana, and Ekran Berhad v China (the first-ever ISDS claim against China). These cases provide lessons for Malaysia in becoming better prepared to negotiate newer generations of investment treaties, and to defend further potential cases. Malaysia has not reacted negatively to investment treaties despite the cases filed against the country. In fact, in light of its evolving interests Malaysia has become more of a rule-maker in international investment law rather than a rule-taker. Malaysia thereby continues to liberalise its investment regime and provide better transparency – the best defence against claims.

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.

The Role of Regional Courts in the Development of International Investment Law: The Case of NAFTA Chapter 11 Dispute Settlement Framework and ECtHR

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-95
Author(s):  
Collins C. Ajibo
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Nafta Chapter 11

AbstractRegional courts have synthesized, articulated, and elucidated certain principles of law that influence the development of international investment law. The contributions of NAFTA Chapter 11 dispute settlement framework and European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in particular, have been outstanding. For instance, NAFTA jurisprudence has guided investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) tribunals through influential precedents. Similarly, the doctrine of proportionality and the margin of appreciation doctrine which emerged from the ECtHR jurisprudence have become embedded in international investment law. Indeed, given the unique contributions of regional courts and their rapid proliferation, it can be predicted that they will play even more significant roles in the future development of principles of international investment law. Arguably, such emergent principles should be subjected to a prior scrutiny and filtering by ISDS institutions as a precondition to full incorporation into international investment law to foster their legitimacy and credibility.

International Law and Foreign Investment in Hydroelectric Industry: A Multidimensional Analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 183-222
Author(s):  
Attila Tanzi
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Investment ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Multidimensional Analysis ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Domestic Law

The main focus of the present article is on the entanglement between four bodies of international law sensitive to foreign investment in the creation and/or operation hydroelectric industry: i.e. international investment law, human rights law, international water law and private international law to the extent that public international law rules on conflict of laws on civil liability for transboundary damage are concerned. This horizontal approach to the analysis is supplemented by a vertical one looking at the interactions between international and domestic law. Consideration of the different bodies of international law in question is associated to that of the adjudicative, and non-adjudicative, means of dispute settlement available under each such bodies of law. On that score, the role of the foreign investor in a litigation scenery will be considered, primarily as claimant, but also, prospectively, in relation to the situation in the State hosting the investment is, or may become, respondent in inter-State litigation.

scholarly journals Regulatory autonomy and regulatory chill in Opinion 1/17

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurens Ankersmit
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Public Interests ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Negative Effect ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Agreements ◽  
The Eu

This article analyses the aspect of the Court’s reasoning in Opinion 1/17 that focuses on the regulatory autonomy of the Parties to the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) to decide on levels of protection of public interests. The European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) introduction of regulatory autonomy under EU law coincides with the wider debate around ‘regulatory chill’ under international investment law. This article finds the ECJ’s concept of regulatory autonomy to be narrower than that of the regulatory chill hypothesis put forward by critics of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). It further analyses the ECJ’s reasoning that the CETA’s investment tribunals do not have jurisdiction to call into question the levels of protection sought by the EU. In so doing, it will critically evaluate the certainty of the ECJ’s promise that there will be no negative effect on public interest decision-making through CETA’s investment chapter. Finally, it will explore the legal consequences of Opinion 1/17 for future awards and investment agreements.

scholarly journals Chorzów Factory – intellectual property and the continuity of international law in investor-state dispute settlement

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Sean Morris
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Fair Compensation ◽  
Investment Law

One of the most important cases in the jurisprudence of international law – Chorzów Factory – has a hidden secret, so much so that, even when in plain sight, legal post-mortems of the case fail to mention this well-kept secret. Chorzów Factory was about intellectual property rights, specifically patents and trade secrets, and this narrative has never been fully addressed. When the developments in international investment law and arbitration are fully considered it is worth looking back at Chorzów Factory to associate it with new streams of contemporary investor-state disputes that include issues such as intellectual property rights. Because Chorzów Factory has established the full reparation standard for unlawful expropriation, the standard has enabled a continuity of international law and underscores its importance for contemporary investment arbitration. However, the intellectual property narrative of Chorzów Factory has been neglected, and, in this article, I want to develop the intellectual property narrative of Chorzów Factory and to demonstrate the nexus between fair compensation, intellectual property rights and the continuity of international law.

Embedding the International Investment Regime

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcoux Jean-Michel
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Investment ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Social Protection ◽  
International Investment ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Economic Liberalism ◽  
Development Policies ◽  
Double Movement ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Potential Impact

Amidst numerous calls for reform of international investment law, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has become a multilateral forum deeply involved in seeking responses to address a growing unease regarding the governance of foreign investment. Further to a focus on sustainable development policies and paths for reform of investor–state dispute settlement, UNCTAD’s efforts have culminated in a roadmap for reform. This chapter aims to explore the potential impact of this reform on the international investment regime. It argues that the reform proposed by UNCTAD reflects an unambiguous need to embed international investment law in social concerns, in line with the second part of a double movement between economic liberalism and social protection. Such a countermovement nevertheless remains weak, as the proposed reform appears to generally constitute a norm-governed change that is unlikely to shake the fundamental principles and norms underlying the international investment regime.

Part VI The Post-Award Phase, 30 A Practical Guide: Research Tools in International Investment Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fouret Julien
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Investment ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Stare Decisis ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
International Court ◽  
Investment Agreement ◽  
Investment Law

This chapter aims to help the new investment arbitration practitioner identify and find the main legal sources for dealing with international investment law issues. Three different topics need to be addressed in order to cover, as extensively as possible, the legal issues generally raised during an arbitration based on an international investment agreement. First, even though the stare decisis rule does not exist in international arbitration, including investment arbitration, previous rulings are often used and analyzed by arbitrators. Second, when dealing with investment arbitration, it is likely that the claim will be treaty based. Finally, and most importantly, in international investment disputes, arbitral tribunals rely on all the sources of public international law identified in Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, which provides for the Court to apply.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document