scholarly journals The Creation of Elusive Investor Responsibility

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 113 ◽  
pp. 10-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Ho
Keyword(s):  
International Investment ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Investor Behavior ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Institutional Conditions ◽  
The Status ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Accountability Gap

The issue of investor responsibility reveals a stubborn bias within international investment law. That law addresses mistreatment by host states of foreign investors but consistently fails to address investor misconduct in host states. The traditional emphasis on state responsibility in this context has allowed abusive, pollutive, and corrupt investor behavior to thrive. International investment law is the current object of scrutiny, criticism, and reform in large part because many see it as overprotecting investors. However, scholars and reformers have focused on state responsibility, tinkering with the legal and institutional conditions that determine the international wrongfulness of state conduct. Unless and until investor responsibility is integrated into international investment law reform, the overprotection of investors owing to an accountability gap will continue to undermine its legitimacy. This essay posits that the first step to integration is understanding why investor responsibility scrabbles to find purchase in international investment law. I argue that elusive investor responsibility was created by omission, with injurious consequences that highlight the need to alter, rather than accept, the status quo.

4 Restitution

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabahi Borzu
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Rightful Owner ◽  
Legal Situation ◽  
Specific Performance ◽  
The Status ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Disproportionate Burden

This chapter focuses on one form of reparation in international law: restitution. Restitution requires the re-establishment of the situation that had existed before the commission of an internationally wrongful act or the status quo ante. Though restitution has been recognized as the primary remedy in international law, practical limitations have minimized its use in international investment law. Here, the power of tribunals to award restitution in international law and the enforceability of such awards are discussed. The two general forms of restitution are then explored: firstly, material restitution, which includes the restitution of property and of money wrongfully taken from a rightful owner; and, secondly, juridical restitution, which requires restoring the legal situation that existed before the commission of the wrongful act, and includes specific performance. The doctrines of impossibility and disproportionate burden are also discussed with their limiting effect on restitution.

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.

Globalization-Driven Innovation: The Investor as a Partial Subject in Public International Law

2014 ◽  
pp. 73-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tillmann Rudolf Braun
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Intrinsic Nature ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Actual Nature ◽  
Corn Products ◽  
The Status ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaties

Given the current state of development of international investment law, it is surprising that, to date, neither the actual nature of the investor’s rights resulting from investment treaties, nor the possible consequences which arise for the investor, the states and international law, have been sufficiently defined. This is all the more astounding as the intrinsic nature and the possible limits of the investor’s rights are not only of theoretical interest, they are also decisive for the resolution of many substantial practical problems as well as for the positioning of international investment law within public international law. Furthermore, recent arbitration rulings concerning the fundamental question of whether the investor’s rights are of a direct, a derivative or a contingent nature, Archer Daniels (2007), Corn Products (2008) and Cargill (2009), demonstrate diametrically differing approaches. In this article, the author shows that neither the procedural nor material rights of the investor are simply derived from the home state but are – in clear contrast to the model of diplomatic protection – in fact to be understood as individual direct rights. The investor is elevated to the status of a (partial) subject in international law. Of course, the states are, and remain, the ‘masters of the treaties’ and can correct or even revoke them at any time with prospective effect. However, as long as investment treaties confer distinct rights on the investor, arbitral tribunals and states have to recognize these direct rights and the states must also accept that they can also be applied against them. The direct rights paradigm has varied and remarkable consequences for the investor, the states and modern public international law.

scholarly journals Moral Damages as an ‘Exceptional’ Remedy in International Investment Law – Re-Connecting Practice with General International Law

2021 ◽  
Vol 81 (4) ◽  
pp. 937-968
Author(s):  
Robert Christoph Stendel
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Investment ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Inter State

Moral damages under international investment law have been extensively addressed in the literature. Notoriously, arbitral tribunals have subjected any claim for moral damages to a requirement unknown to general international law, that is exceptional circumstances. This practice is widely criticised in the field mainly due to the seeming inconsistency with general international law. This article challenges this view by arguing that a deviation from general international law does not – in and of itself – suffice to discard the tribunals’ approach. This argument is based on the insight that general international law only deals with inter-State responsibility and is, thus, open to deviations from general international law in case of State responsibility vis-à-vis the individual. On that basis, the article explores possible legal bases for exceptional circumstances in international law. While it discards the idea that such a requirement for awarding moral damages is implicit in prior inter-State cases, the article rather argues that the arbitral practice witnesses the emergence of a new rule of customary international law applicable to the responsibility of a State vis-à-vis the individual. Thereby, the article seeks to contribute to the wider debate on the content and contours of State responsibility for claims of the individual.

scholarly journals Control, Capacity, and Legitimacy in Investment Treaty Arbitration

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 261-265
Author(s):  
Jeremy K. Sharpe
Keyword(s):  
International Investment ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
Institutional Choice ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
States Experience ◽  
Investment Treaty Arbitration

Arbitration has long been the default mechanism for resolving international investment disputes. The traditional consensus favoring arbitration, however, has now given way, and reform proposals abound. The articles by Sergio Puig and Gregory Shaffer, on institutional choice and investment law reform, and by Anthea Roberts, on incremental, systemic, and paradigmatic reform of investor-state arbitration, helpfully situate the current controversies, debates, and reform options for states. Both articles reveal just how far and fast the debate has shifted in recent years. They also confirm states’ desire to exercise greater control over the regime for resolving international investment disputes. Many states continue to struggle to fully comply with their investment treaty obligations, to efficiently defend against investor claims, and to properly keep abreast of and shape developments in international investment law. Puig and Shaffer provide a useful framework for comparatively assessing possible institutional alternatives in light of their relative trade-offs. But any reform recommendations should draw lessons from states’ experience with the existing regime, including states’ significant problems of capacity. The merits of any reform proposals, therefore, should be measured in part by their ability to improve states’ capacity to cope with the existing investment protection regime and rapidly changing developments.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document