What Should We Know About the Origins of International Investment Law?

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 122-131
Author(s):  
Sarah M. Alshahrani
Keyword(s):  
Ottoman Empire ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Arab Countries ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaties ◽  
The Impact

AbstractInternational investment law, particularly the global backlash against investment treaties, has evolved recently. This article aims to clarify how international investment law evolved over history, from the early Arab traders in the 7th century to the Ottoman Empire, to understand its hidden aims. It investigates the practice of signing investment treaties, which appear first during the Fatimid Caliphate2 and Mamluk Sultanate3 periods. It then explains when control over foreign investment started to diminish during the Ottoman Empire period.4 Further, it explains the links between the USA Friendship, Commerce and Navigation treaties (FCNs), and current investment treaties, explaining the impact of colonization and imperialism on drafting treaty provisions. Within this historical context, this article illustrates the need to understand the roots of international investment law in order to urge Arab countries to terminate or renegotiate current bilateral investment treaties (BITs) as a number of developing and developed countries have done.

China's International Investment Strategy

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Development Strategy ◽  
Foreign Investment ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Investment Strategy ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaties ◽  
Open Door Policy ◽  
Outward Fdi ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaties

The phenomenal story of China’s ‘unprecedented disposition to engage the international legal order’ has been primarily told and examined by political scientists and economists. Since China adopted its ‘open door’ policy in 1978, which altered its development strategy from self-sufficiency to active participation in the world market and aimed at attracting foreign investment to fuel its economic development, the underlying policy for mobilizing inward foreign direct investment (IFDI) remains unchanged to date. With the 1997 launch of the ‘Going Global’ policy, an outward focus regarding foreign investment has been added, to circumvent trade barriers and improve the competitiveness of Chinese firms, typically its state-owned enterprises (SOEs). In order to accommodate inward and outward FDI, China’s participation in the international investment regime has underpinned its efforts to join multi-lateral investment-related legal instruments and conclude international investment agreements (IIAs). China began by selectively concluding bilateral investment treaties (BITs) with developed countries (major capital exporting states to China at that time), signing its first BIT with Sweden in 1982. Despite being a latecomer, over time China’s experience and practice with the international investment regime have allowed it to evolve towards liberalizing its IIAs regime and balancing the duties and benefits associated with IIAs. The book spans a broad spectrum of China’s contemporary international investment law and policy: domestic foreign investment law and reforms, tax policy, bilateral investment treaties, free trade agreements, G20 initiatives, the ‘One Belt One Road’ initiative, international dispute resolution, and inter-regime coordination.

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.

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 Bilateral Investment Treaties and Sovereignty: An Analysis with Respect to International Investment Law

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Joseph Thaliath
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Present Situation ◽  
Economic Globalization ◽  
International Investment ◽  
International Level ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaties ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaties ◽  
Market Relations

International law as a governing institution, has gained prominence, with the advent of globalization. This is of specific relevance for the governance of state-market relations. Nowhere has this been as pronounced as in the international investment regime. Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) have today become some of the most potent legal tools underwriting economic globalization. These are established through pacts, which have to be adhered to, through all stages of performance of the treaty. This paper argues against the shift of bilateral investment treaties (BIT) from a pro-sovereign, to a pro-investor approach. It does so by explaining the present situation of bilateral investment treaties while pointing out their disadvantages. The basic idea of a BIT is questioned in order to understand its purpose and examines its failure in achieving the same. The partial approach towards the investors by the tribunals, is frowned upon and the lack of justifications and defenses on the part of the state is reviewed. Modest suggestions on improving this situation are provided by using cases decided by tribunals at an international level, taking up the example of Argentina.

scholarly journals International Investment Arbitration in Laos: Large Issues for a Small State

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 1001-1024
Author(s):  
Romesh Weeramantry ◽  
Mahdev Mohan
Keyword(s):  
East Asian ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Least Developed Countries ◽  
Small State ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Agreements

Abstract Laos is no stranger to international investment arbitration. Despite its status as one of Southeast Asia’s least developed countries, it has had an Investment Law for more than two decades and is also a party to several bilateral and Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN)-related investment agreements. More recently, two investment treaty claims have been made against it, one of which has given rise to an award challenge that went all the way to Singapore’s highest court. This article will examine the history, evolution and current iteration of Laos’ relationship with international investment law and focus on the two investment treaty claims instituted against Laos. The article concludes with an appraisal of Laos’ need to maintain its investment treaty programme, despite the difficulties that may have arisen as a result of it being a respondent in investment treaty arbitrations.

Illegal Investments in Investment Treaty Arbitration

2012 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 281-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephan W. Schill
Keyword(s):  
International Investment ◽  
Foreign Investor ◽  
Considerable Potential ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Domestic Law ◽  
Investment Treaty Arbitration

Abstract Investment treaty tribunals on numerous occasions have had to deal with the impact of breaches of domestic law by a foreign investor on the investment’s protection under an international investment treaty. In this context, tribunals had to interpret different “in accordance with host State law”-clauses contained in investment treaties, but also dealt with the effect of illegality in the absence of such clauses. The present article traces this increasingly complex jurisprudence and frames it as an issue of the relationship between domestic law and international investment law. Although different approaches exist, most importantly as to the effect of domestic illegality on the jurisdiction of investment treaty tribunals, the article suggests that there is considerable potential for convergence in arbitral jurisprudence, thus unveiling the contours of a doctrinal structure for dealing with illegal investments in international investment law and arbitration.

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.

scholarly journals The Private Law Critique of International Investment Law

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian Arato
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Legal Institutions ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaties ◽  
Do So

AbstractThis Article argues that investment treaties subtly constrain how nations organize their internal systems of private law, including laws of property, contracts, corporations, and intellectual property. Problematically, the treaties do so on a one-size-fits-all basis, disregarding the wide variation in values reflected in these domestic legal institutions. Investor-state dispute settlement exacerbates this tension, further distorting national private law arrangements. This hidden aspect of the system produces inefficiency, unfairness, and distributional inequities that have eluded the regime's critics and apologists alike.

scholarly journals The Security of International Investments: a Synthesis of Impacts on Public Policies and Domestic Law of Host States

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Livia Costanza
Keyword(s):  
Public Policies ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Foreign Investors ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaties ◽  
Domestic Law

<p>The subject of this dissertation is the relationship between the protection of foreign investors' investments under international investment law and the domestic law of host states. Two questions arise in this connection. First, is the promotion and protection of investments comprised in investment agreements compatible with states' domestic law? Second, public policies of host states may appear to be in contradiction with an increased international security of investments. When such a conflict is challenged by foreign investors, what are the consequences for both parties? In general, investments are transactions that are private in nature, whose aim is to generate a positive rate of return. Investments can have pervasive consequences on countries' welfare, including, for example, the consequences on sustainable development; the use and protection of natural resources; and employment, to name a few. It is the role of the governments to balance these sometimes conflicting public and private interests. As of today, it seems that the regime established according to investment treaties does not strike an appropriate balance between the various interests concerned. After a brief look at the legal framework protecting foreign investments, the conflict areas between investment treaty provisions and domestic public policies of host states are explored through an empirical analysis of some case studies and recent arbitrations. Finally, this dissertation holds that, at a substantive level, investment law is a part of international law. Thus it must be consistent with its norms and it has to be interpreted in accordance with customary rules of treaty interpretation. The dissertation concludes by suggesting the creation of a state-investor relationship and advocates, in part, the establishment of development objectives in investment treaties as well as the inclusion of rights and obligations for all parties involved.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document