Arbitrariness, the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard, and the International Law of Investment

2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
JACOB STONE
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Bad Faith ◽  
Common Features ◽  
Treatment Standard ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Legitimate Expectations ◽  
Investment Treaties ◽  
Equitable Treatment

AbstractOne of the most common features of international investment treaties is the obligation of a state to grant ‘fair and equitable treatment’ to investors and investments. Treatment giving rise to allegations of breaches of this obligation has taken many forms, namely bad faith, discrimination, denial of justice, frustration of legitimate expectations, lack of transparency, coercion and harassment, and arbitrariness or arbitrary conduct. This latter form of treatment – arbitrariness – has rarely been the focus of scholarly works and, thus, its scope and meaning are difficult to ascertain. When examined in the context of international investment disputes, however, one may conclude that, while its scope and meaning may vary, arbitrariness is indeed a legitimate basis for claim under the fair and equitable treatment standard. The thresholds for demonstrating arbitrariness, however, are decidedly and consistently high.

Part II The International Law Framework of Investment Protection and Political Risk, 6 The Substantive Law of Contemporary International Investment Protection

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rubins Noah ◽  
Papanastasiou Thomas-Nektarios ◽  
Kinsella N Stephan
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Transition Economy ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Investment Treaties ◽  
Substantive Law ◽  
Equitable Treatment ◽  
National Investment ◽  
Domestic Law

Investors increasingly rely on the substantive protections provided in a growing number of investment treaties. This chapter covers the modern international law of investment protection as embodied in multilateral and bilateral investment treaties, including principles such as fair and equitable treatment, and full protection and security. The substantive protections investment treaties described in this chapter are often echoed in the national investment laws of developing and transition-economy countries. In particular, many recent national investment codes place limitations on the State’s authority to expropriate foreign assets, sometimes granting rights superior to those provided at customary international law. International investment treaties also guarantee proper application of domestic law by government authorities, national treatment, repatriation of profits, compensation for breach and other standards of treatment.

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.

9 General Treatment Standards

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Salacuse Jeswald W
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Investment ◽  
General Treatment ◽  
National Treatment ◽  
Treatment Standards ◽  
Strong Similarity ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Investment Treaties ◽  
Equitable Treatment ◽  
Full Protection

This chapter addresses the general standards of treatment in investment treaties. General treatment standards consist of two types: (a) absolute standards, which are not contingent upon specified factors, happenings, or government behaviour towards other investors or persons; and (b) relative standards, which are dependent upon the host government's treatment of other investments or investors. The chapter discusses the absolute and relative general treatment standards used most frequently in international investment treaties. These include full protection and security, fair and equitable treatment, minimum treatment according to international law, most-favoured-nation treatment, and national treatment. That these standards exist in one form or another in most investment treaties gives the treaties a strong similarity. It must also be acknowledged, however, that not all treaties include all of these general standards and that significant differences exist in the way individual treaties articulate them.

From a Fortuitous Transplant to a Fundamental Principle of Law?

2021 ◽  
pp. 426-440
Author(s):  
Josef Ostřanský
Keyword(s):  
Historical Context ◽  
Fundamental Principle ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Legal Form ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Treatment Standard ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Legitimate Expectations ◽  
Equitable Treatment ◽  
Substantial Change

The doctrine of legitimate expectations (LEs) is now considered a backbone principle of international investment law (IIL), particularly of the fair and equitable treatment standard (FET). Open any recent textbook of IIL and you will find discussion on LEs as one of the core principles. However, if one takes a step back, one may see that the notion of legitimate expectations simply appeared in early investment cases ‘out of thin air’. This contribution will argue that, while LEs’ appearance in IIL practice may be viewed as contingent, its ascendance into the principal doctrine of substantive IIL with specific parameters is neither entirely accidental nor random. The use and specific parameters of the doctrine have been allowed and facilitated by both the indeterminate and semantically ambiguous legal form of IIL obligations, and by a specific historical context in which the notion became prominent. The consequence of the argument can be appreciated at two levels. First, it can be argued that even without the contingent ascendance of the notion of LEs, the field of IIL would likely have taken up a similar substantive trajectory. Second, this argument sheds light on questions about how a more substantial change in the regime might be effected, instead of merely reforming certain aspects of the regime without affecting its current premises, structure, substance, and teleology. By doing so, the contribution underlines the difficulties in articulating plausibly what would have made a difference in a particular legal regime.

Legitimate Expectations and Fair-and-Equitable-Treatment under the Energy Charter Treaty

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niclas Landmann
Keyword(s):  
Renewable Energy ◽  
Energy Sector ◽  
Comprehensive Analysis ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
The Past ◽  
Treatment Standard ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Energy Charter Treaty ◽  
Legitimate Expectations ◽  
Equitable Treatment

A recent tide of ISDS cases in the renewable energy sector has generated a large number of arbitral awards that turn of the notion of legitimate expectations. The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard (FET) and the notion of legitimate expectations has been highly undetermined in the past. This work contains a comprehensive analysis of the renewable energy awards and the interpretation of the notion of legitimate expectations therein. In particular, it is examined whether arbitral jurisprudence formed a cohesive body of caw-law. The author analyses which aspects with regard to commitment by the states, due diligence of the investors, and level of impact were considered a violation of the FET Standard by recent arbitral tribunals.

Fair and Equitable Treatment in International Investment Agreements

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roland Kläger
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Due Process ◽  
International Investment ◽  
General Character ◽  
Minimum Standard ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Equitable Treatment ◽  
Investment Agreements

Fair and equitable treatment is a central norm in international investment law. This norm is contained in the vast majority of international investment agreements as one of the main standards for the protection of foreign investors. Historically, international investment agreements contained short and general clauses of fair and equitable treatment, which were formulated either as free-standing provisions with a reference to general international law, or to the international minimum standard of customary international law. Especially since the first decade of the 21st century, drafting approaches to fair and equitable treatment became increasingly diverse and generated complex and elaborate clauses seeking to address the different elements of the norm that have developed over time. The drafting approaches reflect the long-standing controversies with regard to fair and equitable treatment and the question of whether this concept is to be constructed in accordance with the international minimum standard or as an independent and self-contained standard possibly exceeding customary international law. Both concepts have remained vague and have created difficulties in the interpretation of fair and equitable treatment, which due to its general character became a prominent cause of action in investor-state arbitration proceedings. The evolution of arbitral jurisprudence stimulated the emergence of different elements of fair and equitable treatment, including the protection of the investor’s legitimate expectations, the protection against discrimination and arbitrary treatments, and the principles of due process, denial of justice, and transparency. The increasing number of cases on the basis of fair and equitable treatment also led to concerns and criticism that a far-reaching concept of the norm would threaten the host states’ sovereignty and their right to regulate, as well as the principle of sustainable development. These concerns and the fact that a growing number of investment disputes were brought against developed countries motivated first the North American Free Trade Agreement member states and subsequently other states and the European Union to adapt their international investment agreements in order to try to concretize the concept of fair and equitable treatment and to limit the discretion of arbitrators. The concept of fair and equitable treatment has also received considerable attention by scholars who propose a variety of different approaches to the interpretation of the norm and the balancing of the conflicting private and public interests at stake.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document