Expropriation in Transition: Evolving Chinese Investment Treaty Practices in Local and Global Contexts

2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 579-604 ◽  
Author(s):  
SHEN WEI

AbstractThe doctrine and case law on expropriation in international investment law is an unsettled area due to a variety of factors such as the diversity of interests between capital importing and exporting states, the divergence in legal, economic, and cultural concepts of property rights, and, more importantly, the regulatory role of the state in cross-border investment activities. Although China has been an active ‘treaty-maker’ in the universe of international investment arbitration, evidenced by its nearly 130 bilateral investment treaties (BITs), the notion of expropriation in these BITs is in a state of flux. This article scrutinizes the expropriation clauses in China's BITs, in particular, the Peru–China BIT and the Peru–China free trade agreement, by reference to the final award of Tza Yap Shum v. The Republic of Peru, the first Chinese BIT arbitration case. This article attempts, in a comparative context, to understand the underlying rationale for China's evolving stance on expropriation.

Author(s):  
Crina Baltag

Abstarct Recent developments in investment arbitration and international investment law, in general, are prompting the review of the role of amici curiae in investment arbitration proceedings. The latest initiatives addressing the challenges to the investor-State dispute settlement (‘ISDS’) system, including under the auspices of the UNCITRAL Working Group III, alluded to the participation of the amici in ISDS proceedings. The new generation of international investment agreements (‘IIAs’) is also tackling an enhanced role of amicus curiae, whereas the proposal for the amendment of the ICSID Arbitration Rules includes sizeable amendments to Rule 37(2), to reflect these developments and other concerns raised so far in the practice. This paper addresses the role of amici curiae in these turbulent times for ISDS, emphasizing that, before anything, the role of these non-disputing parties is to assist arbitral tribunals.


Author(s):  
Moshe Hirsch

Abstract The recent moderate trend to increasingly apply human rights law in investment awards is accompanied by certain new investment treaties which include expressed human rights provisions. An analysis of recent investment awards indicates that though there are some ‘winds of change’ in this field, it is equally noticeable that human rights law is far from being mainstreamed in international investment law. Investment arbitration procedural law is also undergoing a process of change, and the new procedural rules tend to enhance public elements in the investment arbitral system. This study is aimed at explaining these recent legal changes, highlighting the role of social movements in reframing investment relations as well as increasing public pressure to apply human rights law. These framing changes concern broadening the frame of investment arbitration (beyond the foreign investor–host state dyad), reversing the perceived balance of power between investors and host states, and zooming-in on local individuals and communities residing in host states. The discussion on factors impeding legal change in this field emphasizes the role of the private legal culture prevalent in the investment arbitration system, which is reflected and reinforced by certain resilient socio-legal frames. Informed by this analysis, the study suggests some legal mechanisms which can mitigate the inter-partes frame, and increase the application of human rights law in investment arbitration; inter alia, rigorous transparency rules that are likely to facilitate increased public pressure on tribunals and increase the participation of social movements representing local actors in arbitral processes.


2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 942-973
Author(s):  
Romesh Weeramantry

Abstract Cambodia has undertaken several initiatives to attract foreign direct investment (FDI), which has been growing rapidly in recent years, particularly through participating in Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) investment agreements and free trade agreements (FTAs). This article first outlines Cambodia’s arbitration law and practice, its Law on Investment, the court system, problems relating to corruption, and foreign direct investment (FDI) patterns. It then surveys trends in Cambodia’s comparatively belated signing of investment treaties, and their main contents (including recent treaties with India and Hungary, adopting very different models). The article then discusses the only investment arbitration instituted against Cambodia, which was successfully defended, followed by a comment on the future prospects for Cambodia’s investment treaty program.


Author(s):  
Gallagher Norah ◽  
Shan Wenhua

China's success in attracting foreign direct investment (FDI) in the last decade is undisputed and unprecedented. It is currently the second largest FDI recipient in the world, a success partially due to China's efforts to enter into bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and other international investment instruments. This book is a comprehensive commentary on Chinese BITs. Chinese investment treaties have typically provided international forums for settling investment disputes such as the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Given the continuous growth of FDI in China, the emergence of state-investor disagreements in China, and the dramatic rise of investment treaty based arbitrations world wide in recent years, it is anticipated that there will be an increasing number of investment arbitrations involving the central and local governments of China. This book reviews and analyzes China's approach to foreign investment. It considers the current role of investment treaties in China's foreign economic policy, analyzes and interprets the key provisions of the BITs, and discusses the future agenda of China's investment program. It looks at how this investment regime interconnects with the domestic system and considers the implications for a foreign investor in China.


Author(s):  
Thomas Dietz

This chapter suggests a vision of investment treaty arbitration filtered through the lens of political systems theory. Political systems theory was developed in the 1950s and 1960s by David Easton, an eminent political scientist. The core idea of Easton’s theory is that political systems can be understood as consisting of inputs from various actors that are aggregated and transformed into outputs, where outputs consist of the authoritative allocation of values. As such, the political systems approach encourages people to move beyond overly reductionist visions of international investment law as a quasi-inevitable product of state and investor interactions, or as the quasi-autonomous and teleological identification and imposition by tribunals of necessarily sensible or correct rules of state behaviour. Indeed, the chapter argues that seeing investment arbitration as political system allows people to bring out elements of its workings with greater clarity. Altogether, this helps people get a better sense of some of the key dynamics of investment arbitration.


Author(s):  
Nathalie Bernasconi ◽  
Martin Dietrich Brauch ◽  
Howard Mann

This chapter discusses the role of civil society in international investment arbitration. Much of the civil society focus on international arbitration has been on the investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) process included in many international investment agreements. However, the historical role of commercial arbitration as the progenitor of investment treaty arbitration and the procedural and structural links between ISDS and commercial arbitration are important for the discussions on civil society engagement. Civil society recognized early on the problems of using a commercial arbitration model for investment arbitration, which involves public law matters, and concluded that this created a misappropriation of a tool that up to that time had only been used for private commercial purposes or very well-defined state-to-state purposes. The crossing of these purposes and actors to create public law arbitration between investors and states is what created this sense of misappropriation and led to a spotlight being shone on the regime by civil society. The chapter then looks back at the beginnings of civil society engagement with international arbitration through the experience with investment treaties, including the advancement of transparency and the ability to submit amicus curiae briefs.


2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 1001-1024
Author(s):  
Romesh Weeramantry ◽  
Mahdev Mohan

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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 496-515
Author(s):  
Jean-Michel Marcoux

Abstract International investment arbitration tribunals have used the doctrine of transnational public policy to prevent claimants whose investments are tainted with illegality from obtaining redress. Whereas tribunals generally have the authority to apply transnational public policy when deciding a claim, they have often assumed rather than demonstrated the obligation for foreign investors to comply with the doctrine. This article proposes an interdisciplinary account that draws upon ‘international practices’ in International Relations theory to understand the normative pull toward this obligation. It does so by shedding light on tribunals’ general lack of consideration for a proper legal basis to impose an obligation on foreign investors to comply with transnational public policy. It then suggests that the normativity of the doctrine primarily rests on a practice that is reproduced and reinforced by tribunals themselves. Understanding transnational public policy as an international practice ultimately illustrates the role of tribunals to reform international investment law.


2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 867-879
Author(s):  
Jean-Michel Marcoux

Abstract In his article entitled ‘The (Ir)relevance of Transnational Public Policy in Investment Treaty Arbitration – A Reply to Jean-Michel Marcoux’, Eric De Brabandere argues that transnational public policy does not have any significant role to play in investment treaty arbitration, both as a matter of principle and as an avenue to address human rights violations by foreign investors. The present response suggests that a more fundamental point of disagreement between our positions relates to the role of the practice of tribunals in shaping legal norms in international investment law. Inspired by the ‘practice turn’ in the study of international law, it suggests that the relevance and the normativity of transnational public policy are constituted by the practice of tribunals. Addressing human rights violations as an integral part of transnational public policy can thus be considered as a potential evolution of this practice in investment arbitration.


Author(s):  
Catharine Titi

With the exponential growth of international adjudication fora and of the number of known disputes submitted to them, the international system of investment dispute resolution has taken centre stage and has been placed in a unique position from which to formulate international investment law. At the heart of this system, the arbitrator possesses considerable ‘jurisgenerative’ powers that span over different aspects of the rules governing investment, from treaty provisions relating to jurisdictional and substantive standards to the interpretation of relevant rules of customary international law and the development of new treaty models. The article considers this de facto role of the arbitrator in investment rule-setting by canvassing arbitral interpretation as a jurisgenerative process per se, and by exploring its impact on future treatymaking.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document