Tobacco Regulation, International Investment Arbitration and the Fragmentation of International Law – The Grand River Enterprises Case

2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 267-273
Author(s):  
Benedikt Pirker
Keyword(s):  
Native American ◽  
International Law ◽  
United States Public Health ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Tobacco Regulation ◽  
Canadian Native ◽  
Grand River ◽  
Nafta Chapter 11 ◽  
Fragmentation Of International Law

In the recent Grand River Enterprises case, United States public health regulations on protection from tobacco products successfully withstood a challenge by Canadian Native American investors under NAFTA chapter 11 arbitration. The arbitrators carefully weighed the investors’ rights and the regulatory freedom of the host state under the NAFTA rules. The treatment of other norms of international law on the protection of indigenous peoples, however, merits some criticism.

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.

scholarly journals Interpretation of International Law by National Judges: Opportunities and Challenges. The Case of International Investment Law in Latin America

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 128
Author(s):  
Marcelo Lozada Gómez ◽  
Paola Acosta Alvarado
Keyword(s):  
Latin America ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Investment ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
International Investment ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Fragmentation Of International Law

The role of national judges in international law is still an undecided subject matter. Most scholars consider the decisions from national judges merely as acts of States, denying the possibility that those judgments constitute an autonomous source of international law. This position is grounded in the idea that national judges do not regularly employ sources of international law, and therefore, their opinion about them is not quite important. Nevertheless, recent phenomena have highlighted and triggered the intervention of national judges regarding the interpretation and enforcement of international law. The growing scope of international rules, which now regulate intra-states issues, as well as the fragmentation of international law, and the internationalisation of national orders, inter alia, have demanded domestic courts’ intervention in order to face these changes and avoid undesirable consequences. In this context, this article aims to: 1. bring an outlook on the evolution of the role assigned to national judges; 2. explore the phenomena that triggered their intervention; 3. analyse the outcomes of this increasing participation, namely how national judges change the usual dynamics of interpretation and evolution of international law; 4. apply these ideas to explain the intervention of national judges in Latin America regarding the enforcement of foreign investment law; and 5. conclude with some remarks about the future of this relationship between national and international law as well as the importance of a better understanding of the role of national judges.

Transparency versus Confidentiality in International Investment Arbitration – The Biwater Gauff Compromise

2007 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
August Reinisch ◽  
Christina Knahr
Keyword(s):  
International Investment ◽  
Amicus Curiae ◽  
Policy Issues ◽  
The Core ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Important Policy ◽  
Nafta Chapter 11

AbstractRecent years have seen a trend towards increasing transparency in international investment arbitration. This trend has been reflected in arbitral practice and in the amendments to the ICSID Arbitration Rules in 2006, which now expressly allow for participation of non-disputing parties as amicus curiae. Still more problematic, however, is the publication of arbitral documents, which has recently been controversial in Biwater Gauff v. Tanzania. This paper will discuss the core provisions on the publication of documents of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, the ICSID Arbitration Rules and NAFTA Chapter 11. It will analyze the reasoning and the findings of the Biwater Tribunal in this regard as well as the pertinent practice of previous investment tribunals. Important policy issues underlying the decision of the Biwater Tribunal will also be analyzed.

Influences on the Canadian FIPA Model and the US Model BIT: NAFTA Chapter 11 and Beyond

2007 ◽  
Vol 44 ◽  
pp. 249-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Céline Lévesque
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Investment ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
The Us ◽  
Nafta Chapter 11 ◽  
Systemic Nature ◽  
Domestic Law ◽  
Different Sources

SummaryIn recent years, Canada and the United States have modified their model bilateral investment treaties (BITs). If NAFTA Chapter 11 cases have provided the new lens through which investment issues are considered, the solutions to problems experienced in this context have come from different sources. This article explores three influences on the model BITs: the NAFTA Free Trade Commission's interpretation and statements, World Trade Organization law and cases, and US domestic law and principles. A range of interpretation issues is raised, from the effects of changes in wording in successive treaties, to the “transferability” of law across systems (international and domestic), to the use of arbitral awards as precedent. Issues of a systemic nature are also raised, including attempts at limiting the discretion of arbitral tribunals through state interpretations, the possibility of creating an appellate mechanism, and a push for expedited preliminary procedures. The article illustrates the fast-paced evolution of international investment law and highlights the influence of the United States on this evolution.

Investor-State Dispute Settlement under NAFTA Chapter 11: The Shape of Things to Come?

1998 ◽  
Vol 35 ◽  
pp. 263-290
Author(s):  
J. Anthony VanDuzer
Keyword(s):  
Free Trade Agreement ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Minimum Standards ◽  
The North ◽  
State Behaviour ◽  
Nafta Chapter 11 ◽  
To Come ◽  
The Right

SummaryRecently, there has been a proliferation of international agreements imposing minimum standards on states in respect of their treatment of foreign investors and allowing investors to initiate dispute settlement proceedings where a state violates these standards. Of greatest significance to Canada is Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which provides both standards for state behaviour and the right to initiate binding arbitration. Since 1996, four cases have been brought under Chapter 11. This note describes the Chapter 11 process and suggests some of the issues that may arise as it is increasingly resorted to by investors.

Diligentia quam in suis as a Technique for a Contextual Application of the Full Protection and Security Standard: Considering the Level of Development of Host States in International Investment Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 596-611
Author(s):  
Nitish Monebhurrun
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Foreign Investors ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Local Means ◽  
Security Standard ◽  
Maximum Protection ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Full Protection

With international investment law as the background to this study, the present article examines how the full protection and security standard can be construed from the perspective of developing states hosting foreign investments. The research delves into classical public international law to argue that the diligentia quam in suis rule can be used as a means of interpretation to strike a balance between foreign investors’ and developing states’ interests when construing the full protection and security standard. The rule provides that any expected due diligence from the state party is necessarily of a subjective nature. This means that developing host states must deploy their best efforts to offer maximum protection to foreign investors not on an in abstracto basis but as per their local means and capacity. Accordingly, the standard is presented as an adaptable and flexible one which moulds its contours as per the level of development of the host state. Such flexibility does not imply condoning states’ abuse and negligence. The article explains how the diligentia quam in suis rule enables a conciliation between the full protection and security standard and the host state's level of development while rationalising the standard's application to developing nations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document