Bilateral Investment Treaties: History, Policy and Interpretation. By KENNETH J VANDERVELDE * The Law of Investment Treaties. By JESWALD W SALACUSE * Calculation of Compensation and Damages in International Investment Law. By IRMGARD MARBOE

2011 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 328-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Orakhelashvili
2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Joseph Thaliath

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.


2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 139-158
Author(s):  
Andrea Gattini

Issues concerning the temporal scope of jurisdiction of international investment arbitration tribunals are attracting increased attention due to recent events, such as the denunciation of the icsid Convention by some states, the denunciation of bilateral investment treaties from which the tribunals draw their jurisdiction, or the provisional application of other treaties concerning investment protection. The solutions offered by most arbitral tribunals are in line with international customary rules on the law of treaties, a point which deserves attention as further proof of the cohesiveness of international investment law with public international law.


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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 122-131
Author(s):  
Sarah M. Alshahrani

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 558-594
Author(s):  
Alperen Afşin Gözlügöl

Abstract Umbrella clauses have sparked one of the great debates in international investment law as regards their proper construction. This article argues that a particular line of reasoning and interpretation appears to be unduly focusing on the effects of such clauses in the process of construing them. In other words, what seems to occur in the interpretation of umbrella clauses is that some tribunals, frightened by the far-reaching consequences, construe such clauses more narrowly. I call this phenomenon ‘adverse effects analysis’ and demonstrate that it is inconsistent with the proper construction of umbrella clauses in accordance with the rules of interpretation in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). In this course, the effects of umbrella clauses in practice are also put forward along with an analysis of them under ‘manifest absurdity or unreasonableness test’ pursuant to Article 32(b) of VCLT.


2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 890-917 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sufian Jusoh ◽  
Muhammad Faliq Abd Razak ◽  
Mohamad Azim Mazlan

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.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jörn Griebel

Property protection is provided by national law as well as international law. The study seeks for an explanation regarding the divergent approaches to the protection of shareholders in cases of reflective loss provided for in German constitutional law and various fields of public international law. This is done by way of a comparison of the German approach with those found in the law of aliens, in the European Convention on Human Rights and under international investment law. This results in the finding that approaches of international law partly fail to establish the necessary bonds to recognized concepts of national law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document