International Investment Agreements, 2015–2016

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Coleman Jesse ◽  
Johnson Lise ◽  
Sachs Lisa ◽  
Gupta Kanika
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Codes Of Conduct ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
The Right ◽  
Investment Agreements ◽  
The Eu

This chapter considers developments in 2015 and 2016 that illustrate trends and features in recent treaty drafting. It first discusses the expanded awareness of, and interest in, the investment regime that has emerged in recent years, followed by the role of ratification in the context of investment treaty drafting and policy. It then discusses four drafting trends: (1) constraining investor access to dispute settlement and limiting arbitral discretion; (2) better protecting the right to regulate; (3) establishing investor obligations; and (4) introducing codes of conduct for decision makers in investment disputes. Finally, the chapter provides a brief overview of new provisions regarding the conduct and qualifications of arbitrators, including a glimpse at the EU proposal for a multilateral court.

scholarly journals Constitutionality of the Colombia-France Bilateral Investment Treaty

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 (3) ◽  
pp. 471-478
Author(s):  
Rafael Tamayo-Álvarez
Keyword(s):  
International Investment ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Adverse Impacts ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
The Government ◽  
Benefits And Costs ◽  
Investment Agreements ◽  
Practical Implications

In a judgment issued on June 6, 2019 (Judgment), the Colombian Constitutional Court (Court) examined the constitutionality of the Agreement for the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments between Colombia and France (Agreement). The Court upheld the constitutionality of the Agreement on the condition that the government adopt a joint interpretative statement with France to clarify some of its provisions and prevent interpretations contrary to the Colombian constitutional order. In doing so, the Court articulated a standard of review that takes into account the benefits and costs of international investment agreements (IIAs), the application of which entailed an insightful examination of the Agreement in light of the decisions of investment tribunals. The judgment raises significant issues of public international law, including the practical implications of conditioning ratification of the Agreement on adoption of a joint interpretative statement and the role of such statements in the interpretation of IIAs. Furthermore, the judgment makes important contributions to the ongoing process of reform of the investment treaty regime and the strategies adopted by states to counter the adverse impacts of IIAs on regulatory autonomy.

An Overview of Sri Lanka’s Bilateral Investment Treaties: Status Quo and Some Insights into Future Modifications

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-318
Author(s):  
Dilini PATHIRANA
Keyword(s):  
Sri Lanka ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Global Context ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Agreements

AbstractSri Lanka is the first country against which a foreign investor has had recourse to international arbitration based on the dispute settlement clause in a bilateral investment treaty (BIT). This was the case of AAPL v. Sri Lanka. Since then, the country has been challenged twice before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), while its latest encounter was in the case of Deutsche Bank AG v. Sri Lanka. In the intervening years between these two cases, Sri Lanka maintained silence and failed to alter its BITs in a global context where the conventional attitude on international investment agreements (IIAs) is being increasingly reconsidered. This paper provides an overview of Sri Lanka’s BITs, which highlights the urgency of reconsidering the country’s investment treaty-making practice. It suggests some modifications to align the country’s investment treaty-making practice with international investment law (IIL) developments.

Civil Society and International Investment Arbitration

2020 ◽  
pp. 303-327
Author(s):  
Nathalie Bernasconi ◽  
Martin Dietrich Brauch ◽  
Howard Mann
Keyword(s):  
Civil Society ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Public Law ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
International Investment Agreements

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.

The Scope of Application of EU (Model) Investment Agreements

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 402-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Bungenberg
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Sovereign Wealth Funds ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Agreements ◽  
The Eu

The contribution examines the personal and material scope of application of future eu International Investment Agreements. Therefore the notions of 'investor' and 'investment' are discussed. The scope of application of iias is one of the most important issues in investment law, as it determines the application of material standards as well as the possibility of investor state dispute settlement. On a comparative basis, the chapter examines the eu approach to this issue. Also the coverage of State owned Enterprises as well as Sovereign Wealth Funds is paid specific attention to. Especially the draft investment chapter of the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (ceta) is taken as a first orientation for possible wording and structure as well as intention of the scope of application of future eu iias.

The Public Interest Safeguards in Arbitration in Ghana

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 677-696
Author(s):  
Dominic Npoanlari Dagbanja
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Public Institutions ◽  
The Public ◽  
Critical Scholarship ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
Regulatory Measures ◽  
Investment Agreements

Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) claims mostly challenge public interest regulatory measures. This has led to efforts to reform international investment agreements (IIAs), with some states terminating them. Orthodox capital protection-centred scholarship maintains support for IIAs, claiming they are necessary to attract investment for development. Policy space-centred critical scholarship rejects or is critical of IIAs saying their limitations on regulatory autonomy are unjustifiable because private capital alone cannot lead to development. An assessment of public interest safeguards in public-private arbitration in national constitutions and statutes is missing in this scholarship. Accordingly, I analyse the constitutional foundations of public-private arbitration in Ghana and show that in conformity with the constitutional role of public institutions, arbitration legislation safeguards the public interest. Therefore for Ghana and similarly placed African states to retain their right to regulate, arbitral tribunals must respect and uphold the protections accorded the public interest constitutionally and in arbitration legislation.

The Role of Amici Curiae in Light of Recent Developments in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Legitimizing the System?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Crina Baltag
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Group Iii ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
New Generation

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.

scholarly journals International Investment Agreements, Human Rights, and Environmental Justice: The Texaco/Chevron Case From the Ecuadorian Amazon

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 455-468 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorenzo Pellegrini ◽  
Murat Arsel ◽  
Martí Orta-Martínez ◽  
Carlos F Mena
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Environmental Rights ◽  
Environmental Liabilities ◽  
Playing Field ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
Investment Agreements ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanisms

Abstract The Texaco/Chevron lawsuit, which started in November 1993 and is still being litigated in 2020, is a prominent example of the process of judicialization of environmental conflict. The Ecuadorian plaintiffs claim that the oil company’s operations generated ruinous impacts on the environment and on the development prospects and health of nearby individuals and communities. The tortuous and lengthy judiciary process was further hindered by an arbitration process, an Investor–State Dispute Settlement mechanism nested in the Ecuador—United States Bilateral Investment Treaty. The significance of the case goes beyond the specifics of Ecuador and provides further arguments fuelling the protracted legitimacy crisis experienced by International Investment Agreements. The current praxis of Investor–State Dispute Settlement mechanisms is generating an asymmetrical system, protecting the interest of investors, and intruding into the space of human and environmental rights. These issues are resonating with social movements, activist scholars and policy makers who are reacting to the vulnerabilities engendered by International Investment Agreements through multipronged strategies. These asymmetries provide ammunition to resist the signing of new International Investment Agreements, support the inclusion of human and environmental rights safeguards in International Investment Agreements, and contribute to the rationale of pre-empting extractive projects that are likely to produce severe environmental liabilities. Some of the potential ways in which a somewhat more level playing field can be created include, in addition to denouncing investment agreements, transforming Investor–State Dispute Settlement mechanisms towards a format that can also accommodate the complaints of affected communities or enacting moratoria on extraction projects that are prone to adverse socioenvironmental impacts. Both strategies could prove to be productive avenues towards the achievement of justice.

Human Rights and International Investment Agreements: How to Bridge the Gap?

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 457-483
Author(s):  
Sheng Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
International Investment ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Investment Agreements ◽  
Rule Making

Abstract Although an increasing number of bilateral investment treaties (BITs) now incorporate the concept of sustainable development, direct reference to human rights is still rare and remains embryonic. A close look at the positions held by some representative groups and countries, including the European Union (EU), the USA, China, India, South Africa, and Mercosur, reveals that the reference to human rights features divergence. The divided positions held by these groups or countries reveal the difficulties of operationalizing human rights obligations into international investment rule making. Even among developed countries or economies, a consistent approach to human rights is yet to be found. Based on these observations, this article proposes a number of pragmatic solutions to bridge the gap between these divided positions. In order to synergize international investment treaty regimes on human rights, internal engagement, including the reform of BIT dispute settlement regimes, and external engagement, including dialogues among stakeholders, should be made.

scholarly journals The Role of Proportionality in International Investment Law and Arbitration: A System-Specific Perspective

2020 ◽  
Vol 89 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 471-491
Author(s):  
Eric De Brabandere ◽  
Paula Baldini Miranda da Cruz
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Investment ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Uniform Approach ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Agreements

Abstract In this article, we examine the place of proportionality and related tests in international investment law and arbitration by looking specifically at the challenges faced by this field on applying proportionality coherently and consistently. We also assess where proportionality has been used in international investment law and arbitration. We argue that a sound appreciation of proportionality in international investment law requires taking into account the inherently imbalanced conception of international investment agreements, the incoherence of the international investment law regime, and the ad hoc dispute settlement method tasked with applying and interpreting a variety of imprecise and diverging norms. Therefore, international investment law and arbitration have not developed an institutionalised approach towards proportionality. Since investment agreements and international investment arbitration form a rather incoherent collective of cases and, as a result, have not developed a single or uniform approach towards proportionality, there is a tendency to individually approach cases.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document