1 A Global Regime for Investment

Regime Theory ◽

World War ◽

Global Regime ◽

Investment Treaties ◽

The Stability ◽

This chapter begins with an introduction to investment treaties, often referred to as international investment agreements (IIAs), and the building of a global regime for investment since the end of World War II through the negotiation of such treaties. It sets out the definition and types of IIAs. It then discusses the significance of investment treaties; the application of regime theory to investment treaties; regime challenges and prospects; and factors that will foster the stability and continued growth of the investment regime. The chapter also describes the aim and scope of the book and gives a brief summary of the contents of following chapters.

1 A Global Regime for Investment

The Law of Investment Treaties ◽

10.1093/law/9780198850953.003.0001 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Salacuse Jeswald W

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Foreign Investment ◽

Bilateral Investment Treaties ◽

International Regime ◽

Global Regime ◽

Investment Treaties ◽

This chapter provides an overview of investment treaties. Investment treaties, often referred to as ‘international investment agreements’ (IIAs), are essentially instruments of international law by which states (1) make commitments to other states with respect to the treatment they will accord to investors and investments from those other states, and (2) agree to some mechanism for enforcement of those commitments. A fundamental purpose of investment treaties, as indicated by their titles, is to protect and promote investment. International investment treaties consist principally of three types: (1) bilateral investment treaties, commonly known as ‘BITs’; (2) bilateral economic agreements with investment provisions; and (3) other investment-related agreements involving more than two states. The chapter then considers the significance of investment treaties and argues that together they constitute an international regime for foreign investment.

Part II Guide to Key Preliminary and Procedural Issues, 6 Aspects of Procedure for Institution of Proceedings and Establishment of Tribunals in Investment Treaty Arbitration

10.1093/law/9780198758082.003.0006 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Kostadinova Milanka

Keyword(s):

Chamber Of Commerce ◽

Trade Law ◽

International Trade Law ◽

Investment Treaty ◽

Investment Treaties ◽

International Chamber Of Commerce ◽

Investment Agreements ◽

Investment Treaty Arbitration

The institution of treaty-based proceedings in a particular forum or under particular set of arbitration rules depends on the consent provisions of the underlying investment treaty. Some 767 arbitration cases have been initiated so far under the total of 3,324 bilateral investment treaties and other international investment agreements signed to date. This chapter provides an overview of the technical and fairly complex procedures for initiating proceedings and constituting tribunals in investment treaty arbitration. It examines the prevalent practices from the perspective of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Dispute (ICSID) Convention and Rules, and other leading sets of international arbitration rules such as the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Arbitration Rules, the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce, and the Arbitration Rules of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, which are among the non-ICSID Rules more commonly referenced in investment treaties.

MFN Standard as Substantive Treatment

10.5771/9783845299020 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Mira Suleimenova

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Third Party ◽

International Investment Law ◽

History Of ◽

Investment Law ◽

Investment Treaties ◽

Investment Agreements ◽

Comprehensive Study

‘Most favoured nation’ (MFN) treatment is an integral part of virtually all modern investment regimes. MFN clauses in international investment agreements signal to investors that a given state protects them from discrimination; however, in practice, enforcing such guarantees may be challenging. This book represents a comprehensive study on how ‘most favoured nation’ treatment operates as a substantive standard of international investment law. Starting with a history of the development of the concept in international law, the author provides an overview of existing state practices in negotiating MFN clauses in bilateral and international investment treaties. Finally, the work analyses the ability of MFN treatment clauses to prevent de facto discrimination and allow for the ‘import’ of third-party substantive protections in international investor state arbitration. Dr Mira Suleimenova, LL.M. is an international investment lawyer based in Vienna, Austria.

Ending International Investment Agreements: Russia's Withdrawal from Participation in the Energy Charter Treaty

AJIL Unbound ◽

10.1017/aju.2017.103 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 111 ◽

pp. 461-466 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Tania Voon ◽

Andrew D. Mitchell

Keyword(s):

Legal Framework ◽

Investment Protection ◽

Energy Charter Treaty ◽

Recent Developments ◽

Investment Treaties ◽

Process Energy ◽

When states withdraw from bilateral investment treaties or denounce multilateral treaties related to foreign investment, a range of intersecting questions arise in domestic and international law. Recent developments have demonstrated potential incongruities between domestic and international approaches to investment protection, including as regards the effectiveness of withdrawal and the implications for existing investments. This essay reflects on international and domestic disputes involving the withdrawal of the Russian Federation from participation in the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) to highlight these interactions. These issues have become particularly pertinent today because more than 1,500 international investment agreements (IIAs) are nearing expiry of their initial term, providing an opportunity for termination. Moreover, some states have begun to terminate or denounce investment treaties, while many more are engaging in a process of renegotiation and reform. The Russian case study also highlights the potentially far-reaching effects of a state simply signing a treaty, even many years after the state has expressed its decision to withdraw from it, and notwithstanding tensions with the domestic legal framework.

Multinational Enterprises and Investment Treaties

10.1093/law-iic/9780198809722.016.0005 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Feldman Mark

Keyword(s):

Global Economy ◽

Multinational Enterprises ◽

First Century ◽

Production Networks ◽

International Production ◽

Economic Reality ◽

Investment Treaties ◽

Over the past few decades, a few thousand international investment agreements have been concluded. One cornerstone of those treaties has been a straightforward model of foreign investment: an investor based in a home state that has made an investment located in the territory of a host state. Under that model, treaty protections operate reciprocally, protecting the investments of each treaty party’s nationals made in the territory of another treaty party. That model, however, often does not capture current economic reality. Foreign investments by multinational enterprises routinely involve multiple jurisdictions in which inputs are traded and through which capital is channeled. The reliance by multinational enterprises on international production networks and transit investment has challenged the reciprocal foundation of investment treaties. This chapter responds to that risk by developing strategies for policymakers and decision makers to preserve the reciprocal foundation of investment treaties in a twenty-first-century global economy.

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES OF THE MODERN RISK SOCIETY: SOCIO-CULTURAL, ECONOMIC AND LEGAL ASPECTS ◽

LEGAL PROBLEMS OF INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES AS A FACTOR OF FINANCIAL ENSURING BUSINESS SAFETY

10.46489/caotm-21042612 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 122-131

Author(s):

Oleksandr Bryhinets ◽

◽

Anastasiia Kovalova ◽

Keyword(s):

Host State ◽

Legal Problems ◽

The Subject ◽

Judicial Authority ◽

Investment Treaties ◽

Private Investors ◽

The Right ◽

International investment disputes between states arise in connection with different interpretation and application of the provisions of international investment treaties and agreements. As the matter of fact, such disputes also appear from violations of the provisions of international investment agreements that may prejudice the rights of foreign private investors. Since a dispute arises from a violation of investor rights, most modern investment treaties provide for the right of investors to submit a dispute to an independent arbitration or judicial authority. Investment disputes between the host state and the investor, mostly, come from the violation of international investment treaties that may become the subject of an interstate dispute only by mutual consent of the host state and the investor state.

The Republic of Ghana and Bilateral Investment Treaties: A Burgeoning Expert?

ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal ◽

10.1093/icsidreview/siaa008 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Gracious Avayiwoe

Keyword(s):

Current Status ◽

Bilateral Investment Treaties ◽

Investment Treaty ◽

Pan African ◽

Investment Treaties ◽

The Republic ◽

Abstract In this note, I categorize and review the bilateral investment treaties (BITs) concluded by the Republic of Ghana. I identify the current status of Ghana in the BIT sphere as being that of neither a novice nor a fully-fledged expert. The country is, nevertheless, progressively exhibiting some level of innovation and negotiation influence. Notwithstanding, all generations of its BITs remain very broad in scope, and, also, share laconic and vaguely-worded provisions. Furthermore, contemporary models of international investment agreements (IIAs) as contained in Ghana’s latest BIT—the earlier generations having lacked such innovations—is not as robust as those in emerging IIAs of Africa. Towards sustainability and systemic coherence of the BITs and the new African IIA paradigm, Ghana, certainly, needs to reform its existing BITs and reorient its future investment treaty practice. In the interim, I propose the Pan-African Investment Code (PAIC) as the benchmark.

Effecting Consistency in Investor-State Dispute Settlement Through the Introduction of Precedent in a Multilateral Investment Court

Zeitschrift für europarechtliche Studien ◽

10.5771/1435-439x-2021-4-663 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 24 (4) ◽

pp. 663-682

Author(s):

Afolabi Adekemi

Keyword(s):

Rule Of Law ◽

Turning Point ◽

Dispute Settlement ◽

Current System ◽

Legal Standards ◽

Investment Law ◽

Investment Treaties ◽

In recent years, the current Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system has been a subject of reform discussions triggered by several factors, amongst which includes the lack of consistency in ISDS decisions commonly rendered by arbitration tribunals. This undesirable fact places the current ISDS system in conflict with essential rule of law values such as stability, reliability, predictability, and equality - which inevitably diminish the legitimacy of the current system. Undeniably, the un-uniform investment treaties underlying ISDS decisions is a valid justification for divergent outcomes, however, the recognition that a majority of investment treaties share similar if not identical legal standards also makes the argument for consistent ISDS decisions legitimate and in fact necessary to foster the harmonious development of investment law across the network of identical treaty standards. To this end, the use of “precedent” is critical in achieving the aforesaid goal. Notably, albeit informally, the use of precedent is already a recognised practice in ISDS, yet inconsistent decisions persist. As a turning point, this article advocates that consistency in ISDS decisions can be best achieved through the “formal introduction of a system of precedent”, in “a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC)”, which is possible without jeopardizing the inherent differences contained in International Investment Agreements (IIA).

6 The Interpretation of Investment Treaties

The Law of Investment Treaties ◽

10.1093/law/9780198850953.003.0006 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Salacuse Jeswald W

Keyword(s):

Vienna Convention ◽

Investment Treaty ◽

Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽

Two Factors ◽

Treaty Interpretation ◽

Investment Treaties ◽

Equitable Treatment ◽

This chapter discusses the interpretation of investment treaties. Treaty interpretation is never easy, but the task of interpreting investment treaties is rendered particularly difficult by two factors: first, the generality and vagueness of many of the terms used in their texts, such as ‘fair and equitable treatment’, ‘full protection and security’, and ‘expropriation and measures tantamount to expropriation’ which reasonable persons may interpret differently. Although investment treaties have not traditionally defined these terms, some of the more recent international investment agreements, perhaps influenced by disputed arbitral decisions, have sought to provide more or less detailed definitional provisions for the often-contested important terms they employ. The second interpretational difficulty arises from the factual and legal complexity of the investment transactions and relationships to which investment treaties are applied. As a result of these complexities, arbitral tribunals and lawyers must devote significant effort and time to give meaning to words that at first glance appear simple but usually are not. The chapter then provides guidance on treaty interpretation. The basic rules of investment treaty interpretation are found in Articles 31, 32, and 33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT).

Investor Rights under EU Law and International Investment Law

The Journal of World Investment & Trade ◽

10.1163/22119000-12340021 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 17 (6) ◽

pp. 895-918 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Mavluda Sattorova

Keyword(s):

Eu Law ◽

Economic Rights ◽

International Investment Law ◽

Investment Protection ◽

History Of ◽

Investment Treaties ◽

Primary Focus ◽

Are investors entitled to the same level of protection under investment treaties and EU law? This article will examine some of the principal differences and overlaps in the level and scope of protection which foreign investors can enjoy under intra-EU international investment agreements (IIAs) and EU law. The primary focus of analysis will be on key substantive protection standards which intra-EU IIAs offer and their counterparts in EU law. Comparative analysis of intra-EU investment treaties with EU rules on investment protection offers a fresh opportunity to revisit the origins and history of international investment agreements, trace their recent transformation and analyse their interactions with other international and supranational rules to which investors can also resort to protect their economic rights vis-à-vis host states.