9 Legitimacy and Governance Challenges

Author(s):  
Bonnitcha Jonathan ◽  
Skovgaard Poulsen Lauge N ◽  
Waibel Michael

The rapid growth of investment treaty arbitrations in often sensitive policy areas has focused public attention on the investment treaty regime. This chapter draws together several strands of the book to focus on two central debates about legitimacy and governance challenges facing the investment treaty regime. The first section considers the impact of investment treaties on national governance. It assesses criticisms that investment treaties unduly fetter democratic decision-making and discourage states from regulating in the public interest. The second section examines the legitimacy of investment treaty arbitration—the regime feature that has come under the closest scrutiny over the last decade. It assesses debates about transparency and consistency in investment treaty arbitration, its impact on the broader investment regime complex, the selection, identity, and alleged biases of arbitrators, as well as the lack of investor obligations.

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 985-1003
Author(s):  
Tracey L Adams

Given their positions of public trust, regulated professions are legally required to uphold ethical standards, and ensure that professional practice protects the public. Nonetheless, there is ample evidence that professionals do not always behave ethically. One proposed solution is greater organizational surveillance; however, research from a neo-Weberian perspective encourages scepticism about such arguments. Organizations may not only fail to stop professionals from violating ethical codes, but rationalizing organizations might actively encourage such violations in the name of efficiency. This article explores the impact of organizations and rationalization on professional misconduct through a mixed-methods study of professional engineers in Ontario, Canada. Findings suggest engineers are impacted by rationalization, and that those with less decision-making authority experience pressures discouraging practice in the public interest.


Author(s):  
Bonnitcha Jonathan ◽  
Skovgaard Poulsen Lauge N ◽  
Waibel Michael

This chapter surveys the impact of investment treaties on decision-making at the firm and government levels. The focus is on whether investment treaties’ influence on the decisions of firms and states leads to improvements in efficiency. The first section examines the ‘hold-up’ problem, which provides the most influential and coherent microeconomic justification for the inclusion of investment protection provisions in investment treaties. The second section explores the problem of ‘fiscal illusion’ in host state decision-making, which could result in ‘over-regulation’ of foreign investment in the absence of an investment treaty. The third section considers whether investment treaties solve problems of discrimination against foreign investors, as well as the possibility that investment treaties lead to discrimination in favour of foreign investors.


2006 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dawn W. Massey ◽  
Linda Thorne

This study investigates whether task information feedback (TIF) promotes 84 auditors' and accounting students' use of higher ethical reasoning, thereby increasing their tendency to consider the public interest in the resolution of ethical dilemmas. TIF is a type of feedback in which subjects are provided with guidance about the cognitive decision-making process they should use. In our experiment, subjects used higher ethical reasoning to resolve audit dilemmas after receiving TIF than they did before receiving TIF. Accordingly, our findings suggest that TIF is effective in promoting higher ethical reasoning and thus increasing the tendency of practicing and aspiring auditors to consider the public interest when resolving ethical dilemmas.


2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Geist

AbstractMany countries find their information and digital policies still dominated by traditional stakeholders, particularly the content industry, major telecom companies, and marketing groups, yet Canada has experienced a notable shift in perspective with a strong and influential public interest voice. This shift toward public interest and participation in the development of Canadian information and digital policies has led to legislation, regulation, and policy outcomes that once seemed highly unlikely. This Article seeks to better understand the changing role of the public in Canadian information and digital policymaking by framing the developments as an ongoing policy development process featuring a series of closely linked changes and responses. The emergence of public participation on information and digital policy issues occurred across a spectrum of issues, yet the traits were strikingly similar: grassroots efforts reliant on social media and the Internet to capture media and public attention and focus it on consumer perspectives, minimal interest from government and regulators; and initial dismissal giving way to hostility from incumbent stakeholders. The Article identifies some of the reasons behind the shift, including the growing importance of information and digital policies, the impact of digital advocacy tools, and the shifting policy pyramid in which users have now largely leapfrogged corporate interests as policy influencers. While the shift does not mean the public interest wins on every issue, it does suggest an important change in influence with long-term ramifications for the development of information and digital policy in Canada that others may seek to emulate.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Johanna McDavitt

<p>This paper aims to use the transparency debate within investment arbitration, and specifically the discussions of Working Group II when preparing the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency, as a lens to examine how the international community conceptualises investment arbitration. It will argue that investment arbitration is no longer viewed as a private system of dispute resolution akin to international commercial arbitration. Rather, the public interest, public international law, and regulatory nature of investment arbitration is increasingly coming to the fore. Accordingly, the consent of the parties is no longer at the heart of arbitral authority. This paper aims to identify what alternate theoretical conception of investment arbitration is driving transparency initiatives in investment arbitration.</p>


2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 583-600
Author(s):  
Chitransh Vijayvergia ◽  
Pavan Belmannu

Abstract While the regime of investment treaty arbitration has evolved manifold over the decades, has the position of the host-states as a Respondent improved? The authors argue that it has not. Bilateral Investment Treaties (hereinafter BIT(s)) are still asymmetrical in nature where the states are obliged to protect the rights of the foreign investors but are not provided with any remedy against the corrupt activities of the investors. While tribunals have denied jurisdiction over the investors’ claims tainted with corruption, they have provided states with no consequent remedy against such investors. Consequently, the states have to first bear the loss of a failed investment in its territory and then pay for the exorbitant costs of international arbitration as well. Where scholars are arguing for attribution of liability of corrupt activities of the public officials to the states, the authors here raise an important question of what if the liability cannot be attributed to the states due to lack of apparent authority? Should the states be then allowed to move forward from the jurisdictional stage to raise counterclaims to seek damages for the loss caused by the investors? In this article, the authors explore these questions and present arguments in favour of the inclusion of corruption-based counterclaims.


2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Behn ◽  
Malcolm Langford

Disputes involving an environmental component continue to be at the forefront of ongoing legitimacy debates in investment treaty arbitration. Critics of the international investment regime contend that arbitration favors the property rights of foreign investors over the need of host states to environmentally regulate and legislate in the public interest. While there is some doctrinal and anecdotal evidence to this effect, we ask whether investment treaty arbitration as a whole is as problematic for domestic environmental protection as has been perceived. With mixed method techniques, we analyze environmental cases in the context of five specific legitimacy concerns. Overall, we find that critiques of the system require nuance and clarification of the normative benchmarks for legitimacy assessments. In a number of important areas, the critiques do have purchase but in the aggregate, the most problematic cases are often successfully defended by respondent states.


Author(s):  
Bonnitcha Jonathan ◽  
Skovgaard Poulsen Lauge N ◽  
Waibel Michael

This chapter charts the rise of the global network of more than 3000 investment treaties and of investment treaty arbitration. Investors have used investment treaties to ask for compensation for a very wide range of government conduct. The chapter surveys the investment treaty regime and the investment regime complex. The regime consists of three main components: (i) investment treaties; (ii) the set of treaties, rules, and institutions governing investment treaty arbitration; and (iii) the decisions of arbitral tribunals applying and interpreting investment treaties. The growing role of investment treaty arbitration has made it highly controversial in both developed and developing countries, and has transformed the investment treaty regime from an obscure field of international law to a central part of the investment regime complex.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Johanna McDavitt

<p>This paper aims to use the transparency debate within investment arbitration, and specifically the discussions of Working Group II when preparing the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency, as a lens to examine how the international community conceptualises investment arbitration. It will argue that investment arbitration is no longer viewed as a private system of dispute resolution akin to international commercial arbitration. Rather, the public interest, public international law, and regulatory nature of investment arbitration is increasingly coming to the fore. Accordingly, the consent of the parties is no longer at the heart of arbitral authority. This paper aims to identify what alternate theoretical conception of investment arbitration is driving transparency initiatives in investment arbitration.</p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document