Investment Treaties and the Legal Imagination

Author(s):  
Nicolás M. Perrone

Foreign investors have a privileged position under investment treaties. They enjoy strong rights, have no obligations, and can rely on a highly efficient enforcement mechanism: investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS). This extraordinary status has made international investment law one of the most controversial areas of the global economic order. Unsurprisingly, its origin and evolution have been the subject of a long debate. This book adds to the discussion by showing that foreign investor rights are not the result of unpredicted arbitral interpretations, but rather the likely outcome of a world-making project realized by a coalition of business leaders, bankers, and their lawyers in the 1950s and 1960s. Some initiatives that these norm entrepreneurs planned for did not concretize, such as a multilateral investment convention, but they were successful in developing a legal imagination that gradually occupied the space of international investment law. They sought not only to set up a dispute settlement mechanism but also to create a platform to ground their vision of foreign investment relations. Tracing their normative project from the post-World War II period, this book shows that the legal imagination of the norm entrepreneurs is remarkably similar to present ISDS practice. Common to both is what they protect—such as foreign investors’ legitimate expectations—as well as what they silence or make invisible. Our canon of imagination, of adjustment and potential reform, remains closely associated with the world-making project of the norm entrepreneurs of the 1950s and 1960s.

Author(s):  
Nicolás M. Perrone

The final chapter summarizes how investment treaties and ISDS increase the calculability of foreign investors to the detriment of states and local communities, shaping foreign investment relations more generally. This outcome is the result of the standards included in investment treaties, as interpreted by ISDS tribunals, as much as the silencing of specific issues and actors in these arbitrations. For the legal imagination that dominates international investment law, the chapter shows, what is excluded is as important as what is protected. The book concludes by highlighting how current discussions about reforming investment treaties and ISDS are also embedded in this dominant imaginary. The lesson to be learned from the norm entrepreneurs of the 1950s and 1960s is that ideas alone are not enough to transform the rules governing the global economy.


2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (37) ◽  
pp. 67-82
Author(s):  
Bader Bakhit M AlModarra

Abstract The ability of foreign investors to sue host states without reliance on diplomatic protection is one of the most important developments in international investment law in the post-World War II era. The rise of investor-state dispute settlement under international regimes like the Convention Establishing the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID Convention) raises some concerns from states regarding loss of sovereignty. However, there are defences available to states when they intervene in their economies for purposes like public utility or the need to safeguard an essential interest. Thus in spite of treaty commitments that bind states to protect the investments of foreign investors within their domains, there are available defences for their intervention in their economies even if such interventions become inimical to the interests of foreign investors and could, prima facie, raise the possibility of infringements of the rights of foreign investors. One of such defences available to states is the principle of necessity. This article explores the principle of necessity in international law and how it operates as a defence for states in investor-state dispute settlement. It also conducts analysis of the Annulment Decision in the CMS v Argentina case to shed light on the principle of necessity.


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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-58
Author(s):  
Rafael Tamayo-Álvarez

AbstractTrade-based money laundering (TBML) is a major concern in Colombia, where criminal organisations employ under-invoicing to conceal drug-trafficking proceeds. In response, Colombia imposed a compound tariff on certain Panamanian importations that were considered linked to this phenomenon. Alleging that the policy measure infringed Colombia’s tariff concessions, Panama activated the World Trade Organisation (WTO) dispute settlement mechanism. The dispute revolved around Article II:1 of the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade 1994. Colombia argued that this norm should be interpreted as to encompass licit trade only. Colombia looked for normative support in the investment treaty regime by establishing a parallel between undervalued imports and illegal investments. Therefore, just as investment treaty tribunals abstain from extending international legal protection to illegal investments, the WTO adjudicating bodies should not extend tariff concessions to importations linked to TBML activities. This article contends that by transplanting a more favourable doctrine of legality from the investment treaty regime to the multilateral trade regime, Colombia engaged in strategic regime shifting. Accordingly, drawing on regime complexes analysis, the article argues that by considering development a common issue-area, it is possible to articulate strategic connections between both regimes.


2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian Arato

AbstractThis Article argues that investment treaties subtly constrain how nations organize their internal systems of private law, including laws of property, contracts, corporations, and intellectual property. Problematically, the treaties do so on a one-size-fits-all basis, disregarding the wide variation in values reflected in these domestic legal institutions. Investor-state dispute settlement exacerbates this tension, further distorting national private law arrangements. This hidden aspect of the system produces inefficiency, unfairness, and distributional inequities that have eluded the regime's critics and apologists alike.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Livia Costanza

<p>The subject of this dissertation is the relationship between the protection of foreign investors' investments under international investment law and the domestic law of host states. Two questions arise in this connection. First, is the promotion and protection of investments comprised in investment agreements compatible with states' domestic law? Second, public policies of host states may appear to be in contradiction with an increased international security of investments. When such a conflict is challenged by foreign investors, what are the consequences for both parties? In general, investments are transactions that are private in nature, whose aim is to generate a positive rate of return. Investments can have pervasive consequences on countries' welfare, including, for example, the consequences on sustainable development; the use and protection of natural resources; and employment, to name a few. It is the role of the governments to balance these sometimes conflicting public and private interests. As of today, it seems that the regime established according to investment treaties does not strike an appropriate balance between the various interests concerned. After a brief look at the legal framework protecting foreign investments, the conflict areas between investment treaty provisions and domestic public policies of host states are explored through an empirical analysis of some case studies and recent arbitrations. Finally, this dissertation holds that, at a substantive level, investment law is a part of international law. Thus it must be consistent with its norms and it has to be interpreted in accordance with customary rules of treaty interpretation. The dissertation concludes by suggesting the creation of a state-investor relationship and advocates, in part, the establishment of development objectives in investment treaties as well as the inclusion of rights and obligations for all parties involved.</p>


Author(s):  
Gabriela Belova ◽  
◽  
Gergana Georgieva ◽  
Anna Hristova ◽  
◽  
...  

Although in the last years the international community has adopted a broad approach, the definition of foreign investors and foreign investments is still very important for the development of international investment law. The nationality of the foreign investor, whether a natural person or legal entity, sometimes is decisive, especially in front of the international jurisdictions. The paper tries to follow the examples from bilateral investment agreements as well as from multilateral instrument such as the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Convention. An important case concerning Bulgaria in past decades is also briefly discussed. The authors pay attention to some new moments re-developing the area of investment dispute settlement within the context of EU Mixed Agreements, especially after the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement.


Author(s):  
Stephan W. Schill ◽  
Vladislav Djanic

In contemporary discourse, international investment law and investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) are often perceived as threats to community interests in one-sidedly protecting foreign investors and undermining public policies that are to the benefit of the local population and the international community. The chapter promotes a different perspective. First, it argues that international investment law properly construed can be conceptualized as protecting community interests, because it is part of the legal infrastructure necessary for the functioning of the global economy under a rule of law framework. Aimed at supporting economic growth, this helps further economic and noneconomic community interests, including sustainable development. Second, the chapter argues that international investment law and ISDS do not turn a blind eye to the conflicts that can arise between economic and noneconomic community interests, such as environmental protection or human rights. Instead, international investment law and ISDS have numerous mechanisms at their disposal for alleviating tensions with noneconomic community interests.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Livia Costanza

<p>The subject of this dissertation is the relationship between the protection of foreign investors' investments under international investment law and the domestic law of host states. Two questions arise in this connection. First, is the promotion and protection of investments comprised in investment agreements compatible with states' domestic law? Second, public policies of host states may appear to be in contradiction with an increased international security of investments. When such a conflict is challenged by foreign investors, what are the consequences for both parties? In general, investments are transactions that are private in nature, whose aim is to generate a positive rate of return. Investments can have pervasive consequences on countries' welfare, including, for example, the consequences on sustainable development; the use and protection of natural resources; and employment, to name a few. It is the role of the governments to balance these sometimes conflicting public and private interests. As of today, it seems that the regime established according to investment treaties does not strike an appropriate balance between the various interests concerned. After a brief look at the legal framework protecting foreign investments, the conflict areas between investment treaty provisions and domestic public policies of host states are explored through an empirical analysis of some case studies and recent arbitrations. Finally, this dissertation holds that, at a substantive level, investment law is a part of international law. Thus it must be consistent with its norms and it has to be interpreted in accordance with customary rules of treaty interpretation. The dissertation concludes by suggesting the creation of a state-investor relationship and advocates, in part, the establishment of development objectives in investment treaties as well as the inclusion of rights and obligations for all parties involved.</p>


2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 1015-1040 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luke Nottage

This essay reviews two books suggesting how international investment law may be recalibrated to balance the interests of foreign investors and host states. Poulsen’s book draws mainly on empirical research to argue that developing states displayed ‘bounded rationality’ when rushing to sign up to investment treaties incorporating pro-investor protections, such investor-state arbitration. Although mainly descriptive, it sketches potential reforms of the investment treaty system to achieve a more rational balance in favour of host states. By contrast, drawing on doctrinal analysis but with a keen awareness of the institutional underpinnings of international investment law and arguably analogous fields, the book by Henckels focuses on what arbitrators and commentators can do to extend a tendency to interpret substantive protections even within existing investment treaties in a more balanced way. She urges more consistent application of multi-layered ‘proportionality’ analysis, combined with principled ‘deference’ to regulatory decision-making by host states.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document