India’s BITs

Author(s):  
Prabhash Ranjan

Continuing on the discussion on the key features of Indian BITs from the previous chapter, this chapter studies the following provisions in India’s BITs and FTA investment chapters: expropriation; monetary transfer provisions; general exception clauses; and the investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions. Like chapter 4, this chapter will also discuss these provisions against the background of ISDS jurisprudence that has emerged on these four issues. The chapter demonstrates that these provisions in many treaties are worded broadly and the determination of the content is subject to arbitral discretion. These broadly worded treaty provisions, subject to arbitral discretion, fail to balance investment protection and host state’s right to regulate. India was primarily a ‘rule taker’ in international investment law because most of these provisions in Indian BITs are borrowed from the BITs of ‘capital exporting’ countries that followed the laissez faire liberalism model.

2021 ◽  

The law on the protection of foreign investments is situated at the crossroads of international law and diplomacy in the context of a globalized economy. It is therefore not surprising that investment law has undergone fundamental changes in the last decade. The exponential growth of arbitration cases has illustrated a number of complex legal and political issues that have called into question the efficiency and legitimacy of investor State dispute settlement (ISDS). Thus, even for experts in the field it is challenging to keep track with the rapid and fundamental changes of what is often described as one of the most dynamic fields of international law. Against this background, the present volume provides an ‘Evolution, Evaluation, and Future Developments in International Investment Law’. World leading academics and practitioners shed light on the most important developments such as the evolution of investment law and its relationship to general international law, the practical importance of State contracts, the role of investment protection in the age of climate change, and current reform projects under the auspices of ICSID and UNCITRAL. The volume is based on six keynote speeches held at the 10 Year Anniversary Conference of the International Investment Law Centre Cologne.


2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 437-484
Author(s):  
Marc Bungenberg ◽  
August Reinisch

The Investment Chapter of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) can be seen as an unofficial blueprint of future EU Investment Agreements and Chapters. It was developed under immense public pressure and had to fulfil multiple conditions resulting from the EU constitutional framework. This contribution highlights the political and juridical background of EU investment policy, and then analyses the most significant new approaches in international investment law - both with regard to substantive standards and investor-State dispute settlement - as exemplified in the CETA. With regard to the substance, it can be witnessed that states are more proactive in defining investment protection standards, leaving less discretion for adjudicators. With regard to dispute settlement, the EU managed to introduce a completely new Investment Court System (ICS) with preselected adjudicators and an appellate mechanism. In light of all these developments, this article argues that we are currently facing a complete change of paradigms in EU investment law, heading towards the EU’s long-term goal of establishing a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC).


2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Oisin Suttle

Abstract What role should concerns about distributive justice play in international investment law? This paper argues that answers to fundamental and contestable questions of social and global distributive justice are a necessary, if implicit, premise of international investment law. In particular, they shape our views on the purpose of investment law, and in turn determine the scope of authority that investment law can claim, and that states should accord it. The implausibility of achieving international consensus on these questions constitutes a substantial objection to the harmonization of investment law or the consistent operation of a multilateral investment court.


Author(s):  
Martin Dixon ◽  
Robert McCorquodale ◽  
Sarah Williams

This chapter begins by defining international economic law. It then discusses the main international economic institutions: the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. It goes on to elaborate on the key principles of international trade law: tariffication, binding tariffs, most favoured nation treatment and the national treatment obligation and discusses exceptions to these principles, anti-dumping and subsidies, regional trade arrangements, and developing States and dispute settlement within the WTO. The chapter also discusses the key principles of international investment law (including foreign direct investment, protection standards, expropriation and dispute settlement); the international financial architecture; and international economic law and State sovereignty.


2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 353-368
Author(s):  
Lorenzo Cotula

Abstract Investment contracts are an important part of the web of legal relations that underpin investment processes. They raise complex doctrinal issues, including with regard to their interface with public international law. The two books under review are part of a new surge in academic writing about investment contracts, in a field that is currently dominated by concerns about investment treaties and treaty-based arbitration. In this review essay, I explore the intersections between investment contracts and international law, engaging with the arguments presented in the two books and developing reflections based on trends in the wider literature. After situating the contract in academic and policy debates about international investment law, I compare the different approaches the two books embody – in relation to their scope, focus and format as well as the ways in which they conceptualize and piece together the multiple commercial and public interests at stake in investment contracting. I then discuss one theme that features prominently in both books – namely, the legal contours of investment protection, particularly in connection with stabilization clauses – and I examine its articulation with public regulatory powers. I conclude by outlining areas that deserve further exploration in scholarly work on investment contracts and international law.


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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 513-552 ◽  
Author(s):  
Velimir Živković

Abstract Promoting the rule of law is a potentially strong legitimating narrative for international investment law. Illustrating the interlinkage, the ubiquitous ‘fair and equitable treatment’ (FET) standard embodies distinctly rule of law requirements. But these requirements remain open-textured and allow understanding their meaning in either more ‘international’ or ‘national’ way. An ‘international’ understanding – detached from the host State’s vision on how the rule of law should look like – should remain dominant. But I argue that decision-making under the FET standard should also involve a systematic engagement with how these requirements would be understood in the host State’s law and how they were complied with from that perspective. Whilst not determinative for establishing a breach, this assessment better respects the expectations of the parties, strengthens the persuasiveness of findings and helps enhance the national rule of law as a key contributor to the ultimate goal of investment protection – economic development.


2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-318
Author(s):  
Dilini PATHIRANA

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document