Investment treaties and national sovereignty: latest developments

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Karas ◽  
Katarína Brocková
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Qualitative Content Analysis ◽  
International Investment ◽  
National Sovereignty ◽  
Content Type ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Previous Generation ◽  
Nation States ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaties

Purpose The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, it identifies the latest trends in investment treaty making and determines the degree to which these trends affect the regulatory space of nation states. Second, it situates the conflict between investment protection and national sovereignty on the level of investment treaties within the wider theoretical framework of the debate between neoliberalism and neorealism in the field of international relations. Design/methodology/approach This research paper uses qualitative content analysis of international investment treaties with the aim of comparing a sample of new investment treaties with a sample of treaties from a previous generation. Findings The findings of the paper indicate that the language of investment treaties signed recently tends to promote greater regulatory space for the nation states compared to previous generation of treaties. However, the analysis also suggests that the changes still offer significant leeway to investment tribunals in interpreting the new treaty language, which could mean that the move towards greater national sovereignty in international investment law will not be as significant as many suggest. Originality/value Originality of the paper consists mainly in explicit connection it makes between international investment law and the debate between neorealism and neoliberalism in international relations theory.

What Should We Know About the Origins of International Investment Law?

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 122-131
Author(s):  
Sarah M. Alshahrani
Keyword(s):  
Ottoman Empire ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Arab Countries ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaties ◽  
The Impact

AbstractInternational investment law, particularly the global backlash against investment treaties, has evolved recently. This article aims to clarify how international investment law evolved over history, from the early Arab traders in the 7th century to the Ottoman Empire, to understand its hidden aims. It investigates the practice of signing investment treaties, which appear first during the Fatimid Caliphate2 and Mamluk Sultanate3 periods. It then explains when control over foreign investment started to diminish during the Ottoman Empire period.4 Further, it explains the links between the USA Friendship, Commerce and Navigation treaties (FCNs), and current investment treaties, explaining the impact of colonization and imperialism on drafting treaty provisions. Within this historical context, this article illustrates the need to understand the roots of international investment law in order to urge Arab countries to terminate or renegotiate current bilateral investment treaties (BITs) as a number of developing and developed countries have done.

Malaysia and Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Learning From Experience

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 890-917 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sufian Jusoh ◽  
Muhammad Faliq Abd Razak ◽  
Mohamad Azim Mazlan
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Direct Investment ◽  
Direct Investment ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Learning From Experience ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaties

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.

Globalization-Driven Innovation: The Investor as a Partial Subject in Public International Law

2014 ◽  
pp. 73-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tillmann Rudolf Braun
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Intrinsic Nature ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Actual Nature ◽  
Corn Products ◽  
The Status ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaties

Given the current state of development of international investment law, it is surprising that, to date, neither the actual nature of the investor’s rights resulting from investment treaties, nor the possible consequences which arise for the investor, the states and international law, have been sufficiently defined. This is all the more astounding as the intrinsic nature and the possible limits of the investor’s rights are not only of theoretical interest, they are also decisive for the resolution of many substantial practical problems as well as for the positioning of international investment law within public international law. Furthermore, recent arbitration rulings concerning the fundamental question of whether the investor’s rights are of a direct, a derivative or a contingent nature, Archer Daniels (2007), Corn Products (2008) and Cargill (2009), demonstrate diametrically differing approaches. In this article, the author shows that neither the procedural nor material rights of the investor are simply derived from the home state but are – in clear contrast to the model of diplomatic protection – in fact to be understood as individual direct rights. The investor is elevated to the status of a (partial) subject in international law. Of course, the states are, and remain, the ‘masters of the treaties’ and can correct or even revoke them at any time with prospective effect. However, as long as investment treaties confer distinct rights on the investor, arbitral tribunals and states have to recognize these direct rights and the states must also accept that they can also be applied against them. The direct rights paradigm has varied and remarkable consequences for the investor, the states and modern public international law.

scholarly journals Bilateral Investment Treaties and Sovereignty: An Analysis with Respect to International Investment Law

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Joseph Thaliath
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Present Situation ◽  
Economic Globalization ◽  
International Investment ◽  
International Level ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaties ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaties ◽  
Market Relations

International law as a governing institution, has gained prominence, with the advent of globalization. This is of specific relevance for the governance of state-market relations. Nowhere has this been as pronounced as in the international investment regime. Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) have today become some of the most potent legal tools underwriting economic globalization. These are established through pacts, which have to be adhered to, through all stages of performance of the treaty. This paper argues against the shift of bilateral investment treaties (BIT) from a pro-sovereign, to a pro-investor approach. It does so by explaining the present situation of bilateral investment treaties while pointing out their disadvantages. The basic idea of a BIT is questioned in order to understand its purpose and examines its failure in achieving the same. The partial approach towards the investors by the tribunals, is frowned upon and the lack of justifications and defenses on the part of the state is reviewed. Modest suggestions on improving this situation are provided by using cases decided by tribunals at an international level, taking up the example of Argentina.

Africanisation of international investment law for sustainable development: challenges

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-64
Author(s):  
Emmanuel T. Laryea ◽  
Oladapo O. Fabusuyi
Keyword(s):  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Critical Infrastructure ◽  
Free Trade Area ◽  
International Investment ◽  
African Countries ◽  
Member States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Promotion ◽  
Investment Law

Purpose The purpose of this study is to critically examine the move to Africanise international investment law (IIL) aimed at promoting sustainable development on the continent. Design/methodology/approach The study analyses the move by African countries to “Africanise” IIL by incorporating specific and innovative provisions and features in their international investment agreements (IIAs) for the benefit of African economies. This is evidenced by provisions in African regional investment instruments such as the 2007 Common Market of Eastern and Southern Africa Investment Agreement and the 2008 Economic Community of West African States Supplementary Act on Investments produced by the different African regional economic communities (RECs), new-generation IIAs such as the 2016 Nigeria-Morocco IIA and the China-Tanzania IIA and the African Union’s Pan-African Investment Code 2016. The common features of these instruments include linking the objective of investment promotion and protection to sustainable development; excluding portfolio investments; including provisions on investor-obligations; and reserving wide scope of regulatory space for host-states, including the ability to take emergency measures without incurring liability to investors. Some of these provisions are rare in IIAs. Findings The study finds that, while the efforts are commendable, there are real challenges. Firstly, there are inconsistencies in the regimes existing on the continent due to differences in the contents of the international investment instruments promulgated by the different RECs, and also differences in the content of IIAs signed by some member-states of the RECs with countries external to the RECs. Secondly, there are governance gaps and a lack of enforcement in practice, which would undermine the effectiveness of the laws being forged. Thirdly, the Africanised IIL alone would not attract investment if other important determinants, such as critical infrastructure, remain lacking. Fourthly, there is under-representation of Africa in the arbitral institutions that develop and enrich the laws, which, if it continues, would undermine the effectiveness of the Africanisation provisions being included in IIAs. Research limitations/implications While the research discusses both law and policy, more is discussed of the law, owing to space limitation. Practical implications It is anticipated that this research will impact the content of the investment protocol under the African continental free trade area and beyond and will prompt review of existing and future IIAs by member states of the various RECs to align them for consistency. It is also hoped that this research will impact the review of various investment instruments of the RECs with the aim of harmonising them. It is further hoped that this research would contribute to addressing the challenges that militate against the achievement of the goals of Africanising ILL for sustainable development. Originality/value The study is original. It has not been published previously and the authors have found no existing publication that addresses the issues covered in this study.

MFN Standard as Substantive Treatment

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mira Suleimenova
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Third Party ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
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.

Transnational Public Policy as an International Practice in Investment Arbitration

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 496-515
Author(s):  
Jean-Michel Marcoux
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Foreign Investors ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Investment Law

Abstract International investment arbitration tribunals have used the doctrine of transnational public policy to prevent claimants whose investments are tainted with illegality from obtaining redress. Whereas tribunals generally have the authority to apply transnational public policy when deciding a claim, they have often assumed rather than demonstrated the obligation for foreign investors to comply with the doctrine. This article proposes an interdisciplinary account that draws upon ‘international practices’ in International Relations theory to understand the normative pull toward this obligation. It does so by shedding light on tribunals’ general lack of consideration for a proper legal basis to impose an obligation on foreign investors to comply with transnational public policy. It then suggests that the normativity of the doctrine primarily rests on a practice that is reproduced and reinforced by tribunals themselves. Understanding transnational public policy as an international practice ultimately illustrates the role of tribunals to reform international investment law.

scholarly journals The Private Law Critique of International Investment Law

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian Arato
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Legal Institutions ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaties ◽  
Do So

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.

Intertwined paths of globalization and international investment law

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-99
Author(s):  
Agata Ferreira
Keyword(s):  
Legal Framework ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Global Network ◽  
Content Type ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Holistic Understanding ◽  
Global Connections ◽  
History Of ◽  
Evolutionary Trajectories ◽  
Investment Law

Purpose International investment law has become a powerful tool of global economic governance. With its global network of international investment treaties and effective arbitration mechanism, it has made an extraordinary leap from a relatively niche and underrated area of international law to one of the most prominent legal regimes. This paper aims to illustrate how the evolutionary trajectories of globalization and international investment law have been intertwined. Design/methodology/approach This paper follows the historical unfolding of international investment law against the background of the globalization phenomenon, tracing the history of globalization processes since the expansion of European interests and export of capital and the onset of the international investment legal framework. Findings The evolution of globalization and international investment law has always been intertwined and co-dependent, experiencing similar phases of acceleration, transformation, adjustment and progress. This paper finds that the current era of globalization is characterized by an increasing complexity and diversity of transnational interests and global connections; this is also true for international investment law, which is undergoing changes aimed at including wider contexts and interests in international investment relations. Originality/value The analysis contributes to a more holistic understanding of the interdependence of these two phenomena, helping to explain how international investment law has become such a powerful, globally recognized and applied legal regime.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document