The Constructive Role of General Principles in International Arbitration

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 455-498
Author(s):  
Brianna Gorence
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Private Law ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Equitable Treatment ◽  
Unique Application

AbstractIn international arbitration, treaty standards, such as fair and equitable treatment (FET), general procedural norms, such as due process, and excuses for suspension of performance, such as the exceptio defense, draw on general principles of international law to clarify their interpretation and application. This article will (1) show what general principles of international law are, how they form and how they are distinct from general principles in domestic, public and private law systems; (2) illustrate their role with specific attention to their unique application in different international law contexts; (3) use the examples of FET, procedural norms and suspension of performance to show how general principles of international law are used in international arbitration; (4) warn against their inattentive, sloppy or haphazard use and application; and (5) ultimately highlight the benefits of incorporating general principles in international arbitration while proposing a precise methodology for their use.

Fair and Equitable Treatment in International Investment Agreements

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roland Kläger
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Due Process ◽  
International Investment ◽  
General Character ◽  
Minimum Standard ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Equitable Treatment ◽  
Investment Agreements

Fair and equitable treatment is a central norm in international investment law. This norm is contained in the vast majority of international investment agreements as one of the main standards for the protection of foreign investors. Historically, international investment agreements contained short and general clauses of fair and equitable treatment, which were formulated either as free-standing provisions with a reference to general international law, or to the international minimum standard of customary international law. Especially since the first decade of the 21st century, drafting approaches to fair and equitable treatment became increasingly diverse and generated complex and elaborate clauses seeking to address the different elements of the norm that have developed over time. The drafting approaches reflect the long-standing controversies with regard to fair and equitable treatment and the question of whether this concept is to be constructed in accordance with the international minimum standard or as an independent and self-contained standard possibly exceeding customary international law. Both concepts have remained vague and have created difficulties in the interpretation of fair and equitable treatment, which due to its general character became a prominent cause of action in investor-state arbitration proceedings. The evolution of arbitral jurisprudence stimulated the emergence of different elements of fair and equitable treatment, including the protection of the investor’s legitimate expectations, the protection against discrimination and arbitrary treatments, and the principles of due process, denial of justice, and transparency. The increasing number of cases on the basis of fair and equitable treatment also led to concerns and criticism that a far-reaching concept of the norm would threaten the host states’ sovereignty and their right to regulate, as well as the principle of sustainable development. These concerns and the fact that a growing number of investment disputes were brought against developed countries motivated first the North American Free Trade Agreement member states and subsequently other states and the European Union to adapt their international investment agreements in order to try to concretize the concept of fair and equitable treatment and to limit the discretion of arbitrators. The concept of fair and equitable treatment has also received considerable attention by scholars who propose a variety of different approaches to the interpretation of the norm and the balancing of the conflicting private and public interests at stake.

Fair and Equitable Treatment: Echoes of FDR's Court-Packing Plan in the International Law Approach Towards Regulatory Expropriation

2006 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 231-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Kantor
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Due Process ◽  
International Investment ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Procedural Due Process ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Substantive Due Process ◽  
Equitable Treatment ◽  
The U.S

AbstractIn this article, the author compares U.S. Constitutional law addressing "regulatory takings," including substantive due process, with analogous international investment law reviewing regulatory expropriations. Many of the concepts underlying the U.S. approach towards substantive due process appear in discussions of the meaning of international investment law protections, particularly the "Fair and Equitable Treatment" (F&ET) obligation. The article first reviews direct efforts by the U.S. Government to harmonize U.S. Constitutional practice and international law with respect to regulatory expropriations. It then considers how the U.S. substantive due process and procedural due process approaches towards regulation of property interests compare with the developing body of F&ET decisions and commentary concerning regulatory conduct of a host State.

Features of ILM for the 1960's

1969 ◽  
Vol 8 (I1) ◽  
pp. xi-xii
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Military Force ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
National Courts ◽  
The Developed Countries

The contents of ILM for the period from 1962 to 1969 reflect several significant developments: (1) the entry on the international scene of many new countries and their establishment of relations with the developed countries, particularly in the fields of commerce and trade and of investment; (2) the prevalence of armed conflict and the use of military force in the unsettled conditions resulting from the decolonization process and from continued antagonisms between the superpowers; (3) the pervasive role of international organizations, both global and regional, general and specialized; and (4) the continued predominance of national courts in the judicial consideration of questions of international law and the shift from general to specialized tribunals in the resolution of disputes by international arbitration and adjudication.

Enkev Beheer BV (of the Netherlands) v. Republic of Poland

ICSID Reports ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 630-648
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
The State ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Waiting Period ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Just Compensation ◽  
Default Rules ◽  
Equitable Treatment ◽  
Almost All

630Procedure — Addition of a party — Conditional application — UNCITRAL Rules, Article 22 — UNCITRAL Rules, Article 17 — Whether the UNCITRAL Rules or lex loci arbitri allowed for applications to be made conditional on a tribunal’s future decision — Whether the application was consistent with the State’s procedural rights — Whether the amendment to a claim under Article 22 of the UNCITRAL Rules allowed for the addition of a third party as claimantJurisdiction — Investment — Shares — Whether an investor’s shares and rights derived from those shares were protected investments under the BITJurisdiction — Investment — Assets of subsidiary — Whether profits, goodwill or know-how of a local subsidiary constituted investments of the investor protected by the BITJurisdiction — Consent — Cooling-off period — Premature claims — Whether the investor had communicated its own claims rather than those of its local subsidiary — Whether the investor’s failure to comply with a waiting period of six months under the BIT required a tribunal to deny jurisdiction or admissibility — Whether the negotiation of a local subsidiary’s dispute in good faith was relevant to jurisdiction over a foreign investor’s claimsInterpretation — Cooling-off period — VCLT, Article 31 — Object and purpose — Whether the object and purpose of the BIT required a tribunal not to adopt a strict or formalistic interpretation of the waiting period of six monthsRemedies — Declaratory award — Interpretation — Just compensation — Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction under the BIT to make a declaratory award on the interpretation and application of the term “just compensation”Jurisdiction — Dispute — Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction under the BIT to advise the parties of an imminent disputeExpropriation — Direct deprivation — Shares — Rights derived from shares — Whether the State directly deprived the investor of its rights as a shareholder in its local subsidiaryExpropriation — Indirect deprivation — Shares — Rights derived from shares — Whether the shares had lost all or almost all significant commercial value — Whether the measures were adopted in the public interest — Whether due process had been followed — Whether there were any undertakings by the StateExpropriation — Interpretation — “Just compensation” — Whether there was any difference between the terms of the BIT and general international law — Whether the meaning of just compensation could be determined in the abstract631Fair and equitable treatment — Whether the impending expropriation constituted a breach of the standard of fair and equitable treatment — Whether the claim concerned the investor’s rights derived from sharesFull protection and security — Whether the State failed to protect an investment from expropriation by local authorities — Whether the claim concerned the investor’s rights derived from sharesUmbrella clause — Whether there was any assurance directed at the investor that created any legal obligations — Whether the claim concerned the investor’s rights derived from sharesCosts — Arbitration costs — Variation by agreement — UNCITRAL Rules — Whether the terms of the BIT varied the default rules for the allocation of arbitration costs

Deutsche Bank AG v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka

ICSID Reports ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 446-484
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
The State ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Responsibility Attribution ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Host State ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Municipal Law ◽  
Equitable Treatment ◽  
Debt Recovery

446Jurisdiction — Investment — Derivative transactions — Interpretation — Claims to money used to create an economic value — Claims to money associated with an investment — Whether a hedging agreement constituted an investment under the BITJurisdiction — Investment — Territorial requirement — Derivative transactions — Whether a hedging agreement satisfied the condition of territorial nexus to the host StateJurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Interpretation — Derivative transactions — Salini test — Contribution to economic development — Regularity of profit and return — Whether a hedging agreement constituted an investment — Whether all five elements of the Salini test were legal criteria for an investment under ICSID jurisdictionJurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Interpretation — Derivative transactions — Ordinary commercial transaction — Contingent liability — Whether a hedging agreement was an ordinary commercial transaction or a contingent liabilityJurisdiction — Contract — State-owned entity — Municipal law — Whether a hedging agreement was void because the transaction was outside a State-owned entity’s statutory authorityState responsibility — Attribution — Judicial acts — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 — Whether a superior court was an organ of the host StateState responsibility — Attribution — Central bank — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 — Whether a central bank was an organ of the host StateState responsibility — Attribution — State-owned entity — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 5 — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 8 — Whether a State-owned entity was an organ of the State — Whether actions of a State-owned entity were attributable to the State as an exercise of governmental authority — Whether a State-owned entity was acting under instructions or the direction and control of the StateFair and equitable treatment — Judicial acts — Due process — Interim order — Political motive — Whether court orders violated the standard of fair and equitable treatment — Whether public statements of a senior judge evidenced the political motive of court ordersFair and equitable treatment — Autonomous standard — Interpretation — Minimum standard of treatment — Whether the standard of fair and equitable treatment was materially different from customary international law447Fair and equitable treatment — Government investigation — Due process — Bad faith — Transparency — Whether a central bank’s investigation violated the standard of fair and equitable treatmentExpropriation — Indirect expropriation — Contract — Derivative transaction — Substantial deprivation — Debt recovery — Municipal law — Whether the subsistence of a contractual debt and the possibility to claim under the chosen law of a third State prevented a finding of expropriation — Whether the possibility of recovery in a third State was to be assessed as a prerequisite in the cause of action of expropriation or as a matter of causation and quantumExpropriation — Indirect expropriation — Contract — Substantial deprivation — Legitimate regulatory authority — Proportionality — Whether an interference with contractual rights was an exercise of the host State’s legitimate regulatory authority — Whether the regulatory measures were proportionateRemedies — Damages — Causation — Contract — Debt recovery — Whether the claimant suffered damages if it had the possibility to recover a contractual debt in the courts of a third StateCosts — Indemnity — Egregious breach — Bad faith — Whether the egregious nature of the host State’s breaches of its international obligations meant the claimant was entitled to full recovery of its costs, legal fees and expenses

Part II The International Law Framework of Investment Protection and Political Risk, 6 The Substantive Law of Contemporary International Investment Protection

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rubins Noah ◽  
Papanastasiou Thomas-Nektarios ◽  
Kinsella N Stephan
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Transition Economy ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Investment Treaties ◽  
Substantive Law ◽  
Equitable Treatment ◽  
National Investment ◽  
Domestic Law

Investors increasingly rely on the substantive protections provided in a growing number of investment treaties. This chapter covers the modern international law of investment protection as embodied in multilateral and bilateral investment treaties, including principles such as fair and equitable treatment, and full protection and security. The substantive protections investment treaties described in this chapter are often echoed in the national investment laws of developing and transition-economy countries. In particular, many recent national investment codes place limitations on the State’s authority to expropriate foreign assets, sometimes granting rights superior to those provided at customary international law. International investment treaties also guarantee proper application of domestic law by government authorities, national treatment, repatriation of profits, compensation for breach and other standards of treatment.

Discovery Rights and the Arctic

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 387-407
Author(s):  
Daniel Schwartz
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Territorial Rights ◽  
The Many ◽  
Original Acquisition

AbstractThis article examines whether discovery could, contrary to common philosophical opinion, be taken seriously as a ground of territorial rights. I focus on the discovery of uninhabitable lands such as found in the Arctic. After surveying the role of discovery in Roman private law and modern international law, I turn to Locke's well-known theory or original acquisition. I argue that many of the justifications that do the work in Locke's theory also apply to discovery. I then discuss some of the many reasons why discovery may seem unpromising as a ground of original acquisition. I close by arguing that if there is a bridge mechanism by which property can legitimately transform into territory and if, at least in some circumstances, discovery can produce property rights, then it would follow that in some circumstances discovery could also produce territorial rights.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document