scholarly journals Ethiopia’s Bilateral Investment Treaties and Environmental Protection; The Need of Re-Negotiation for Corporate Responsibility

Global Jurist ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ayalew Abate
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Foreign Investment ◽  
Corporate Responsibility ◽  
International Perspective ◽  
Environmental Responsibility ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaties ◽  
The Status ◽  
Investment Treaties

Abstract This article argues that the bulk of the bilateral investment treaties (BITs) that Ethiopia has ever concluded, to regulate its bilateral foreign investment relations, don’t contain an environmental provision that require investing corporations to discharge responsibility towards environment and there is a pressing call for either to re-negotiate, update or engage in concluding of environmental side agreements (ESA). To substantiate the argument the trends of BIT making is assessed, the status of Ethiopian BITs have been evaluated through content analysis, environmental responsibility of Ethiopia has been examined both from domestic and international perspective, relevant reasons for the regulation of environment in foreign investment through BIT have been discussed and justifications for the need to renegotiate, update or make ESA in Ethiopia have been highlighted.

China's International Investment Strategy

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Development Strategy ◽  
Foreign Investment ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Investment Strategy ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaties ◽  
Open Door Policy ◽  
Outward Fdi ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaties

The phenomenal story of China’s ‘unprecedented disposition to engage the international legal order’ has been primarily told and examined by political scientists and economists. Since China adopted its ‘open door’ policy in 1978, which altered its development strategy from self-sufficiency to active participation in the world market and aimed at attracting foreign investment to fuel its economic development, the underlying policy for mobilizing inward foreign direct investment (IFDI) remains unchanged to date. With the 1997 launch of the ‘Going Global’ policy, an outward focus regarding foreign investment has been added, to circumvent trade barriers and improve the competitiveness of Chinese firms, typically its state-owned enterprises (SOEs). In order to accommodate inward and outward FDI, China’s participation in the international investment regime has underpinned its efforts to join multi-lateral investment-related legal instruments and conclude international investment agreements (IIAs). China began by selectively concluding bilateral investment treaties (BITs) with developed countries (major capital exporting states to China at that time), signing its first BIT with Sweden in 1982. Despite being a latecomer, over time China’s experience and practice with the international investment regime have allowed it to evolve towards liberalizing its IIAs regime and balancing the duties and benefits associated with IIAs. The book spans a broad spectrum of China’s contemporary international investment law and policy: domestic foreign investment law and reforms, tax policy, bilateral investment treaties, free trade agreements, G20 initiatives, the ‘One Belt One Road’ initiative, international dispute resolution, and inter-regime coordination.

scholarly journals Corporate Responsibility in the Environmental Protection as an Element of Public-Private Partnership in Ukraine

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 118-126
Author(s):  
Anatoliy Kostruba
Keyword(s):  
Social Responsibility ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Corporate Responsibility ◽  
Research Area ◽  
Public Private Partnership ◽  
The State ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Environmental Responsibility ◽  
Private Partnership ◽  
Business Entities

Individual and corporate responsibility is the basis for sustainable development of society and the world. Environmental responsibility of business entities is a prerequisite for the survival of people, which is why it is an important aspect of corporate responsibility. The purpose of the paper is to determine the content of corporate and social responsibility of business entities in the field of environmental protection in terms of its interaction with the state on the basis of public-private partnership. The general scientific method of comparison made it possible to compare the Ukrainian legislative base on environmental protection with the legal framework of regulation and practice in foreign countries. Through the structural and functional analysis, it was possible to consider the features of the interaction between the state and business structures and between other institutions the activities of which are related to environmental protection. The analysis revealed the necessity to consider and include elements of environmental and social responsibility of business in the mechanisms of public-private partnership. The study shows that public-private partnership is an imperative element in the composition of social responsibility. The author proposes a definition of environmental responsibility that encompasses three factors: legal, economic and social. In the future, this research area will be of interest as a comparison of the legislative support of the types of responsibility for foreign and international standards in the context of implementing the relevant standards in the Ukrainian legislative framework and their implementation on practice.

A Critical Analysis of the Protection of Investment Act 22 Of 2015

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindelwa Beaulender Mhlongo
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Foreign Investment ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaties ◽  
Current Form ◽  
Foreign Investors ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Investment Treaties

In 2010, South Africa reviewed its foreign investment legal framework and during this process, it terminated most of its bilateral investment treaties. For a period, there was no piece of legislation that dealt with the regulation of investment in South Africa and investors had to comply with commercial laws. To solve this problem, South Africa introduced the Investment Act in 2015 aimed at regulating both domestic and foreign investment within its territory. In light of the above, the questions central to the article are whether the Investment Act in its current form balances the rights and obligations of foreign investors and that of host states. If not, what can be added or deleted from the Investment Act in order to balance these two competing rights? The article first looks at why South Africa terminated the bilateral investment treaties. It then compares the Investment Act with the SADC FIP to ascertain if the Investment Act is aligned with the sub-regional standard of foreign investment protection. Finally, recommendations are made which include suggested amendments to improve the Investment Act.

The agreement terminating intra-EU BITs: are its provisions on ‘New’ and ‘Pending’ Arbitration Proceedings compatible with investors’ fundamental rights?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gordon Nardell QC ◽  
Laura Rees-Evans
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaties ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
The Status ◽  
Investment Treaties

Abstract On 5 May 2020, 23 Member States of the EU signed a plurilateral treaty with the purpose of terminating the nearly 130 Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) between them (the so-called ‘intra-EU BITs’) and the 11 sunset clauses that continue in effect in intra-EU BITs that have already been terminated. The treaty, entitled the ‘Agreement for the Termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties Between the Member States of the European Union’, marks the beginning of the next—but by no means the final—chapter in the controversy over the status of intra-EU BITs. In this article, we examine one of the many important legal questions raised by the Agreement; namely, whether its attempt to undercut arbitrations commenced well before the Agreement came into force, including those resulting in awards rendered before the Achmea judgment, is compatible with investors’ rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. We argue that by purporting to deprive investors of the fruits of valid claims in this way, the Agreement infringes Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR (‘A1P1’) and may also breach the rights of access to justice and a fair hearing under Article 6(1) (and their equivalents in the Charter).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document