scholarly journals Legal Analysis of Supporting Methods of Foreign Investors in Nationalization and Property Confiscation

Author(s):  
Javad Sabih Maleki ◽  
Siamak Karamzadeh

Nationalization of foreign investor assets does not serve the interests of countries because it disrupts the economic security of states and ultimately leads to a reduction in foreign investment. Governments have sought to minimize investor nationalization and property confiscation in order to attract foreign investment. In the event of expropriation of a foreign investor, governments are required to compensate the investor. The position of customary international law on how to pay compensation and methods of assessing damages includes procedures based on national law, treaties and judicial decisions or arbitration. In order to support investors, it is necessary that the right to nationalize property and expropriation of investors should be very limited. Further, in case of nationalization, the damage must be compensated in a desirable and effective manner. The foreign investor must enjoy the same rights as domestic investors and at the same time have the right to transfer their capital and profits abroad. Appropriate measures should also be taken to amend national laws in order to consolidate and guarantee the ownership of foreign investors.

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shirley Ayangbah

<p>International Investment in recent times is seen as one of the fastest-developing areas of international law. In the past decades, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of bilateral investment treaties and other agreements with investment related provisions that grant foreign investors important substantive and procedural rights, including, most importantly, the right to sue individuals, organizations and even the state hosting their investment for violations of customary international law and treaty obligations. Dispute becomes an inevitable phenomenon as individuals, organizations and countries continue to engage in foreign investment and as such there is the need for dispute solving mechanism to resolve such disputes as and when they arises. Even though there are several dispute solving mechanisms, arbitration seems to be a well-established and widely used mechanism to end dispute probably due to the efficiency and flexibility nature of it. The laws governing arbitration differ from one country to the other and it is for this reason that investors need to be abreast with the different arbitration laws  so as to enable them make inform decisions as to whether to resort to arbitration  or not. This paper analyses the arbitration laws of The Republic of Ghana and Peoples Republic of China in a comparative manner by drawing on the similarities and difference with respect to arbitration laws and procedure in these two countries. The paper is divided into three parts. The first part of this paper gives a brief background as well as the characteristics of the concept of arbitration. The second part looks as the similarities and difference of arbitration between the selected countries, and the final part looks at the arbitration phase and post arbitration phase of the two countries.</p>


Jurnal Hukum ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 1833
Author(s):  
Rihantoro Bayu Aji

 AbstractActually the existence of foreign investment in Indonesia is not new phenomenon, due to foreign investment exist since colonialism era.The existence of foreign investment is still continuing to Soeharto era until reformation era. Spirit of foreign investment in colonialism era, Soharto era, and reformation era are different. Foreign investment in colonialsm era just explore of nation asset and ignore of nation welfare, and this matter is different from the character of foreign investment in Soeharto era also reformation era. Eventhough the involvement of foreign investor have any benefits to the host country, but on the other hand foreign investment have business oriented only whether the investment is secure and may result of profit. Refer to The Law Number 25 Year of 2007 Concerning Investment (hereinafter called UUPM) can not be separated from various interest that become of politic background of the law, even the law tend to liberalism of investment. Liberalism in the investment sector particularly of foreign investment basically exist far from issuing of UUPM, and the spirit of liberalism also stipulate in several rules among others The Law Number 5 Year of 1999 Concerning Prohibitation of Anti Trust and Unfair Competition, The Law Number 22 Year of 2001 Concerning Oil and Gas, The Law Number 7 Year of 2004 Concerning Water Resource, and also The Law Number 30 Year of 2009 Concerning Electricity.   Many rules as mentioned above has liberalism character and also indicator opposite wit the right to manage of the state to nation asset that relate to public interest as stipulated in the Indonesia Constitution. Actually the issuing of UUPM in case of implementation of article 33 Indonesia Constitution (UUD NRI 1945). Due to opportunity by Government to foreign investment as stipulate by article 12 UUPM and also the existence of many rules as well as The Law Number 5 Year of 1999 Concerning Prohibitation of Anti Trust and Unfair Competition, The Law Number 22 Year of 2001 Concerning Oil and Gas, The Law Number 7 Year of 2004 Concerning Water Resource, and also The Law Number 30 Year of 2009 Concerning Electricity, so the foreign investment that relate to public service is more exist in Indonesia. The existence is reflected many foreign companies. Free of foreign investment relate to public service is opposite with spirit of article 33 Indonesia Constitution. Keywords: Foreign Investment, Right of  State, Article 33 Indonesia Consitution AbstrakEksistensi penanaman modal asing (investasi asing) di Indonesia sebenarnya bukan merupakan fenomena baru di Indonesia, mengingat modal asing telah hadir di Indonesia sejak zaman kolonial dahulu.   Eksistensi penanaman modal asing terus berlanjut pada era orde baru sampai dengan era reformasi. Tentunya semangat penanaman modal asing pada saat era kolonial, era orde baru, dan era reformasi adalah berbeda. Penanaman modal asing pada saat era kolonial memiliki karakter eksploitatif atas aset bangsa dan mengabaikan kesejahteraan rakyat, hal ini tentunya berbeda dengan karakter penanaman modal asing pada era orde baru, dan era reformasi. Sekalipun kehadiran investor membawa manfaat bagi negara penerima modal, di sisi lain investor yang hendak menanamkan modalnya juga tidak lepas dari orientasi bisnis (oriented business), apakah modal yang diinvestasikan aman dan bisa menghasilkan keuntungan. Melihat eksistensi Undang–Undang Nomor 25 Tahun 2007 tentang Penanaman Modal (UUPM) tidak dapat dilepaskan dari beragam kepentingan yang mendasari untuk diterbitkannya undang–undang tersebut, bahkan terdapat kecenderungan semangat dari UUPM lebih cenderung kepada liberalisasi investasi. Liberalisasi pada sektor investasi khususnya investasi asing pada dasarnya eksis jauh sebelum lahirnya UUPM ternyata juga tampak secara tersirat dalam beberapa peraturan perundang–undangan di Indonesia. Perundang–undangan tersebut antara lain Undang–Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat, Undang–Undang Nomor 22 Tahun 2001 tentang Minyak Dan Gas Bumi, Undang–Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2004 tentang Sumber Daya Air, dan Undang–Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2009 tentang Ketenagalistrikan.Banyaknya peraturan perundang–undangan yang berkarakter liberal sebagaimana diuraikan di atas mengindikasikan bahwa hak menguasai negara atas aset bangsa yang berkaitan dengan hajat hidup orang banyak sebagaimana diamahkan oleh Undang–Undang Dasar 1945 (Konstitusi) mulai “dikebiri” dengan adanya undang–undang yang tidak selaras semangatnya. Padahal, UUPM diterbitkan dalam kerangka mengimplementasikan amanat Pasal 33 Undang–Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 (UUD NRI 1945). Dengan adanya peluang yang diberikan oleh pemerintah kepada investor asing sebagaimana yang diatur dalam Pasal 12 UUPM ditambah lagi dengan adanya Undang–Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat, Undang–Undang Nomor 22 Tahun 2001 tentang Minyak Dan Gas Bumi, Undang–Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2004 tentang Sumber Daya Air, dan Undang–Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2009 tentang Ketenagalistrikan, maka investasi asing yang berhubungan dengan cabang– cabang yang menguasai hajat hidup orang banyak semakin eksis di Indonesia. Terbukanya investasi asing atas cabang–cabang produksi yang menguasai hajat hidup orang banyak tentunya hal ini bertentangan dengan konsep hak menguasai negara sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 33 UUD NRI 1945. Kata Kunci: Investasi Asing, Hak Menguasai Negara, Pasal 33 UUD NRI Tahun          1945


Author(s):  
Gus Van Harten

Governments are rightly discussing reform of investment treaties, and of the powerful system of ‘investor–state dispute settlement’ (ISDS) upon which they rest. It is therefore important to be clear about the crux of the problem. ISDS treaties are flawed fundamentally because they firmly institute wealth-based inequality under international law. That is, they use cross-border ownership of assets, mostly by multinationals and billionaires, as the gateway to extraordinary protections, while denying equivalent safeguards to those who lack the wealth required to qualify as foreign investors. The treaties thus have the main effect of safeguarding an awe-inspiring set of rights and privileges for the ultra-wealthy at the expense of countries and their populations. This book shows how ISDS came to explode in a global context of extreme concentration of wealth and of widespread poverty. The history of early ISDS treaties is highlighted to show their ties to decolonization and, sometimes, extreme violence and authoritarianism. Focusing on early ISDS lawsuits and rulings reveals how a small group of lawyers and arbitrators worked to create the legal foundations for massive growth of ISDS since 2000. ISDS-based protections are examined in detail to demonstrate how they give exceptional advantages to the wealthy. Examples are offered of how the protections have been used to reconfigure state decision making and shift sovereign minds in favour of foreign investors. Finally, the ongoing efforts of governments to reform ISDS are surveyed, with a call to go further or, even better, to withdraw from the treaties.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 112-138
Author(s):  
D.A. FEDYAEV

In the Russian Federation, as in a number of other economically developed countries, there are legal restrictions on the admission of foreign investors to participate in commercial corporate organizations of strategic importance for national defence and state security. Failure by foreign investors to comply with this mechanism leads to the nullity of transactions and, as a consequence, to legal disputes, the subject of which are mainly restitution claims. There have been numerous problems and academic debates in recent court practice regarding the reasons and the possibility of satisfying such claims. In particular, in view of the changed circumstances after the conclusion of the contested transaction, the real public interest is not always visible pursued by the claim for application of consequences of its invalidity. The author proposes that in the course of judicial proceedings in such cases, when the defendant raises the relevant reasoned objections, not only to state the fact of violation of the law by a foreign investor, but also to reveal the public interest defended by the foreign investor. The author proposes that, in such cases, the defendant’s arguments should not be limited to stating that the foreign investor has breached the law. If one is not established, a claim may be dismissed under certain conditions, taking into account established doctrinal approaches to the understanding of the right of action.


2018 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Edward Guntrip

International investment law balances public and private interests within the broader framework of international law. Consequently, when water supply services, which constitute a public good, are privatized and operated by foreign investors, questions arise regarding whether foreign investors could be held responsible for the right to water under international law. This article considers how the tribunal in Urbaser v. Argentina allocated responsibility for compliance with the right to water between the host State and the foreign investor when resolving a dispute over privatized water services. It highlights how the tribunal in Urbaser v. Argentina supports different understandings of public and private based on whether the human rights obligation is framed in terms of the duty to respect or protect. The article argues that the tribunal’s rationale overcomplicates the process of allocating responsibility for violations of the human right to water when water supply services have been privatized.


2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (4) ◽  
pp. 156-162
Author(s):  
Andriy Samko ◽  
◽  
Dmуtrо Pilipenko ◽  

The article analyzes the peculiarities of applying a measure of procedural coercion in the form of detention in the criminal procedural legislation of the Republic of Belarus, as well as in the criminal process of Ukraine and the Republic of Kazakhstan. The positions of scientists in the field of criminal procedure, who conducted research on this issue, are analyzed. The key positions of the proceduralists regarding the basic regulatory aspects of the application of a preventive measure in the form of detention are considered. Attention is focused on the fundamental provisions of the functioning of the system of procedural compulsion and the application of a preventive measure in the form of detention in custody in particular. The analysis of the positions of the legislators of the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan and Ukraine regarding the issue of normative regulation of the procedure for applying a measure of procedural coercion in the form of detention is carried out. The authors of the article emphasize the key aspect of the preventive measure in the form of detention in the form of its extraordinary impact on the observance of human and civil rights and freedoms in criminal proceedings. This circumstance is especially relevant in respect of the right of participants in criminal proceedings to freedom and personal inviolability. In this regard, theoretical concepts are considered and the content of international law on this issue is analyzed. The practical feasibility and normative possibility of using other, more humane methods of influencing suspects accused in criminal proceedings are analyzed. The article focuses on the normative procedure for the application of bail as an alternative procedural measure of isolating a person during detention in the legislation of the above states. The article analyzes the procedural features of the normative regulation of the use of pledge in the legislation of Ukraine and the Republic of Kazakhstan. The author's position on these issues, as well as proposals for optimizing the criminal procedural legislation of the Republic of Belarus regarding the regulation of the use of detention are formulated.


Author(s):  
Ndjodi Ndeunyema

This article evaluates the existence of a freestanding, general human right to water under each of the three principal sources of international law: treaty, customary international law, and the general principles of law. To date, the right to water has been derived from treaty law, most prominently as part of the right to an adequate standard of living in article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (as implied by General Comment 15 to the ICESCR). The potential importance of a non-treaty based right to water––as a matter of customary international law or a general principle of law––is that it would bind all states, including states that are not parties to treaties with right to water provisions. Therefore, this article evaluates the state practice and opinio juris elements of custom supporting a right to water. Recognizing the disputed nature of how these two elements generally interact to crystallize into a customary norm, the article considers the problem using two distinct methodological approaches: the sliding scale approach and the reflective equilibrium approach. Finally, the paper considers whether a right to water is supported by the general principles of law. Although the right to water is not directly created by the general principles of law, the principles can nevertheless be applied to develop states’ positive and negative obligations for water provision.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 32-37
Author(s):  
Hulkar Azimova ◽  

This article describes the essence of foreign investment, the introduction of a comprehensive system of legal guarantees and benefits for foreign investors. The issues of strengthening the protection of the legitimate interests of investors in attracting foreign investment are also discussed.Keywords:investment project, investment commitment, investment policy, foreign direct investment, foreign investor rights, investment agreement, legal regime, investment visa


Author(s):  
Jure Zrilič

This chapter presents three legal frameworks which provide foreign investors protections against effects of armed conflict: the law of state responsibility for injuries to foreigners under customary international law, international humanitarian law, and international human rights law. Particularly influential were the customary rules on the treatment of aliens, shaped by the disagreements between developed and developing countries, and clarified through the case law of mixed claims commissions and arbitrations of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The chapter explains how the rules on protection of property in times of armed conflict have evolved, how they have been interpreted across different legal regimes, and discusses similarities and differences, thus setting the scene for the examination of investment treaty law in the subsequent chapters.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document