scholarly journals THE FOREIGN INVESTORS AND NATIONALITY CONCEPT UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriela Belova ◽  
◽  
Gergana Georgieva ◽  
Anna Hristova ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Foreign Investors ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Investment Agreements ◽  
Mixed Agreements ◽  
The Eu

Although in the last years the international community has adopted a broad approach, the definition of foreign investors and foreign investments is still very important for the development of international investment law. The nationality of the foreign investor, whether a natural person or legal entity, sometimes is decisive, especially in front of the international jurisdictions. The paper tries to follow the examples from bilateral investment agreements as well as from multilateral instrument such as the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Convention. An important case concerning Bulgaria in past decades is also briefly discussed. The authors pay attention to some new moments re-developing the area of investment dispute settlement within the context of EU Mixed Agreements, especially after the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement.

scholarly journals Regulatory autonomy and regulatory chill in Opinion 1/17

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurens Ankersmit
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Public Interests ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Negative Effect ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Agreements ◽  
The Eu

This article analyses the aspect of the Court’s reasoning in Opinion 1/17 that focuses on the regulatory autonomy of the Parties to the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) to decide on levels of protection of public interests. The European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) introduction of regulatory autonomy under EU law coincides with the wider debate around ‘regulatory chill’ under international investment law. This article finds the ECJ’s concept of regulatory autonomy to be narrower than that of the regulatory chill hypothesis put forward by critics of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). It further analyses the ECJ’s reasoning that the CETA’s investment tribunals do not have jurisdiction to call into question the levels of protection sought by the EU. In so doing, it will critically evaluate the certainty of the ECJ’s promise that there will be no negative effect on public interest decision-making through CETA’s investment chapter. Finally, it will explore the legal consequences of Opinion 1/17 for future awards and investment agreements.

A Paradigm Change: The CETA Investment Chapter

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 437-484
Author(s):  
Marc Bungenberg ◽  
August Reinisch
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Court System ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Agreements ◽  
The Eu

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).

The Scope of Application of EU (Model) Investment Agreements

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 402-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Bungenberg
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Sovereign Wealth Funds ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Agreements ◽  
The Eu

The contribution examines the personal and material scope of application of future eu International Investment Agreements. Therefore the notions of 'investor' and 'investment' are discussed. The scope of application of iias is one of the most important issues in investment law, as it determines the application of material standards as well as the possibility of investor state dispute settlement. On a comparative basis, the chapter examines the eu approach to this issue. Also the coverage of State owned Enterprises as well as Sovereign Wealth Funds is paid specific attention to. Especially the draft investment chapter of the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (ceta) is taken as a first orientation for possible wording and structure as well as intention of the scope of application of future eu iias.

Round-Tripping in International Investment Law: A Teleological Assessment

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 459-501
Author(s):  
Marc-Antoine Couet
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Investment ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Domestic Capital ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Comprehensive Framework ◽  
Investment Agreements

Abstract This article addresses the issue of round-tripping investment in international investment law (IIL), which is domestic capital fleeing the home country and then flowing back in the form of foreign direct investment (FDI). It provides a functional definition of this concept and identifies why it may be considered a peculiar type of FDI. It also sets out a comprehensive framework for the treatment of round-tripping investment in IIL by analyzing whether international investment agreements do protect round-tripping investors and their investments and by reviewing how investor-State dispute settlement case-law has dealt with objections put forward by respondent States to round-tripping investors bringing their investment claims to international arbitration. Lastly, this article attempts to answer the question ‘should round-tripping investment be protected under IIL?’ by verifying whether the economic and legal reasons that justify according a differentiated treatment to foreign investors also apply in the case of round-tripping investors.

An Overview of Sri Lanka’s Bilateral Investment Treaties: Status Quo and Some Insights into Future Modifications

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-318
Author(s):  
Dilini PATHIRANA
Keyword(s):  
Sri Lanka ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Global Context ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Agreements

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.

Africa and the Rethinking of International Investment Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Makane Moïse Mbengue ◽  
Stefanie Schacherer
Keyword(s):  
Sustainable Development ◽  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Reform Process ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Pan African ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Agreements

This chapter seeks to present and to contextualize the Pan-African Investment Code (PAIC) by taking a comparative international law approach. Such approach allows us to assess whether the PAIC is an Africa-specific instrument and whether it is unique today in how it incorporates sustainable development concerns. This is particularly interesting for the ongoing global reform process of international investment law. The chapter is divided into five main sections. Section II provides an overview of international investment agreements concluded by African States. Section III presents the origins of the PAIC. Section IV addresses the important question as to what extent the PAIC incorporates traditional investment standards or breaks with them. Section V explores the most innovative aspects of the PAIC. Section VI examines the PAIC and dispute settlement.

Korea’s Experience with International Investment Agreements and Investor-State Dispute Settlement

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 952-980 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hi-Taek Shin ◽  
Liz (Kyo-Hwa) Chung
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Developing Economies ◽  
International Investment ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
The Face ◽  
Public Scrutiny ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Agreements ◽  
Korus Fta

Korea’s network of international investment agreements (IIAs), comprising 94 BITs and nine FTAs with investment chapters, demonstrates that attracting foreign investment to Korea and protecting Korean investors overseas has been an important policy aspect. However, little attention was paid to these agreements until 2006 when negotiations for the Korea-United States (KORUS) FTA began. These negotiations sparked public criticism and heated debates of investor-State dispute settlement. Whereas Korea had routinely accepted the IIA provisions presented by developed counter-parties and used them as a template when negotiating with developing economies in the past, Korean IIA practice changed substantially following the KORUS FTA. In the face of heightened public scrutiny, Korea began to critically review key features of its IIAs and developed its own position on some important issues. This article examines these developments, considering that Korea will play a key role in shaping international investment law in the future, particularly in Asia.

Defining a State-Owned Enterprise in International Investment Agreements

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 595-625
Author(s):  
Mark McLaughlin
Keyword(s):  
International Investment ◽  
Investment Activity ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Policy Choices ◽  
Commercial Activities ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Investment Agreements

Abstract The objective of this article is to establish a unified conceptual framework for State-owned enterprises in international investment law. I hope to furnish drafters and negotiators with the tools to define such enterprises in accordance with their policy concerns. The central thesis is that five definitional criteria must be considered: (i) separate legal personality; (ii) extent and form of control; (iii) eligible governmental units; (iv) nature of activity; and (v) purpose of activity. While variations within each criterion can reflect the policy choices of contracting parties, failure to adequately delimit the boundaries of all five will confer discretion on arbitrators to do so. Application of this framework to existing international investment agreements reveals that many bilateral investment treaties are insufficiently precise as to the definition of State-owned enterprises. However, the Trans Pacific Partnership addresses all five criteria, and limits the scope of covered entities to those that are ‘principally engaged in commercial activities’ and have an ‘orientation towards profit making’. China’s strategic initiatives could necessitate a response that would further fragment the international investment regime. Furthermore, interpretive issues remain in relation to the scope of ‘effective influence’ and determining the purpose of investment activity.

scholarly journals International Investment Law and Community Interests

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephan W. Schill ◽  
Vladislav Djanic
Keyword(s):  
Economic Growth ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Global Economy ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Local Population ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Foreign Investors ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Legal Infrastructure

In contemporary discourse, international investment law and investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) are often perceived as threats to community interests in one-sidedly protecting foreign investors and undermining public policies that are to the benefit of the local population and the international community. The chapter promotes a different perspective. First, it argues that international investment law properly construed can be conceptualized as protecting community interests, because it is part of the legal infrastructure necessary for the functioning of the global economy under a rule of law framework. Aimed at supporting economic growth, this helps further economic and noneconomic community interests, including sustainable development. Second, the chapter argues that international investment law and ISDS do not turn a blind eye to the conflicts that can arise between economic and noneconomic community interests, such as environmental protection or human rights. Instead, international investment law and ISDS have numerous mechanisms at their disposal for alleviating tensions with noneconomic community interests.

CJEU Opinion 1/17: Keeping International Investment Law and EU Law Strictly Apart

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 240-259
Author(s):  
Nikos Lavranos
Keyword(s):  
Financial Burden ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Court System ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
The Eu

With Opinion 1/17, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) approved the Investment Court System (ICS) contained in the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) between the EU and Canada. This means that the EU can proceed with the ratification process of the investment protection part of CETA and the other free trade agreements it has concluded, and which contain a similar ICS. However, as the author illustrates, the approval of the ICS is conditioned by a complete isolation of EU law from international investment law. More specifically, the CJEU made clear that the ceta tribunals operate outside the EU legal order and have no power to interpret or apply EU law. At the same time, the CJEU highlighted the importance that the ceta Parties adopt supplemental rules for reducing the financial burden for access to the ICS for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMES). Additionally, the CJEU rejected the currently existing possibility that binding joint interpretations of the ceta Parties could have retroactive effect. In sum, the approval of the ICS by the CJEU enables the European Commission to continue to develop the multilateral investment court (MIC) within the uncitral Working Group iii as long as it follows the blueprint of the CETA ICS.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document