The contribution of free trade agreements and bilateral investment treaties to a sustainable future

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-76
Author(s):  
Rafael Leal-Arcas ◽  
Marek Anderle ◽  
Filipa da Silva Santos ◽  
Luuk Uilenbroek ◽  
◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 319-336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yvette ANTHONY

AbstractThis paper examines the evolution of expropriation provisions contained in Singapore’s bilateral investment treaties and free trade agreements from the 1970s until now. It will be seen that whilst earlier treaties contained skeletal expropriation provisions, the later treaties have sought to guide the exercise of tribunals’ discretion by providing a non-exhaustive list of factors to be taken into account when indirect expropriation is alleged. The consequences of this evolution in Singapore’s treaty-making practice are considered in the light of customary international law. The paper postulates a framework for analyzing Singapore’s treaty practice and this author concludes by submitting that the later treaties arguably go one step further in limiting the scope of indirect expropriation.


2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 899-930 ◽  
Author(s):  
Prabhash Ranjan

Rising investment treaty arbitration claims against India have resulted in India taking first steps towards a new investment treaty practice. This article argues that this practice should aim at reconciling investment protection with investment regulation. By comparing the formulation of key jurisdictional and substantive provisions in India’s stand-alone bilateral investment treaties (BITs) with those in investment chapters in India’s free trade agreements (FTAs), this article shows that formulations in FTAs investment chapters often present a better textual basis to reconcile investment protection with investment regulation. This could be made part of India’s new investment treaty practice. The article also assesses the provisions in the 2015 draft Model Indian BIT and concludes that the draft tilts the balance too much in favour of the host State’s regulatory power.


Author(s):  
Commission Jeffery ◽  
Moloo Rahim

This chapter examines the issue of transparency in treaty-based investment arbitration by focusing on the participation of third parties or non-disputing parties in disputes. More specifically, it considers the procedural issues that transparency mechanisms in bilateral-investment treaties and free-trade agreements, as well as in recently revised arbitral rules, create for arbitral tribunals and those appearing before them. After discussing non-disputing party practice in investment arbitrations, the chapter explains the practice of non-disputing state parties in UNCITRAL and International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) arbitrations. It also analyses transparency mechanisms beyond the participation of non-disputing parties in investment arbitrations from the written procedure through to the oral procedure, culminating in a tribunal's decisions and award.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 335-363
Author(s):  
Shen Wei

Abstract Classic issues in international commercial arbitration such as parallel proceedings also emerge in international investment arbitration. The parallel existence of international investment arbitration and domestic litigation deserves careful analysis for the sake of international legal certainty and security. Given a small number of international investment arbitration cases involving China and its bilateral investment treaties (BITs), the issue of parallel proceedings in Chinese BIT law and practice is underinvestigated. This article tries to look into this issue by reference to the case of Hela Schwarz GmbH v PR China, an ongoing BIT arbitration case registered with the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Some improvements have been made to relevant jurisdictional clauses in China’s more recent free trade agreements filling the gap in this grey area.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document