Chapter 7: The Interpretation of Investment Treaties and Extraneous Rules of International Law not of the Same Subject-Matter – Article 31(3)(C) VCLT and the ‘Principle of Systemic Integration’ – A Means to Reconcile Apparent Norm Conflicts in International Investment Law?

2015 ◽  
pp. 363-456
Author(s):  
Daniel Rosentreter
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
International Investment ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaties

Globalization-Driven Innovation: The Investor as a Partial Subject in Public International Law

2014 ◽  
pp. 73-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tillmann Rudolf Braun
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Intrinsic Nature ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Actual Nature ◽  
Corn Products ◽  
The Status ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaties

Given the current state of development of international investment law, it is surprising that, to date, neither the actual nature of the investor’s rights resulting from investment treaties, nor the possible consequences which arise for the investor, the states and international law, have been sufficiently defined. This is all the more astounding as the intrinsic nature and the possible limits of the investor’s rights are not only of theoretical interest, they are also decisive for the resolution of many substantial practical problems as well as for the positioning of international investment law within public international law. Furthermore, recent arbitration rulings concerning the fundamental question of whether the investor’s rights are of a direct, a derivative or a contingent nature, Archer Daniels (2007), Corn Products (2008) and Cargill (2009), demonstrate diametrically differing approaches. In this article, the author shows that neither the procedural nor material rights of the investor are simply derived from the home state but are – in clear contrast to the model of diplomatic protection – in fact to be understood as individual direct rights. The investor is elevated to the status of a (partial) subject in international law. Of course, the states are, and remain, the ‘masters of the treaties’ and can correct or even revoke them at any time with prospective effect. However, as long as investment treaties confer distinct rights on the investor, arbitral tribunals and states have to recognize these direct rights and the states must also accept that they can also be applied against them. The direct rights paradigm has varied and remarkable consequences for the investor, the states and modern public international law.

scholarly journals Bilateral Investment Treaties and Sovereignty: An Analysis with Respect to International Investment Law

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Joseph Thaliath
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Present Situation ◽  
Economic Globalization ◽  
International Investment ◽  
International Level ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaties ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaties ◽  
Market Relations

International law as a governing institution, has gained prominence, with the advent of globalization. This is of specific relevance for the governance of state-market relations. Nowhere has this been as pronounced as in the international investment regime. Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) have today become some of the most potent legal tools underwriting economic globalization. These are established through pacts, which have to be adhered to, through all stages of performance of the treaty. This paper argues against the shift of bilateral investment treaties (BIT) from a pro-sovereign, to a pro-investor approach. It does so by explaining the present situation of bilateral investment treaties while pointing out their disadvantages. The basic idea of a BIT is questioned in order to understand its purpose and examines its failure in achieving the same. The partial approach towards the investors by the tribunals, is frowned upon and the lack of justifications and defenses on the part of the state is reviewed. Modest suggestions on improving this situation are provided by using cases decided by tribunals at an international level, taking up the example of Argentina.

scholarly journals Interpretation of International Law by National Judges: Opportunities and Challenges. The Case of International Investment Law in Latin America

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 128
Author(s):  
Marcelo Lozada Gómez ◽  
Paola Acosta Alvarado
Keyword(s):  
Latin America ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Investment ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
International Investment ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Fragmentation Of International Law

The role of national judges in international law is still an undecided subject matter. Most scholars consider the decisions from national judges merely as acts of States, denying the possibility that those judgments constitute an autonomous source of international law. This position is grounded in the idea that national judges do not regularly employ sources of international law, and therefore, their opinion about them is not quite important. Nevertheless, recent phenomena have highlighted and triggered the intervention of national judges regarding the interpretation and enforcement of international law. The growing scope of international rules, which now regulate intra-states issues, as well as the fragmentation of international law, and the internationalisation of national orders, inter alia, have demanded domestic courts’ intervention in order to face these changes and avoid undesirable consequences. In this context, this article aims to: 1. bring an outlook on the evolution of the role assigned to national judges; 2. explore the phenomena that triggered their intervention; 3. analyse the outcomes of this increasing participation, namely how national judges change the usual dynamics of interpretation and evolution of international law; 4. apply these ideas to explain the intervention of national judges in Latin America regarding the enforcement of foreign investment law; and 5. conclude with some remarks about the future of this relationship between national and international law as well as the importance of a better understanding of the role of national judges.

MFN Standard as Substantive Treatment

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mira Suleimenova
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Third Party ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
History Of ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaties ◽  
Investment Agreements ◽  
Comprehensive Study

‘Most favoured nation’ (MFN) treatment is an integral part of virtually all modern investment regimes. MFN clauses in international investment agreements signal to investors that a given state protects them from discrimination; however, in practice, enforcing such guarantees may be challenging. This book represents a comprehensive study on how ‘most favoured nation’ treatment operates as a substantive standard of international investment law. Starting with a history of the development of the concept in international law, the author provides an overview of existing state practices in negotiating MFN clauses in bilateral and international investment treaties. Finally, the work analyses the ability of MFN treatment clauses to prevent de facto discrimination and allow for the ‘import’ of third-party substantive protections in international investor state arbitration. Dr Mira Suleimenova, LL.M. is an international investment lawyer based in Vienna, Austria.

Part I Overview, 1 Introduction

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
McLachlan Campbell ◽  
Shore Laurence ◽  
Weiniger Matthew
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaties

This book explains the substantive principles underlying international investment arbitration. The Introduction begins with the proposition that, despite their great variety, investment treaties are not self-contained regimes. They are creatures of international law: their meaning is to be considered in light of the larger system of which they form a part. Having outlined the structure and subject-matter of the book, the Introduction considers the extent to which it can properly be said that there are common principles of investment law, developed through arbitral awards and the practice of States in concluding treaties. It concludes with a discussion of the importance of balanced doctrinal analysis in the development of the field.

Mitigating the Risks Entailed in Shareholders’ Claims for Reflective Loss: Suggestions for Investment Treaty Reform

2018 ◽  
pp. 693-721
Author(s):  
Panagiotis A. Kyriakou
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Investment ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Systemic Risks ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaties ◽  
Treaty Reform ◽  
New Generation

Abstract This contribution identifies the systemic risks posed by the permissibility of shareholders’ claims for reflective loss in international investment law. It revisits existing investment treaty mechanisms under which shareholder recourse can be limited, and evaluates their effectiveness in the particular context of reflective loss. Drawing on ‘traditional’ and ‘new generation’ treaty language, as well as on domestic and general international law, the article then proposes new treaty language with the aim of eliminating the risks of reflective loss claims from investment treaties.

Diligentia quam in suis as a Technique for a Contextual Application of the Full Protection and Security Standard: Considering the Level of Development of Host States in International Investment Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 596-611
Author(s):  
Nitish Monebhurrun
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Foreign Investors ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Local Means ◽  
Security Standard ◽  
Maximum Protection ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Full Protection

With international investment law as the background to this study, the present article examines how the full protection and security standard can be construed from the perspective of developing states hosting foreign investments. The research delves into classical public international law to argue that the diligentia quam in suis rule can be used as a means of interpretation to strike a balance between foreign investors’ and developing states’ interests when construing the full protection and security standard. The rule provides that any expected due diligence from the state party is necessarily of a subjective nature. This means that developing host states must deploy their best efforts to offer maximum protection to foreign investors not on an in abstracto basis but as per their local means and capacity. Accordingly, the standard is presented as an adaptable and flexible one which moulds its contours as per the level of development of the host state. Such flexibility does not imply condoning states’ abuse and negligence. The article explains how the diligentia quam in suis rule enables a conciliation between the full protection and security standard and the host state's level of development while rationalising the standard's application to developing nations.

What Should We Know About the Origins of International Investment Law?

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 122-131
Author(s):  
Sarah M. Alshahrani
Keyword(s):  
Ottoman Empire ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Arab Countries ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaties ◽  
The Impact

AbstractInternational investment law, particularly the global backlash against investment treaties, has evolved recently. This article aims to clarify how international investment law evolved over history, from the early Arab traders in the 7th century to the Ottoman Empire, to understand its hidden aims. It investigates the practice of signing investment treaties, which appear first during the Fatimid Caliphate2 and Mamluk Sultanate3 periods. It then explains when control over foreign investment started to diminish during the Ottoman Empire period.4 Further, it explains the links between the USA Friendship, Commerce and Navigation treaties (FCNs), and current investment treaties, explaining the impact of colonization and imperialism on drafting treaty provisions. Within this historical context, this article illustrates the need to understand the roots of international investment law in order to urge Arab countries to terminate or renegotiate current bilateral investment treaties (BITs) as a number of developing and developed countries have done.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document