Regulatory Coherence Requirements in Investment Treaty Arbitration

2021 ◽  
pp. 215-246
Author(s):  
Caroline E. Foster
Keyword(s):  
Government Policy ◽  
Environmental Concern ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Public Purpose ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Regulatory Measures ◽  
Equitable Treatment ◽  
Domestic Level ◽  
Investment Treaty Arbitration

Part IV comprises two chapters, Chapter Seven and Chapter Eight. These chapters focus on investment treaty arbitration. Chapter Seven identifies the regulatory coherence tests emerging under each of the core investment protection guarantees. Fair and equitable treatment guarantees require host States’ regulatory measures to bear reasonable relationships to rational policies. National treatment guarantees call for a reasonable nexus to a rational government policy. The law on expropriation increasingly incorporates the understanding that reasonable measures adopted in good faith to address a real public health or environmental concern are ‘for a public purpose’. These tests all tend to accommodate domestic level decision-making, allowing room for the operation of democratic processes rather than envisaging an international legal override. This will assist with traditional procedural justifications for authority at the domestic and international level.

scholarly journals Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership's Investment Chapter the new "Gold Standard"?

2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 503 ◽  
Author(s):  
José E Alvarez
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
The North ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Equitable Treatment

The Trans-Pacific Partnership's Investment Chapter, and particularly its inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), has been the focus of considerable criticism both in the United States and New Zealand. Despite huge differences between these two potential TPP partners, the anticipated economic and political benefits offered by the pact – but also the threats to democracy posed – have been expressed in similar ways by distinct stakeholders in both countries. This essay describes how this chapter is the culmination of reforms to United States investment protection treaties that began with the investment chapter of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994 and that are now evident in the latest United States Model Bilateral Investment Treaty (of 2012). The TPP's Investment Chapter borrows heavily from prior United States efforts to narrow investor rights (as with respect to fair and equitable treatment), expand sovereign policy space, and incorporate certain rule of law reforms. For its critics, the pact falls far short of achieving a new "gold standard" precisely because it merely reforms – but does not abandon – ISDS for its enforcement.Editor's note: The text of this article was originally accepted for publication in March 2016. Recent statements by President-elect Donald Trump indicate that the United States will likely withdraw from further participation in the Trans Pacific Partnership and refrain from ratifying the agreed text. Without the United States' ratification, the agreement will not come into force. Despite this apparent ending to the Trans Pacific Partnership, the editors consider that Professor Alvarez's article remains an extremely useful analysis of investment provisions that may well serve as a model for the negotiation of such provisions in other mega-regional trade agreements in the future.

4 Standards of Investment Protection

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bonnitcha Jonathan ◽  
Skovgaard Poulsen Lauge N ◽  
Waibel Michael
Keyword(s):  
Common Core ◽  
Final Section ◽  
National Treatment ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
The Third ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Investment Treaties ◽  
Equitable Treatment

This chapter introduces the substantive obligations in investment treaties. Most offer a common core of six substantive protections to foreign investors. The chapter first considers the two ‘relative’ standards of protection—most-favoured nation treatment and national treatment. It then turns to four ‘absolute’ standards of protection: expropriation, fair and equitable treatment, umbrella clauses, and free transfer of funds. The third section examines carve-outs that remove certain state measures from the scope of application of investment treaties, defences that can justify or excuse breaches of investment treaty protections, and the standard of review that tribunals apply when examining host state conduct. The fourth and final section discusses the calculation of compensation or damages if host states have breached investment treaties.

Micula and Others v. Romania

2021 ◽  
Vol 196 ◽  
pp. 1-492
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Equitable Treatment

1Economics, trade and finance — Investment protection — Fair and equitable treatment — Sweden–Romania Bilateral Investment Treaty, 2002 — Article 2(3) — Whether Romania breaching fair and equitable treatment protection under Treaty — Whether Romania breaching investors’ legitimate expectations — Whether Romania acting reasonably with respect to investors’ investment — Whether Romania affording investors adequate levels of transparency — Article 2(4) — Umbrella clause — Whether Romania breaching umbrella clause protection under TreatyArbitration — Jurisdiction — Investment protection — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Distinction between objection to jurisdiction and objection to admissibility — Factual findings — Burden of proof — Jurisdiction ratione personae — Jurisdiction ratione materiae — Jurisdiction ratione temporis — Temporal application of bilateral investment treaty — Whether applicable to acts occurring before entry into force if dispute arose after entry into forceArbitration — Remedies — Standard for bringing a claim for lost profits — Sufficient certainty — Whether investors would have made profits but for the international wrong — Whether trend among investment tribunals to award compound rather than simple interest — Whether a tribunal having power to issue definitive injunctive relief — Res judicata effectArbitration — Enforceability of Award — Whether appropriate for Tribunal to base its decisions on matters of EU law applying after Award rendered — ICSID Convention, 1965, Articles 53 and 54Nationality — Individuals — Claimants renouncing nationality of respondent State and acquiring new nationality — Whether new nationality purely a matter for national law — Whether role for international law — Whether new nationality opposable to State of former nationality — Whether “genuine link” with State of new nationality required — Standing to being investment claim under bilateral investment treatyTreaties — Interpretation — Sweden–Romania Bilateral Investment Treaty, 2002 — Treaties established under European Union law to which Romania and Sweden parties — Whether conflict of treaties — Whether EU law having role in interpretation of BIT — Whether EU law applying after Award rendered relevant to Tribunal’s decision making — ICSID Convention, 1965, Articles 53 and 54

THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS AND INVESTMENT TREATY ARBITRATION: A LIMITED RELATIONSHIP

2015 ◽  
Vol 64 (4) ◽  
pp. 905-933
Author(s):  
Jarrod Hepburn
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
General Principles Of Law ◽  
Domestic Law ◽  
Investment Treaty Arbitration

AbstractThe UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts have appeared in a small but steady trickle of investment treaty arbitrations over the last decade. This article considers the use of the Principles by investment tribunals on questions of both domestic law and international law. It suggests that reference to the Principles can play an important legitimating role on questions of domestic law, but that this should not replace reference to the applicable law. On questions of international law, reference to the Principles may be justified by resort to the general principles of law. However, the article contends that there is only a limited role for the UNIDROIT Principles where the primary and secondary rules of investment protection are already found in treaties and custom. In addition, while general principles have historically been drawn from domestic private law, there is increasing recognition that general principles of public law are more relevant to investment arbitration. Given this, arbitrators resolving questions of international law must be cautious in references to the UNIDROIT Principles, a quintessentially private law instrument.

Dan Cake (Portugal) S.A. v. Hungary (ICSID)

2016 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 496-524
Author(s):  
Catherina Valenzuela-Bock
Keyword(s):  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
Rare Finding ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Treatment Provision ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Equitable Treatment

In Dan Cake v. Hungary, an arbitral tribunal constituted under the auspices of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) issued a rare finding of denial of justice in its adjudication of the claims by Portuguese investor Dan Cake, alleging that the Hungarian court’s actions during the liquidation proceedings of its subsidiary were a violation of the fair and equitable treatment provision of the Hungary-Portugal Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). The decision adds an example of the factual circumstances that lead to a finding of denial of justice and reaffirms the stringent requirements that need to be satisfied in order to succeed on such a claim.

Part II The International Law Framework of Investment Protection and Political Risk, 6 The Substantive Law of Contemporary International Investment Protection

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rubins Noah ◽  
Papanastasiou Thomas-Nektarios ◽  
Kinsella N Stephan
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Transition Economy ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Investment Treaties ◽  
Substantive Law ◽  
Equitable Treatment ◽  
National Investment ◽  
Domestic Law

Investors increasingly rely on the substantive protections provided in a growing number of investment treaties. This chapter covers the modern international law of investment protection as embodied in multilateral and bilateral investment treaties, including principles such as fair and equitable treatment, and full protection and security. The substantive protections investment treaties described in this chapter are often echoed in the national investment laws of developing and transition-economy countries. In particular, many recent national investment codes place limitations on the State’s authority to expropriate foreign assets, sometimes granting rights superior to those provided at customary international law. International investment treaties also guarantee proper application of domestic law by government authorities, national treatment, repatriation of profits, compensation for breach and other standards of treatment.

Crafting the International Economic Order: The Public Function of Investment Treaty Arbitration and Its Significance for the Role of the Arbitrator

2010 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 401-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
STEPHAN W. SCHILL
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Economic Order ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanism ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
Party Autonomy ◽  
The Public ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Treaty Arbitration

AbstractInvestment treaty arbitration, unlike commercial arbitration, is not a purely private dispute settlement mechanism that is entirely subject to party autonomy and limited in its effects to the parties to the proceedings. Rather, it fulfils a public function in influencing the behaviour of foreign investors, states, and civil society more generally by crafting and concretizing international standards of investment protection. Investment treaty arbitration thus implements and operates as part of a public system of investment protection. Arbitrators, as a result, incur obligations not only towards the parties to the proceedings, but vis-à-vis the whole system of investment protection. These obligations can be conceptualized as part of the public law implications of investment treaty arbitration and affect, inter alia, the role and status of arbitrators in investment treaty disputes, the procedural maxims that such arbitrations should follow, and the way arbitral awards should be crafted.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document