Investments, Fair And Equitable Treatment, And The Principle Of “Respect For The Integrity Of The Law Of The Host State”: Toward A Jurisprudence Of “Modesty” In Investment Treaty Arbitration

2012 ◽  
pp. 577-606
Author(s):  
Guillermo Aguilar Alvarez ◽  
Santiago Montt
Keyword(s):  
Host State ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
The Law ◽  
Equitable Treatment ◽  
Investment Treaty Arbitration

scholarly journals Klausula Counter-claim dalam Bilateral Investment Treaty Indonesia

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (6) ◽  
pp. 2219
Author(s):  
Nabilla Zelda Nasution
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
National Treatment ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaty ◽  
Host State ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Equitable Treatment

Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) merupakan suatu mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa antara investor dan negara penerima investasi (host state) karena suatu pelanggaran terhadap Hukum Investasi Internasional. Berdasarkan data UNCTAD, alasan yang sering diajukan dalam gugatan ISDS umumnya meliputi empat hal permasalahan yakni Most Favoured Nations, National Treatment, Non Exproriation, dan Fair and Equitable Treatment. Namun pengaturan penyelesaian sengketa investasi dengan mekanisme ISDS dianggap lebih berpihak kepada pihak investor dibandingkan kepada host state karena sebagian besar IIA mengijinkan ISDS diajukan oleh investor, dan dalam prakteknya investor merupakan satu-satunya penggugat yang diizinkan. Ketidakseimbangan kedudukan para pihak dalam mekanisme ISDS memberikan pemikiran counter-claim sebagai upaya menyeimbangkan kedudukan investor dan host state dalam mekanisme ISDS. Selain itu pentingnya counter-claiim dalam mekanisme ISDS antara lain karena belum ada aturan yang seragam mengenai counter-claim, counter-claim memungkinkan responden untuk mencari keadilan di forum yang sama sehingga lebih efisien. Serta bagi host state, counter-claim dapat digunakan untuk membersihkan reputasi host state atas gugatan yang diajukan oleh investor. Penelitian ini mengkaji klausula counterclaim yang dapat diadopsi dalam BIT Indonesia sehingga dapat menyeimbangkan kedudukan para pihak dalam mekanisme ISDS, khususnya Indonesia sebagai host state. Penelitian hukum yang digunakan adalah pendekatan konseptual (conseptual approach), pendekatan perundang-udangan (statute approach), dan pendekatan kasus (case approach) dalam membahas counterclaim dalam mekanisme ISDS serta dalam menganalisa rumusan klausula counterclaim yang dapat di adopsi dalam Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) Indonesia.

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.

Ensuring Reasonableness in the Conduct of Host States

2019 ◽  
pp. 101-174
Author(s):  
Federico Ortino
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Investments ◽  
Host State ◽  
Police Powers ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Investment Treaties ◽  
Equitable Treatment ◽  
Full Protection

The aim of the chapter is twofold. First, it investigates the extent to which investment treaties include a guarantee of ‘substantive reasonableness’ as one of the key protections granted to foreign investments. Second, it attempts to identify the standard of review that have been employed by investment tribunals in assessing the lawfulness of host States’ conduct. The analysis focuses on the following treaty provisions: (a) full protection and security; (b) non-impairment through arbitrary or unjustifiable measures; and (iii) fair and equitable treatment. This chapter also examines the application by investment tribunals of the ‘police powers’ doctrine in defining an indirect expropriation. One key finding stems from the present analysis. While investment treaty tribunals have (at least for the most part) applied these open-ended standards as reasonableness-based provisions, tribunals have crucially differed with regard to the specific reasonableness test employed in order to review the lawfulness of the host State conduct.

Deutsche Bank AG v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka

ICSID Reports ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 446-484
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
The State ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Responsibility Attribution ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Host State ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Municipal Law ◽  
Equitable Treatment ◽  
Debt Recovery

446Jurisdiction — Investment — Derivative transactions — Interpretation — Claims to money used to create an economic value — Claims to money associated with an investment — Whether a hedging agreement constituted an investment under the BITJurisdiction — Investment — Territorial requirement — Derivative transactions — Whether a hedging agreement satisfied the condition of territorial nexus to the host StateJurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Interpretation — Derivative transactions — Salini test — Contribution to economic development — Regularity of profit and return — Whether a hedging agreement constituted an investment — Whether all five elements of the Salini test were legal criteria for an investment under ICSID jurisdictionJurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Interpretation — Derivative transactions — Ordinary commercial transaction — Contingent liability — Whether a hedging agreement was an ordinary commercial transaction or a contingent liabilityJurisdiction — Contract — State-owned entity — Municipal law — Whether a hedging agreement was void because the transaction was outside a State-owned entity’s statutory authorityState responsibility — Attribution — Judicial acts — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 — Whether a superior court was an organ of the host StateState responsibility — Attribution — Central bank — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 — Whether a central bank was an organ of the host StateState responsibility — Attribution — State-owned entity — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 4 — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 5 — ILC Articles on State Responsibility, Article 8 — Whether a State-owned entity was an organ of the State — Whether actions of a State-owned entity were attributable to the State as an exercise of governmental authority — Whether a State-owned entity was acting under instructions or the direction and control of the StateFair and equitable treatment — Judicial acts — Due process — Interim order — Political motive — Whether court orders violated the standard of fair and equitable treatment — Whether public statements of a senior judge evidenced the political motive of court ordersFair and equitable treatment — Autonomous standard — Interpretation — Minimum standard of treatment — Whether the standard of fair and equitable treatment was materially different from customary international law447Fair and equitable treatment — Government investigation — Due process — Bad faith — Transparency — Whether a central bank’s investigation violated the standard of fair and equitable treatmentExpropriation — Indirect expropriation — Contract — Derivative transaction — Substantial deprivation — Debt recovery — Municipal law — Whether the subsistence of a contractual debt and the possibility to claim under the chosen law of a third State prevented a finding of expropriation — Whether the possibility of recovery in a third State was to be assessed as a prerequisite in the cause of action of expropriation or as a matter of causation and quantumExpropriation — Indirect expropriation — Contract — Substantial deprivation — Legitimate regulatory authority — Proportionality — Whether an interference with contractual rights was an exercise of the host State’s legitimate regulatory authority — Whether the regulatory measures were proportionateRemedies — Damages — Causation — Contract — Debt recovery — Whether the claimant suffered damages if it had the possibility to recover a contractual debt in the courts of a third StateCosts — Indemnity — Egregious breach — Bad faith — Whether the egregious nature of the host State’s breaches of its international obligations meant the claimant was entitled to full recovery of its costs, legal fees and expenses

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 IV Guide to Key Substantive Issues, 19 The Law Applicable in Investment Treaty Arbitration

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Banifatemi Yas
Keyword(s):  
Specific Nature ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
Party Autonomy ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Primary Rule ◽  
The Law ◽  
Investment Treaty Arbitration

Investment treaty arbitration, being an arbitral process, in no way differs from international commercial arbitration in that the principle of party autonomy is the primary rule governing the arbitration, including as regards the law applicable to the substance of the dispute. When the applicable law has been chosen by the parties, the arbitrators have a duty to apply such law and nothing but such law. It is only in the absence of a choice by the parties that the arbitrators are entitled to exercise a degree of discretion in the determination of the applicable law. This chapter examines each of these situations in turn, before considering whether the specific nature of investment protection treaties has implications in terms of choice of law process.

3 Fair And Equitable Treatment

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gallagher Norah ◽  
Shan Wenhua
Keyword(s):  
Bilateral Investment Treaties ◽  
National Treatment ◽  
Standard Format ◽  
Foreign Investors ◽  
Host State ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Investment Treaties ◽  
Equitable Treatment ◽  
Full Protection

Like other bilateral investment treaties (BITs), Chinese BITs establish a set of general standards of treatment accorded to foreign investors by the host state. The most commonly found general standards of treatment include fair and equitable treatment (FET), (full) protection and security (PNS), most favoured nation treatment (MFN), and national treatment (NT). The first two belong to the group of non-contingent standards (or so-called “absolute standard of treatment”), whilst the latter two are forms of contingent standards (or “relative standards of treatment”). Absolute standards do not depend on treatment granted to other investors. In contrast, the relative standards are contingent on treatment given to other categories of investors, nationals of the host state in the case of NT and investors from third states for the MFN. This chapter begins with an examination of the FET standard, focusing on the different approaches of interpretations that have been developed in theory and in arbitration practice. It then analyzes the standard under Chinese BITs and assesses the implications of its standard format and any variations.

scholarly journals Fair and Equitable Treatment and Investor’s Due Diligence Under International Investment Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 67 (2) ◽  
pp. 233-255
Author(s):  
Yulia Levashova
Keyword(s):  
International Investment ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Host State ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Political Background ◽  
Legitimate Expectations ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
The Stability ◽  
Equitable Treatment

Abstract The investor’s due diligence has become a significant factor in determining whether the legitimate expectations of an investor give rise to protection under the FET standard. This is especially relevant when an investor’s claim for the protection of its legitimate expectations is based on the stability of a regulatory framework. The investor’s due diligence in the context of the FET standard goes beyond the risk-based business due diligence performed by a foreign investor for its own benefit. It has implications for a state’s right to regulate in the public interest and a broader notion of business responsibilities. Investors are expected to conduct proper due diligence before investing in a host state by demonstrating their reasonable efforts to collect information about the rules and regulations that are pertinent to the proposed investment. In some cases, due diligence extends to an investor’s duty to assess the possible risks related to the broader economic situation and socio-political background of a host state. Focusing on the recent renewable energy awards, this article analyses and clarifies the role of due diligence in the context of the FET standard, as well as its potential application for asserting responsible business conduct in the broader framework of international investment law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document