Mission Creep The Emerging Role of International Investment Agreements in Sovereign Debt Restructuring

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel D. Thrasher ◽  
Kevin P. Gallagher

AbstractThe global community still lacks a regime for sovereign debt restructuring (SDR). However, the recent financial crisis has spawned numerous efforts to fill this glaring gap in global economic governance. At the same time however, there is increasing concern that international investment agreements (IIAs) have already begun to expand their reach into the realm of SDR. Indeed, private investors have attempted to use IIAs to recoup the full value of their bonds in order to circumvent debt restructurings in Argentina and Greece. In this paper we examine the extent to which IIAs are becoming tools for creditors to circumvent debt restructurings and whether new IIAs such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership will further advance the ability of creditors to do so. We find that contemporary IIAs are increasingly interpreting sovereign bonds as being under their jurisdiction. Thus, debt restructurings may be increasingly subject to claims filed by holdout creditors wishing to recoup the full value of their bonds through private tribunals under IIAs. That said, we also find that some treaties have begun to provide exceptions for certain types of debt restructurings. While such safeguards are a step in the right direction, they will need to become broader in scope and more widespread in application in order to not interfere with the orderly workout of debt problems in the world economy.

Author(s):  
Oleksandr Bryhinets ◽  
◽  
Anastasiia Kovalova ◽  

International investment disputes between states arise in connection with different interpretation and application of the provisions of international investment treaties and agreements. As the matter of fact, such disputes also appear from violations of the provisions of international investment agreements that may prejudice the rights of foreign private investors. Since a dispute arises from a violation of investor rights, most modern investment treaties provide for the right of investors to submit a dispute to an independent arbitration or judicial authority. Investment disputes between the host state and the investor, mostly, come from the violation of international investment treaties that may become the subject of an interstate dispute only by mutual consent of the host state and the investor state.


ICL Journal ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan Pupolizio

AbstractThis paper examines indirect expropriation in international investment agreements and compares current foreign investments protection with property protection in the XIXth century USA, when the US Supreme Court adhered to an abstract and de-physicalized conception of property later contested by legal realists. Its central claim is that investor state arbitration poses a serious and underestimated challenge to state sovereignty, granting arbitrators a ‘proto-constitutional’ power of judicial review on regulatory powers, including the legislative one. Moreover, the indeterminacy of indirect expropriation leads to a potential transformation of property rights protection that could eventually give transnational enterprises a new ‘right to an unchanging world’, as the US Supreme Court did more than a century ago, albeit this time on a global scale.


2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-130
Author(s):  
Anna De Luca

This article discusses the provisions on investment-related transfers, which are routinely included in International Investment Agreements (IIAs) and Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs). Under these transfer provisions the right of investors to transfer funds related to covered investments is apparently not subject to any explicit limitation. The article discusses the problems connected with the absence in many BITs of explicit derogations to the permitted transfers, and temporary exceptions to such transfers in case of balance of payments or macroeconomic difficulties. After having analysed the scarce case law on the matter, the article highlights the cautious approach, taken (at least until now) by arbitral tribunals in interpreting transfer provisions. Finally the article illustrates the growing trend in the international treaty practice towards the inclusion of transfer provisions, accompanied with safeguard provisions in case of serious balance-of-payments difficulties and external financial difficulties.


Author(s):  
Pascale Accaoui Lorfing

AbstractThis chapter analyses the concept of the “national security interest”, which is widely recognised as allowing a state to determine which areas of its economy are restricted or prohibited to foreign investors. This chapter seeks to identify what constitutes a threat for a state and how that threat is managed both domestically and internationally. Despite the recognition of a state’s right to take measures it considers essential to its security, there are limits. The rules established by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and other international instruments are non-binding but can serve as a guide for states in determining the limits of the national security approach. International investment agreements can restrict the right of states to take security-related measures. Finally, customary international law, in light of the good faith obligation, can serve as a basis for assessing measures taken by a state and pave the way for a better balance between the rights of a state and those of foreign investors.


Author(s):  
Coleman Jesse ◽  
Johnson Lise ◽  
Sachs Lisa ◽  
Gupta Kanika

This chapter considers developments in 2015 and 2016 that illustrate trends and features in recent treaty drafting. It first discusses the expanded awareness of, and interest in, the investment regime that has emerged in recent years, followed by the role of ratification in the context of investment treaty drafting and policy. It then discusses four drafting trends: (1) constraining investor access to dispute settlement and limiting arbitral discretion; (2) better protecting the right to regulate; (3) establishing investor obligations; and (4) introducing codes of conduct for decision makers in investment disputes. Finally, the chapter provides a brief overview of new provisions regarding the conduct and qualifications of arbitrators, including a glimpse at the EU proposal for a multilateral court.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document