Legitimate Expectations and Fair-and-Equitable-Treatment under the Energy Charter Treaty

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niclas Landmann
Keyword(s):  
Renewable Energy ◽  
Energy Sector ◽  
Comprehensive Analysis ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
The Past ◽  
Treatment Standard ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Energy Charter Treaty ◽  
Legitimate Expectations ◽  
Equitable Treatment

A recent tide of ISDS cases in the renewable energy sector has generated a large number of arbitral awards that turn of the notion of legitimate expectations. The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard (FET) and the notion of legitimate expectations has been highly undetermined in the past. This work contains a comprehensive analysis of the renewable energy awards and the interpretation of the notion of legitimate expectations therein. In particular, it is examined whether arbitral jurisprudence formed a cohesive body of caw-law. The author analyses which aspects with regard to commitment by the states, due diligence of the investors, and level of impact were considered a violation of the FET Standard by recent arbitral tribunals.

Legal Stability and Legitimate Expectations: Does International Investment Law Need a Sense of Proportion? – Joint 2nd Prize Winner of the Essay Competition 2020

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 240-264
Author(s):  
Robert Bradshaw
Keyword(s):  
Renewable Energy ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Energy Charter Treaty ◽  
Legitimate Expectations ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Equitable Treatment

In the aftermath of the Achmea judgment and with the European Commission’s continued efforts to curtail investor- State arbitration, EU law and international investment law may seem antithetical. However, this article considers how EU law may contribute to the development of investment law through the concept of proportionality, a general principle of EU law and various national legal systems. Tribunals have increasingly applied a proportionality analysis in their reasoning, most recently in several cases brought by renewable energy investors against Spain and Italy under the Energy Charter Treaty. These cases concern the controversial issue of when a change in the regulatory framework violates investors’ legitimate expectations and their right to fair and equitable treatment. This article argues that the proportionality standard has the potential to clarify this area of law and to promote “defragmentation” between international investment law and other legal systems.

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.

The legitimate expectation of regulatory stability under the Energy Charter Treaty

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 451-466
Author(s):  
Diego Zannoni
Keyword(s):  
Legal Framework ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Legitimate Expectation ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Long Run ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Energy Charter Treaty ◽  
Legitimate Expectations ◽  
The Stability ◽  
Equitable Treatment

AbstractOne of the main catalysts for the shift towards renewable energies has been the practice of support schemes in a key number of EU member states. Some of these states have since withdrawn or revoked much of their original support, which has resulted in investment treaty arbitrations being filed against them under the Energy Charter Treaty. Arguably, a balance should be found between investors’ legitimate expectations concerning the stability of the legal framework and the host states’ right to adapt regulations to new needs. This can be achieved by clarifying and delimiting the principle of fair and equitable treatment, and by encapsulating it in a more precise set of rules. Due to its open character, this principle could otherwise become too intrusive a standard of judicial review for the exercise of sovereign power by host states. It could be diluted into a rhetorical framework inviting uncertainty and subjective judgment. While the focus of this article is on energy, the concern for legal stability equally applies to all those sectors where large upfront investments are required, which can only be recouped in the long run.

Arbitrariness, the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard, and the International Law of Investment

2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
JACOB STONE
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Bad Faith ◽  
Common Features ◽  
Treatment Standard ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Legitimate Expectations ◽  
Investment Treaties ◽  
Equitable Treatment

AbstractOne of the most common features of international investment treaties is the obligation of a state to grant ‘fair and equitable treatment’ to investors and investments. Treatment giving rise to allegations of breaches of this obligation has taken many forms, namely bad faith, discrimination, denial of justice, frustration of legitimate expectations, lack of transparency, coercion and harassment, and arbitrariness or arbitrary conduct. This latter form of treatment – arbitrariness – has rarely been the focus of scholarly works and, thus, its scope and meaning are difficult to ascertain. When examined in the context of international investment disputes, however, one may conclude that, while its scope and meaning may vary, arbitrariness is indeed a legitimate basis for claim under the fair and equitable treatment standard. The thresholds for demonstrating arbitrariness, however, are decidedly and consistently high.

International investment law and arbitration

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laird Ian A ◽  
Sabahi Borzu ◽  
Sourgens Frédéric Gilles ◽  
Birch Nicholas J ◽  
Duggal Kabir
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Domestic Court ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
The Past ◽  
Treatment Standard ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Primary Basis ◽  
Equitable Treatment

This chapter is organized into five sections, focusing on issues addressed by tribunals and courts in 2012 related to Jurisdiction, Merits, Compensation and Non-pecuniary Remedies, Procedure and Annulment, and Enforcement of Awards. Section A discusses the grounds for jurisdictional challenge by respondents. Section B provides a summary review of the merits decisions of the past year, showing that the fair and equitable treatment standard remains a primary basis for the awards of tribunals, with a resurgence of decisions by tribunals accepting that investments were expropriated without compensation. Section C reviews the eight awards in which compensation was granted in 2012. Section D addresses questions of procedure that arose in 2012. Finally, Section E reviews the two International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes ad hoc annulment committee decisions of the past year, plus a number of domestic court decisions regarding the enforcement of awards.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document