Search results

This article aims to examine the sustainability of European and SADC states' practice of agreeing bilateral investment agreements (BITs) for the promotion and protection of foreign investments in light of the latter's recent inauguration of Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) as a basic norm of regional customary international law and strategy for countering the social and economic legacy of apartheid rule on their territories for over half a century.

The approach taken is textual analysis and deconstruction of emergent SADC BEE legislation, substantive BIT legislation provisions, dispute settlement mechanisms and emergent jurisprudence on the tensions between BEE policy and BIT obligations.

The strong elements of exclusivity between European/SADC BIT dispute settlement mechanisms on the one hand, and the “ouster clauses” of SADC BEE legislation and regulations on the other, are mutually incompatible. This incompatibility threatens the sustainability of the EU/SADC states' BIT dynamic for the promotion and protection of foreign direct investments (FDIs).

Demonstration of BEE as SADC's emergent basic norm of social reconstruction for countering the social and economic legacy of apartheid rule in affected states and implications of that for EU/SADC policy on the promotion and protection of FDIs.

This paper aims to examine the prospect for international investment disputes in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic due to measures implemented by the Australian government to tackle the pandemic.

Doctrinal research. Contains qualitative analysis.

This paper finds that claims based on the protections in the International Investment Agreements (IIAs) signed by Australia are unlikely to succeed and that Australia’s COVID-19 measures can be justified as necessary measures under the general and security exception clauses included in more recent IIAs and under customary international law.

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, scholars have written papers apprehending possible claims by international investors against emergency measures adopted by host countries to face the pandemic which might also have damaged the interest of the foreign investors. The existing literature is too vague and general. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first paper that draws some specific conclusions in this regard applicable to the COVID-19 regulatory measures taken by Australia. While the existing literature projects the possibility of such investor claims, this paper argues that at least no such claim would succeed against the COVID-19 measures taken by Australia.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the success of the world trade organisation (WTO) dispute settlement system and its transferability to other fora.

The paper compares the design and case law of trade and investment law, and seeks lessons for the settlement of trade and investment disputes in other fora.

It concludes that despite its shortcomings, the WTO Appellate Body provides vital stability regarding legal interpretations, something notably absent from other fora.

The paper offers the perspective of a former Member and Chairman of the WTO Appellate Body on the success of the dispute settlement system.

The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, it identifies the latest trends in investment treaty making and determines the degree to which these trends affect the regulatory space of nation states. Second, it situates the conflict between investment protection and national sovereignty on the level of investment treaties within the wider theoretical framework of the debate between neoliberalism and neorealism in the field of international relations.

This research paper uses qualitative content analysis of international investment treaties with the aim of comparing a sample of new investment treaties with a sample of treaties from a previous generation.

The findings of the paper indicate that the language of investment treaties signed recently tends to promote greater regulatory space for the nation states compared to previous generation of treaties. However, the analysis also suggests that the changes still offer significant leeway to investment tribunals in interpreting the new treaty language, which could mean that the move towards greater national sovereignty in international investment law will not be as significant as many suggest.

Originality of the paper consists mainly in explicit connection it makes between international investment law and the debate between neorealism and neoliberalism in international relations theory.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the determinants of arbitrator acceptability and investigate whether the perceived costs of arbitration moderate the relationship between arbitrator acceptability and arbitrator characteristics in international commercial arbitration.

A two-stage analytic process is used to test the dimensionality, reliability and validity of each construct and then the proposed hypotheses.

The findings show that the five constructs of arbitrator characteristics – reputation, practical expertise, legal expertise, experience and procedural justice – statistically significantly explain arbitrator acceptability. Moreover, perceived cost of arbitration moderates the relationship between arbitrator acceptability and arbitrator characteristics. However, the moderating effect of perceived costs of arbitration is not equal across characteristics.

Knowledge regarding potential moderators of the strength of the indicators of arbitrator acceptability will be useful to future researchers in determining which variables to study in arbitrator selection research.

Useful guidelines in the selection of an international arbitrator are proposed.

This study contributes to arbitrator acceptability literature through the suggestion of a hypothesized model of arbitrator acceptability with auxiliary hypothesis of reputation in international contexts. In addition, this study investigates the moderating role of perceived cost of arbitration on the relationship between arbitrator acceptability and arbitrator characteristics.

The dominant narrative in the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) system is that it enables powerful corporations to encroach upon the regulatory power of developing countries aimed at pursuing compelling public interest objectives. The example of Phillip Morris, the tobacco giant, suing Uruguay’s public health measures is cited as the most significant example to prove this thesis. The other side of the story that States abuse their public power to undermine the protected rights of foreign investors does not get much attention.

This paper reviews all the ISDS cases that India has lost to ascertain the reason why these claims were brought against India in the first place. The approach of the paper is to study these ISDS cases to find out whether these cases arose due to abuse of the State’s public power or affronted India’s regulatory autonomy.

Against this global context, this paper studies the ISDS claims brought against India, one of the highest respondent-State in ISDS, to show that they arose due to India’s capricious behaviour. Analysis of these cases reveals that India acted in bad faith and abused its public power by either amending laws retroactively or by scrapping licences without following due process or going back on specific and written assurances that induced investors to invest. In none of these cases, the foreign investors challenged India’s regulatory measures aimed at advancing the genuine public interest. The absence of a “Phillip Morris moment” in India’s ISDS story is a stark reminder that one should give due weight to the equally compelling narrative that ISDS claims are also a result of abuse of public power by States.

The originality value of this paper arises from the fact that this is the first comprehensive study of ISDS cases brought against India and provides full documentation within the larger global context of rising ISDS cases. The paper contributes to the debate on international investment law by showing that in the case of India most of the ISDS cases brought were due to India abusing its public power and was not an affront on India’s regulatory autonomy.

The purpose of this paper was to determine to what extent Hong Kong’s experience proves (or disproves) theories from corporate governance in the areas of family ownership, concentration, self-dealing in Hong, executive compensation and other issues. This paper – written in the comparative corporate governance tradition – uses data from Hong Kong to discuss wider trends and issues in the corporate governance literature.

The authors use the comparative corporate governance approach – exposing a range of corporate governance theories to the light of Hong Kong data. The authors purposely avoid over-theorising – leaving the data to speak for themselves for other researchers interested in such theorising.

The authors find that Hong Kong presents corporate challenges that are unique among upper-income jurisdictions – in terms of potentially harmful (shareholder value diminishing) family relationships, shareholder concentration and self-dealing by insiders. The authors also show that excessive executive compensation, accounting and audit weaknesses do not pose the same kinds of problems they do in other countries. The authors provide numerous comments on theoretical papers throughout the presentation in this paper.

The authors chose a relatively unused research approach that eschews theory building – instead, the authors use data from a range of sectors to build an overall picture of corporate governance in Hong Kong. The authors subsequently affirm or critique the theories of others in this paper.

The original analysis conducted by the authors provided 22 recommendations for revising listing rules for Hong Kong’s stock exchange. Others – particularly Asian officials – should consider Hong Kong’s experience when revising their own corporate governance listing rules and regulations.

This paper offers new and original insights in four directions. First, the authors use the empiricist’s method – presenting data from a wide range of corporate governance areas to comment on and critique existing studies. Second, the authors provide a system-wide view of corporate governance – showing how different parts of corporate governance rules work together using concrete data. Third, the authors provide a new study in the comparative corporate governance tradition – another brick in the wall that is “normal scientific progress”. Fourth, the authors pose tentative resolutions to highly debated questions in corporate governance for the specific time and place of Hong Kong in the early 2010s.

Learning objectives are as follows: Analyze the reasons for the implementation of retrospective taxation by the Government of India; infer the dynamics of international tax laws and the settlement process of international taxation disputes; critically analyze the factors that led to the Indian Government’s decision to scrap the retrospective tax; and infer the relationship between a country’s taxation system and its potential to attract foreign direct investment.

This case is an analysis of the Indian Government’s decision to scrap the retrospective taxation amendment. The case discusses the underlying factors that led the incumbent government to take this sudden decision. The case discusses in detail the causes for the introduction of the retrospective taxation amendment and the tax terror unleashed by this draconian law. The case also discusses the embarrassment faced by the Indian Government because of a series of adverse decisions against it and in favor of Cairn Energy and Vodafone in the international courts. It also discusses the adverse effect on Indian banks in case of ailing telecom conglomerate Vodafone Idea Ltd failure.

The case is best suited for postgraduate and executive students studying Taxation subjects in Commerce and Business Management streams.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 1: Accounting and Finance.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the existing legal basis, and its practical application, of an arbitrator’s competence to raise on her own initiative money laundering issues.

The research focusses on presenting the essence of the problem through evaluation of the legal basis for the arbitrators to raise money laundering concerns on their own initiative and the examples of so being done in international commercial arbitration.

This paper concludes that arbitrators do not presently have a solid legal basis that authorises them to act sua sponte against money laundering.

The originality and value of this paper lies in its emphasis on theoretical and practical issues related to money laundering in international commercial arbitration. It argues in favour of an explicit recommendation to be incorporated in the 2012 Recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) that international commercial arbitrators address money laundering on their own initiative.