Search results

Over the past two decades, the application of most-favoured-nation (MFN) clauses in international investment agreements (IIAs) to dispute settlement matters has generated controversy. The purpose of this paper is to help resolve some of the controversies by examining the rule of law issues that may arise from such application of MFN.

The study describes controversies regarding the application of MFN to dispute settlement as per the extant literature on the subject. It explores the elements of rule of law in investor-state arbitration. The paper then analyses the implications of applying MFN to dispute settlement matters for the elements of rule of law. Based on such analysis, the study argues that the application of MFN to dispute settlement matters undermines certain elements of rule of law.

The paper has outlined the relevant elements of rule of law in investor-state arbitration as access to dispute settlement; judicial (or tribunal) independence, fairness and impartiality; consistency and predictability of law and decisions; transparency; accountability and subjection of dispute forums and systems to law. It found that the application of MFN undermines various components of rule of law, in particular of consistency and predictability and the requirement of tribunals to adjudicate within the limits of the law.

The findings of this study will help future investor-state arbitral tribunals to decide on the application of MFN to dispute settlement matters.

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 Korea-China-Japan Investment Promotion, Facilitation and Protection Agreement is the first treaty in the economic field that binds the three Northeast Asian countries together under a single legal instrument. The existence of effective dispute-settlement procedures under the treaty will contribute to the creation of a favourable investment climate in the host country. Nevertheless, there have been fears about frivolous or vexatious claims that could inhibit legitimate regulatory actions by governments. How to compose an investment chapter of the Korea-China-Japan FTA that is being negotiated is a pressing demand for all in the region. Any pertinent answers to such a quest require a thorough comparison of the benefits and drawbacks of any development of relevant rules and governance. In the end, a quest for better international investment governance in Northeast Asia in the future requires sound evaluation of lessons from the past and present.

The purpose of this study is to examine the nature of the protection afforded to foreign investors and whether this protection has been exercised to the detriment of host states. In other words, is the regulatory authority of host states being compromised by the content of the investment agreements entered into? If so, is there scope for reform? The need to reform investor-state arbitration was recently pushed forward by the European Union Commission in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

It is conceptual.

It proposed an investment court system as a replacement for investor-state arbitration. However, there is great ambivalence on whether these reforms would result in a rebalance of investment agreements in favour of host states. Thus, this paper provides a range of solutions to the challenges posed by investor-state arbitration through proposals for a regional and world investment court.

The findings made in this research will inform both academics and practitioners in the field of international law on whether the investment court proposal will bring about the desired changes.

Secondary sources

The study aims to focus on the effectiveness of international investment agreements (IIAs) in helping or facilitating the influx of foreign direct investment (FDI) to host developing countries.

To critically examine the topic, the black letter approach and the socio-legal analysis are adopted. The study has analysed how Mauritius, being a developing country, is responding to FDI needs from various bilateral and multilateral investment treaties concluded, and the research includes the analysis of official data publicly made available by the World Trade Organization, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, International Monetary Fund and Mauritius governmental agencies’ reports.

From the methodologies used, it was found that other than IIAs, there are various key determinants which foreign investors consider prior to injecting their capital in developing countries in terms of environmental, social and cultural factors. Also, there are some inherent loopholes mostly in terms of monitoring, in the way IIAs are concluded and are applied in practice by and amongst signatory states.

This research is amongst the first studies to conclude the link between IIAs and FDI flows in developing countries with a particular focus on Mauritius. Additionally, an overwhelming number of studies have emphasised on the efforts to boost FDI, which are inspired mostly by action plans of developed nations, but this research will analyse the policy options adopted by China, being itself a developing country, and the extent to which such recommendations are applicable in the context of Mauritius will also be considered.

The purpose of this study is to critically examine the move to Africanise international investment law (IIL) aimed at promoting sustainable development on the continent.

The study analyses the move by African countries to “Africanise” IIL by incorporating specific and innovative provisions and features in their international investment agreements (IIAs) for the benefit of African economies. This is evidenced by provisions in African regional investment instruments such as the 2007 Common Market of Eastern and Southern Africa Investment Agreement and the 2008 Economic Community of West African States Supplementary Act on Investments produced by the different African regional economic communities (RECs), new-generation IIAs such as the 2016 Nigeria-Morocco IIA and the China-Tanzania IIA and the African Union’s Pan-African Investment Code 2016. The common features of these instruments include linking the objective of investment promotion and protection to sustainable development; excluding portfolio investments; including provisions on investor-obligations; and reserving wide scope of regulatory space for host-states, including the ability to take emergency measures without incurring liability to investors. Some of these provisions are rare in IIAs.

The study finds that, while the efforts are commendable, there are real challenges. Firstly, there are inconsistencies in the regimes existing on the continent due to differences in the contents of the international investment instruments promulgated by the different RECs, and also differences in the content of IIAs signed by some member-states of the RECs with countries external to the RECs. Secondly, there are governance gaps and a lack of enforcement in practice, which would undermine the effectiveness of the laws being forged. Thirdly, the Africanised IIL alone would not attract investment if other important determinants, such as critical infrastructure, remain lacking. Fourthly, there is under-representation of Africa in the arbitral institutions that develop and enrich the laws, which, if it continues, would undermine the effectiveness of the Africanisation provisions being included in IIAs.

While the research discusses both law and policy, more is discussed of the law, owing to space limitation.

It is anticipated that this research will impact the content of the investment protocol under the African continental free trade area and beyond and will prompt review of existing and future IIAs by member states of the various RECs to align them for consistency. It is also hoped that this research will impact the review of various investment instruments of the RECs with the aim of harmonising them. It is further hoped that this research would contribute to addressing the challenges that militate against the achievement of the goals of Africanising ILL for sustainable development.

The study is original. It has not been published previously and the authors have found no existing publication that addresses the issues covered in this study.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP). The EU and the USA are negotiating the TTIP, a trade agreement that aims to remove trade barriers across different economic sectors to increase trade between the EU and the USA. The TTIP will have spill over effects on the MENA region, the GCC, Australia and the Asian sub-continent, as it raises key questions for intellectual property and international trade agreements. For instance, will the USA and EU be on an equal footing or will one triumph over the other, will third party countries like the GCC states be expected to adopt new standards.

The research design is a paper and online data collection method to find literature to date on intellectual property law development in the GCC states in relation to the three research objectives as set out above. The literature is the population, and this could prove problematic. Different databases have been used to cover all sources where data can be found.

As the EU-USA TTIP is aiming to conclude by the end of 2015, the GCC has an opportunity to reassess its relationship with both the EU and GCC. Up until now, the GCC was able to enter into negotiations with the EU and USA relatively independently. However, where the EU and USA can agree, there will be a harmonisation of regulations. This therefore has repercussions for the GCC. The TTIP has three main aims: to increase trade and investment through market access, increase employment and competitiveness and create a harmonised approach to global trade. To harmonise global trade, the EU and USA aim to harmonise their intellectual property rights through an intellectual property rights chapter that deals specifically with enhancing protection and recognition for geographical indications, build on TRIPS and patentability.

This study is non-empirical.

The TTIP will have spill over effects for the GCC, as it has yet to finalise the EU-GCC free trade agreement and USA-GCC framework agreement. The power dynamics between the USA and EU will be a deciding factor on the intellectual property chapter in the TTIP in terms of what the provisions for intellectual property will look like and what powers will be available to investors to bring investor-state-dispute settlement claims against foreign countries.

This paper aims to examine two issues: whether provisions on frivolous claims in the European Union (EU)–Vietnam Investment Protection Agreement (EVIPA) would be Vietnam’s intrinsic demand, and to what extent, Vietnam may enjoy the benefits from these provisions.

This paper combines both doctrinal legal analysis and policy research. It offers an in-depth case study of the provisions on frivolous claims in the EVIPA, compares them with those of other existing international investment agreements and arbitrations rules, examines how similar provisions in these instruments are interpreted in available practical international investment disputes, uncovers the Vietnam’s position through interviewing Vietnamese senior experts, who were members of the Vietnamese delegation negotiating the EVIPA, and through available collected data and then evaluates whether these provisions may be favourable to this country.

While the new investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism in the EVIPA can be viewed as explicit evidence of the EU’s achievement, it may also be Vietnam’s benefits to entertain new ISDS provisions on frivolous claims. They were drafted, based on the ISDS arbitration practice, states’ experience and actual situations in Vietnam. These novel provisions, among other things, serve as Vietnam’s prerequisites to consider whether to accept the new two-tier standing mechanism or not. The inclusion of such ISDS provisions in the EVIPA, therefore, is supposed to meet the Vietnam’s intrinsic demands for defending against unfounded frivolous cases.

This is the first time the EU concluded an investment treaty containing innovative ISDS provisions with a developing country. This paper therefore may help envisage Vietnam’s perspective during its negotiation of provisions on frivolous claims in the EVIPA and prove that the avails of these provisions to a frequent respondent State like Vietnam can be realised. The paper’s findings mean for research in investment law as well as for policymakers as far as the frivolous cases are concerned.

Multinational corporations (MNCs) entering into so-called state contracts in developing countries, notably in extracting industries or infrastructures, typically find themselves seeking a long-term commitment from a state whose life expectancy might be shorter than the duration of the contract. To address this uncertainty, MNCs have devised additional legal layers and brought additional parties to state contracts, causing a contractual inflation with contradictory aims. On the one hand, they have sought to blur the notion of third party, so that they could assert their contractual rights vis-à-vis more stakeholders. On the other hand, they have carefully avoided a total disqualification of this very notion to keep the civil society away from the negotiation table. Nowadays, the threat that the host states used to represent has been substantially reduced, but MNCs are now exposed outside of state contracts, for it is precisely the lack of contractual commitment on the part of the civil society that is a potential challenge to their activities. Accordingly, they are now forced to seek the endorsement of the very actor they ostensibly ignored in the past. The purpose of this paper is to describe this sinuous evolution of the state contract and to discuss the challenges it announces.

In the first part, the authors analyze the legal bubble that has prospered throughout the past decades, resulting in a dilution of the state as a party to the contract. In the second part, they describe the emergence by default of the civil society that this phenomenon has triggered. They discuss their findings and conclude in the third part.

In the past decades, state contracts have consistently progressed in the direction of an increased weakening of the state vis-à-vis its private contractors. For MNCs, this decline is far less favorable than it seems, for it enables the civil society to fill the gap and to claim a role that as disturbing as it is disproportionate, considering its uncertain legal nature.

Despite its evanescent content and contours, it is probably this civil society itself that will draw the new frontier of the state contract. What it will be is yet to be determined however.

MNCs lack the legal power to turn the civil society or some of its emanations into a legal person, let alone compel it to actually “sign” state contracts. But for their bargaining power vis-à-vis host states remains as strong as ever, they may ultimately force their sovereign interlocutors to do so.

The civil society has been extensively studied, but never as the legal person MNCs would like it to be.

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.