Search results

The MiDi is a collection of individual (i.e. firm-to-firm or private individuals-to-firms) investment relations originally collected to calculate aggregate measures of German foreign direct investment (FDI). It is based on an annual data collection on foreign direct investment stocks that was established by the Deutsche Bundesbank in 1976 in accordance with the German Foreign Trade and Payments Regulation ("Aussenwirtschaftsverordnung"), with the intention to get a better and more accurate picture of the structure and scope of inward and outward FDI of German enterprises. Since 1996, individual companies can be traced over time, which made it possible to prepare a micro-level panel dataset for research purposes. Due to changes in data protection regulation, the available anonymized research data covers all years from 1999 until the respective last currently processed year.

The MiDi is a collection of individual (i.e. firm-to-firm or private individuals-to-firms) investment relations originally collected to calculate aggregate measures of German foreign direct investment (FDI). It is based on an annual data collection on foreign direct investment stocks that was established by the Deutsche Bundesbank in 1976 in accordance with the German Foreign Trade and Payments Regulation ("Aussenwirtschaftsverordnung"), with the intention to get a better and more accurate picture of the structure and scope of inward and outward FDI of German enterprises. Since 1996, individual companies can be traced over time, which made it possible to prepare a micro-level panel dataset for research purposes. Due to changes in data protection regulation, the available anonymized research data covers all years from 1999 until the respective last currently processed year.

Abstract
Passive investments are a phenomenon in investment treaty arbitration. Arbitral jurisprudence is divided over the eligibility of investments represented by claimants who played little or no part in their establishment or nurturing for treaty protection. This note attributes the emergence of passive investments as a category of protected investments to a jurisdictional loophole present in the vast majority of investment treaties. It then considers the extent to which this loophole can be addressed by 'denial of benefits' clauses in applicable treaties, by reading an 'action of investing' jurisdictional condition into applicable treaties, and by the award of nominal damages when a claim arising from a passive investment prevails on the merits. This note concludes that so long as investment treaties continue to hold sway as regulatory tools, passive investments, for better or for worse, are protected investments.

A response by the Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment to the OECD Public Consultation on Investment Treaties and Climate Change. The Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment (CCSI) — a joint research center of Columbia Law School and the Earth Institute at Columbia University — explores elements of the international investment legal framework, including the impact of investment treaties, investor–state dispute settlement, and home and host government policies governing inward and outward investment, among many other issues.

We analyze the effect of bilateral investment treaties (BITs) on bilateral foreign portfolio investment in equity and debt securities. We find that expropriation risk and the level of a BIT's investor protection are complementary. Applying a Poisson Pseudo-Maximum-Likelihood model to a panel of 60 home and 39 host countries from 2002 to 2017, we find that host countries receive 40% more bilateral equity investment when they protect foreign investors with a BIT. This effect almost doubles when investment protection of BITs is strong, and the political risk of the host country is high.