Suchergebnisse

ABSTRACT
Since 2017, World Trade Organization members have been engaged in Structured Discussions aimed at agreeing on a multilateral framework on investment facilitation for development. The negotiations focus on establishing binding disciplines for investment facilitation, which will likely be made subject to the World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Understanding. Investment facilitation, however, is that something states already do. Over the past decade, states have adopted record numbers of reforms at the domestic, regional, and international levels to facilitate foreign investment. These reforms show no signs of slowing. This begs an important question regarding the World Trade Organization initiative: given all the attention that investment facilitation already receives from states and international organizations, how, if at all, would the conclusion of a World Trade Organization Framework bring added value to states, i.e. value that cannot be achieved by ongoing efforts? Examining this question is the focus of this paper.

The Treaty of Lisbon's grant of exclusive competence to the European Union for foreign direct investment (FDI) matters signals the beginning of a profound shift in the global landscape of FDI regulation as the international investment policies of twenty-seven states begin to be consolidated and harmonized at a regional level. The Union's first steps in developing its international investment policy, however, have been uncertain. The process thus far has lacked transparency and has been marked by significant disagreement in approach and substance among the European institutions. Among the EU's decision-making bodies there is disagreement over fundamental issues such as whether to develop a model investment treaty text and how to strike a balance between the protection of investors and the preservation of host state regulatory discretion. This article evaluates the key issues facing the European Union and places them within their international context.

AbstractThe British Government's nationalization of the shares of Northern Rock plc and Bradford & Bingley plc in 2008 raises important issues about the standard of protection owed to the banks' non-UK investors and the manner in which compensation should be calculated. The United Kingdom is party to numerous bilateral investment treaties as well as the European Convention on Human Rights, which adopt an international standard of protection for foreign investors and require the payment of 'market value' compensation for the property taken. As the analysis in this article shows, the compensation scheme established by the British Government appears to fall short of these obligations.