Panama-Switzerland: Bilateral Investment Treaty
In: International legal materials: current documents, Band 22, Heft 6, S. 1255, 1255
ISSN: 0020-7829
254097 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: International legal materials: current documents, Band 22, Heft 6, S. 1255, 1255
ISSN: 0020-7829
In: International legal materials: ILM, Band 22, Heft 6, S. 1255-1261
ISSN: 1930-6571
In: Investment Claims, OUP, 2016
SSRN
In: Stanford journal of international law, Band 21, Heft 2, S. 373
ISSN: 0731-5082
In: Stanford journal of international law, Band 21, S. 373-459
ISSN: 0731-5082
SSRN
Working paper
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 98, Heft 4, S. 836-837
ISSN: 2161-7953
In: 4(2) Indian Law Review 2020 (Routledge), 199-220.
SSRN
In: In J. Chaisse (Ed.), China`s Three-Prong Investment Strategy: Bilateral, Regional, and Global Tracks. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Forthcoming
SSRN
Working paper
In: American journal of international law, Band 92, Heft 4, S. 621-641
ISSN: 0002-9300
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 92, Heft 4, S. 621-641
ISSN: 2161-7953
One of the more remarkable developments in international law in the mid-1990s is not what it appears to be. The massive and sudden proliferation of bilateral investment treaties (BITs), now constituting a network of more than thirteen hundred agreements involving some 160 states, appears to reflect die triumph of liberal economics in the sphere of international investment. In fact, however, it constitutes only a momentary convergence of nationalist interests. If the BITs are to construct the liberal international investment regime they seem to promise, then they must be modified in important and substantial ways.
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 114, Heft 3, S. 471-478
ISSN: 2161-7953
In a judgment issued on June 6, 2019 (Judgment), the Colombian Constitutional Court (Court) examined the constitutionality of the Agreement for the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments between Colombia and France (Agreement). The Court upheld the constitutionality of the Agreement on the condition that the government adopt a joint interpretative statement with France to clarify some of its provisions and prevent interpretations contrary to the Colombian constitutional order. In doing so, the Court articulated a standard of review that takes into account the benefits and costs of international investment agreements (IIAs), the application of which entailed an insightful examination of the Agreement in light of the decisions of investment tribunals. The judgment raises significant issues of public international law, including the practical implications of conditioning ratification of the Agreement on adoption of a joint interpretative statement and the role of such statements in the interpretation of IIAs. Furthermore, the judgment makes important contributions to the ongoing process of reform of the investment treaty regime and the strategies adopted by states to counter the adverse impacts of IIAs on regulatory autonomy.
In: American journal of international law, Band 92, S. 621-641
ISSN: 0002-9300
In: International economics and economic policy, Band 21, Heft 2, S. 411-434
ISSN: 1612-4812
In: American journal of international law, Band 106, Heft 3, S. 652-655
ISSN: 0002-9300