Suchergebnisse

This study analyzes variations in the incidence of state involvement in investment treaty arbitration in Latin America and the Caribbean over the 1987–2014 period. Its main contributions are fourfold. First, by focusing on the balance of incentives and opportunities facing political leaders and foreign investors, the study establishes a new basis for understanding the reasons actors opt for the risks and uncertainties of international arbitration instead of resolving international investment disputes via alternative means. Second, by restricting the focus of research to the Latin American region, the study is able to move beyond the analysis of relatively time-invariant structural and institutional conditions and crude indicators to address the role played by the preferences of political actors. Third, by disaggregating disputes by sector of investment, the analysis documents the variable role of ideology and electoral incentives in investment treaty arbitration. Finally, by underlining the distinctiveness of the Latin American experience with investment treaty arbitration, the study offers new insights into the global backlash against investment treaty arbitration, which has gone farther in the region than anywhere else. Overall, the results underline the potential payoffs of breaking down the international experience with investment treaty arbitration into regional patterns to obtain a deeper and more granular understanding of the political economy of investor-state dispute settlement.

This study analyzes variations in the incidence of state involvement in investment treaty arbitration in Latin America and the Caribbean over the 1987–2014 period. Its main contributions are fourfold. First, by focusing on the balance of incentives and opportunities facing political leaders and foreign investors, the study establishes a new basis for understanding the reasons actors opt for the risks and uncertainties of international arbitration instead of resolving international investment disputes via alternative means. Second, by restricting the focus of research to the Latin American region, the study is able to move beyond the analysis of relatively time-invariant structural and institutional conditions and crude indicators to address the role played by the preferences of political actors. Third, by disaggregating disputes by sector of investment, the analysis documents the variable role of ideology and electoral incentives in investment treaty arbitration. Finally, by underlining the distinctiveness of the Latin American experience with investment treaty arbitration, the study offers new insights into the global backlash against investment treaty arbitration, which has gone farther in the region than anywhere else. Overall, the results underline the potential payoffs of breaking down the international experience with investment treaty arbitration into regional patterns to obtain a deeper and more granular understanding of the political economy of investor-state dispute settlement. ResumenEste estudio analiza las variaciones en la incidencia de la participación del Estado en el arbitraje de tratados de inversión en América Latina y el Caribe durante el período 1987–2014. Sus principales contribuciones son cuádruples. En primer lugar, al centrarse en el equilibrio de incentivos y oportunidades a los que se enfrentan los líderes políticos y los inversores extranjeros, el estudio establece una nueva base para entender las razones por las que los actores optan por los riesgos e incertidumbres del arbitraje internacional en lugar de resolver controversias internacionales en materia de inversiones por medios alternativos. En segundo lugar, al restringir el enfoque de la investigación a la región latinoamericana, el estudio es capaz de ir más allá del análisis de condiciones estructurales e institucionales relativamente invariables en el tiempo e indicadores burdos para abordar el papel desempeñado por las preferencias de actores políticos. En tercer lugar, al desagregar las disputas por sector de inversión, el análisis documenta el papel variable de la ideología y los incentivos electorales en el arbitraje de tratados de inversión. Por último, al subrayar el carácter distintivo de la experiencia latinoamericana con el arbitraje de tratados de inversión, el estudio ofrece nuevas perspectivas sobre la reacción global contra el arbitraje de tratados de inversión, que ha ido más lejos en la región que en cualquier otro lugar. En general, los resultados subrayan los posibles beneficios de descomponerse la experiencia internacional con el arbitraje de tratados de inversión en patrones regionales para obtener una comprensión más profunda y más granular de la economía política de la resolución de disputas entre inversionistas y estados.

Abstract
Through design of international investment agreements, foreign investors may bring international claims against the States in which they invest, challenging domestic executive and regulatory measures, including those related to the environment and sustainable development. In contrast, host States are usually limited to defending claims brought against them. The capacity for a host State to bring an independent counterclaim has been tested in only a handful of cases, some of which involved environmental considerations. This article considers those cases and the potential for counterclaims to help enforce national and international objectives related to the environment. It does so by setting out the legal framework for counterclaims by host States, analyzing how jurisdiction, admissibility and causes of action involving environmental obligations under domestic and international law may be satisfied, and the attendant consequences for liability and compensation. It then considers the implications of counterclaims for future investment disputes, given the rapid development of international and domestic environmental law and policy, especially in the context of corporate governance, climate change and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

Historically speaking, the Asia-Pacific region has contributed to the
evolution of the investment treaty arbitration practice. However, the case
number involving this region remains low when compared with the strong
growth of investment treaty arbitration worldwide. The region's role is
disproportionate to its prominence in the world economy or its extensive
network of investment treaty agreements (IIAs).

AbstractWhile the public nature of investment treaty arbitration has been increasingly recognized, its procedures are modelled on those of international commercial arbitration. This creates a gap between (public) substance and (private) procedure in investment treaty arbitration. Against this background, this article examines the increasing acceptance ofamicus curiaesubmissions in investment treaty arbitration. It argues that investment treaty arbitration tribunals should make effective use ofamicus curiaesubmissions in order to include neglected perspectives of the issues raised in arbitration, which may bridge this public/private gap.