Suchergebnisse

While international investment law is one of the most dynamic and thriving fields of international law, it is increasingly criticised for failing to strike a fair balance between private property rights and the public interest. Proportionality is a tool to resolve conflicts between competing rights and interests. This book assesses its current role, its potential, and its limits in investor-state arbitration

While international investment law is one of the most dynamic and thriving fields of international law, it is increasingly criticised for failing to strike a fair balance between private property rights and the public interest. Proportionality is a tool to resolve conflicts between competing rights and interests. This book assesses its current role, its potential, and its limits in investor-state arbitration

This book examines the law, national and/or international, that arbitral tribunals apply on the merits to settle disputes between foreign investors and host states. In light of the freedom that the disputing parties and the arbitrators have when designating the applicable law, and because of the hybrid nature of legal relationship between investors and states, there is significant interplay between the national and the international legal order in investor-state arbitration. The book contains a comprehensive analysis of the relevant jurisprudence, legal instruments, and scholarship surrounding arbitral practice with respect to the application of national law and international law. It investigates the awards in which tribunals referred to consistency between the legal orders, and suggests alternatives to the traditional doctrines of monism and dualism to explain the relationship between the national and the international legal order. The book also addresses the territorialized or internationalized nature of the tribunals; relevant choice-of-law rules and methodologies; and the scope of the arbitration agreement, including the possibility of host states presenting counterclaims in investment treaty arbitration. Ultimately, it argues that in investor–state arbitration, national and international law do not only coexist but may be applied simultaneously; they are also interdependent, each complementing and informing the other both indirectly and directly for a larger common good: enforcement of rights and obligations regardless of their national or international origin.

Introduction to Investor-State Arbitration' focuses on sometimes difficult concepts of investor-State arbitration in a clear and concise explanatory manner while drawing attention to important cases. Today thousands of investors act globally in markets providing services, technology or capital in countries all around the world. This activity can be peacefully accomplished when both the investor and the host State know that the disputes will be resolved under the aegis of the investor-State arbitration regime, wherein an investor is provided with a direct right of action against a State, most commonly stemming from a bilateral investment treaty or a multilateral treaty such as the Energy Charter Treaty and the North American Free Trade Agreement, as well as public contracts

International investment agreements (IIAs) give conflicts between mining companies and communities a transnational dimension, allowing investors to sue a state before an IIA tribunal. While investor-state disputes related to extractive industries arise from a wide range of state actions, an important subset are triggered by domestic conflicts between anti-mining groups and foreign companies. How does arbitration affect anti-mining movements? I argue that IIAs limit the government's responsiveness to domestic pressure, reducing the ability of domestic nonstate actors to influence policies governing the extractive industry. However, it cannot be assumed that states would support these groups even without investor pressure; IIAs only have this effect when anti-mining groups are able to change the state's preference toward the investment.

After decades of growth and popularity, the international investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) regime has come under intense criticism recently-particularly concerning the perceived chilling effect the regime imposes on states' ability to regulate in the public interest. This Article seeks to contextualize this criticism by examining the historical antecedent of ISDS in international law: the law of diplomatic protection. It proceeds to focus on the flexibility of ISDS as a critical advance over diplomatic protection, and shows how ISDS has evolved over time-particularly as developed states have moved from approaching the regime from a predominantly investment-exporting perspective to a more balanced perspective that accounts for inbound foreign investments. In concrete terms, the inherent flexibility of ISDS has permitted it increasingly to protect states' interests in regulating in the public interest, while at the same time protecting foreign investment against inappropriate governmental interference. The Article ultimately argues that the ISDS system should be permitted to continue to evolve to arrive at the appropriate equilibrium for its time