Substantive and Procedural Challenges in International Investment Law
Summary: 1. Introduction. – 2. International Investment Law Development. – 3. Critical Issues Affecting the International Investment Regime. – 3.1. The purpose of the international investment regime. – 3.2. The scope of the international investment agreements. – 3.2.1. The meaning of foreign ‘investment’. – 3.2.2. The circumstances in which an investor is a ‘foreign’. – 3.2.3. Coverage of state-controlled entities (SCE). – 3.2.4. Temporal scope of treaties. – 3.2.5. Express exclusions from the scope of IIAs. – 3.3. The substantive content of investment disciplines. – 3.3.1. The controversial meaning of investment-protection standards. – 3.3.2. The interlink between investment protection and the right to regulate. – 3.3.3. Investment liberalisation commitments. – 3.3.4. Disciplines on host state and foreign investors. – 3.4. International investment arbitration. – 3.4.1. The ‘process’ and ‘outcome’ of investment arbitration. – 3.4.2. The principal users of investment arbitration and any other stakeholders. – 3.5. Managing multiple legal sources. – 3.6. The institutional structure of the international investment regime. – 4. Recommendations to Resolve Current Issues in the International Investment Regime. – 5. Conclusions and Recommendations.
Background: Given the lack of development in the International Investment Law (IIL) and its increase of substantive and procedural challenges, this paper identifies those issues and challenges and provide suggests solutions to these challenges.
Methods: The procedures to be followed in obtaining information concerning the adequacy of IIL and its effectiveness. The article will look at the logical method, comparative method, and historical method. After data collection using these methods, the data will be analysed; accordingly, a comparison will be carried out between different international investment legal instruments to establish the gaps and development opportunities. A logical method will be applied to data collection. It is an analysis methodology that combines concepts and ideas. A historical method will be used to collect data and facts from records, to investigate the competence of international investment legal instruments over time. The researcher will explain the history of international investment legal instruments to show the importance of law development.
Results and Conclusions: The development of a unified global convention that is formatted to provide a uniform and neutral set of substantive and procedural rules to regulate international investments would, in fact, meet the optimal objectives of the state and investor in the most appropriate manner according to the current legal investment instruments.
Abstract
Background: Given the lack of development in the International Investment Law (IIL) and its increase of substantive and procedural challenges, this paper identifies those issues and challenges and provide suggests solutions to these challenges.
Methods: The procedures to be followed in obtaining information concerning the adequacy of IIL and its effectiveness. The article will look at the logical method, comparative method, and historical method. After data collection using these methods, the data will be analysed; accordingly, a comparison will be carried out between different international investment legal instruments to establish the gaps and development opportunities. A logical method will be applied to data collection. It is an analysis methodology that combines concepts and ideas. A historical method will be used to collect data and facts from records, to investigate the competence of international investment legal instruments over time. The researcher will explain the history of international investment legal instruments to show the importance of law development.
Results and Conclusions: The development of a unified global convention that is formatted to provide a uniform and neutral set of substantive and procedural rules to regulate international investments would, in fact, meet the optimal objectives of the state and investor in the most appropriate manner according to the current legal investment instruments.
About Authors
Lamya Alfaify
MCL Student, Legal Researcher, Prince Sultan University, Collage of Law, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Lamya.Alfaify@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0009-0001-0132-0124
Corresponding author, responsible for writing and researching. Competing interests: Any competing interests were included. Disclaimer: The author declares that her opinion and views expressed in this manuscript are free of any impact of any organizations.
Managing editor – Mag Polina Siedova. English Editor – Dr Sarah White.
Guest Editors of the Special Issue: Dr Mohammed Albakjaji, Prince Sultan University, and Dr Maya Khater, Al Yamamah University, Saudi Arabia.
Copyright: © 2023 Lamya Alfaify. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
References
1. van Aaken A, ‘Primary and Secondary Remedies in International Investment Law and National State Liability: A Functional and Comparative View’ in Schill SW (ed), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (OUP 2010) 721, doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199589104.003.0023.
2. Anne Debevoise Ostby, ‘Will Foreign Investors Regulate Indigenous Peoples’ Right to Self-Determination?’ (2003) 21 (1) Wisconsin International Law Journal 223.
3. Bjorklund AK, ‘The Role of Counterclaims in Rebalancing Investment Law’ (2013) 17 (2) Lewis & Clark Law Review 461.
4. Blowfield M and Frynas JG, ‘Editorial Setting New Agendas: Critical Perspectives on Corporate Social Responsibility in the Developing World’ (2005) 81 (3) International Affairs 499, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2346.2005.00465.x.
5. Brower CN and Blanchard S, ‘What's in a Meme? The Truth about Investor-State Arbitration: Why It Need Not, and Must Not, Be Repossessed by States’ (2013) 52 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 689.
6. Butler N and Subedi S, ‘The Future of International Investment Regulation: Towards a World Investment Organisation?’ (2017) 64 Netherlands International Law Review 43, doi: 10.1007/s40802-017-0082-5.
7. Cheng TH, ‘Power, Authority and International Investment Law’ (2005) 20 (3) American University International Law Review 465.
8. Cross KH, ‘Investment Arbitration Panel Upholds Jurisdiction to Hear Mass Bondholder Claims Against Argentina’ (2011) 15 (30) ASIL Insights <https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/15/issue/30/investment-arbitration-panel-upholds-jurisdiction-hear-mass-bondholder> accessed 26 April 2023.
9. Dupuy PM, ‘Unification Rather than Fragmentation of International Law? The Case of International Investment Law and Human Rights Law’ in Dupuy PM, Petersmann EU and Francioni F (eds), Human Rights in International Investment Law and Arbitration (International Economic Law Series, OUP 2009) 45, doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199578184.003.0002.
10. Feldstein M and Horioka C, ‘Domestic Saving and International Capital Flows’ (1980) 90 (358) The Economic Journal 314.
11. Garcia FJ and others, ‘Reforming the International Investment Regime: Lessons from International Trade Law’ (2015) 18 (4) Journal of International Economic Law 861, doi: 10.1093/jiel/jgv042.
12. Gökgür N, ‘Are Resurging State-Owned Enterprises Impeding Competition Overseas?’ in Sauvant KP and Reimer J (eds), FDI Perspectives: Issues in International Investment (2nd edn, Vale Columbia Center 2012) 26.
13. Houtte H van and McAsey B, ‘Abaclat and Others v Argentine Republic: ICSID, the BIT and Mass Claims’ (2012) 27 (2) ICSID Review 231, doi: 10.1093/icsidreview/sis020.
14. Huaqun Z, ‘Balance, Sustainable Development, and Integration: Innovative Path for BIT Practice’ (2014) 17 (2) Journal of International Economic Law 299, doi: 10.1093/jiel/jgu019.
15. Kaplow L, ‘Rules Versus Standards: An Economic Analysis’ (1992) 42 (3) Duke Law Journal 557.
16. Malinvaud C, ‘Non-Pecuniary Remedies in Investment Treaty and Commercial Arbitration’ in Berg AJ van den (ed), 50 years of the New York Convention (Wolters Kluwer 2009) 209.
17. Mann H, International Investment Agreements, Business and Human Rights: Key Issues and Opportunities (International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) 2008).
18. Muchlinski PT, ‘The Rise and Fall of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment: Where Now?’ (2000) 34 (3) The International Lawyer 1033.
19. Newcombe AP and Paradell L, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standards of Treatment(Kluwer Law International 2009) 1.
20. Newcombe AP, ‘Regulatory Expropriation, Investment Protection and International Law: When Is Government Regulation Expropriatory and When Should Compensation Be Paid?’ (Master of Laws thesis, University of Toronto 1999).
21. Ortino F, ‘External Transparency of Investment Awards’ (Society of International Economic Law (SIEL) Inaugural Conference, Geneva, 14 July 2008) doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1159899.
22. Ortino F, ‘Refining the Content and Role of Investment “Rules” and “Standards”: A New Approach to International Treaty-Making’ (2013) 28 (1) ICSID Review 152, doi: 10.1093/icsidreview/sit002.
23. Perry S, ‘Arbitrators and Human Rights’ (Global Arbitration Review, 13 June 2011) <https://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/arbitrators-and-human-rights> accessed 26 April 2023.
24. Rigo Sureda A, Investment Treaty Arbitration: Judging Under Uncertainty (Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lectures, CUP 2012) doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139136792.
25. Rodrik D, ‘The Economics of Export-Performance Requirements’ (1987) 102 (3) Quarterly Journal of Economics 633, doi: 10.2307/1884221.
26. Salacuse JW, ‘BIT by BIT: The Growth of Bilateral Investment Treaties and Their Impact on Foreign Investment in Developing Countries’ (1990) 24 (3) The International Lawyer 655.
27. Salacuse JW, The Law of Investment Treaties (Oxford International Law Library, 2nd edn, OUP 2015) doi: 10.1093/law/9780198703976.001.0001.
28. Sattorova M, ‘Defining Investment Under the ICSID Convention and BITs: Of Ordinary Meaning, Telos, and Beyond’ (2012) 2 (2) Asian Journal of International Law 267, doi: 10.1017/S2044251312000112.
29. Sauvant KP and Ortino F, Improving the International Investment Law and Policy Regime: Options for the Future (Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland 2013).
30. Schill SW, ‘System-Building in Investment Treaty Arbitration and Lawmaking’ (2011) 12 (5) German Law Journal 1083, doi: 10.1017/S2071832200017235.
31. Schill SW, Tams CJ and Hofmann R (eds), International Investment Law, and Development: Bridging the Gap (Frankfurt Investment and Economic Law series, Edward Elgar Pub 2015) doi: 10.4337/9781784711351.
32. Schreuer C, ‘Non-Pecuniary Remedies in ICSID Arbitration’ (2004) 20 (4) Arbitration International 325, doi: 10.1093/arbitration/20.4.325.
33. Schwebel SM, ‘The Influence of Bilateral Investment Treaties on Customary International Law’ (2004) 98 American Society of International Law Proceedings 27, doi: 10.1017/S0272503700060699.
34. Spears SA, ‘The Quest for Policy Space in a New Generation of International Investment Agreements’ (2010) 13 (4) Journal of International Economic Law 1037, doi: 10.1093/jiel/jgq048.
35. Suehrer J, ‘The Future of FDI: Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals 2030 through Impact Investment’ (2019) 10 (3) Global Policy 413, doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12714.
36. Thakur T, ‘Reforming the Investor-State Dispute Settlement Mechanism and the Host State’s Right to Regulate: A Critical Assessment’ (2021) 59 (1-4) Indian Journal of International Law 173, doi: 10.1007/s40901-020-00111-2.
37. Thielbörger P, ‘The Human Right to Water Versus Investor Rights: Double-Dilemma or Pseudo-Conflict?’ in Dupuy PM, Petersmann EU and Francioni F (eds), Human Rights in International Investment Law and Arbitration (International Economic Law Series, OUP 2009) 487, doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199578184.003.0020.
38. Van Harten G, Investment Treaty Arbitration and Public Law (OUP 2007).
39. Vandevelde KJ, Bilateral Investment Treaties: History, Policy, and Interpretation (OUP 2010).
40. Vanhonnaeker L, ‘International Investment Agreements’ in VanDuzer JA and Leblond P (eds), Promoting and Managing International Investment: Towards an Integrated Policy Approach (Routledge Research in International Economic Law, Routledge 2020) 200.
41. Vetrivel SC and Kumarmangalam SC, ‘Role of Microfinance Institutions in Rural Development’ (2010) 2 (2) International Journal of Information Technology and Knowledge Management 435.
42. Waibel M and others (eds), The Backlash Against Investment Arbitration: Perceptions and Reality(Kluwer Law International 2010).
43. Walde T and Kolo A, ‘Investor-State Disputes: The Interface Between Treaty-Based International Investment Protection and Fiscal Sovereignty’ (2007) 35 (8-9) Intertax 424, doi: 10.54648/taxi2007049.
44. Yannaca-Small K (ed), Arbitration Under International Investment Agreements: A Guide to the Key Issues (OUP 2010).
Reviews for article
Add a Review
Ламія Альфаіфі
АНОТАЦІЯ
Передумови. З огляду на недостатній розвиток міжнародного інвестиційного
права (IIL) та зростання матеріальних і процедурних проблем, у цьому
документі визначено ці проблеми й виклики та запропоновано шляхи
розв`язання цих проблем. Багатьом країнам потрібні великі суми
фінансування, щоб їхнє населення могло жити за розумними стандартами.
Місцеві заощадження є важливими для забезпечення капіталу, але їх
недостатньо. Отже, іноземний капітал є важливим для економічного
зростання. Значна частина іноземного капіталу надходить через державні
ресурси (пожертви, позики, технічна допомога), але їх недостатньо, а їх
використання часто стримується політичними, економічними та
адміністративними чинниками, які знижують їхню ефективність.
Методи. Дотримано процедур для одержання інформації щодо адекватності
IIL та його ефективності. У дослідженні застосовано логічний метод,
порівняльний та історичний методи. Після збору даних за допомогою цих
методів дані проаналізовано; проведено порівняння між різними
міжнародними інвестиційними правовими інструментами, щоб визначити
прогалини та можливості розвитку. Для збору даних застосовано логічний
метод. Це методологія аналізу, яка поєднує концепції та ідеї. Історичний
метод застосовано для збору даних і фактів, щоб дослідити компетентність
міжнародних інвестиційних правових інструментів у часі. Дослідник
пояснює історію міжнародних інвестиційних правових інструментів, щоб
показати важливість розвитку права.
Результати та висновки. Розроблення уніфікованої глобальної конвенції,
сформатованої таким чином, щоб забезпечити уніфікований і нейтральний
набір матеріальних і процедурних норм для регулювання міжнародних
інвестицій, фактично відповідала б оптимальним цілям держави та інвестора
в найбільш відповідний спосіб відповідно до чинних легальних
інвестиційних інструментів. Мета міжнародного інвестиційного режиму
розпливчаста й неоднозначна, що призводить до невизначеності в її
тлумаченні. Сфера застосування IIL також нечітка. У цьому документі
досліджено основні матеріальні та процедурні проблеми, з якими стикається
IIL, які були проілюстровані вище.
Publication history
-
Submitted on 09 Apr 2023 / Revised 26 Apr 2023 / Approved 20 May 2023 Published online: 01 Jun 2023 / Last published: 16 Jun 2023
How to cite it?
-
L Alfaify ‘Substantive and Procedural Challenges in International Investment Law’ 2023 Special Issue Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 179-195. https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-6S019
