Skip to main content

2019 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

An African View on the CETA Investment Chapter

verfasst von : Makane Moïse Mbengue, Mohamed H. Negm

Erschienen in: Foreign Investment Under the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA)

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Investments form a substantial portion of Canada-European Union (EU) economic relations. The CETA’s Investment Chapter is designed to give investors greater certainty, stability, transparency, and protection for their investments, and to secure access for Canadian and European investors to each other’s respective markets. In the course of negotiation of the CETA, Canada and the EU agreed to incorporate certain reform approaches to investment protection and investment dispute resolution provisions. This chapter seeks to discuss and contextualize these approaches from an African perspective by comparing it to the specific and innovative features enshrined in African international investment agreements (IIAs) and model treaties including, inter alia, the Pan-African Investment Code (PAIC). The latter is the first continent-wide African model investment treaty elaborated under the auspices of the African Union (AU).

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Fußnoten
1
European Commission, Overview of FTA and other Trade Negotiations, 9 April 2013, http://​trade.​ec.​europa.​eu/​doclib/​docs/​2006/​december/​tradoc_​118238.​pdf.
 
3
Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part, signed 30 October 2016, published in the Official Journal of the European Union, OJ L 11, 14 January 2017, pp. 23–1079.
 
4
Joint statement of EU Trade Commissioner, Cecilia Malmström, and the Minister of International Trade of Canada, Chrystia Freeland, “Malmström met Minister Freeland of Canada”, Brussels, 21 April 2016, http://​trade.​ec.​europa.​eu/​doclib/​press/​index.​cfm?​id=​1483.
 
5
The Pan-African Investment Code, Version of 26 March 2016, https://​repository.​uneca.​org/​handle/​10855/​23009. Makane Mbengue has been the lead expert and negotiator from 2014 to 2015. The views expressed in this chapter do not necessarily reflect the views of the African Union or of other negotiators involved in the negotiation and drafting of the PAIC. For a detailed analysis of the PAIC and its elaboration, see Mbengue and Schacherer (2017).
 
6
Dolzer and Stevens (1995), p. 20.
 
7
UNCTAD, “Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development” (2015) (hereafter: IPFSD), http://​unctad.​org/​en/​PublicationsLibr​ary/​diaepcb2015d5_​en.​pdf. The term sustainable development is understood here as development, which relates to economic development, social development and the protection of the environment as interdependent and mutually reinforcing components.
 
8
See for instance, CETA, Art. 22.1(2).
 
9
CETA, preamble, para. 9.
 
10
See Model BIT of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), Commentary p. 8, http://​www.​iisd.​org/​itn/​wp-content/​uploads/​2012/​10/​SADC-Model-BIT-Template-Final.​pdf.
 
11
PAIC, preamble, para. 8.
 
12
Ibid., para. 10.
 
13
The SADC Model BIT (n. 10), preamble, para. 6.
 
14
PAIC, Art. 1.
 
15
CETA, Art. 8.2.
 
16
PAIC, Art. 2.2.
 
17
CETA, Art. 8.1.
 
18
SADC Model BIT (n. 10), Commentary, p. 13.
 
19
PAIC, Art. 3.4.
 
20
An investment under the PAIC may possess the following assets: “shares, stocks, debentures and other equity instruments of the enterprise or another enterprise; a debt security of another enterprise; loans to an enterprise; movable or immovable property and other property rights such as mortgages, liens or pledges; claims to money or to any performance under contract having a financial value; copyrights, know-how, goodwill and industrial property rights such as patents, trademarks, industrial designs and trade names, to the extent they are recognized under the law of the host State”.
 
21
See Indian Model BIT (2015) Art. 1.4 http://​investmentpolicy​hub.​unctad.​org/​Download/​TreatyFile/​3560; Investment Cooperation and Facilitation Agreement between the Federative Republic of Brazil and the Republic of Malawi (signed 25 June 2015, not yet in force) Art. 2, http://​investmentpolicy​hub.​unctad.​org/​Download/​TreatyFile/​4715.
 
22
The SADC Model BIT contains three options for the definition of an investment: an enterprise-based definition, an asset-based definition with a closed list and an asset-based definition with an open list, see SADC Model BIT (n. 10) Commentary, pp. 12–13.
 
23
Ibid., Commentary, p. 13.
 
24
CETA, Art. 8.1.
 
25
CETA, Art. 8.1.
 
26
The definition of a portfolio investment under the PAIC is the following: “portfolio investment refers to any investment where the investor owns less than 10% of shares in a company or through stock exchange, or otherwise does not give the portfolio investor the possibility to exercise effective management or influence on the management of the investment”.
 
27
Alike Brazil-Malawi CIFA (n. 21) Art. 2.
 
28
PAIC, Art. 4.
 
29
Salini et al. v Morocco, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4, Decision on Jurisdiction, 23 July 2001, para. 52.
 
30
Ibid.
 
32
German Model BIT (2008), Art. 1.1 http://​investmentpolicy​hub.​unctad.​org/​Download/​TreatyFile/​2865; UK Model BIT (2008), Art. 1(a); http://​investmentpolicy​hub.​unctad.​org/​Download/​TreatyFile/​2847; French Model BIT (2006) Art. 1.1 www.​italaw.​com/​documents/​ModelTreatyFranc​e2006.​pdf; Agreement between Japan and the Islamic Republic of Iran on Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investment (signed 5 February 2016, not yet in force), Art. 1.1, http://​investmentpolicy​hub.​unctad.​org/​Download/​TreatyFile/​3578; Agreement between Japan and Ukraine for the Promotion and Protection of Investment (signed 5 February 2015, not yet in force), Art. 1.1, http://​investmentpolicy​hub.​unctad.​org/​Download/​TreatyFile/​3324. One exception in Japanese treaty practice is the Agreement between Japan and the Oriental Republic of Uruguay for the Liberalization, Promotion and Protection of Investment (signed 26 January 2015, not yet in force).
 
33
Indian Model BIT (n. 21), Art. 1.4.
 
34
CETA, Art. 8.1.
 
35
PAIC, Art. 4.5.
 
36
Dolzer and Stevens (1995), p. 35.
 
37
CETA, Art. 8.1.
 
38
PAIC, Art. 4.1.
 
39
CETA, Art. 8.6.
 
40
CETA, Art. 8.7.
 
41
PAIC, Arts. 7.1 and 9.1.
 
42
Reinisch (2015), pp. 846 and 859.
 
43
See Investment Agreement of the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) Art. 17.2, http://​investmentpolicy​hub.​unctad.​org/​Download/​TreatyFile/​3092.
 
44
PAIC, Arts. 7.3 and 9.3.
 
45
Ibid.
 
46
SD Myers v. The Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Partial Award, 13 November 2000, para. 251; Archer Daniels Midland Company and Tat & Lyle Ingredients Americas, Inc v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/04/5, Award, 21 November 2007, para. 198. Extreme approaches were taken by the tribunal in Methanex v. USA taking into account only identical comparators as well as by the tribunal in Occidental v. Ecuador by stating to compare all investors that are in a comparative relationship. See Methanex v. United States, UNCITRAL, Award, 3 August 2005, pt IV (ch. B) and Occidental v. Ecuador, UNCITRAL, Award, 1 July 2004, paras. 173 et seq.
 
47
CETA, Art. 8.15.
 
48
PAIC, Art. 8.2.
 
49
Ibid., Art. 8.3.
 
50
Ibid., Art. 8.5.
 
51
Ibid., Art. 10.2.
 
52
Ibid., Art. 10.3.
 
53
Ibid., Art. 10.7.
 
54
Ibid., Art. 10.4.
 
55
CETA, Art. 8.16.
 
56
PAIC, Art. 10.6.
 
57
Ibid., Art. 10.8.
 
58
UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2015: Reforming International Investment Governance, United Nations 2015, p. 106.
 
59
For a more detailed conceptualization, see Schill and Jacob (2015), pp. 700–763.
 
60
Ibid., p. 717.
 
61
Sornarajah (2015), p. 247. Schreuer held that the lack of precision might be a virtue rather than a shortcoming, since in practice it would be impossible to anticipate in the abstract the range of possible types of infringements upon investor’s legal position, see Schreuer (2005), p. 365.
 
62
For greater detail, see Kläger (2011), pp. 241–259.
 
63
Ibid., p. 251.
 
64
Schill and Jacob (2013), p. 142. Consider e.g. Indian Model BIT (n. 21), Art. 3, as well as COMESA Investment Agreement (n. 43), Art. 14.
 
65
CETA, Art. 8.10(2).
 
66
Hoffmeister (2015), pp. 357 and 366.
 
67
CETA, Art. 8.10.4.
 
68
Indian Model BIT (n. 21), Art. 3.
 
69
Recommended by SADC, see SADC Model BIT (n. 10), Commentary, p. 22.
 
70
Promotion and Protection Investment Act of South Africa, 2013; Brazil-Malawi CIFA (n. 21).
 
71
SADC Model BIT (n. 10), Commentary, p. 22.
 
72
Dolzer and Stevens (1995), p. 86.
 
73
The German Model BIT contains such absolute free transfer clause, German Model BIT (n. 32), Art. 6.
 
74
CETA, Art. 8.13(1).
 
75
Ibid.
 
76
CETA, Art. 8.13(3).
 
77
PAIC, Art. 15.
 
78
Ibid., Art. 16.
 
79
SADC Model BIT (n. 10) Commentary, p. 29.
 
80
PAIC, Art. 16.1.
 
81
Ibid., Art. 16.3.
 
82
Ibid., Art. 16.4.
 
83
Ibid., Art. 16.5.
 
84
UNCTAD (2003).
 
85
Collins (2016), p. 10.
 
86
For an illustrative list, see Nikièma S, Performance Requirements in Investment Treaties, IISD Best Practice Series, December (2014), pp. 2–3, www.​iisd.​org/​sites/​default/​files/​publications/​best-practices-performance-requirements-investment-treaties-en.​pdf.
 
87
Ibid.
 
88
Newcombe (2015), pp. 202 and 207; US Model BIT (n. 31), Art. 8.
 
89
Indian Model BIT (n. 21); Brazil-Malawi CIFA (n. 21).
 
90
CETA, Art. 8.5.
 
91
PAIC, Art. 17.
 
92
Ibid., Art. 17.2(c).
 
93
More specifically on investors’ obligations, see Mbengue (2017).
 
94
Nowrot (2015), pp. 1154 and 1155. It is important to remember that foreign investors have always had legal obligations under the national law of the host State or under the investor-state contract.
 
95
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) Model International Agreement on Investment for Sustainable Development (2005), www.​iisd.​org/​pdf/​2005/​investment_​model_​int_​agreement.​pdf. pt. 3.
 
96
Art. 19 of the Economic Community of the Great Lakes Countries (ECGLC) Investment Code (1982) requires, inter alia, “respect and ensure staff rights, establish and keep to a program for training manpower and promoting the advancement of managerial staff who are national of the member country, as well as to the protection of the environment”.
 
97
Charter on a Regime of Multinational Industrial Enterprises of Eastern and Southern African States (signed 23 November 1990) Art. 17 (1991), 30 ILM, p. 696.
 
98
COMESA Investment Agreement (n. 43), Art. 13; SADC Protocol on Finance and Investment (2006), http://​www.​sadc.​int/​files/​4213/​5332/​6872/​Protocol_​on_​Finance_​_​Investment2006.​pdf, Art. 10, Annex 1.
 
99
COMESA Investment Agreement (n. 43), Art. 16.
 
100
PAIC, ch. 4.
 
101
Ibid., Art. 19.1.
 
102
Ibid., Art. 19.3.
 
103
Ibid., Art. 20.1.
 
104
Ibid., Art. 20.2.
 
105
Ibid., Art. 21.
 
106
Ibid., Art. 24. This provision is the only provision in the chapter using non-binding and only encouraging language.
 
107
The drafters of the PAIC opted for the possibility of counterclaims to be submitted by host States.
 
108
Such as the establishment of a permanent tribunal in EU treaties, see EU-Vietnam FTA (2016), ch. 8, s. 3, http://​trade.​ec.​europa.​eu/​doclib/​press/​index.​cfm?​id=​1437; The Indian Model BIT (n. 21), Art. 14 prohibits investors to threaten the State to use ISDS in order to obtain benefices, limits the scope of claim, and foresees the exhaustion of local remedies.
 
109
Such as South Africa and Brazil. See for the ombudsman system, Brazil-Malawi CIFA (n. 21), Arts. 4 and 13.
 
110
CETA, Art. 8.19(6)(b).
 
111
CETA, Art. 8.20(5).
 
112
CETA, Art. 8.19.
 
113
CETA, Art. 8.19(6)(a).
 
114
CETA, Art. 8.22(1).
 
115
CETA, Art. 8.23.
 
116
CETA, Art. 8.27(2).
 
117
CETA, Art. 8.27(6).
 
118
CETA, Art. 8.27(5).
 
119
CETA, Art. 8.27(12).
 
120
CETA, Art. 8.32.
 
121
CETA, Art. 8.33(1).
 
122
CETA, Art. 8.35.
 
123
CETA, Arts. 8.30 and 8.36.
 
124
CETA, Art. 8.30(1).
 
125
CETA, Art. 8.36.
 
126
CETA, Art. 8.28.
 
127
CETA, Art. 8.28(7).
 
128
CETA, Art. 8.44(1).
 
129
CETA, Art. 8.29.
 
130
The European Parliament passed a resolution in July 2015 endorsing the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) but rejecting ISDS in the form as under CETA (European Parliament 2015), http://​www.​europarl.​europa.​eu/​sides/​getDoc.​do?​pubRef=​-/​/​EP/​/​TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2015-0252+0+DOC+XML+V​0/​/​EN. Key politicians in some EU Member States had expressed serious concerns about ISDS in the 2014 text.
 
131
Most EU Member States have indicated that they will support ratification despite continuing protests.
 
132
See European Commission, Investment Provisions in The EU-Canada Free Trade Agreement (CETA), http://​trade.​ec.​europa.​eu/​doclib/​docs/​2013/​november/​tradoc_​151918.​pdf.
 
133
CETA, Art. 8.22(1)(f).
 
134
NAFTA, Art. 1126 was relied upon to consolidate three claims against the United States brought by Confor Corporation, Tembec et al. and Terminal Forest Products Ltd. See Joint Order on the Costs of Arbitration and for the Termination of certain Arbitral Proceedings, 19 July 2007, https://​www.​state.​gov/​documents/​organization/​90177.​pdf.
 
135
Steger (2013), pp. 247–264.
 
136
Schill (2009).
 
137
CETA, Art. 8.28(2).
 
138
CETA, Art. 8.29.
 
139
UNCTAD (2014), p. 18.
 
140
Promotion and Protection of Investment of South Africa (2015). The Bill has not yet entered into force. The current draft is available at www.​thedti.​gov.​za/​gazzettes/​39514.​pdf.
 
141
SADC recommends the exclusion of ISDS, see SADC Model BIT (n. 10), Art. 29.
 
142
PAIC, Art. 42.1.
 
143
Recent trends show that umbrella clauses are no longer included into IIAs.
 
144
PAIC, Art. 42.3.
 
145
A number of IIAs require pursuing local remedies for a period of time, see e.g. Agreement between the Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union and the Republic of Botswana on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments (signed 7 June 2006, not yet in force) Art. 12.2 http://​investmentpolicy​hub.​unctad.​org/​Download/​TreatyFile/​331; Agreement between the Republic of Korea and the Government of the Republic of Argentina on the Promotion and Protection of Investments (signed 17 May 1994, entered into force 24 September 1996) Art. 8.3(a) http://​investmentpolicy​hub.​unctad.​org/​Download/​TreatyFile/​102.
 
146
See Sornarajah (2015), p. 190.
 
147
IISD Model (n. 95), Art. 45; SADC Model BIT (n 10), Art. 29.4(b).
 
148
Indian Model BIT (n. 21), Art. 14.3.
 
149
PAIC, Art. 42.3.
 
150
Ibid., Art. 42.3.
 
151
Promotion and Protection of Investment Bill of South Africa, (n. 140), Art. 13.
 
152
ICSID Convention, Art. 46; see also Rule 40 ICSID Arbitration Rules. Yet, Art. 46 of the ICSID Convention does not, by itself, vest a tribunal with competence over counterclaims, the requirements of Art. 25 of the ICSID Convention as well as of the applicable investment treaty must also be satisfied. See Urbaser v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26, Award, 8 December 2016, para. 1117.
 
153
See Spyridon Roussalis v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1, Award, 7 December 2011, paras. 859–877 and Saluka Investments BV v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Decision on Jurisdiction over the Czech Republic’s Counterclaim, 7 May 2004.
 
154
COMESA Investment Agreement (n. 43), Art. 28.9: “A Member State against whom a claim is brought by a COMESA investor under this Article may assert as a defense, counterclaim, right of set off or other similar claim, that the COMESA investor bringing the claim has not fulfilled its obligations under this Agreement, including the obligations to comply with all applicable domestic measures or that it has not taken all reasonable steps to mitigate possible damages”.
 
155
SADC Model BIT (n. 10), Arts. 19 and 29.19.
 
156
Indian Model BIT (n. 21), Arts. 14.11 and 14.2(i)(b).
 
157
PAIC, Art. 43.1.
 
158
There are other ways of enforcement of investors’ obligations, such as by creating a monetary liability in domestic courts of the host State for a breach of the treaty obligations by an investor, SADC Model BIT (n. 10), Commentary, p. 39.
 
159
See COMESA Investment Agreement (n. 43), Art. 28.9; SADC Model BIT (n. 10), Art. 19.2; Indian Model BIT (n. 21), Art. 14.11.
 
160
Joint Interpretative Instrument on the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the European Union and its Member States, OJ L 11, 14 January 2017, pp. 3–8, para. 6.
 
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat Collins D (2016) Performance requirements and investment incentives under international economic law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham Collins D (2016) Performance requirements and investment incentives under international economic law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Zurück zum Zitat Dolzer R, Stevens M (1995) Bilateral investment treaties. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague Dolzer R, Stevens M (1995) Bilateral investment treaties. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague
Zurück zum Zitat Hoffmeister F (2015) The contribution of EU trade agreements to the development of international investment law. In: Hindelang S, Krajewski M (eds) Shifting paradigms in international investment law – more balanced, less isolated, increasingly diversified. Oxford University Press, Oxford Hoffmeister F (2015) The contribution of EU trade agreements to the development of international investment law. In: Hindelang S, Krajewski M (eds) Shifting paradigms in international investment law – more balanced, less isolated, increasingly diversified. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Zurück zum Zitat Kläger R (2011) Fair and equitable treatment and sustainable development. In: Segger C et al (eds) Sustainable development in world investment law. Kluwer Law International Kläger R (2011) Fair and equitable treatment and sustainable development. In: Segger C et al (eds) Sustainable development in world investment law. Kluwer Law International
Zurück zum Zitat Mbengue MM (2017) Les obligations des investisseurs étrangers. In: L’entreprise multinationale et le droit international (Colloque de Paris Vincennes – Saint-Denis). Société française pour le droit international. Pedone, Paris Mbengue MM (2017) Les obligations des investisseurs étrangers. In: L’entreprise multinationale et le droit international (Colloque de Paris Vincennes – Saint-Denis). Société française pour le droit international. Pedone, Paris
Zurück zum Zitat Mbengue MM, Schacherer S (2017) The ‘Africanization’ of international investment law: the Pan-African Investment Code and the reform of the international investment regime. J World Invest Trade 18(3):414–448CrossRef Mbengue MM, Schacherer S (2017) The ‘Africanization’ of international investment law: the Pan-African Investment Code and the reform of the international investment regime. J World Invest Trade 18(3):414–448CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Newcombe A (2015) The Americas. In: Bungenberg M et al (eds) International investment law. A handbook. C.H. Beck, Hart, Nomos, Baden-Baden, Munich, Oxford, Portland Newcombe A (2015) The Americas. In: Bungenberg M et al (eds) International investment law. A handbook. C.H. Beck, Hart, Nomos, Baden-Baden, Munich, Oxford, Portland
Zurück zum Zitat Nowrot K (2015) Obligations of investors. In: Bungenberg M et al (eds) International investment law. A handbook. C.H. Beck, Hart, Nomos, Baden-Baden, Munich, Oxford, Portland Nowrot K (2015) Obligations of investors. In: Bungenberg M et al (eds) International investment law. A handbook. C.H. Beck, Hart, Nomos, Baden-Baden, Munich, Oxford, Portland
Zurück zum Zitat Reinisch A (2015) National treatment. In: Bungenberg M et al (eds) International investment law. A handbook. C.H. Beck, Hart, Nomos, Baden-Baden, Munich, Oxford, Portland Reinisch A (2015) National treatment. In: Bungenberg M et al (eds) International investment law. A handbook. C.H. Beck, Hart, Nomos, Baden-Baden, Munich, Oxford, Portland
Zurück zum Zitat Schill SW (2009) Multilateralizing international investment law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef Schill SW (2009) Multilateralizing international investment law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Schill SW, Jacob M (2013) Trends in international investment agreements, 2010–2011: the increasing complexity of international investment law. In: Sauvant KP (ed) Yearbook on international investment law & policy 2011–2012. Oxford University Press, Oxford Schill SW, Jacob M (2013) Trends in international investment agreements, 2010–2011: the increasing complexity of international investment law. In: Sauvant KP (ed) Yearbook on international investment law & policy 2011–2012. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Zurück zum Zitat Schill SW, Jacob M (2015) Fair and equitable treatment: content, practice, method. In: Bungenberg M et al (eds) International investment law. A handbook. C.H. Beck, Hart, Nomos, Baden-Baden, Munich, Oxford, Portland, pp 700–763 Schill SW, Jacob M (2015) Fair and equitable treatment: content, practice, method. In: Bungenberg M et al (eds) International investment law. A handbook. C.H. Beck, Hart, Nomos, Baden-Baden, Munich, Oxford, Portland, pp 700–763
Zurück zum Zitat Schreuer C (2005) Fair and equitable treatment in arbitral practice. J World Invest Trade 6:357–386 Schreuer C (2005) Fair and equitable treatment in arbitral practice. J World Invest Trade 6:357–386
Zurück zum Zitat Sornarajah M (2015) Resistance and change in the international law of foreign investment. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef Sornarajah M (2015) Resistance and change in the international law of foreign investment. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Steger D (2013) Enhancing the legitimacy of international investment law by establishing an appellate mechanism. In: de Mestral A, Lévesque C (eds) Improving international investment agreements. Routledge, London Steger D (2013) Enhancing the legitimacy of international investment law by establishing an appellate mechanism. In: de Mestral A, Lévesque C (eds) Improving international investment agreements. Routledge, London
Zurück zum Zitat UNCTAD (2003) Foreign direct investment and performance requirements: new evidence from selected countries. United Nations UNCTAD (2003) Foreign direct investment and performance requirements: new evidence from selected countries. United Nations
Zurück zum Zitat UNCTAD (2014) Investor-state dispute settlement. UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II. United Nations UNCTAD (2014) Investor-state dispute settlement. UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II. United Nations
Metadaten
Titel
An African View on the CETA Investment Chapter
verfasst von
Makane Moïse Mbengue
Mohamed H. Negm
Copyright-Jahr
2019
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98361-5_10