Skip to main content
Top

2024 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

Determining the Role of FDI Screening in International Investment Law

Author : Kilian Wagner

Published in: Weaponising Investments

Publisher: Springer Nature Switzerland

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Investment screening and control mechanisms are in sharp contrast to the international investment law regime that seeks to promote the free flow of foreign capital. Investment screening decisions may significantly affect investment transactions and thus may be contrary to states’ obligations contained in international investment agreements (IIAs). Most IIAs provide for investor-state-dispute-settlement (ISDS), allowing foreign investors to claim compensation for the breach of investment protection standards. However, the relations between investment screening and international investment law remain largely obscure. This contribution aims to provide a better understanding of the application of investment treaties in the context of screening mechanisms and international obligations limiting states’ screening power. Several jurisdictional hurdles exist and state defenses are available if an investor seeks to bring a claim before an arbitral tribunal. Nevertheless, states should take account of their international obligations when introducing and operating screening mechanisms.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

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!

Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
Article 1 of the Regulation (EU) 2019/452 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the Union, https://​eur-lex.​europa.​eu/​eli/​reg/​2019/​452/​oj.
 
2
According to the Second Annual Report on the screening of foreign direct investments into the Union of the EU Commission, 25 member states have adopted a new mechanism, amended an existing one or initiated a consultative or legislative process with only 2 member states without any reported initiative, see EU Commission (2022), p. 9, https://​ec.​europa.​eu/​transparency/​documents-register/​detail?​ref=​COM(2022)433&​lang=​en.
 
3
Recital (3) and (35) FDI Screening Regulation.
 
4
E.g. the divergent decisions arising out of the adjudication of measures set during the Argentine financial crisis of 2001/2002 in CMS v. Argentina, Award, 17 May 2005 and LG&E v. Argentina, Decision on Liability, 3 October 2006.
 
5
Global Telcom v. Canada, Award, 30 March 2020 see below at 3.3, 4.1 and 5.1; Tenoch v. India, not publicly available but see the summary by Peterson (2020); Djanic (2021).
 
6
While the dispute does not concern investment screening, Huawei challenges a decision that prevents Mobile Network Operators to use Huawei’s equipment for security reasons. See Bohmer (2022).
 
7
According to Article 3(8) of the FDI Screening Regulation, the EU Commission has to make a list of screening mechanisms notified by member states publicly available. This list can be found here and contains non-authoritative English translations of several screening laws: https://​policy.​trade.​ec.​europa.​eu/​enforcement-and-protection/​investment-screening_​en. The referenced screening laws are accessable via this list; Several other FDI screening laws are available via the UNCTAD Investment Policy Hub: https://​investmentpolicy​.​unctad.​org/​investment-laws; For literature on a number of screening laws see the contributions in Hindelang and Moberg (2021); and the Multi-jurisdiction guide for screening foreign investments of DLA Piper (2021), https://​www.​dlapiper.​com/​en/​belgium/​insights/​publications/​2021/​05/​multi-jurisdiction-guide-for-screening-foreign-investments/​.
 
8
Samuel (2014), pp. 65 ff.
 
9
Article 2(4) FDI Screening Regulation.
 
10
Article 1(1) FDI Screening Regulation; Section 3 Investment Control Act (Austria); Section 55a Foreign Trade and Payments Ordinance (Germany): ‘Likely effect on public order or security’; Section 1 of the Act on screening of foreign investments (Denmark): ‘a threat to national security or public order in Denmark’; Article 72(1) Act Determining the Intervention Measures to Mitigate and Remedy the Consequence of the Covid-19 Epidemic (Slovenia): ‘a threat to security or public policy of the Republic of Slovenia’.
 
11
Article 2(1) FDI Screening Regulation: ‘an investment of any kind by a foreign investor aiming to establish or to maintain lasting and direct links […] in order to carry out an economic activity in a Member State [...]’.
 
12
Recital 10 FDI Screening Regulation; This is based on an Opinion of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 May 2017, Free Trade Agreement with Singapore, Opinion 2/15, ECLI:EU:C2017:376, paras. 80; see in more detail Hindelang and Moberg (2020), p. 1436.
 
13
See, e.g., Section 2(5) Act on the Screening of Foreign Corporate Acquisitions 172/2012 (Finland), on the Finish mechanism see also Hallberg (2021), pp. 212 f; Section 2(1)(a) Investment Control Act (Austria); Section 55(1) Foreign Trade and Payments Ordinance (Germany); On the German mechanism see also Stompfe (2021), pp. 82 ff.; Article L.151-2 Monetary and Financial Act Legislative Section (France); On the French mechanism see also Stompfe (2021), pp. 99 ff; Section 4(4) Investment Screening Act (Denmark).
 
14
Section 2(1) of Act LVII of 2018 on Controlling Foreign Investments Violating Hungary’s Security Interests; Article L. 151-2 (c) Monetary and Financial Act (France); Section 5(5) Investment Screening Act (Denmark); for the acquisition of an establishment from a ‘protected company’ as a transaction subject to screening in the Act on Control of Certain Investments (Poland) see Jaśkowski and Pawłowski (2021), p. 145.
 
15
See, e.g., Section 55 (Cross Sectoral assessment of corporate acquisitions) and Section 60 (sector-specific assessment of corporate acquisitions) of the Foreign Trade and Payments Ordinance (Germany); Stompfe (2021), pp. 82 ff; Section 4 (Corporate Acquisitions in the Defence Sector) Act on the Screening of Foreign Corporate Acquisitions 172/2012 (Finland); See also Hallberg (2021), pp. 213–214.
 
16
Article R. 151-3 Monetary and Financial Code – Regulatory Section (France); Section 11 and Schedule Act No. LX of 2020 (Malta); Annex to the Investment Control Act (Austria); Section 6 Investment Screening Act (Denmark). Article 2(a) and Article 3 Decree-Law no. 138/2014 (Portugal).
 
17
Section 5(4) Investment Screening Act (Denmark); Section 2(1)(a) Act LVII of 2018 on Controlling Foreign Investments Violating Hungary’s Security Interests; Section 4 (2) Investment Control Act (Austria); for exceptions see, however, Article R. 151-7 Monetary and Financial Code Regulatory Section (France).
 
18
Section 56(1) 1 and 2 in conjunction with Section 55a (1) 1-7 and 8-27 Foreign Trade and Payments Ordinance (Germany); Section 4(1) Investment Control Act (Austria).
 
19
Article 2(1) FDI Screening Regulation: ‘[I]ncluding investments which enable effective participation in the management or control of a company carrying out an economic activity’.
 
20
Section 2(1)(3)(b) of the Investment Control Act (Austria): ‘a controlling interest […] is attained irrespective of specific shares of voting rights’; Article R-151-2 (a) Monetary and Financial Code Legislative Section (France); Section 4(1) Act No. LX of 2020 (Malta).
 
21
Section 4(5) Investment Screening Act (Denmark).
 
22
See, e.g., Article 1(6) of the Energy Charter Treaty (signed 17 December 1994, entry into force 16 April 1998, hereafter ECT) 2080 UNTS 95, https://​investmentpolicy​.​unctad.​org/​international-investment-agreements/​treaty-files/​2427/​download.
 
23
Section 56(2) Foreign Trade and Payments Ordinance (Germany): Section 5(4) Investment Screening Act (Denmark); see however Article 151-7 Monetary and Financial Code Regulatory Section (France) that contains an exception for the acquisition of further shares.
 
24
Article 4(1) and (5) Decree-Law 138/2014 (Portugal); Vargiu (2021), pp. 129–130; See also Article 10(1) Royal Decree 664/1999 (Spain); Vargiu (2021), p. 125.
 
25
Article 2(3) and (4) FDI Screening Regulation.
 
26
Section 4(2) of the Act on the Screening of Foreign Corporate Acquisitions (Finland) for examples enables the Minister of Economic Affairs to set a deadline for submitting the application if the investor has failed to apply; Section 8(2), (5) Investment Control Act (Austria).
 
27
Section 13 Subsection 7 Investment Screening Act (Denmark).
 
28
Section 2 (2) (b) and Section 2 (4) (b) (ii) National Security and Investment Act 2021 (United Kingdom) available at https://​www.​legislation.​gov.​uk/​ukpga/​2021/​25/​contents/​enacted; Section 8(1)b and (4)(b) Foreign Investments Screening Act (Czech Republic) available at: https://​www.​mpo.​cz/​assets/​cz/​zahranicni-obchod/​proverovani-zahranicnich-investic/​2021/​4/​sb0017-2021-_​1_​.​pdf.
 
29
See below Sect. 3.4.
 
30
For example, Article L. 151-3 French Monetary and Financial Code Legislative Section (France).
 
31
Section 6(3) Act LVII of 2018 on Controlling Foreign Investments Violating Hungary’s Security Interests ‘[…] Hungary’s security interests’.
 
32
Article 4 FDI Screening Regulation.
 
33
Article 4(1) FDI Screening Regulation.
 
34
Article 4(2) FDI Screening Regulation.
 
35
See Section 55a Foreign Trade and Payments Ordinance (Germany); Article 72(3) and (4) Act Determining the Intervention Measures to Mitigate and Remedy the Consequences of the Covid-19 Epidemic (Slovenia); Schedule (Articles 11 and 12) of the Act No. LX of 2020 (Malta).
 
36
Article 52(1) and Article 65(1)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ C 326 202, 26 October 2012.
 
37
Section 2 (Definitions) (1) Act on the Screening of Foreign Corporate Acquisitions (Finland); Article 2 of the Act of 24 July 2015 on the Control of Certain Investments (Poland); Section 3(1) Investment Control Act (Austria).
 
38
See, e.g. Judgment of the Court of 4 June 2002, Commission v. Belgium, C-503/99, ECLI:EU:C:2002:328, para. 46; Judgment of the Court of 4 June 2002; Commission v. France, C-483/99, ECLI:EU:C:2002:327, para. 47; for the qualification of a FDI review mechanism under Article 65(1)(b); see Judgment of the Court of 14 March 2000, Association Eglise de scientology de Paris and Scientology International Reserves Trust v. The Prime Minister, C-54/99, ECLI:EU:C:2000:124, paras. 20–22; For the justification of confinements of the free movement of goods under Article 36 TFEU see Judgment of the Court of 10 July 1984, Campus Oil v. The Minister for Industry and Energy, C-72/83, ECLI:EU:C:1984:256, para. 34.
 
39
Esplugues (2018), pp. 355 ff.
 
40
Ibid, 327 ff; Ackhurst et al. (2016), pp. 73–74.
 
41
Fuji et al. (2021), pp. 379, 380, 386; Ishikawa (2020) p. 80.
 
42
For the CFIUS see U.S.C. § 4565 (f); Lichtenbaum and Ribner (2021), p. 369; For the ICA see Guidelines on the National Security Review of Investments available at https://​www.​ic.​gc.​ca/​eic/​site/​ica-lic.​nsf/​eng/​lk81190.​html.
 
43
Section 4(1) Investment Screening Act (Denmark); see also Section 1(1) (National Security) National Security Law (Latvia) available at https://​likumi.​lv/​ta/​en/​en/​id/​14011-national-security-law); Article 2(7) Definitions of the Law on Protection of Objects of Importance to Ensuring National Security 2002 (Lithuania) available via https://​investmentpolicy​.​unctad.​org/​investment-laws; Preamble of the Decree-Law 138/2014 (Portugal) available via https://​investmentpolicy​.​unctad.​org/​investment-laws.
 
44
Joubin-Bret (2008), p. 10 ff.
 
45
For a comprehensive account on the impact of investment treaties on the design and operation of screening mechanisms see Pohl (2021), pp. 725 ff; see also Hagemayer (2021), pp. 824; Voon and Merriman (2023).
 
46
According to UNCTAD, 153 out of 2584 mapped treaties contain both NT and MFN provisions covering the pre-establishment phase.
 
47
See, e.g., Article 14.4 (1) (National Treatment) United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) (signed 30 November 2018, entry into force 1 July 2020): ‘Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments in its territory.’ (Emphasis added) available via https://​investmentpolicy​.​unctad.​org/​international-investment-agreements/​treaties/​bit/​3841/​usmca-2018-; de Mestral (2015), p. 685 paras. 12–14; Other recently concluded regional trade and investment agreements follow suite, see for example Article 8.6 of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union, on the other part (signed 30 October 2016, hereafter CETA) available via: https://​investmentpolicy​.​unctad.​org/​international-investment-agreements/​treaties/​treaties-with-investment-provisions/​3546/​canada%2D%2D-eu-ceta-2016-; see also Pohl (2021), pp. 731 ff.
 
48
Pohl (2021), p. 740; Voon and Merriman (2023), pp. 91 ff.
 
49
See. e.g. Article 8.4 CETA; de Mestral and Vanhonnaecker (2022) pp. 159 ff.
 
50
Bungenberg and Titi (2014), p. 300 f; Bungenberg and Hobe (2015), p. 1602 para, 12; Titi (2015), p. 642 f.
 
51
See for example: Article 3(1) (Treatment of Investments) Finland-Armenia BIT (signed 5 October 2004, entry into force 20 April 2007) available via: https://​investmentpolicy​.​unctad.​org/​international-investment-agreements/​treaties/​tips/​173/​armenia%2D%2D-finland-bit-2004-; Article 2(2) (Promotion and Protection of Investments) Italy-Georgia BIT (signed 15 May 1997, entry into force 26 July 1999, terminated 26 July 2014) available via: https://​investmentpolicy​.​unctad.​org/​international-investment-agreements/​treaties/​bit/​1661/​georgia%2D%2D-italy-bit-1997-.
 
52
Pollan (2006), pp. 157 ff, 174 ff.
 
53
See, e.g., Annex of the United States-Albania BIT (signed 11 January 1995, entry into force 4 January 1998): ‘1. The Government of the United States of America may adopt or maintain exceptions to the obligation to accord national treatment to covered investments in the sectors or with respect to the matters specified below: atomic energy; custom house brokers; licences for broadcast, common carrier, or aeronautical radio stations; COMSAT; […]’ available via https://​investmentpolicy​.​unctad.​org/​international-investment-agreements/​treaties/​bit/​47/​albania%2D%2D-united-states-of-america-bit-1995-; See also Article 8.15 and Annex II CETA.
 
54
Reinisch (2015), paras. 62–67; Pope & Talbot v. Canada, Award on the Merits of Phase 2, 10 April 2001, para. 78.
 
55
Article 8.4 CETA.
 
56
Article 8.2(4) CETA excludes claims under section B (Establishments of investments) from the scope of Section F on ISDS.
 
57
Article 25(1) Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (signed 18 March 1965, entry into force 14 October 1965) 8359 UNTS 159; Tribunals have inferred a ‘double keyhole test’, which means that there has to be an investment according the underlying IIA and the ICSID Convention, see Dolzer et al. (2022), p. 84.
 
58
Douglas (2009), para. 398 even calling it meaningless.
 
59
Wälde and Ben Hamida (2008), pp. 174 ff.; Wälde (1996), p. 280; Elshihabi (2001), p. 147; The criteria of a contribution, risk, period of time and development of the host state adopted by the tribunal in Salini v. Morocco, Decision on Jurisdiction, 16 July 2001, paras. 53–58 (the ‘Salini criteria’) provide a framework for determining whether an economic activity is an investment.
 
60
Mihaly v. Sri Lanka, Award, 15 March 2002, paras. 59–60; For an overview of decisions see Schreuer (2020), p. 1553 ff and Dolzer et al. (2022), pp. 142–145.
 
61
Mihaly v. Sri Lanka, Award, 15 March 2002, paras. 60–61; Zhinvali v. Georgia, Award, 24 January 2003, 10 ICSID Reports 3; William Nagel v. The Czech Republic, Final Award, 9 September 2003, paras. 325–329.
 
62
Nordzucker v. Poland, First Partial Award, 10 December 2008, paras. 216-217; RSM Production v. Grenada, Award, 13 March 2009, paras. 253–257.
 
63
Dolzer et al. (2022), pp. 122 ff.
 
64
See Article 1(6)(c) of the ECT.
 
65
Joseph Houben v Burundi, Award, 12 January 2016, paras. 127–130; Theodoros Adamakopoulos v. Cyprus, Decision on Jurisdiction, 7 February 2020, para. 300; Thomas Gosling v. Mauritius, Award, 18 February 2020, paras. 130–135, 144–146, 166(i); for a contract between a state-owned entity and the investor see: CC/Devas v. India, Award on Jurisdiction and Merits, 25 July 2016, paras. 199–210; Dolzer et al. (2022), p. 97.
 
66
Schreuer (2021), pp. 3 ff.; Bischoff and Happ (2015), paras. 49-63; Inmaris v. Ukraine, Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 March 2010, para. 92.
 
67
Thomas Gosling v. Mauritius, Award, 18 February 2020.
 
68
Ibid, paras. 130–135, 144–146, 166(i); The tribunal considered the fact that the contractual obligations merely existed between private parties by dismissing all claims on the merits as the claimants had never obtained a permission.
 
69
Joseph Houben v. Burundi, Award, 12 January 2016, paras. 127–130.
 
70
Raymond Charles Eyre v. Sri Lanka, Award, 5 March 2020, paras. 301–302; In contrast to Joseph Houben v. Burundi, the tribunal was averse to find that the mere ownership of the land constitutes an investment as the claimant’s contribution remained unclear.
 
71
Mabco Constructions v. Kosovo, Decision on Jurisdiction, 30 October 2020.
 
72
Ibid, paras. 309–312; Such a broad understanding of the notion of investment is not self-evident and has been subject to criticism, transferring mere commercial disputes to investment disputes: see Mabco Constructions v. Kosovo, Dissent on Jurisdiction by Prof. August Reinisch, 29 October 2020; In ST-AD v. Bulgaria, Award on Jurisdiction, 18 July 2013, paras. 273–277, the tribunal denied the existence of an investment in a mere preliminary contract for a share transfer but found it in the final contract.
 
73
Luigiterzo Bosca v. Lithuania, Award, 17 May 2013.
 
74
Ibid, paras. 79–80.
 
75
Ibid, para. 168.
 
76
Ibid, paras. 165–178.
 
77
Dolzer et al. (2022), pp. 136–137; White Industries v. India¸ Final Award, 30 November 2011, paras. 9.2.1–9.2.13.
 
78
Several German BITs contain this wording, e.g. Article 2(2) Admission and protection of investments German Model BIT available via https://​investmentpolicy​.​unctad.​org/​international-investment-agreements/​model-agreements.
 
79
Some treaties include both the FET and the Full Protection and Security Standard (FPS) in an admission clause linked to such a formulation, see e.g. Art 2(2) (Promotion and Protection of Investments) Czech Republic Model BIT 2016; Art 2(2) (Promotion and Protection); Art 5(1) (Standard of Treatment) Slovakia Model BIT 2019 all available via https://​investmentpolicy​.​unctad.​org/​international-investment-agreements/​model-agreements.
 
80
Article 2 Germany-Mexico BIT (signed 25 August 1998, entry into force 23 February 2001) available via https://​investmentpolicy​.​unctad.​org/​international-investment-agreements/​treaties/​bit/​1718/​germany%2D%2D-mexico-bit-1998. Emphasis added.
 
81
Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) (signed 23 May 1969, entry into force 27 January 1980) 1155 UNTS 331.
 
82
Systematically, also Article 20 of the Germany-Mexico BIT, which explicitly excludes disputes concerning national decisions that prohibit or restrict an acquisition due to security reasons, underlines this understanding. Denying the applicability of the FET standard to activities in the making and for example a security review would render Article 20 meaningless; for this approach as a safeguard mechanism see also below at Sect. 5.1. Moreover, other German BITs either include the FET standard in a separate provision, see e.g. Article 3(1) of the Germany-China BIT (signed 1 December 2003, entry into force 11 November 2005) or link the term investment in such a clause with the wording ‘once established’, see e.g. Article 2(1) of the Germany-United Arab Emirates BIT (signed 21 June 1997, entry into force 2 July 1999).
 
83
Nordzucker v. Poland, First Partial Award (Jurisdiction), 10 December 2008; for a comprehensive analysis see: Marboe (2015), pp. 533 ff.
 
84
Germany-Poland BIT Article 2 (1): ‘Each Contracting Party shall in its territory promote as far as possible investments by investors of the other Contracting Party and admit such investments in accordance with its respective laws. Investments that have been admitted in accordance with the respective law of one Contracting Party shall enjoy the protection of this Treaty. Each Contracting Party shall in any case accord investments fair and equitable treatment.’ (signed 10 November 1989, entry into force 24 February 1991, terminated 18 October 2019) available via https://​investmentpolicy​.​unctad.​org/​international-investment-agreements/​treaties/​tips/​1740/​germany%2D%2D-poland-bit-1989-.
 
85
Nordzucker v. Poland, First Partial Award (Jurisdiction), 10 December 2008, paras. 182–185.
 
86
Due to its relevance for both investment activities at the initial screening stage as well as for expansions and retrospective screenings, Sect. 4 will outline the relevant elements of the FET Standard established by tribunals.
 
87
Such as the Salini criteria: Salini v. Morocco, Decision on Jurisdiction, 16 July 2001, paras. 53–58.
 
88
Mason Capital L.P., Mason Management LLC v. Korea, 22 December 2019, para. 216; The underlying United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement also applies to the pre-establishment phase comprising an investor that ‘attempts to make, is making, or has made an investment’, see also para. 210.
 
89
See, e.g., Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability, 14 January 2010, para. 95; In general, see also Schreuer (2021).
 
90
Section 56(2) Foreign Trade and Payments Ordinance (Germany): Section 5(4) Investment Screening Act (Denmark).
 
91
Pohl (2021), pp. 741–742.
 
92
Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability, 14 January 2010, para. 86.
 
93
Ibid, paras. 318 ff.
 
94
Global Telecom v. Canada, Award of the Tribunal, 27 March 2020, paras. 363–380, 482 ff.; The dispute did not raise issues on the existence of an investment as Global Telecom undeniably had made an investment by the acquisition of shares in the Joint Venture; see however the summary on the confidential award in Tenoch v. India by Petersen (2020).
 
95
Ackhurst et al. (2016), pp. 68 ff; Bhattacharjee (2009), pp. 12 ff.
 
96
See below Sect. 5.1.
 
97
Section 13 Subsection 7 Investment Screening Act (Denmark); Section 2 (2) (b) and Section 2 (4) (b) (ii) National Security and Investment Act 2021 (United Kingdom); Section 8(5) Investment Control Act (Austria).
 
98
See Section 4(2) Act on the Screening of Foreign Corporate Acquisitions (Finland) enables the Minister of Economic Affairs to set a deadline for submitting the application if the investor has failed to apply; Section 8(2), (5) Investment Control Act (Austria); Section 8(1)b and (4)(b) Foreign Investments Screening Act (Czech Republic); Section 14 Investment Screening Act (Denmark).
 
99
See, e.g., Section 2 (2) (b) and Section 2 (4) (b) (ii) National Security and Investment Act 2021 (United Kingdom).
 
100
See Article 14 of the Law on the Protection of Objects of Importance to Ensuring National Security (Lithuania); Section 7 and Section 8 of the Act on the Screening of Foreign Corporate Acquisitions (Finland); Article L. 151-3-1 Monetary and Financial Code Legislative Section (France); Section 8(5) Investment Control Act (Austria); for a provision providing for expropriations see Section 21 Investment Screening Act (Denmark).
 
101
Pohl (2021), pp. 741–742; Voon and Merriman (2023), p. 113–114.
 
102
CC/Devas v. The Republic of India, Award on Jurisdiction and Merits, 25 July 2015, paras. 410–425; Deutsche Telekom v. The Republic of India, Interim Award, 13 December 2017, paras. 390, 416; For a limitation of the notion of security in this regard see below: Sect. 5.2.
 
103
For treaty-based safeguard mechanisms and experience from arbitral practice see below Sect. 5.
 
104
Dolzer et al. (2022), pp. 186 ff; Diehl (2012) pp. 311 ff.
 
105
Dolzer et al. (2022) pp. 216–221, Diehl (2012), pp. 437 ff.
 
106
Reinisch and Schreuer (2020), p. 382, para. 646; see also: RENERGY v Spain, Award, 6 May 2022, para. 928.
 
107
International Thunderbird v. Mexico, 26 January 2006, paras. 195–201.
 
108
Reinisch and Schreuer (2020), pp. 419 ff.; paras. 831–842.
 
109
Casinos Austria v Argentina, Award, 5 November 2021, para. 418: ‘[…] Due process in this context requires, inter alia, that the administrative proceedings respect the right to be heard of those affected and that remedies exist for the review of the legality of the measures in question’; Krederi v Ukraine, Excerpts of Award, 2 July 2018, paras. 436, 451, 455; Azinian v Mexico, Award, 1 November 1999, paras. 102–103.
 
110
Metalclad Corporation v. The United Mexican States, Award, 30 August 2000, paras. 91, 99.
 
111
Rumeli Telekom v. Kazakhstan, Award, 29 July 2008, para. 617.
 
112
Nordzucker v. Poland, Second Partial Award (Merits), 28 January 2009, paras. 28–65.
 
113
Ibid, para. 37.
 
114
Middle East Cement Shipping v. Egypt, 12 April 2002, para. 143.
 
115
Lemire v. Ukraine, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability, 14 January 2010, para. 418.
 
116
Global Telecom v. Canada, Award, 27 March 2020, para. 608.
 
117
See also Voon and Merriman (2023), pp. 101–102.
 
118
Eastern Sugar v. The Czech Republic, Partial Award, 27 March 2007, paras. 272–274; Pope & Talbot Inc. v. Canada, Award on the Merits of Phase 2, 10 April 2001, para. 155; Lemire v. Ukraine, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability, 14 January 2010, para. 315.
 
119
Ibid, paras. 315–316.
 
120
Ibid.
 
121
Eastern Sugar v. Czech Republic, SCC Case No. 088/2004, Partial Award, 27 March 2007, para. 274.
 
122
Dolzer et al. (2022), pp. 205–208.
 
123
MTD Equity v. Chile, Award, 25 May 2004, paras. 163, 166; for a recent case concerning divergent state acts see Eco Oro Mining v. Colombia, Decision on Jurisdiction, Liability and Directions on Quantum, 9 September 2021, paras. 820, 821.
 
124
Bilcon/Clayton v. Canada, Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, 17 March 2015, paras. 530–535, 584, 588–604; According to the Free Trade Commission (FTC) of the NAFTA, the FET standard is limited to the international minimum standard to be afforded to aliens and does not require treatment in addition or beyond that which required by customary international law: FTC Note of Interpretation of 31 July 2001.
 
125
See the definition by Prof. Christoph Schreuer as legal expert in EDF v. Romania, Award, 8 October 2009, para. 303.
 
126
For example, the modernization of the ECT dates back to 2017. An ‘Agreement in principle’ was concluded in June 2022: see: https://​www.​energychartertre​aty.​org/​modernisation-of-the-treaty/​. However, as several EU member states have announced their withdrawal, the fate of the modernization process remains uncertain.
 
127
Viñuales (2020), pp. 67–70; Henckels (2018), p. 2828.
 
128
Ibid.
 
129
Pollan (2006), p. 200.
 
130
Pohl (2021), pp. 760–762.
 
131
In 1974, Canada introduced a rigorous screening mechanism under the Foreign Investment Review Act. Following increased criticism, the Investment Canada Act as a more moderate mechanism was enacted in 1985, see: Raby (1990), p. 396 ff.; While the Investment Canada Act primarily seeks to review the net benefit of a foreign investment, it was supplemented in 2009 by a procedure to identify security threats to Canada, see Ackhurst et al. (2016), pp. 73–74.
 
132
See, e.g., Article II(4)(b) of the Canada-Egypt BIT (signed 13 November 1996, entry into force 3 November 1997): ‘Decisions by either Contracting Party not to permit establishment of a new business enterprise or acquisition of an existing business enterprise or a share of such enterprise by investors or prospective investors shall not be subject to the provisions of Article XIII of this Agreement’ available via https://​investmentpolicy​.​unctad.​org/​international-investment-agreements/​treaties/​bit/​784/​canada%2D%2D-egypt-bit-1996-.
 
133
See e.g. Annex IV (Exclusions from Dispute Settlement) of the Canada-Serbia BIT (signed 1 September 2014; entry into force 27 April 2015): ‘A decision by Canada following a review und the Investment Canada Act, with respect to whether or not to permit an investment that is subject to review, is not subject to the dispute settlement provisions […]’.
 
134
Article 8.2(4) CETA excludes claims under Section B (Establishment) and claims under Section C (Non-Discriminatory Treatment) with respect to establishment or acquisition of a covered investment from Section F (Resolution of disputes between investors and states), thus the state to state dispute resolution mechanism in Chapter 29 remains available. In contrast, Article 8.45 in conjunction with Annex 8-C (Exclusions from Dispute Settlement) exempt decisions under the Investment Canada Act from both ISDS and state to state dispute settlement. For an analysis see: Tropper (2022), para. 47; Moreover, some states, such as France, Italy and Lithuania, have made individual reservations regarding domestic screening mechanisms.
 
135
Article 20 (Exclusions) Mexico-Germany BIT (signed 25 August 1998, entry into force 23 February 2001) available via https://​investmentpolicy​.​unctad.​org/​international-investment-agreements/​treaties/​bit/​1718/​germany%2D%2D-mexico-bit-1998-.
 
136
Article 12 (Exclusions) Mexico-Netherlands BIT (signed 13 May 1998, entry into force 1 October 1999).
 
137
See Hobér (2020), pp. 360–365 and the thorough discussion of the renewable energy cases against Spain and Italy.
 
138
Ibid, pp. 358–359; Yukos Universal v. Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2005-04/AA227, Final Award, 18 July 2014, paras. 1430 ff.
 
139
Global Telecom v. Canada, Award, 27 March 2020.
 
140
See above FN 132; the Canada-Egypt BIT as an old-fashioned Canadian treaty excludes domestic decisions concerning acquisitions and establishment but does not explicitly refer to the Investment Canada Act.
 
141
Global Telecom v. Canada, Award, 27 March 2020, paras. 67–84; The award is heavily redacted with respect to the Investment Canada Act review, for more information see: Charlotin (2020); For a case analysis see also: Paine (2021), pp. 533 ff.
 
142
Global Telecom v. Canada, Award, 27 March 2020, paras. 304–313.
 
143
Article IV(2)(d) and the Annex of the Canada-Egypt BIT.
 
144
Global Telecom v. Canada, Award, 27 March 2020, paras. 363–380.
 
145
Arbitrator Gary Born particularly criticized the majority’s approach as to the automatic application of the reservation as well as the broad understanding of the formulation ‘services in any other sector’, Global Telecom v. Canada, Dissenting Opinion of Gary Born.
 
146
See above Sect. 4.1.
 
147
See above FN 137.
 
148
See Hagemayer (2021), p. 824; Pohl (2021), pp. 753–756; Voon and Merriman (2023), pp. 110–112.
 
149
Article XXI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1867 UNTS 187.
 
150
On a detailed analysis of security exception clauses see: Burke-White and von Staden (2008), pp. 307 ff.; UNCTAD (2009).
 
151
Henckels (2018), p. 2828–2829.
 
152
According to UNCATD, 15% or 400 out of 2584 mapped treaties contain a security exception clause, see https://​investmentpolicy​.​unctad.​org/​international-investment-agreements/​iia-mapping. However, some discrepancies have to be noticed, as, for instance, also BITs of Mexico are mapped, which rather contain carve-outs for domestic security-related decisions, see FN 135, 136; according to a study by Ackermann (2018) p. 41, almost 68 out of 107 surveyed treaties concluded between 2013–2017 contain a security exception.
 
154
For a summary of the approaches by tribunals in light of the Argentine financial crisis see: Burke-White and von Staden (2008), pp. 393 ff.
 
155
CC/Devas v India, Award on Jurisdiction and Merits, 25 July 2016, para. 245; Deutsche Telekom v India, Interim Award, 13 December 2017, para. 238.
 
156
Article XI of the United States-Argentina BIT (signed 14 November 1991, entry into force 20 October 1994) reads: ‘This Treaty shall not preclude the application by either Party of measures necessary for the maintenance of public order, the fulfillment of its obligations with respect to the maintenance or restoration of international peace or security, or the Protection of its own essential security interests.’ available via https://​investmentpolicy​.​unctad.​org/​international-investment-agreements/​treaties/​bit/​162/​argentina%2D%2D-united-states-of-america-bit-1991-.
 
157
For an overview see Burke-White and von Staden (2008), pp. 393 ff.
 
158
CMS v. Argentina, Award, 12 May 2005, para. 359; Enron v. Argentina, Award, 22 May 2007, para. 332; Sempra v. Argentina, Award, 28 September 2007, para. 374.
 
159
CC/Devas v. India, Award on Jurisdiction and Merits, 25 July 2016, paras. 5, 357; Deutsche Telecom v. India, Interim Award, 13 December 2017, paras. 79–80, 271.
 
160
Ibid, paras. 284–291.
 
161
CC/Devas v. India, Award on Jurisdiction and Merits, 25 July 2016, para. 373.
 
162
Ibid, para. 358.
 
163
Article 13 (Essential Security Interests) of the Cyprus-Serbia BIT (signed 21 July 2005, entry into force 23 December 2005) reads: ‘Nothing in this Agreement shall be done so as to prevent any of the Contracting Parties to take measures for fulfilling obligations in relation to preservation of international peace and security.’ (Emphasis added) available via https://​investmentpolicy​.​unctad.​org/​international-investment-agreements/​treaties/​bit/​1176/​cyprus%2D%2D-serbia-bit-2005-; see also Article 14(1) (General Derogations) of the Finland-Belarus BIT (signed 8 June 2006, entry into force 10 April 2008): ‘Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as preventing a Contracting Party from taking any action necessary for the protection of its essential security interests in time of war or armed conflict, or other emergency in international relations.’ (Emphasis added) available via https://​investmentpolicy​.​unctad.​org/​international-investment-agreements/​treaties/​tips/​416/​belarus%2D%2D-finland-bit-2006-; with respect to Article 24(3) ECT see also Dolzer et al. (2022), p. 310.
 
164
Article 3(a) in the Protocol to the Germany-Mexico BIT which relates to Article 3 (National Treatment) of the BIT declares that: ‘The measures taken by reason of national security, public interest, public health or morality shall not be considered as a “less favourable treatment”, according to Article 3’.
 
165
For this concept of new national security threats see Heath (2020) pp. 1031 ff.
 
168
Heath (2020), pp. 1034 ff.
 
169
UNCTAD lists 1654 out of 2584 mapped treaties with an ‘in accordance with host state laws’ requirement, thus 64%; see also: Yotova (2018), pp. 307, 309.
 
170
Schill (2012), pp. 283–288; treaties potentially expanding FET to the admission process itself, as shown above Sect. 3.2.3, typically include such requirements.
 
171
See, e.g., Plama v. Bulgaria, Award, 27 August 2008, paras. 130–146 with respect to the ECT.
 
172
Diel-Gligor and Hennecke (2015), p. 566 paras. 1 ff.
 
173
For an overview see Schill (2012), pp. 291 ff; Dolzer et al. (2022), pp. 106–114.
 
174
See, e.g., Pawlowski v. Czech Republic, Award, 1 November 2021, para. 293; Lemire v. Ukraine, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability, para. 285.
 
175
Vladislav Kim and others v. Uzbekistan, Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 March 2017, para. 396.
 
Literature
go back to reference Ackermann T (2018) Exception clauses in international investment agreements – a case for systemic integration? In: Akbaba M, Capurro G (eds) International challenges in investment arbitration. Routledge, New York, pp 37–55CrossRef Ackermann T (2018) Exception clauses in international investment agreements – a case for systemic integration? In: Akbaba M, Capurro G (eds) International challenges in investment arbitration. Routledge, New York, pp 37–55CrossRef
go back to reference Ackhurst K, Nattrass S, Brown E (2016) CETA, the investment Canada Act and SOEs: a brave new world for free trade. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest J 31(1):58–76CrossRef Ackhurst K, Nattrass S, Brown E (2016) CETA, the investment Canada Act and SOEs: a brave new world for free trade. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest J 31(1):58–76CrossRef
go back to reference Bhattacharjee S (2009) National security with a Canadian twist: the investment Canada act and the new national security review test. Transnatl Corp Rev 1(4):12–19 Bhattacharjee S (2009) National security with a Canadian twist: the investment Canada act and the new national security review test. Transnatl Corp Rev 1(4):12–19
go back to reference Bischoff JA, Happ R (2015) The notion of investment. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S et al (eds) International investment law. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 495–544CrossRef Bischoff JA, Happ R (2015) The notion of investment. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S et al (eds) International investment law. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 495–544CrossRef
go back to reference Bungenberg M, Hobe S (2015) The relationship of international investment law and European union law. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S et al (eds) International investment law. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 1602–1628CrossRef Bungenberg M, Hobe S (2015) The relationship of international investment law and European union law. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S et al (eds) International investment law. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 1602–1628CrossRef
go back to reference Bungenberg M, Titi C (2014) The evolution of EU investment law and the future of EU-China investment relations. In: Shan W, Su J (eds) China and international investment law – twenty years of ICSID membership. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 297–371CrossRef Bungenberg M, Titi C (2014) The evolution of EU investment law and the future of EU-China investment relations. In: Shan W, Su J (eds) China and international investment law – twenty years of ICSID membership. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 297–371CrossRef
go back to reference Burke-White W, von Staden A (2008) Investment protection in extraordinary times: the interpretation and application of non-precluded measures provisions in bilateral investment treaties. Vanderbilt J Transnatl Law 48(2):307–410 Burke-White W, von Staden A (2008) Investment protection in extraordinary times: the interpretation and application of non-precluded measures provisions in bilateral investment treaties. Vanderbilt J Transnatl Law 48(2):307–410
go back to reference de Mestral A (2015) Pre-entry obligations under international law. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S et al (eds) International investment law. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 685–699CrossRef de Mestral A (2015) Pre-entry obligations under international law. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S et al (eds) International investment law. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 685–699CrossRef
go back to reference de Mestral A, Vanhonnaecker L (2022) Art. 8.4. In: Bungenberg M, Reinisch A (eds) CETA investment law article by article commentary. Baden-Baden, Nomos, pp 159–174CrossRef de Mestral A, Vanhonnaecker L (2022) Art. 8.4. In: Bungenberg M, Reinisch A (eds) CETA investment law article by article commentary. Baden-Baden, Nomos, pp 159–174CrossRef
go back to reference Diehl A (2012) The core standard of international investment protection: fair and equitable treatment. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn Diehl A (2012) The core standard of international investment protection: fair and equitable treatment. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn
go back to reference Diel-Gligor K, Hennecke R (2015) Investment in accordance with the law. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S et al (eds) International investment law. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 566–576CrossRef Diel-Gligor K, Hennecke R (2015) Investment in accordance with the law. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S et al (eds) International investment law. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 566–576CrossRef
go back to reference Dolzer R, Kriebaum U, Schreuer C (2022) Principles of international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford Dolzer R, Kriebaum U, Schreuer C (2022) Principles of international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
go back to reference Douglas Z (2009) The international law of investment claims. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef Douglas Z (2009) The international law of investment claims. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef
go back to reference Elshihabi S (2001) The difficulty behind securing sector-specific investment establishment rights: the case of the energy charter treaty. Int Lawyer 35(1):137–158 Elshihabi S (2001) The difficulty behind securing sector-specific investment establishment rights: the case of the energy charter treaty. Int Lawyer 35(1):137–158
go back to reference Esplugues C (2018) Foreign investment, strategic assets and national security. Intersentia, Cambridge Esplugues C (2018) Foreign investment, strategic assets and national security. Intersentia, Cambridge
go back to reference Fuji K, Yodogawa N, Wako M (2021) Foreign investment screening in Japan. In: Hindelang S, Moberg A (eds) YSEC yearbook of socio-economic constitutions 2020: a common European law on investment screening (CELIS) 2020. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 379–401 Fuji K, Yodogawa N, Wako M (2021) Foreign investment screening in Japan. In: Hindelang S, Moberg A (eds) YSEC yearbook of socio-economic constitutions 2020: a common European law on investment screening (CELIS) 2020. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 379–401
go back to reference Hagemayer TM (2021) Access to legal redress in an EU investment screening mechanism. In: Hindelang S, Moberg A (eds) YSEC yearbook of socio-economic constitutions 2020: a common european law on investment screening (CELIS) 2020. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 795–833 Hagemayer TM (2021) Access to legal redress in an EU investment screening mechanism. In: Hindelang S, Moberg A (eds) YSEC yearbook of socio-economic constitutions 2020: a common european law on investment screening (CELIS) 2020. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 795–833
go back to reference Hallberg J (2021) Foreign investment screening in Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. In: Hindelang S, Moberg A (eds) YSEC yearbook of socio-economic constitutions 2020: a common European law on investment screening (CELIS) 2020. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 209–226 Hallberg J (2021) Foreign investment screening in Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. In: Hindelang S, Moberg A (eds) YSEC yearbook of socio-economic constitutions 2020: a common European law on investment screening (CELIS) 2020. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 209–226
go back to reference Heath JB (2020) The new national security challenge to the economic order. Yale Law J 129(4):1020–1109 Heath JB (2020) The new national security challenge to the economic order. Yale Law J 129(4):1020–1109
go back to reference Henckels C (2018) Should investment treaties contain public policy exceptions? Boston College Law Rev 59(8):2825–2844 Henckels C (2018) Should investment treaties contain public policy exceptions? Boston College Law Rev 59(8):2825–2844
go back to reference Hindelang S, Moberg A (2020) The art of casting political dissent in law: the EU’s framework for the screening of foreign direct investment. Com Market Law Rev 57(5):1427–1460CrossRef Hindelang S, Moberg A (2020) The art of casting political dissent in law: the EU’s framework for the screening of foreign direct investment. Com Market Law Rev 57(5):1427–1460CrossRef
go back to reference Hindelang S, Moberg A (2021) YSEC yearbook of socio-economic constitutions 2020: a common European law on investment screening (CELIS) 2020. Springer International Publishing, ChamCrossRef Hindelang S, Moberg A (2021) YSEC yearbook of socio-economic constitutions 2020: a common European law on investment screening (CELIS) 2020. Springer International Publishing, ChamCrossRef
go back to reference Hobér K (2020) The energy charter treaty. Oxford University Press, Oxford Hobér K (2020) The energy charter treaty. Oxford University Press, Oxford
go back to reference Ishikawa T (2020) Investment screening on national security grounds and international law: the case of Japan. J Int Comp Law 7(1):71–98 Ishikawa T (2020) Investment screening on national security grounds and international law: the case of Japan. J Int Comp Law 7(1):71–98
go back to reference Jaśkowski M, Pawłowski S (2021) Foreign investment screening in Poland, Lithuania and Latvia. In: Hindelang S, Moberg A (eds) YSEC yearbook of socio-economic constitutions 2020: a common European law on investment screening (CELIS) 2020. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 139–186 Jaśkowski M, Pawłowski S (2021) Foreign investment screening in Poland, Lithuania and Latvia. In: Hindelang S, Moberg A (eds) YSEC yearbook of socio-economic constitutions 2020: a common European law on investment screening (CELIS) 2020. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 139–186
go back to reference Joubin-Bret A (2008) Admission and establishment in the context of investment protection. In: Reinisch A (ed) Standards of Investment Protection. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 9–28CrossRef Joubin-Bret A (2008) Admission and establishment in the context of investment protection. In: Reinisch A (ed) Standards of Investment Protection. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 9–28CrossRef
go back to reference Lichtenbaum G, Ribner DJ (2021) Foreign investment screening in the USA. In: Hindelang S, Moberg A (eds) YSEC yearbook of socio-economic constitutions 2020: a common European law on investment screening (CELIS) 2020. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 363–378 Lichtenbaum G, Ribner DJ (2021) Foreign investment screening in the USA. In: Hindelang S, Moberg A (eds) YSEC yearbook of socio-economic constitutions 2020: a common European law on investment screening (CELIS) 2020. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 363–378
go back to reference Marboe I (2015) Case comments: Nordzucker AG v The Republic of Poland. J World Invest Trade 15(3):533–543CrossRef Marboe I (2015) Case comments: Nordzucker AG v The Republic of Poland. J World Invest Trade 15(3):533–543CrossRef
go back to reference Paine J (2021) Global telecom holding v Canada: interpreting and applying reservations and carve-outs in investment treaties. J Int Arbitr 38(4):533–548CrossRef Paine J (2021) Global telecom holding v Canada: interpreting and applying reservations and carve-outs in investment treaties. J Int Arbitr 38(4):533–548CrossRef
go back to reference Pohl JH (2021) The impact of investment treaty commitments on the design and operation of EU investment screening mechanisms. In: Hindelang S, Moberg A (eds) YSEC yearbook of socio-economic constitutions (CELIS) 2020. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 725–768 Pohl JH (2021) The impact of investment treaty commitments on the design and operation of EU investment screening mechanisms. In: Hindelang S, Moberg A (eds) YSEC yearbook of socio-economic constitutions (CELIS) 2020. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 725–768
go back to reference Pollan T (2006) Legal framework for the admission of FDI. Eleven, The Hague Pollan T (2006) Legal framework for the admission of FDI. Eleven, The Hague
go back to reference Raby J (1990) The investment provisions of the Canada–United States free trade agreement: a Canadian perspective. Am J Int Law 84(2):394-443 Raby J (1990) The investment provisions of the Canada–United States free trade agreement: a Canadian perspective. Am J Int Law 84(2):394-443
go back to reference Reinisch A (2015) National treatment. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S et al (eds) International investment law. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 846–869CrossRef Reinisch A (2015) National treatment. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S et al (eds) International investment law. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 846–869CrossRef
go back to reference Reinisch A, Schreuer C (2020) International protection of investments: the substantive standards. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef Reinisch A, Schreuer C (2020) International protection of investments: the substantive standards. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef
go back to reference Samuel G (2014) An introduction to comparative law theory and method. Hart, Oxford Samuel G (2014) An introduction to comparative law theory and method. Hart, Oxford
go back to reference Schill S (2012) Illegal investments in investment treaty arbitration. Law Pract Int Courts Tribunals 11(2):281–323CrossRef Schill S (2012) Illegal investments in investment treaty arbitration. Law Pract Int Courts Tribunals 11(2):281–323CrossRef
go back to reference Schreuer C (2020) Pre-investment activities. In Huber s, Benicke C (eds) National, international, transnational: Harmonischer Dreiklang im Recht - Festschrift Herbert Kronke. Gieseking, Bielefeld, pp 1553–1560 Schreuer C (2020) Pre-investment activities. In Huber s, Benicke C (eds) National, international, transnational: Harmonischer Dreiklang im Recht - Festschrift Herbert Kronke. Gieseking, Bielefeld, pp 1553–1560
go back to reference Stompfe P (2021) Foreign investment screening in Germany and France. In: Hindelang S, Moberg A (eds) YSEC yearbook of socio-economic constitutions (CELIS) 2020. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 80–115 Stompfe P (2021) Foreign investment screening in Germany and France. In: Hindelang S, Moberg A (eds) YSEC yearbook of socio-economic constitutions (CELIS) 2020. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 80–115
go back to reference Titi C (2015) International investment law and the European Union: towards a new generation of international investment agreements. Eur J Int Law 26(3):639–661CrossRef Titi C (2015) International investment law and the European Union: towards a new generation of international investment agreements. Eur J Int Law 26(3):639–661CrossRef
go back to reference Tropper J (2022) National treatment. In: Bungenberg M, Reinisch A (eds) CETA investment law – article-by-article commentary. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 191–212 Tropper J (2022) National treatment. In: Bungenberg M, Reinisch A (eds) CETA investment law – article-by-article commentary. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 191–212
go back to reference Vargiu P (2021) Foreign investment screening in Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece. In: Hindelang S, Moberg A (eds) YSEC yearbook of socio-economic constitutions (CELIS) 2020. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 117–137 Vargiu P (2021) Foreign investment screening in Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece. In: Hindelang S, Moberg A (eds) YSEC yearbook of socio-economic constitutions (CELIS) 2020. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 117–137
go back to reference Viñuales JE (2020) Seven ways of escaping a rule. In: Bartels L, Paddeu F (eds) Exceptions in international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 65–87CrossRef Viñuales JE (2020) Seven ways of escaping a rule. In: Bartels L, Paddeu F (eds) Exceptions in international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 65–87CrossRef
go back to reference Wälde T (1996) International investment under the 1994 energy charter treaty – legal, negotiating and policy implications for International investors within Western and Commonwealth of Independent States/Eastern European Countries. In: Waelde T, Lubbers R (eds) The energy charter treaty: an east-west gateway for investment and trade. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 251–320 Wälde T (1996) International investment under the 1994 energy charter treaty – legal, negotiating and policy implications for International investors within Western and Commonwealth of Independent States/Eastern European Countries. In: Waelde T, Lubbers R (eds) The energy charter treaty: an east-west gateway for investment and trade. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 251–320
go back to reference Wälde T, Ben Hamida W (2008) The energy charter treaty and corporate acquisition. In: Coop G, Ribeiro C (eds) Investment protection and the energy charter treaty. JurisNet, New York, pp 157–221 Wälde T, Ben Hamida W (2008) The energy charter treaty and corporate acquisition. In: Coop G, Ribeiro C (eds) Investment protection and the energy charter treaty. JurisNet, New York, pp 157–221
go back to reference Yotova R (2018) Compliance with domestic law: an implied condition in treaties conferring rights and protections on foreign nationals and their property? In: Klinger J, Parkhomenko Y, Salonidis C (eds) Between the lines of the Vienna Convention? Canons and other principles of interpretation of public international law. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 307–330 Yotova R (2018) Compliance with domestic law: an implied condition in treaties conferring rights and protections on foreign nationals and their property? In: Klinger J, Parkhomenko Y, Salonidis C (eds) Between the lines of the Vienna Convention? Canons and other principles of interpretation of public international law. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 307–330
Metadata
Title
Determining the Role of FDI Screening in International Investment Law
Author
Kilian Wagner
Copyright Year
2024
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/17280_2023_10

Premium Partner