Top

Hint

Swipe to navigate through the chapters of this book

Published in:

Read chapter Read first chapter

2016 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Conflict, Convergence, and Future Directions

Author : Kate Miles

Published in: European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2016

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Abstract

This article reflects upon the criticisms directed towards investor-state arbitration over the last decade. It considers the controversies, the responses and the current debates surrounding investor-state arbitration. In particular, it reviews the discourse on the right to regulate and the arguments that investment disputes can impact on matters of public interest and have the potential to encroach into host state regulatory space. It also considers concerns expressed at the structural, institutional, and procedural frameworks for investor-state arbitration. In examining both the procedural and substantive responses to such criticisms, the argument is put forward that, increasingly, there is an acknowledgement of the problematic nature of the ‘older-style’ bilateral investment treaties, that attempts are being made to address this through new emphases in treaty-drafting, and that a more nuanced approach to investment disputes may be emerging. Concerns remain, however, that even despite these developments, public welfare regulation continues to be at risk from investor challenges and that a lack of appreciation of non-investment issues persists in arbitral decision-making. For this reason, the article ultimately adopts an ambivalent view of the future impact of the changes currently occurring within the field.

previous chapter Be Careful with What You Wish: Saving Developing Countries from Development and the Risk of Overlooking the Importance of a Multilateral Rule-Based System on Investment in the Twenty-First Century

next chapter In Defense of International Investment Law

See, for example, the discussion in Soloway (2000); see also Tienhaara (2009).

See, for example, Methanex Corporation v United States of America, (2005) 44 International Legal Materials 1345; S.D. Myers, Inc v Canada, Partial Award (Decision on the Merits), November 2000; Ethyl Corporation v Canada, Jurisdiction Phase, (1999) 38 International Legal Materials 708; Metalclad Corporation v The United States of Mexico, Award, 25 August 2000, (2001) 40 International Legal Materials 35; CMS Gas Transmission Co v Argentine Republic (2005) 44 International Legal Materials 1205; Philip Morris Asia Limited v The Commonwealth of Australia, In the Matter of Arbitration under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law 2010, Notice of Arbitration, (21 November 2011).

Tienhaara (2006).

Van Harten (2007), pp. 172–173.

See, for example, the Lauder Cases: In the Matter of a UNCITRAL Arbitration between Ronald S. Lauder and the Czech Republic, Final Award, 3 September 2001; CME Czech Republic B.V. (the Netherlands) v. Czech Republic (UNCITRAL, Partial Award of 13 September 2001; Final Award of 14 March 2003); see also the discussion in Yannaca-Small (2008), pp. 1009–1010; see also Joubin-Bret (2008).

Sornarajah (2003); see the discussion on the views of members of the investment sector “that an arbitrator is not the guardian of public policy, that his duties are towards the parties only, and that he must confine himself to the determination of disputes involving private interests” in Mayer (2001), pp. 246–247.

See, for example, the characterisation of critics of investor-state arbitration in Weiler (2005); see also the view set out in Baker (2006); see also Wälde and Kolo (2001).

See, for example, European Commission Statement, Improving ISDS to Prevent Abuse—Statement by EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht on the Launch of a Public Consultation on Investment Protection in TTIP, 27 March 2014, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-14-85_en.htm (last accessed 4 April 2015).

Adopted 17 December 1992, (1992) 32 ILM 612 (entered into force 1 January 1994). Notable examples include Methanex Corporation v United States of America, (2005) 44 International Legal Materials 1345; Dow AgroSciences LLC v Government of Canada, Notice of Arbitration, 31 March 2009 http://www.naftaclaims.com/disputes/canada/dow/dow-01.pdf (last accessed 7 August 2015).

Vattenfall AB et al v Federal Republic of Germany, Request for Arbitration, 30 March 2009, ICSID No. ARB/09/6, http://www.italaw.com/documents/VattenfallRequestforArbitration.pdf (last accessed 6 June 2015); Vattenfall AB et al v Federal Republic of Germany, ICSID No. ARB/12/12.

UNCTAD (2005) South-South Investment Agreements Proliferating. IIA Monitor No. 1 UNCTAD/WEB/ITE/IIT/2006/1, http://unctad.org/en/Docs/webiteiit20061_en.pdf (last accessed 10 June 2015).

See, for example, Art. 9 of Agreement Between Canada and the Czech Republic for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, (adopted 6 May 2009, entered into force 22 January 2012), http://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/text-texte.aspx?id=105128&lang=eng (last accessed 4 April 2015).

See, for example, Agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Nigeria for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (signed 6 May 2014), http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/fipa-apie/nigeria.aspx?lang=eng (last accessed 12 June 2015); see also Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Peru for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (signed 14 November 2006, entered into force 20 June 2007), http://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/text-texte.aspx?id=105078&lang=eng (last accessed 12 June 2015).

Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, currently being negotiated by the European Union and the United States of America, see the European Commission website for its negotiating texts, http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/documents-and-events/index_en.htm#eu-position (last accessed 5 July 2015).

European Commission Speech, Discussion on Investment in TTIP at the Meeting of the International Trade Committee of the European Parliament, Cecilia Maelström, Commissioner for Trade, 18 March 2015, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-15-4624_en.htm (last accessed 8 May 2015).

ICSID, Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings (2006) https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/StaticFiles/basicdoc/CRR_English-final.pdf (last accessed 15 June 2015).

UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (as revised in 2010) https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/arb-rules-revised/arb-rules-revised-2010-e.pdf (last accessed 10 July 2015).

The closed list-serve OGEMID (Oil-Gas-Energy-Mining-Infrastructure Dispute Management), which operates on a Chatham House Rules basis, is one such forum, http://www.transnational-dispute-management.com/ogemid/ (last accessed 16 April 2015).

See, for example, Schill (2015); see also, for example, Douglas et al. (2014).

See, for example, Baetens (2013).

See, for example, Kalicki and Joubin-Bret (2015).

See, for example, Dupuy and Viñuales (2013).

Philip Morris Asia Ltd v The Commonwealth of Australia, In the Matter of Arbitration under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law 2010, Notice of Arbitration, 21 November 2011, http://www.ag.gov.au/tobaccoplainpackaging (last accessed 6 June 2015); Vattenfall AB et al v Federal Republic of Germany, Request for Arbitration, 30 March 2009, ICSID No. ARB/09/6, http://www.italaw.com/documents/VattenfallRequestforArbitration.pdf (last accessed 6 May 2015); Vattenfall AB et al v Federal Republic of Germany, ICSID No. ARB/12/12.

Sands (2005), pp. 121, 141.

Sornarajah (2003), pp. 13–17; Van Harten (2007), p. 159.

See, for example, Anghie (2004); see also Pahuja (2011); see Mickelson (1998); see also Gathii (2008).

Miles (2013).

In the Matter of an Arbitration under Chap. 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the UNCITRAL Rules of 1976 between William Ralph Clayton et al v Government of Canada, Award, 10 March 2015.

In the Matter of an Arbitration under Chap. 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the UNCITRAL Rules of 1976 between William Ralph Clayton et al v Government of Canada, Dissenting Opinion of Professor Donald McCrae, 10 March 2015.

See the text of the draft Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) at OECD Negotiating Group on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, Draft Consolidated Text, 22 April 1998 http://www1.oecd.org/daf/mai/pdf/ng/ng987r1e.pdf (last accessed 27 April 2015).

McDonald (1998); Tieleman K (2000) The Failure of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment and the Absence of a Global Public Policy Network: A Case Study for the UN Vision Project on Global Public Policy Networks. http://old.gppi.net/fileadmin/gppi/Tieleman_MAI_GPP_Network.pdf (last accessed 27 April 2015); see also the activist commentary at Nova S and Sforza-Roderick M (undated) “Worse than NAFTA”: A Commentary on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. Preamble Center for Public Policy, www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/bwi-wto/mai2.htm (last accessed 27 April 2015); for a further example of NGO commentary, see Joint NGO Statement on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, NGO/OECD Consultation on the MAI, 27 October 1997, http://bocs.hu/igaz-a-1.htm (last accessed 27 April 2015).

Barkin N, Thousands in Germany Protest against Europe-US Trade Deal, Reuters, 18 April 2015 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/18/us-trade-protests-germany-idUSKBN0N90LO20150418 (last accessed 20 April 2015), for example, one demonstrator interviewed in Barkin’s article is protesting against increased importation of genetically-modified food rather than ISDS per se.

McLachlan et al. (2007), p. 207.

See, for example, Ethyl Corporation v Canada, Jurisdiction Phase, (1999) 38 International Legal Materials 708; Pope & Talbot v Canada, Award on the Merits of Phase II, 10 April 2001; S.D. Myers Inc v. Canada (UNCITRAL, First Partial Award of 13 November 2000); Compania del Desarrollo de Santa Elena S.A. v. The Republic of Costa Rica, (2000) 39 International Legal Materials 1317; Metalclad Corporation v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1, Award of 30 August 2000; Methanex Corporation v. United States of America, (2005) 44 International Legal Materials 1345.

Soloway (2000), pp. 123–125; Been and Beauvais (2003), pp. 33–37; Sands (2002).

Soloway (2000); Sands (2002); Mann H, von Moltke K (1999) NAFTA’s Chap. 11 and the Environment: Addressing the Impacts of the Investor-State Process on the Environment. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) www.iisd.org/pdf/nafta.pdf (last accessed 27 April 2015); Peterson (2005); Tienhaara (2011).

See, for example, Weiler (2005).

Azurix Corp. v. Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12, Award of July 14, 2006, para. 310.

Compania del Desarrollo de Santa Elena, S.A., v. The Republic of Costa Rica, (2000) 39 International Legal Materials 1317, 1329.

Methanex Corporation v United States of America (2005) 44 International Legal Materials 1345, 1456.

Tecnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, SA v United Mexican States (2004) 43 International Legal Materials 133.

Vattenfall AB et al V Federal Republic of Germany, Request for Arbitration, 30 March 2009, ICSID No. ARB/09/6 http://www.italaw.com/documents/VattenfallRequestforArbitration.pdf (last accessed 30 May 2015); Vattenfall AB et al v Federal Republic of Germany, ICSID No. ARB/12/12.

Philip Morris Asia Limited v The Commonwealth of Australia, In the Matter of Arbitration under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law 2010, Notice of Arbitration, (21 November 2011), available at http://www.ag.gov.au/tobaccoplainpackaging (last accessed 30 May 2015).

See the discussion in Bernasconi-Osterwalder N and Hoffman R (2013) The German Nuclear Phase-Out Put to the Test in International Investment Arbitration: Background to the New Dispute Vattenfall v Germany II. IISD https://www.tni.org/files/download/vattenfall-icsid-case_oct2013.pdf (last accessed 6 June 20015).

The Thirteenth Amendment to the Atomic Energy Act (13. AtGÄndG v. 31.07.2011, BGBl I S. 1704 (No. 43)).

Energy Charter Treaty, Annex I, Final Act of the European Energy Charter Conference, 17 December 1994, 34 ILM 373.

Vattenfall AB et al v Federal Republic of Germany, ICSID No. ARB/12/12.

Peterson L, Uruguay: Philip Morris Files First-Known Investment Treaty Claim Against Tobacco Regulations, Investment Arbitration Reporter, 3 March 2010 https://www.iareporter.com/articles/philip-morris-files-first-known-investment-treaty-claim-against-tobacco-regulations/ (last accessed 7 August 2015).

Philip Morris Brand Sàrl (Switzerland), Philip Morris Products S.A. (Switzerland) and Abal Hermanos S.A. (Uruguay) v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, (ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7); Accord entre la Confédération Suisse et la République Orientale de l’Uruguay Concernant la Promotion et la Protection Réciproques des Investissements (entered into 7 October 1988), http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/2327 (last accessed 7 August 2015); see also the discussion in International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Tobacco Company Files Claim Against Uruguay Over Labelling Laws, Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest, 10 March 2010, http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/bridges/news/tobacco-company-files-claim-against-uruguay-over-labelling-laws (last accessed 15 June 2015).

Agreement between the Government of Hong Kong and the Government of Australia for the Promotion and the Protection of Investments, 1748 UNTS 385 (signed 15 September 1993, entered into force 15 October 1993); Philip Morris Asia Limited v The Commonwealth of Australia, In the Matter of Arbitration under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law 2010, Notice of Arbitration, 21 November 2011, https://www.ag.gov.au/Internationalrelations/InternationalLaw/Documents/Philip%20Morris%20Asia%20Limited%20Notice%20of%20Arbitration%2021%20November%202011.pdf (last accessed 07 August 2015).

Tobacco Plain Packaging Act (2011), Cth Act No. 148 of 2011.

Philip Morris Asia Limited v The Commonwealth of Australia, Notice of Arbitration, 21 November 2011.

The United Kingdom, New Zealand, Ireland, France, Canada, Finland, Norway and Turkey have introduced initiatives, enacted legislation, or are considering proposals to introduce more restrictive tobacco regulations, ASH, Standardised Tobacco Packaging, (March 2015), http://ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_877.pdf (last accessed 24 May 2015); see also Saez C, ‘France Spearheads Push for Plain Packaging of Tobacco Products’, Intellectual Property Watch, 23 July 2015, http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/07/23/france-spearheads-push-for-plain-packaging-of-tobacco-products/ (last accessed 24 August 2015).

Sentiments such as this are regularly expressed on the email list-serve OGEMID, which operates on a Chatham House Rule basis so that statements cannot be attributed to individuals.

Statements expressed on E-mail list-serve OGEMID.

See, for example, Voon and Mitchell (2011).

Statements expressed on E-mail list-serve OGEMID.

Van Harten (2007); Tienhaara (2006); Brower et al. (2003).

Van Harten (2007); see also Editorial, The Secret Trade Courts, The New York Times, 27 September 2004 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/27/opinion/27mon3.html?_r=0 (last accessed 5 July 2015); DePalma A, Nafta’s Powerful Little Secret; Obscure Tribunals Settle Disputes, but Go Too Far, Critics Say, The New York Times, 11 March 2001 http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/11/business/nafta-s-powerful-little-secret-obscure-tribunals-settle-disputes-but-go-too-far.html (last accessed 5 July 2015).

See Tienhaara (2007); see also the discussion in Miles (2010); IISD (2007) Revising the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules to Address Investor-State Arbitrations. http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2007/investment_revising_uncitral_arbitration.pdf (last accessed 8 June 2015).

Tienhaara (2007); IISD (2007) Revising the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules to Address Investor-State Arbitrations. http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2007/investment_revising_uncitral_arbitration.pdf (last accessed 8 June 2015); see also the discussion in De Brebandere (2014), pp. 149–152.

Rubins (2006); see also Bastin (2012).

See, for example, the creative interpretation of Article 15(1) of the UNCITRAL Rules in Methanex Corporation v United States of America (2005) 44 International Legal Materials 1345 to permit the submission of amicus curiae briefs.

ICSID, Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings (2006) https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/StaticFiles/basicdoc/CRR_English-final.pdf (last accessed 15 June 2015).

UNCITRAL, Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration (adopted 16 December 2013, entered into force 1 April 2014) https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/arb-rules-revised/arb-rules-revised-2010-e.pdf (last accessed 15 June 2015).

United Nations Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration (adopted 10 December 2014, opened for signature 17 March 2015), http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/transparency-convention/Transparency-Convention-e.pdf (last accessed 15 June 2015).

See, for example, the Lauder Cases: In the Matter of a UNCITRAL Arbitration between Ronald S. Lauder v the Czech Republic, Final Award, 3 September 2001; CME Czech Republic B.V. (the Netherlands) v. Czech Republic (UNCITRAL, Partial Award of 13 September 2001; Final Award of 14 March 2003); see also the discussion in Yannaca-Small (2008), pp. 1009–1010; see also Joubin-Bret (2008).

For views supportive of an appellate facility, see, for example, the discussion in Van Harten (2007), pp. 153–75, 180; see also Brower (2003); Gal-Or (2008); Gantz (2006).

ICSID (2004) Possible Improvements of the Framework for ICSID Arbitration. Discussion Paper https://icsid.worldbank.org/apps/ICSIDWEB/resources/Documents/Possible%20Improvements%20of%20the%20Framework%20of%20ICSID%20Arbitration.pdf (last accessed 7 August 2015).

Tams C (2006) An Appealing Option? The Debate about an ICSID Appellate Structure. 57 Essays in Transnational Economic Law, Institut für Wirtschaftsrecht, http://www.wirtschaftsrecht.uni-halle.de/sites/default/files/altbestand/Heft57.pdf (last accessed 7 August 2015), p. 6; Investment Treaty News, ICSID Member-Governments OK Watered-Down Changes to Arbitration Process, (29 March 2006), www.iisd.org/pdf/2006/itn_mar29_2006.pdf (last accessed 17 May 2015); see the discussion in Walsh (2006), pp. 444–445.

See the discussion in Tams C (2006) An Appealing Option? The Debate about an ICSID Appellate Structure. 57 Essays in Transnational Economic Law, Institut für Wirtschaftsrecht, http://www.wirtschaftsrecht.uni-halle.de/sites/default/files/altbestand/Heft57.pdf (last accessed 7 August 2015), p. 34; see also the discussion on the origins of commercial arbitration as an alternative to litigation in Van Harten (2007), pp. 59–61; see the critiques in Legum (2008); see also Paulsson (2008); see also the discussion in Sammartano (2003), pp. 388–391.

See for example Treaty Between the United States of America and the Oriental Republic of Uruguay Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment (2005) Art. 28.10, http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/2380 (last accessed 7 August 2015).

EU (2015) Investment in TTIP and Beyond—the Path for Reform: Enhancing the Right to Regulate and Moving from Current ad hoc Arbitration towards an Investment Court. Concept Paper http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/may/tradoc_153408.PDF (last accessed 8 June 2015).

EU (2015) Investment in TTIP and Beyond—the Path for Reform: Enhancing the Right to Regulate and Moving from Current ad hoc Arbitration towards an Investment Court. Concept Paper, p. 4 http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/may/tradoc_153408.PDF (last accessed 8 June 2015).

Van Harten, (2007), pp. 172–173; Buergenthal (2006), p. 498; Cosbey A et al. (2004) Investment and Sustainable Development: A Guide to the Use and Potential of International Investment Agreements International. IISD http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2004/investment_invest_and_sd.pdf (last accessed 8 May 2015).

Buergenthal (2006), p. 498; Van Harten (2007), pp. 172–173; Cosbey A et al. (2004) Investment and Sustainable Development: A Guide to the Use and Potential of International Investment Agreements International. IISD, p. 6 http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2004/investment_invest_and_sd.pdf (last accessed 8 May 2015); see also the comments of Philippe Sands in Sulaimain U, London Barrister Opposes Arbitrators Acting as Counsel, Global Arbitration Review, 7 October 2009 http://globalarbitrationreview.com/news/article/18979/london-barrister-opposes-arbitrators-acting-counsel/ (last accessed 8 May 2015).

Cosbey A et al. (2004) Investment and Sustainable Development: A Guide to the Use and Potential of International Investment Agreements International. IISD http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2004/investment_invest_and_sd.pdf (last accessed 8 May 2015); Buergenthal (2006), p. 498; Van Harten, (2007), pp. 172–173; Philippe Sands in Sulaimain U, London Barrister Opposes Arbitrators Acting as Counsel, Global Arbitration Review, 7 October 2009 http://globalarbitrationreview.com/news/article/18979/london-barrister-opposes-arbitrators-acting-counsel/ (last accessed 8 May 2015); Miles (2013), p. 377.

See, for example, Schill S (2006) Fair and Equitable Treatment under Investment Treaties as an Embodiment of the Rule of Law. IILJ Working Paper 2006/6 (Global Administrative Law Series) http://iilj.org/publications/documents/2006-6-GAL-Schill-web.pdf (last accessed 25 August 2014); Kingsbury B and Schill S (2009) Investor-State Arbitration as Governance: Fair and Equitable Treatment, Proportionality and the Emerging Global Administrative Law. IILJ Working Paper 2009/6 (Global Administrative Law Series) http://www.iilj.org/publications/documents/2009-6.KingsburySchill.pdf (last accessed 25 August 2014); Kalderimis (2011); Kotuby (2011), p. 164; Postiga (2013).

Sornarajah (2003), p. 17; Dezalay and Garth (1996), pp. 8–9, 70; Puig (2014).

Puig (2014), p. 421.

Miles (2013), p. 342–345.

See, for example, Shalakany (2000).

Puig (2014), pp. 402, 404–405. Puig uses recent data from ICSID appointments showing that 93% of appointments went to men and, of the women appointed, three-quarters of those appointments were held by two women, Professors Brigitte Stern and Gabrielle Kaufman-Kohler, statistically pushing the overall figure to 95 %.

Puig (2014); Miles (2013), pp. 342–345; Dezalay and Garth (1996), pp. 8–9, 16, 29; Borgen, (2007), pp. 724–728.

Van Harten (2007), pp. 111, 125, 172–173; Dezalay and Garth (1996), pp. 8–9, 16, 29; Borgen (2007), pp. 724–728; see also the discussion in Trinh (2014), pp. 25–31.

Miles (2013), pp. 342–345.

Puig (2014), pp. 422.

See, for example, Marvin Roy Feldman Karpa v United Mexican States (2001) 40 International Legal Materials 615; Pope & Talbot Inc v. Canada (Award on Damages) (2002) 41 International Legal Materials 1347; MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. & MTD Chile S.A. (Decision on Annulment of 2007); Compañía del Desarrollo de Santa Elena S.A. v. The Republic of Costa Rica, (2000) 39 International Legal Materials 1317; CMS Gas Transmission Company (2005) 44 International Legal Materials 1205; LG&E Energy Corp ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26, Award, 25 July 2007; CMS Gas Transmission Company ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Decision on Annulment (2007).

See, for example, the treatment of necessity under customary international law in CMS Gas Transmission Co v Argentine Republic (2005) 44 International Legal Materials 1205.

Compania del Desarrollo de Santa Elena S.A. v. The Republic of Costa Rica, (2000) 39 International Legal Materials 1317; S.D. Myers, Inc v Canada, Partial Award (Decision on the Merits), November 2000.

See the discussion in Miles (2013), pp. 307–308, 319–320; Hirsch (2008); see the discussion on a public law approach involving the use of Article 31(3)(c) in Schill (2010), pp. 23–27.

Reinisch (2008), pp. 201–202; McLachlan (2008), p. 376.

See, for example, In the Matter of a UNCITRAL Arbitration between Ronald S Lauder v the Czech Republic, Final Award, 3 September 2001; Tecnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, SA v United Mexican States (2004) 43 International Legal Materials 133; In the Matter of a NAFTA Arbitration under UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules between International Thunderbird Gaming Corp v. United Mexican States, Award, Separate Opinion, 26 January 2006, http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2006/itn_award.pdf (last accessed 10 August 2015).

100

Miles (2013), p. 330.

101

See Sands and Peel (2012); see also Stephens (2009).

102

Sornarajah (2003), pp. 13–17; Muchlinski (2008), p. 683.

103

Muchlinski (2008), pp. 683–684.

104

United States State Department, Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of [Country] Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments (2012) www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/BIT%20text%20for%20ACIEP%20Meeting.pdf (last accessed 29 April 2015); Canada, Model Foreign Investment Protection Agreement (2004) http://www.italaw.com/documents/Canadian2004-FIPA-model-en.pdf (last accessed 10.08.2015); see the discussion in Newcombe (2007), p. 9; Miles (2013), pp. 231–236.

105

See the 2006 reforms of ICSID Arbitration Rules; see also the 2013 UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency.

106

See, for example, European Commission Statement, Improving ISDS to Prevent Abuse - Statement by EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht on the Launch of a Public Consultation on Investment Protection in TTIP, 27 March 2014, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-14-85_en.htm (last accessed 04.04.2015).

107

For example, Bolivia, which gave notification of its withdrawal from ICSID on 2 May 2007.

108

See the discussion in Kurtz and Nottage (2015).

109

See the discussion in Newcombe (2007), p. 399; see also Miles (2013), pp. 231–236; UNCTAD (2015) Recent Trends in IIAs and ISDS. IIA Issues Note, p. 3 http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaepcb2015d1_en.pdf (last accessed 6 June 2015); see, for example, Agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Nigeria for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (signed 6 May 2014), available at http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/fipa-apie/nigeria.aspx?lang=eng (last accessed 12 June 2015).

110

See, for example, Agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Nigeria for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (signed 6 May 2014) http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/fipa-apie/nigeria.aspx?lang=eng (last accessed 12 June 2015); see also Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Peru for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (signed 14 November 2006, entered into force 20 June 2007) http://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/text-texte.aspx?id=105078&lang=eng (accessed 12 June 2015).

111

Newcombe (2007), p. 401.

112

Tecnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, SA v United Mexican States (2004) 43 International Legal Materials 133, 173. This approach has been adopted in a number of subsequent awards, such as, MTD Equity Sdn Bhd & anor v Republic of Chile (Award) (2005) 44 International Legal Materials 91, 105–106; CMS Gas Transmission Co v Argentine Republic (2005) 44 International Legal Materials 1205, 1235; Azurix Corp. v Argentine Republic (Award) (2006) ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12, para. 360–361, 372, 392, 408.

113

EU–Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, Consolidated CETA Text, 26 September 2014 http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/September/tradoc_152806.pdf (last accessed 8 June 2015).

114

European Commission Statement, Improving ISDS to Prevent Abuse—Statement by EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht on the Launch of a Public Consultation on Investment Protection in TTIP, 27 March 2014, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-14-85_en.htm (last accessed 4 April 2015).

115

Hiault R, Tribunaux d’arbitrage entre entreprises et Etats: ce que défend la France, Les Echos, 2 June 2015, http://www.lesechos.fr/journal20150602/lec1_monde/021103436220-tribunaux-darbitrage-ce-que-defend-la-france-1124446.php# (last accessed 2 June 2015).

116

See, for example, the suggestions in UNCTAD (2012) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaepcb2012d5_en.pdf (last accessed 24 June 2015), p. 58.

117

Calamita (2014), p. 645.

118

The amended ICSID Rules https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/StaticFiles/basicdoc/CRR_English-final.pdf (last accessed 10.08.2015); see also the discussion in Tienhaara (2007); see Newcombe (2007), p. 388; see also McLachlan, Shore and Weiniger (2007), pp. 57–60.

119

ICSID Rule 32(2); Newcombe (2007), p. 391; see also Tienhaara (2007).

120

United States State Department, Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of [Country] Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments (2012) Arts 28 and 29 www.ustr.gov/ (last accessed 29 April 2015); Canada, Model Foreign Investment Protection Agreement (2004) Arts 34, 35, 38 and 39, http://www.italaw.com/documents/Canadian2004-FIPA-model-en.pdf (last accessed 10 August 2015).

121

Newcombe (2007); see also Shan (2007), pp. 652, 656; Treaty between the United States of America and the Oriental Republic of Uruguay Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment (2005) Arts 28 and 29 http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/2380 (last accessed 7 August 2015); see also Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Peru for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (2006) Arts 34, 35, 38 and 39 http://www.treaty-accord.gc.ca/text-texte.aspx?id=105078&lang=eng (last accessed 12 June 2015).

122

United States State Department, Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of [Country] Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments (2012), Arts 28 and 29 www.ustr.gov/ (last accessed 29 April 2015); Canada, Model Foreign Investment Protection Agreement (2004), Arts 38 and 39, http://www.italaw.com/documents/Canadian2004-FIPA-model-en.pdf (last accessed 10 August 2015).

123

UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (as revised in 2010), Arts. 28 and 34.

124

UNCITRAL, Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration (adopted 16 December 2013, entered into force 1 April 2014), Art. 3.

125

UNCITRAL, Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration (adopted 16 December 2013, entered into force 1 April 2014), Art. 6.

126

UNCITRAL, Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration (adopted 16 December 2013, entered into force 1 April 2014), Art. 7.

127

United Nations Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration (2014).

128

United Nations Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration (2014).

129

Peterson L, Germany’s Openness to ISDS Transparency and the Vattenfall Arbitration, Investment Arbitration Reporter, 2 June 2015, http://www.iareporter.com/articles/germanys-openness-to-isds-transparency-and-the-vattenfall-arbitration/ (last accessed 8 June 2015).

130

Miles (2013); see also Miles (2014).

131

In the Matter of an Arbitration under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the UNCITRAL Rules of 1976 between William Ralph Clayton et al v Government of Canada, Award, 10 March 2015, para. 10.

132

William Ralph Clayton et al v Government of Canada, para. 18.

133

Howse R, The Bilcon Decision: The Environment, Local Politics and the Rule of Law, International Economic Law and Policy Blog, 20 March 2015, http://worldtradelaw.typepad.com/ielpblog/2015/03/the-bilcon-decision-the-environment-local-politics-and-the-rule-of-law.html (last accessed 11 August 2015).

134

Eaton J, Digby Neck Quarry Bilcon Case: Tribunal Decision and Dissent, Sierra Club Canada, 11 May 2015, http://www.sierraclub.ca/sites/sierraclub.ca/files/JANET201505.pdf (last accessed 4 June 2015).

135

136

137

VanderZwaag D and May J (2008) Quarrels over a Proposed Quarry in Nova Scotia: Successful Application of Sustainability Principles in Environmental Impact Assessment but not a Perfect Ending. In Bosselmann K, Engel R and Taylor P (eds), Governance for Sustainability: Issues, Challenges, Successes. IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 70, http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/eplp_70_governance_for_sustainability.pdf (last accessed 11 August 2015), p. 111.

138

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2004) Akwé: Kon Voluntary Guidelines for the Conduct of Cultural, Environmental and Social Impact Assessments Regarding Developments Proposed to Take Place on, or which are Likely to Impact on, Sacred Sites and on Lands and Waters Traditionally Occupied or Used by Indigenous and Local Communities, https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/akwe-brochure-en.pdf (last accessed 10 July 20015).

139

VanderZwaag and May (2008).

140

Doelle M, Clayton White Points NAFTA Challenge Troubling, Marine and Environmental Law News, 25 March 2015 https://blogs.dal.ca/melaw/2015/03/25/clayton-whites-point-nafta-challenge-troubling/ (last accessed 27 April 2015).

141

142

143

VanderZwaag and May (2008).

Anghie A (2004) Imperialism, sovereignty and the making of international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Baetens F (ed) (2013) Investment law within international law: integrationist perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Baker M (2006) Denial of justice in local courts. In: Ortino F, Sheppard A, Warner H (eds) Investment treaty law: current issues, vol I. British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London, p 187

Bastin L (2012) The amicus curiae in investor-state arbitration. Camb J Int Comp Law 1(3):208–234. doi: 10.7574/cjicl.01.03.57 CrossRef

Been V, Beauvais J (2003) The global fifth amendment? NAFTA’s investment protections and the misguided quest for an international “regulatory takings” doctrine. N Y Univ Law Rev 78(30):31–143

Borgen C (2007) Transnational tribunals and the transmission of norms: the hegemony of process. George Wash Int Law Rev 39:685–764

Brower C II (2003) Structure, legitimacy, and NAFTA’s investment chapter. Vanderbilt J Transnat Law 36:37–94

Brower C, Brower C II, Sharpe J (2003) The coming crisis in the global adjudication system. Arbitr Int 19(4):415–440. doi: 10.1093/arbitration/19.4.415

Buergenthal T (2006) The proliferation of disputes, dispute settlement procedures and respect for the rule of law. Arbitr Int 22(4):495–500. doi: 10.1093/arbitration/22.4.495

Calamita N (2014) Dispute settlement transparency in Europe’s evolving investment treaty policy. J World Invest Trade 15(3–4):645–678. doi: 10.1163/22119000-01504014 CrossRef

De Brebandere E (2014) Investment treaty arbitration as public international law: procedural aspects and implications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge CrossRef

Dezalay Y, Garth B (1996) Dealing in virtue: international commercial arbitration and the construction of a transnational legal order. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Douglas Z, Pauwelyn J, Viñuales J (2014) The foundations of international investment law: bringing theory into practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford CrossRef

Dupuy P, Viñuales J (eds) (2013) Harnessing foreign investment to promote environmental protection: incentives and safeguards. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Gal-Or N (2008) The concept of appeal in international dispute settlement. Eur J Int Law 19(1):43–65. doi: 10.1093/ejil/chm054 CrossRef

Gantz D (2006) An appellate mechanism for review of arbitral decisions in investor-state disputes: prospects and challenges. Vanderbilt J Transnat Law 39:39–76

Gathii J (2008) Third world approaches to international economic governance. In: Falk R, Rajagopal B, Stevens J (eds) International law and the third world: reshaping justice. Routledge-Cavendish, Abingdon, pp 255–268

Hirsch M (2008) Interactions between investment and non-investment obligations in international investment law. In: Muchlinski P, Ortino F, Schreuer C (eds) The Oxford handbook of international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 154–181. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199231386.001.0001

Joubin-Bret A (2008) The growing diversity and inconsistency in the IIA system. In: Sauvant KP (ed) Appeals mechanism in international investment disputes. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 137

Kalderimis D (2011) Investment treaty arbitration as global administrative law: what this might mean in practice. In: Brown C, Miles K (eds) Evolution in investment treaty law and arbitration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 145–160. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139043809

Kalicki J, Joubin-Bret A (eds) (2015) Reshaping the investor-state dispute settlement system: journeys for the 21st century. Brill, Leiden. doi: 10.1163/9789004291102

Kotuby C (2011) ‘Other international obligations’ as the applicable law in investment arbitration. Int Arbitr Law Rev 14(5):162–172

Kurtz J, Nottage L (2015) Investment treaty arbitration ‘down under’: policy and politics in Australia. ICSID Rev 30(2):465–480. doi: 10.1093/icsidreview/siv001 CrossRef

Legum B (2008) Options to establish an appellate mechanism for investment disputes. In: Sauvant P (ed) Appeals mechanism in international investment disputes. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 231–240

Mayer P (2001) Reflections on the international arbitrator’s duty to apply the law: the 2000 Freshfields lecture. Arbitr Int 17(3):235–248. doi: 10.1023/A:1011248016716

McDonald J (1998) The multilateral agreement on investment: heyday or MAI-day for ecologically sustainable development? Melb Univ Law Rev 22(3):617–656

McLachlan C (2008) Investment treaties and general international law. Int Comp Law Q 57(2):361–401. doi: 10.1017/S0020589308000225

McLachlan C, Shore L, Weiniger M (2007) International investment arbitration: substantive principles. Oxford University Press, Oxford CrossRef

Mickelson K (1998) Rhetoric and rage: third world voices in international legal discourse. Wisconsin Int Law J 16(2):353–419

Miles K (2010) Reconceptualising international investment law: bringing the public interest into private business. In: Kolsky Lewis M, Frankel S (eds) International economic law and national autonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 295–319. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511760471

Miles K (2013) The origins of international investment law: empire, environment and the safeguarding of capital. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge CrossRef

Miles K (2014) International investment law and universality: histories of shape-shifting. Camb J Int Comp Law 3:986–1010. doi: 10.7574/cjicl.03.04.247 CrossRef

Muchlinski P (2008) Corporate social responsibility. In: Muchlinski P, Ortino F, Schreuer C (eds) The Oxford handbook of international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 637–687. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199231386.001.0001 CrossRef

Newcombe A (2007) Sustainable development and investment treaty law. J World Invest Trade 8(3):357–407 CrossRef

Pahuja S (2011) Decolonising international law: development, economic growth and the politics of universality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge CrossRef

Paulsson J (2008) Avoiding unintended consequences. In: Sauvant P (ed) Appeals mechanism in international investment disputes. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 241–265

Peterson LE (2005) All roads lead out of Rome: divergent paths of dispute settlement in bilateral investment treaties. In: Zarsky L (ed) International investment for sustainable development: balancing rights and rewards. Earthscan, London, pp 123–150

Postiga A (2013) The emergence of global administrative law as a means of transnational regulation of foreign direct investment. Braz J Int Law Spec Issue Int Econ Law 10(1):171–193

Puig S (2014) Social capital in the arbitration market. Eur J Int Law 25(2):387–424. doi: 10.1093/ejil/chu045 CrossRef

Reinisch A (2008) ‘Investment and …’—broader picture of investment law. In: Reinisch A, Knahr C (eds) International investment law in context. Eleven International Publishing, The Netherlands, pp 201–207

Rubins N (2006) Opening the investment arbitration process: at what cost; for what benefit?. Transnat Dis Manag 3

Sammartano M (2003) The fall of a taboo: review of the merits of an award by an appellate arbitration panel and a proposal for an international appellate court. J Int Arbitr 20(4):387–392

Sands P (2002) Searching for balance: concluding remarks; colloquium on regulatory expropriations in international law. N Y Univ Environ Law J 11:198

Sands P (2005) Lawless world: America and the making and breaking of global rules. Penguin, London

Sands P, Peel J (2012) Principles of international environmental law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge CrossRef

Schill S (2010) International investment law and comparative public law—an introduction. In: Schill S (ed) International investment law and comparative public law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–37 CrossRef

Schill S (2015) The overlooked role of arbitration in international adjudicatory theory. ESIL Reflect 4(2): European Society of International Law, http://www.esil-sedi.eu/node/934 (last accessed at 09.05.2015)

Shalakany A (2000) Arbitration and the third world: bias under the sceptre of neo-liberalism. Harv Int Law J 41:419

Shan W (2007) From “north–south divide” to “private–public debate”: revival of the Calvo doctrine and the changing landscape in international investment law. Northwest J Int Law Bus 27(3):631–664

Soloway J (2000) Environmental regulation as expropriation: the case of NAFTA’s chapter 11. Can Bus Law J 33:92–127

Sornarajah M (2003) The clash of globalizations and the international law on foreign investment: the Simon Reisman lecture in international trade policy. Can Foreign Policy 10(2):1–20. doi: 10.1080/11926422.2003.9673321 CrossRef

Stephens T (2009) International courts and environmental protection. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge CrossRef

Tienhaara K (2006) What you don’t know can hurt you: investor-state disputes and the protection of the environment in developing countries. Glob Environ Pol 6(4):73–100 CrossRef

Tienhaara K (2007) Third party participation in investment-environment disputes: recent developments. Rev Eur Community Int Environ Law 16(2):230–242 CrossRef

Tienhaara K (2009) The expropriation of environmental governance: protecting foreign investors at the expense of public policy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Tienhaara K (2011) Regulatory chill and the threat of arbitration: a view from political science. In: Brown C, Miles K (eds) Evolution in investment treaty law and arbitration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 606–628. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139043809

Trinh H (2014) The interpretation of investment treaties. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden. doi: 10.1163/9789004274549

Van Harten G (2007) Investment treaty arbitration and public law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Voon T, Mitchell A (2011) Time to quit? assessing international investment claims against plain tobacco packaging in Australia. J Int Econ Law 14(3):515–552. doi: 10.1093/jiel/jgr030 CrossRef

Wälde T, Kolo A (2001) Environmental regulation, investment protection and ‘Regulatory Taking’ in international law. Int Comp Law Q 50(4):811–848. doi: 10.1093/iclq/50.4.811

Walsh T (2006) Substantive review of ICSID awards: is the desire for accuracy sufficient to compromise finality? Berkeley J Int Law 24(2):444–462

Weiler T (2005) Good faith and regulatory transparency: the story of Metalclad v. Mexico. In: Weiler T (ed) International investment law and arbitration: leading cases from the ICSID, NAFTA, bilateral treaties and customary international law. Cameron May, London, pp 701–745

Yannaca-Small K (2008) Parallel proceedings. In: Muchlinski P, Ortino F, Schreuer C (eds) The Oxford handbook of international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1008–1048. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199231386.001.0001

Title: Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Conflict, Convergence, and Future Directions
Author: Kate Miles
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Book: European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2016
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-29214-4

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-29215-1

Copyright Year: 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29215-1_12

Springer Professional

Hint

Swipe to navigate through the chapters of this book

Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Conflict, Convergence, and Future Directions

Abstract

Premium Partner

Springer Professional

Hint

Swipe to navigate through the chapters of this book

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Premium Partner