nach oben

Erschienen in:

2018 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

India and Bilateral Investment Treaties: From Rejection to Embracement to Hesitance?

verfasst von : Prabhash Ranjan

Erschienen in: Locating India in the Contemporary International Legal Order

Verlag: Springer India

Einloggen

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

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This chapter will study the evolution of India’s approach to bilateral investment treaties (BITs) since 1947. The chapter will trace this evolution by dividing the time period from 1947 to date in three phases. In the first phase, from 1947 till 1990, India didn’t undertake international treaty obligations in the form of BITs to protect foreign investment in India primarily because of import substitution economic policies. However, this started to change in early 1991—the second phase of this study. In this phase, India decided to lift her self-imposed insulation from the global economy and unleashed major structural adjustments and macro-economic reforms, of the kind never undertaken before. Due to this changed economic approach, India’s approach towards BITs also changed. India started signing BITs with many countries aimed at protecting foreign investment. This launch and expansion of signing BITs continued till 2010. Post 2010, we are witnessing the third phase of India’s approach towards BITs. In this phase, India started critically reviewing her BITs in the aftermath of numerous BIT claims brought by foreign investors against India. A critical step in this phase has been the adoption of the 2016 Model BIT. This development points towards India’s new investment treaty practice, which does not put the same faith in BITs as the second phase. The chapter will conclude by observing that India’s new investment treaty practice should evolve in a manner that reconciles investment protection with the host State’s right to regulate.

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

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

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

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

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

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

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!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Two Decades of Trade Remedy Litigations in WTO: India the Protectionist Trader

Nächstes Kapitel Making International Tax Law: Analysing Tax Jurisprudence in India

For a general discussion on BITs, see Dolzer and Schreuer (2012), Newcombe and Paradell (2009), 1–73; and Salacuse (2010).

Dolzer and Schreuer (2012), p. 13.

Ibid.

Ibid, pp. 353–392.

Dolzer and Schreuer (2012), p. 265. Also see Helnan v Egypt, Decision on Annulment, 14 June 2010, paras 43–57; Generation Ukraine, Inc v Ukraine, Award, 16 September 2003, para 13.4.

Schreuer (2008), pp. 835–836, Vandevelde (2010), pp. 433–39.

This includes 2957 stand-alone investment treaties and 367 Treaties with Investment Provisions (TIPs) or investment chapters in FTAs (UNCTAD 2017).

UNCTAD (2017).

Krishan (2008), p. 277.

Indian Model Text of Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement, <http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/archive/ita1026.pdf> accessed 17 April 2017.

Recently, India terminated some of its BITs – this issue is discussed in Part 4 of the paper. The full list of India’s BITs is available at http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/IIA/CountryBits/96#iiaInnerMenu accessed 15 June 2017.

In India, these FTAs are known as Comprehensive Economic Cooperation/Partnership Agreements (CECAs or CEPAs). The list of India’s current engagements in FTAs is available at http://commerce.nic.in/trade/international_ta.asp?id=2&trade=i accessed 15 June 2017.

Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement between Republic of India and Republic of Singapore, 29 June 2005 available at http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/2707 accessed 15 June 2017.

Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement between Republic of India and Republic of Korea, 7 August 2009 available at http://commerce.nic.in/trade/INDIA%20KOREA%20CEPA%202009.pdf accessed 15 June 2017.

Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement between the Government of Malaysia and the Government of Republic of India, 18 February 2011 available at http://fta.miti.gov.my/miti-fta/resources/Malaysia-India/MICECA.pdf accessed 15 June 2017.

Comprehensive Economic Parternship Agreement between Republic of India and Japan 16 February 2011 http://commerce.nic.in/trade/IJCEPA_Basic_Agreement.pdf accessed 15 June 2017.

Agreement on Investment under the Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the Republic of India 12 November 2014 http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/3337.

Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry http://commerce.gov.in/international_WTO.aspx?LinkID=31&SectorID=5&Id=32 accessed 20 June 2017.

Ranjan (2011), p. 192.

Kumar (1998).

For a detailed discussion on India’s import substitution strategy after independence, see Bhagwati and Desai (1970).

Nagaraj (2003), Kumar (1998).

Palit (2009).

Kumar (1998), p. 1322, Palit (2009).

Chaudhary (1979).

Industrial Policy (1977).

Kumar (1998), p. 1322, Nagaraj (2003), p. 1701, Ahluwalia (1991), Virmani (2005).

Virmani (2005), Kumar (1998), pp. 1322–1323, Nayar (2007), p. 346.

Kumar (1998), p. 1323.

Work of Indian scholars of that time reflect this – Anand1962, Roy1961.

For more on ALCC (now called AALCO) see - http://www.aalco.int/ accessed on 1 June 2017.

Principles Concerning Admission and Treatment of Aliens, Asian Legal Consultative Committee (ALCC) (Adopted in the fourth session) <http://www.aalco.int/PRINCIPLES%20CONCERNING%20ADMISSION%20AND%20TREATMENT%20OF%20ALIENS.pdf> accessed on 15 July 2017.

Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (opened for signature 18 March 1965, entered into force 14 October 1966) (‘ICSID Convention’) <http://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/StaticFiles/basicdoc/CRR_English-final.pdf> Krishan (2008), Roy (1961), Anand (1962).

Lall (1978), Khan (1978), Agarwala (1977), Shukla (1978).

Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, UNGA, A/RES/29/3281, 12 December 1974.

Rao (1975), p. 369, Chatterjee (1991).

Rao (1975), p. 360.

Ibid, p. 360.

Agarwala (1977), p. 271.

Rao (1975), p. 361, Agarwala (1977), p. 267.

A minor exception to this is that in 1957 and 1964 India entered into limited investment protection agreements with the US and West Germany respectively – for more on this See Rao 2000, 624. Also, in showing that India gave primacy to national laws over international law in protection and regulation of foreign investment, the focus is on giving primacy to national laws over international treaty law. Debatably, customary international law on protection of foreign investment applied on India even before India started entering into BITs although some part of it was challenged by India through the NIEO and CERDS. Further, India’s approach towards foreign investment was different from international trade. In case of international trade, India was a founding member of GATT having signed the agreement on 8 July 1948 thus accepting international law as the basis to regulate international trade – The 128 Countries that had Signed GATT by 1994 - http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/gattmem_e.htm accessed on 10 July 2013.

Ahluwalia (1991), p. 67, Srinivasan and Tendulkar (2003), p. 9.

Kumar (1998), pp. 1323–1324, Bajpai and Sachs (2001), Nagaraj (2003), pp. 1701–1702.

New Industrial Policy (1991).

The need to have the new legislation was also because of India’s acceptance of Art. VIII of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) articles on 20 August 1994.

Consolidated FDI Policy (2015).

Make in India (2014).

Consolidated FDI Policy (2015).

Ministry of Finance (2011).

Chidambaram (1997).

Sinha (1999), Mukherjee (2009).

Quarterly Fact Sheet, Fact Sheet on Foreign Direct Investment from April 2000 to December 2016, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, http://dipp.nic.in/English/Publications/FDI_Statistics/2016/FDI_FactSheet_OctoberNovemberDecember2016.pdf accessed 7 June 2017. According to the Indian government, FDI inflows include equity inflows plus reinvested earnings plus other capital.

Banga (2003).

Recently more studies have emerged showing a positive relationship between FDI inflows and BITs during the embracement phase – See Bhasin and Manocha (2016), who examine the period from 2001 to 2013 to conclude that BITs had a positive impact on FDI inflows. Also see Nottage and Singh (2016).

Khan (2012).

The India-UK Model BIT is based on the British Model BIT developed in mid 1970s to safeguard British overaseas investment due to threats of expropriation in developing countries posed by the new international economic order (NIEO) - Walter (2000).

This ‘grand bargain’ has been the basis of BITs between developed and developing countries – see Salacuse and Sullivan (2005).

UNCTAD, ‘India – as Respondent State’ Investment Policy Hub <http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/ISDS/CountryCases/96?partyRole=2> accessed 17 April 2017.

For detailed facts of the case, see Preeti Kundra, ‘Looking Beyond the Dabhol Debacle: Examining its Causes and Understanding its Lessons’ (2008) 41 Vanderbilt J Transnatl L 908. See also ‘GE settles Dabhol Issue’ The Indian Express (3 July 2005), <http://www.indianexpress.com/oldStory/73760/> accessed 13 April 2017.

Capital India Power Mauritius I and Energy Enterprises (Mauritius) Company v India, ICC Case No 12913/MS, Award (27 April 2005); Bank of America, ‘Memorandum of Determinations’, OPIC, IIC 25 (2003) <https://www.opic.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BankofAmerica-September30-2003.pdf> accessed 17 April 2017.

Kundra (2008).

Ibid.

One such occasion was when P. K. Javadekar, Member of Rajya Sabha, asked the government to explain why India has entered into BITs – see Javadekar (2010).

For example, the provisions of the WTO TRIPS agreement got attention of the Parliament when India was debating amendments to its Patent Act of 1970 due to the WTO obligations.

Metalclad Corporation v. United Mexican State, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1; Methanex Corporation v United States of America (2005) 44 ILM 1345.

Biwater Gauff Ltd v United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, 24 July 2008; Philip Morris Brands Sarl et al. v Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, 8 July 2016.

Eureka BV v Republic of Poland, ICSID Case No ARB/01/11, 19 August 2005.

MTD Equity v Republic of Chile (2005) 44 ILM 91.

CMS Gas Transmission Co v Argentina, ICISD Case No ARB/01/8; Enron Corporation v Argentina, ICSID Case No ARB/01/3; Sempra Energy International v Argentina, ICSID Case No ARB/02/16; LG&E Energy Corporation v Argentina, ICISD Case No ARB/02/1.

Occidental Exploration and Production Co v Republic of Ecuador, LCIA Case No UN 3467; EnCana Corporation v Ecuador, London Court of International Arbitration, 3 February 2006; Feldman v Mexico, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/99/1.

Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company v Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/02/01, 17 July 2006.

Saluka Investments v The Czech Republic (Partial Award), UNCITRAL, 17 March 2006.

Duke Energy Electroquil Partners v Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/19, 18 August 2008.

Piero Foresti et al. v South Africa, Case No ARB(AF)/07/1, 4 August 2010. Also see Leon (2008), p. 671.

Department of Trade and Industry (2013).

For more discussion on such state practices aimed at preserving policy space in BITs see Spears (2010). Jose Alvarez has argued that the change in the US approach to BITs was due to the realisation within US that it could be at the receiving end of foreign investment flows – See Alvarez (2011); On Canadian Model BIT see Newcombe (2004).

Peterson (2003).

Poulsen’s study corroborates this point for many developing countries. See Poulsen (2011), pp. 216–256.

Ranjan (2014), pp. 436–438.

Ranjan (2014), See Garg et al. (2016), p. 71.

Ministry of Finance (2015).

UNCTAD IIA Database, India, Bilateral Investment Treaties http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/IIA/CountryBits/96#iiaInnerMenu accessed 20 June 2017.

Ibid. Also see UNCTAD IIA Database, India, Treaties with Investment Provisions http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/IIA/CountryOtherIias/96#iiaInnerMenu accessed 20 June 2017.

Statement by India (2014).

Ibid. Important to note that this has not been made available on the official website of Indian Government.

Ibid.

White Industries Australia Limited v Republic of India, UNCITRAL, Final Award (30 November 2011).

Ibid para 16.1.1(a).

Art. 4(5) of the Agreement between the State of Kuwait and the Republic of India for the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment (signed on 27th November 2001, entered into force 28th June 2003) (India-Kuwait BIT) provides that ‘each contracting party shall…provide effective means of asserting claims and enforcing rights with respect to investments…’.

Art. 4(2) of the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of Australia on the Promotion and Protection of Investments (signed on 26th February 1999, entered into force 4th May 2000) (India-Australia BIT) provides the MFN provision according to which, ‘a contracting party shall at all times treat investments in its territory on a basis no less favourable than that accorded to investments or investors of any third country’.

Kachwaha (2013), Ray (2012), Sanan (2012), Nacimiento and Lange (2012).

Vodafone v. India, UNCTIRAL, Notice of Arbitration (not public), 17 April 2014 http://italaw.com/cases/2544 accessed 7 July 2017.

Deutsche Telekom v. India, ICSID Additional Facility, Notice of Arbitration (not public), 2 September 2013 http://italaw.com/cases/2275 accessed 7 July 2017.

Bycell (Maxim Naumchenko, Andrey Polouektov and Tenoch Holdings Ltd) v. India, Notice of Dispute (not public) http://italaw.com/cases/1933 accessed 7 July 2017.

Louis Dreyfus Armateurs SAS v The Republic of India, <http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/ITA/Details/600> accessed 20 February 2016. See also Bhushan Satish and Shreyas Jayasimha, ‘Indian Courts First Blush with Investment Treaty Arbitration: Taking Some Lessons from the Calcutta High Court’ <http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/2016/03/16/indian-courts-first-brush-with-investment-treaty-arbitration-taking-some-lessons-from-the-calcutta-high-court> accessed 20 February 2016. In this case, also an arbitration tribunal has been constituted.

CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd., Devas Employees Mauritius Private Limited, and Telcom Devas Mauritius Limited v. Republic of India, PCA Case No 2013-09.

‘Antrix-Devas Deal: Permanent Court of Arbitration rules against Indian government’ The Indian Express, (Bengaluru, 27 July 2016) <http://indianexpress.com/article/business/business-others/antrix-devas-deal-hague-international-tribunal-rules-against-indian-govt/> accessed 25 September 2016.

Ibid.

Garg et al. (2016), p. 71; Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, ‘Transforming the International Investment Agreement Regime: The Indian Experience’ (Presentation at the UNCTAD Expert Meeting on the Transformation on the International Investment Regime: The Path Ahead, 25–27 February 2015) <http://unctad-worldinvestmentforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/India_side-event-Wednesday_model-agreements.pdf> accessed 17 April 2017; See also, statement by India at the World Investment Forum 2014 (IAA Conference, 16 October 2014) <http://unctad-worldinvestmentforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Mayaram.pdf> accessed 17 April 2017.

100

Model Text for the Indian Bilateral Investment Treaty 2016, <http://www.finmin.nic.in/reports/ModelTextIndia_BIT.pdf> accessed 17 April 2017 [‘2016 Indian Model BIT’]. The Indian Model BIT contains two dates – 28 December 2015 given in the letter accompanying the text, and 14 January 2016 on the website of the Ministry of Finance, Government of India as the date of adoption of the Model BIT. This chapter uses the 14 January 2016 date, and refers to the Final Indian Model BIT as the 2016 Indian Model BIT and not the 2015 Indian Model BIT. Also, critical to note that while the final Model BIT has been adopted, the draft Model BIT continues to be available online on the government website, without the word ‘draft’ being mentioned anywhere in the text.

101

Draft Model Text for the Indian Bilateral Investment Treaty, https://www.mygov.in/sites/default/files/master_image/Model%20Text%20for%20the%20Indian%20Bilateral%20Investment%20Treaty.pdf. [hereinafter, 2015 Draft Indian Model BIT].

102

Comments on the 2015 Draft Indian Model BIT, https://www.mygov.in/group-issue/draft-indian-Model-bilateral-investment-treaty-text/. The Law Comission of India prepared a detailed report on the Draft 2015 Model BIT, see Government of India, Law Commission of India, Report No 260, Analysis of the Draft Model Indian Bilateral Investment (August 2015), http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/Report260.pdf.

103

D’Agostino et al. (2017). However, which these BITs are has not been made public by the Indian government. UNCTAD’s International Investment Agreements (IIAs) database states that India has terminated BITs with these 15 countries - Argentina, Australia, Austria, Croatia, Denmark, Egypt, Germany, Hungary, Indonesia, Italy, Malaysia, Netherlands, Oman, Switzerland, Spain – See UNCTAD IIA Databse, India, Bilateral Investment Treaties http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/IIA/CountryBits/96#iiaInnerMenu accessed on 15 June 2017.

104

Press Information Bureau, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=133412 accessed 1 July 2017.

105

Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, Office Memorandum - Regarding Issuing Joint Interpretative Statements for Indian Bilateral Investment Treaties, (Feb. 8, 2016), http://indiainbusiness.nic.in/newdesign/upload/Consolidated_Interpretive-Statement.pdf accessed on 10 March 2017. As of today, Bangladesh is the only country that has accepted India’s joint interpretation – see Hepburn (17 July 2017).

106

For Full and Detailed Commentary on the 2016 Indian Model BIT See Ranjan and Anand (2017), Ranjan (2017), Hanessian and Duggal (2017), Rajput (2016).

107

Some parts of analysis of 2016 Model BIT here draw from Ranjan (2017).

108

See 2003 Indian Model BIT Art 1(b).

109

See 2015 Model BIT Art 1.4.

110

See 2015 Model BIT Art 1.4(a) to (h).

111

Dolzer and Schreuer (2012). This is evident from the fact that while some tribunals have included the ‘development to host country’ criterion in their assessment in determining whether an investment has taken place – see Salini v Morocco, Joy Mining v Egypt; some have not some have not considered the criterion important in making such determination – see Saba Fakes v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/20, Award (July 14, 2010).

112

Ustor (1997), Schill (2009).

113

Salacuse (2010), p. 253.

114

Cf Emilio Augustine Maffezini v The Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No ARB/97/7, Award (13 November 2000) paras 38–64 and Wintershall Aktiengesellschaft v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/04/14, Award (8 December 2008) paras 159–168.

115

Wintershall, ibid, 163.

116

Statement of India (2014).

117

Newcombe and Paradell (2009).

118

Picherack (2008), Mayeda (2007).

119

See 2016 Model BIT Art. 3.

120

See 2016 Model BIT Art 3.1(i) to (iv).

121

Salacuse (2010), p. 343.

122

For more discussion on this see Burke-White and Standen (2008). For a discussion on NPM provision in Indian BITs see Ranjan (2012).

123

Ibid., Art. 13.2.

124

2016 Indian Model BIT, supra note 4, Art. 15.1.

125

2016 Indian Model BIT, supra note 4, Art. 15.2. The requirement to exhaust local remedies shall not be applicable ‘if the investor can demonstrate that there are no available domestic legal remedies capable of reasonably providing any relief in respect of the same measure’ – see 2016 Indian Model BIT, Art. 15.1. For a detailed commentary on the ISDS chapter in the 2016 Indian Model BIT, please see Ranjan and Anand (2018)

126

2016 Indian Model BIT, Art. 15.2.

127

2016 Indian Model BIT, Art. 15.4.

128

2016 Indian Model BIT, Art. 16.

129

2016 Indian Model BIT, Art. 15.5(i).

130

2016 Indian Model BIT, Art. 15.5(ii).

131

2015 Indian Model BIT, Art. 15.5(v).

132

2015 Indian Model BIT, Art. 15.5(iii).

133

Bhasin and Manocha (2016), Nottage and Singh (2016).

Agarwala SK (1977) The emerging international economic order. Indian J Int Law 17:261

Ahluwalia MS (1991) Productivity and growth in Indian manufacturing. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Alvarez J (2011) The once and future foreign investment regime. In: Arsanjani MH et al (eds) Looking to the future: essays on international law in honour of W. M. Reisman. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston, pp 607 at 625–26

Anand RP (1962) The role of new Asian-African countries in the present international legal order. Am J Int Law 56:383CrossRef

Bajpai N, Sachs J (2001) Foreign direct investment in India: issues and problems. HIID development discussion paper no. 759/2001

Banga R (2003) Impact of government policies and investment agreements on FDI Inflows. Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations working paper no 116. ICRIER, New Delhi

Bhagwati J, Desai P (1970) India: planning for industrialization. Oxford University Press, London

Bhasin N, Manocha R (2016) Do bilateral investment treaties promote FDI inflows? Evidence from India. J Decis Makers 41:275 (Vikalpa)CrossRef

Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement. Ministry of Finance, Government of India. http://finmin.nic.in/bipa/bipa_index.asp?pageid=3. Accessed 21 May 2015

Bilateral Investment Treaty Between the Government of the Republic of India and https://mygov.in/sites/default/files/master_image/Model%20Text%20for%20the%20Indian%20Bilateral%20Investment%20Treaty.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2015

Breaking: a new treaty claim against India. Yet again! Lex Arbitri—The Indian Arbitration Blog. 1 Nov 2013. http://lexarbitri.blogspot.in/2013/11/breaking-new-treaty-claim-against-india.html. Accessed 7 Mar 2015

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. Va J Int Law 48:314

Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, 12 December 1974. A/RES/29/3281. General Assembly, United Nations

Chatterjee SK (1991) The charter of economic rights and duties of states: an evaluation after 15 years. Int Comp Law Q 40(3):669CrossRef

Chaudhary S (1979) FERA: appearance and reality. Econ Polit Wkly 14(16):734

Chidambaram P (1997) Foreword in Government of India (ed), India’s Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements, Ministry of Finance, India: Volume I, New Delhi

Consolidated FDI Policy (2015) Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India. http://dipp.nic.in/English/policies/FDI_Circular_2015.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2015

D’Agostino J, Peacock N, Henderson A (2017) Mixed messages to investors as india quietly terminates bilateral investment treaties with 58 countries. Herbert Smith Freehills—Arbitration Notes. http://hsfnotes.com/arbitration/2017/03/16/mixed-messages-to-investors-as-india-quietly-terminates-bilateral-investment-treaties-with-58-countries/. Accessed 26 July 2017

Department of Trade and Industry (2013) Republic of South Africa. Update on the Review of Bilateral Investment Treaties in South Africa. http://www.thedti.gov.za/parliament/bit’s_in_sa.pdf. Accessed 21 Apr 2013

Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef

Garg S, Tripathy IG, Roy S (2016) The Indian model bilateral investment treaty: continuity and change. In Singh K, Igle B (eds) Rethinking bilateral investment treaties—critical issues and policy choices. Both Ends, Madhyam and Somo, p 71

Hanessian G, Duggal K (2017) The final 2015 Indian Model BIT: is this the change the world wishes to see. 32(1) ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 32(1)CrossRef

Hepburn J (2017) Unable to unilaterally terminate a 2011 BIT, The Government of India persuades counter-party to agree joint interpretive note to clarify BIT’s implications. IA Reporter. https://www.iareporter.com/articles/unable-to-unilaterally-terminate-a-2011-bit-the-government-of-india-persuades-counter-party-to-agree-joint-interpretive-note-to-clarify-bits-implications/. Accessed 20 July 2017

India’s New Industrial Policy of 1991. Government of India. http://business.webindia.com/polinwid.htm. Accessed 11 Jan 2013

Indian Model Text of Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. http://finmin.nic.in/the_ministry/dept_eco_affairs/icsection/Indian%20Model%20Text%20BIPA.asp?pageid=1. Accessed 7 Mar 2015

Industrial Policy (December 23 1977) Department of Industrial Development, Ministry of Industry, Government of India

International Investment Agreements between India and Other Countries. Ministry of Commerce, Government of India. (on file with author)

Javadekar PK (2010) Member of Parliament in Rajya Sabha, on bilateral investment treaties (BITs), Unstarred Question No 2615, 20 April 2010

Kachwaha S (2013) The White Industries Australia Limited—Indian BIT Award—a critical assessment. Arbitr Int 29:275–293CrossRef

Khan R (1978) The normative character of the new international economic order—a framework of enquiry. Indian J Int Law 18:294

Khan HR (2012) Outward Indian FDI—recent trends and emerging issues. Reserve Bank of India Speeches. http://rbi.org.in/scripts/BS_SpeechesView.aspx?Id=674. Accessed 31 Aug 2013

Krishan D (2008) India and international investment law. In: Patel B (ed) India and international law, Martinus Nijhoff, p 277

Kumar N (1998) Liberalisation and changing patterns of foreign direct investments. Econ Polit Wkly 33(22):1321

Kundra P (2008) Looking beyond the Dabhol debacle: examining its causes and understanding its lessons. Vand J Transnatl Law 41:908

Lall KB (1978) India and the new international economic order. Int Stud 17:435CrossRef

Law Commission of India, Report No 245: arrears and backlog: creating additional judicial womanpower. http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/Report_No.245.pdf. Accessed 7 Mar 2015

Leon P (2008) A fork in the investor-state road: South Africa’s new mineral regulatory regime four years on. J World Trade 42(4):671

Make in India (2014) http://www.makeinindia.com. Accessed 1 June 2015

Mayeda G (2007) Playing fair: the meaning of fair and equitable treatment in bilateral investment treaties. J World Trade 41:291

Ministry of Finance (2015) Bilateral investment promotion and protection agreement. http://finmin.nic.in/bipa/bipa_index.asp?pageid=3. Accessed 21 May 2015

Mukherjee P (2009) Foreword in India’s bilateral investment promotion and protection agreements, vol VII. Ministry of Finance, India, New Delhi

Nacimiento P, Lange S (2012) White Industries Australia Limited v Republic of India. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 27:274CrossRef

Nagaraj (2003) Foreign direct investment in India in 1990s. Econ Polit Wkly 38(17):1701

Nayar BR (2007) Globalization and India’s national autonomy. In: Nayar BR (ed) Globalization and politics in India. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, p 346CrossRef

Newcombe A (2004) Canada’s new model foreign investment protection agreement. http://italaw.com/documents/CanadianFIPA.pdf. Accessed 31 Aug 2013

Newcombe A, Paradell L (2009) Law and practice of investment treaties—standards of treatment. Kluwer Law International, Hague

Nottage L, Singh J (2013) Does ISDS promote FDI? Asia-Pacific insights from and for Australia and India’. AFIA, 17 Nov 2016. http://afia.asia/2016/11/does-isds-promote-fdi-asia-pacific-insights-from-and-for-australia-and-india/. Accessed 20 Apr 2017

OECD (1967) The protection of foreign property: draft convention and resolution of the council. http://www.oecd.org/investment/internationalinvestmentagreements/39286571.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2015

Palit A (2009) India’s foreign investment policy: achievements and inadequacies. http://www.ifri.org/?page=contribution-detail&id=5569&id_provenance=97. Accessed 10 June 2013

Panagariya A (2003) Growth and reforms during 1980s and 1990s. Econ Polit Wkly 39(25):2581

Peterson LE (2003) Bechtel and GE Mount billion dollar investment treaty claim against India. INVEST-SD News Bulletin, 23 Sept 2003

Picherack R (2008) Expanding scope of the fair and equitable treatment standard: have recent tribunals gone too far? J World Invest Trade 9(4):255

Poulsen L (2011) Sacrificing sovereignty by chance: investment treaties, developing countries and bounded rationality. PhD Thesis, London School of Economics

Rajput A (2016) India’s shifting treaty practice: a comparative analysis of the 2003 and 2015 Model BITs. Jindal Glob Law Rev 7(2):201CrossRef

Rangarajan C (2010) Two episodes in the reform process. In: Acharya S, Mohan R (eds) India’s economy: performance and challenges. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, p 100

Ranjan P (2011) Object and purpose of Indian investment agreements: failing to balance investment protection and regulatory power. In: Bath V, Nottage L (eds) Foreign investment and dispute resolution: law and practice in Asia. Routledge, London, p 192

Ranjan P (2012) Non precluded measures in Indian international investment agreements and India’s regulatory power as a host nation. Asian J Int Law 2(1):29CrossRef

Ranjan P (2014) India and bilateral investment treaties—a changing landscape. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 29:419CrossRef

Ranjan P (2015a) Comparing investment provisions in India’s FTAs with India’s stand-alone BITs: contributing to the evolution of new Indian BIT practice. J World Invest Trade 16:899CrossRef

Ranjan P (2015b) Reviving the Indo-US BIT dialogue. The Financial Express, Jan 26. http://www.financialexpress.com/article/fe-columnist/reviving-the-indo-us-bit-dialogue/34946/. Accessed 5 Mar 2015

Ranjan P (2017) Investment protection and host state’s right to regulate in the Indian model bilateral investment treaty 2016: lessons for Asian countries. In: Julien C et al (eds) International law of foreign investment in Asia: sustainability, regionalization and arbitration. Springer, BerlinCrossRef

Ranjan P, Anand P (2017) The 2016 Indian model bilateral investment treaty: a critical deconstruction. Northwest J Int Law Bus 38:1

Ranjan P, Anand P (2018) Investor State Dipsute Settlement in the 2016 Indian Model Bilateral Investment Treaty: Does it Go Too Far? (with Pushkar Anand as the second author). In: Luke Nottage et al (Eds) International Investment Treaties and Arbitration Across Asia, 579–611. Brill/Nijhoff: Leiden.

Rao PC (1975) Charter of economic duties and rights. Indian J Int Law 15:351

Rao PS (2000) Bilateral investment promotion agreements: a legal framework for the protection of foreign investments: Commonweath Law. Bulletin 26:623

Ray A (2012) White Industries Australia Limited v Republic of India. J Int Arbitr 29:623–635

Roy SN Guha (1961) Is the law of responsibility of states for injuries to aliens a part of universal international law? Am J Int Law 55:863CrossRef

Salacuse J (2010) The law of investment treaties. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef

Salacuse JW, Sullivan NP (2005) Do BITs really work? An evaluation of bilateral investment treaties on foreign investment: the search for a grand bargain. Harvard Int Law J 46:67

Sanan M (2012) The White Industries award: shades of grey. J World Invest Trade 13:661CrossRef

Schill S (2009) The multilateralization of international investment law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Schreuer C (2008) Consent to arbitrate. In: Peter M et al (eds) The oxford handbook of international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 832

Shukla SP (1978) New international economic order. Indian J Int aw 18:290

Sinha Y (1999) Foreword in Government of India (ed) India’s bilateral investment promotion and protection agreements, vol. III. Ministry of Finance, India: New Delhi

Spears S (2010) The quest for policy space in new generation of international investment agreements. J Int Econ Law 13:1037CrossRef

Srinivasan TN, Tendulkar S (2003) Reintegrating India with the world economy. Institute of International Economics, Washington DC

Statement by India (2014) World investment forum UNCTAD. http://unctad-worldinvestmentforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Mayaram.pdf. Accessed 10 Apr 2015

The Liberalization and Management of Capital Flows: An Institutional View. 14 Nov 2012. IMF. http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2012/111412.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2013

UNCTAD (2017) World investment report: investment and the digital economy. United Nations, New York and Geneva

UNCTAD IIA Issue Note No 1/2015. http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaepcb2015d1_en.pdf. Accessed 21 Feb 2015

Ustor E (1997) Most favoured nation clause. In: Bernhardt R, Macalister-Smith P (eds) Encyclopedia of public international law, vol III. North-Holland, p 468

Vandevelde KJ (2010) Bilateral investment treaties: history, policy and internapretation. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Virmani A (2005) Policy regimes, growth and poverty in India: lessons of government failure and entrepreneurial success. ICRIER Working Paper No 170. http://icrier.org/pdf/WP170GrPov11.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2012

Walter A (2000) British investment treaties in South Asia: current status and future trends. http://personal.lse.ac.uk/wyattwal/images/British.pdf. Accessed on 3 May 2015

Titel: India and Bilateral Investment Treaties: From Rejection to Embracement to Hesitance?
verfasst von: Prabhash Ranjan
Verlag: Springer India
Buch: Locating India in the Contemporary International Legal Order
Print ISBN: 978-81-322-3578-1

Electronic ISBN: 978-81-322-3580-4

Copyright-Jahr: 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-3580-4_6

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

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

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"