Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Achieving Sustainable Development Objectives in International Investment Law

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy

Abstract

The relationship between foreign investment and sustainable development is contentious. While the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development prominently supports that foreign investment and sustainable development mutually reinforce each other, international investment law appears to impede rather than encourage sustainable foreign investment. Critics argue that international investment agreements (IIAs) prompt a “regulatory chill effect” that prevents host states from adopting environmental, labor, or social policies, as IIAs require host states to compensate foreign investors for losses caused by these sustainability policies. Controversial IIA provisions are the rules on expropriation and fair and equitable treatment (FET) and the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms that permit foreign investors to enforce these substantive guarantees against the host state. This chapter discusses the linkages between international investment law and sustainable development, analyzes the shortcomings in traditional IIAs affecting the host states’ sustainable development policies, and explores the various IIA reform approaches to facilitate sustainable foreign investment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    UN General Assembly (2015) Transforming our world, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN 2030 Agenda). A/Res/70/1, paras 9 and 62, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), paras 2a, 7a, and 10b.

  2. 2.

    See UN 2030 Agenda, para 67.

  3. 3.

    UN 2030 Agenda, para 41; SDGs, paras 1a and 1b.

  4. 4.

    For example, Clayton and Bilcon of Delaware Inc. v Government of Canada (2008). PCA Case No. 2009-04 (Bilcon); Metalclad Corporation v The United Mexican States (1997). ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1 (Metalclad); Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Company v The Republic of Ecuador (II) (2009). PCA Case No. 2009-23 (Chevron); ConocoPhillips Petrozuata BV, ConocoPhillips Hamaca BV and ConocoPhillips Gulf of Paria BV v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (2007). ICSID Case No. ARB/07/30 (ConocoPhillips); Cortec Mining Kenya Limited, Cortec (Pty) Limited and Stirling Capital Limited v Republic of Kenya (2015). ICSID Case No. ARB/15/29 (Cortec).

  5. 5.

    For example, Eiser Infrastructure Limited and Energía Solar Luxembourg Sàrl v Kingdom of Spain (2013). ICSID Case No. ARB/13/36 (Eiser); Vattenfall AB, Vattenfall Europe AG, Vattenfall Europe Generation AG v Federal Republic of Germany (I) (2009). ICSID Case No. ARB/09/6 (Vattenfall I); Vattenfall AB and others v Federal Republic of Germany (II) (2012). ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12 (Vattenfall II).

  6. 6.

    For example, Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija SA and Vivendi Universal SA (formerly Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija, SA and Compagnie Générale des Eaux) v Argentine Republic (I) (1997). ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3 (Vivendi I); Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, SA and Vivendi Universal, SA (formerly Aguas Argentinas, SA, Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, SA and Vivendi Universal, S.A.) v Argentine Republic (II) (2003). ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19 (Vivendi II); Urbaser SA and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Biskaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v Argentine Republic (2012). ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26 (Urbaser); Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Limited v United Republic of Tanzania (2005). ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22 (Biwater).

  7. 7.

    For example, Philip Morris Asia Limited v The Commonwealth of Australia (2011). PCA Case No. 2012-12 (Phillip Morris v Australia); Philip Morris Brand Sàrl (Switzerland), Philip Morris Products SA (Switzerland) and Abal Hermanos SA (Uruguay) v Oriental Republic of Uruguay (2010). ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7 (Phillip Morris v Uruguay).

  8. 8.

    Veolia Propreté v Arab Republic of Egypt (2012). ICSID Case No. ARB/12/15 (Veolia); for an overview of further case-law and its relevance for sustainable development, see Bernasconi-Osterwalder N, Johnson L (eds) (2011) International investment law and sustainable development: key cases from 2000–2010. IISD, Winipeg; and Bernasconi-Osterwalder N, Brauch MD (eds) (2018) International investment law and sustainable development: key cases from the 2010s. IISD, Winipeg.

  9. 9.

    See, e.g., Reinisch A (2013) The scope of investor-state dispute settlement in international investment agreements. Asia Pacific Law Rev 21(1):3–26; Chaisse J, Donde R (2018) The state of investor-state arbitration – a reality check of the issues, trends, and directions in Asia-Pacific. Int Lawyer 51(1):47–67.

  10. 10.

    Cf for many Mann H (2013) Reconceptualizing international investment law: its role in sustainable development. Lewis Clark Law Rev 17:521–544; Traidcraft (ed) (2015) International investment agreements under scrutiny: bilateral investment treaties, EU investment policy and international development. Traidcraft, Gateshead. https://www.traidcraft.co.uk/resourcesearch.

  11. 11.

    For a survey on the arguments, see Mann H (2013) Reconceptualizing international investment law: its role in sustainable development. Lewis Clark Law Rev 17:521–544, pp. 532–535; Kentin E (2004) Sustainable development in international investment dispute settlement: the ICSID and NAFTA experience. In: Schrijver N, Weiss F (eds) International law and sustainable development. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston, pp. 309–338.

  12. 12.

    UN 2030 Agenda, preamble, 3rd recital and para 2.

  13. 13.

    World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), Report ‘Our common future’. UNGA Doc A/42/427, para 27; for the further development of the term of sustainable development, see Gehring M, Newcombe A (2011) An introduction to sustainable development in world investment law. In: Cordonier Segger M-C, Gehring MW, Newcombe A (eds) Sustainable development in world investment law. Wolters Kluwer, Alphenaan den Rijn, pp. 3–11, p. 6.

  14. 14.

    For the evolution of the concept of sustainable development, see generally Cordonier Segger M-C, Khalfan A (2004) Origins of the concept of sustainable development. In: Cordonier Segger M-C, Khalfan A (eds) Sustainable development law. Principles, practices, & prospects. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 15–43, pp. 15–43; Barral V (2012) Sustainable development in international law: nature and operation of an evolutive legal norm. Eur J Int Law 23:377–400, pp. 379–380; Schrijver N (2007) The evolution of sustainable development in international law: inception, meaning and status. Receuil des Cours 329:217–412.

  15. 15.

    UN General Assembly (1992), Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I) (Rio Declaration); see also UN 2030 Agenda, para 11.

  16. 16.

    United Nations (1995), World Summit for Social Development, Copenhagen Declaration and Program of Action. A/CONF.166/9; for further references, see UN 2030 Agenda, para 11.

  17. 17.

    UN General Assembly (2000), United Nations Millennium Declaration, A/RES/55/2.

  18. 18.

    United Nations (2002), World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development and Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (Rio+10). A/CONF.199/20.

  19. 19.

    UN General Assembly (2005), 2005 World Summit Outcome. A/RES/60/1.

  20. 20.

    See UN 2030 Agenda, para 16.

  21. 21.

    Condonier Segger M-C, Khalfan A (2004) Origins of the concept of sustainable development. In: Cordonier Segger M-C, Khalfan A (eds) Sustainable development law. Principles, practices, & prospects. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 15–43, pp. 15–16; see also UN 2030 Agenda, para 9.

  22. 22.

    Cf Rio Declaration.

  23. 23.

    UN 2030 Agenda, preamble, 3rd recital and paras 2 and 9; see also UN General Assembly (2012), Declaration ‘The future we want’ (Rio+20). A/RES/66/288, paras 3 and 4.

  24. 24.

    For details, see UN, 17 Goals to Transform Our World. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/.

  25. 25.

    UN 2030 Agenda, para 5.

  26. 26.

    UN 2030 Agenda, preamble, 2nd recital and paras 5 and 41.

  27. 27.

    UN 2030 Agenda, Declaration, paras 55, 59, 63 and SDG, para 17.15.

  28. 28.

    For example, UN 2030 Agenda, SDGs 13, 14, 15.

  29. 29.

    For example, UN 2030 Agenda, SDGs 2, 3, 4, 6.

  30. 30.

    See, e.g., Qian X (2018) Challenges of water governance (and privatization) in China; traps, gaps, and law. Georgia J Int Comp Law 47(1):49–91; Chaisse J, Polo M (2015) Globalization of water privatization – ramifications of investor-state disputes in the ‘Blue Gold’ economy. Boston Coll Int Comp Law Rev 38(1):1–64.

  31. 31.

    UN 2030 Agenda, para 63 and SDG, para 1b.

  32. 32.

    UN 2030 Agenda, paras 28 and 67 and SDGs, paras 1b, 2a, 7a, and 10b.

  33. 33.

    UN 2030 Agenda, paras 41, 60 and 62.

  34. 34.

    On the discussion, see Gazzini T (2014) Bilateral investment treaties and sustainable development. J World Invest Trade 15:929–963, pp. 931–934; Barral V (2012) Sustainable development in international law: nature and operation of an evolutive legal norm. Eur J Int Law 23:377–400, pp. 283–288 with further reference.

  35. 35.

    ICJ, Case concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros project (Hungary v Slovakia). Judgment of 25 September 1997. ICJ Reports 1997. Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weeramantry, p. 88, pp. 92–95.

  36. 36.

    For example, ICJ, Case concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros project (Hungary v Slovakia). Judgment, 25 September 1997, ICJ Reports 1997, p. 7, para 140: “This need to reconcile economic development with protection of the environment is aptly expressed in the concept of sustainable development”; see also ICJ, Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, ICJ Reports 1996, p. 226, para 30; ICJ, Case concerning pulp mills on the river Uruguay, Judgment, 20 April 2010, ICJ Reports 2010, p. 14, paras 75–79; for further reference, see Sands P (1999) International courts and the application of the concept of “sustainable development”. Max Planck UNYB 3:389–405; Cordonier Segger M-C, Weeramantry CG (eds) (2017) Sustainable development principles in the decisions of international courts and tribunals 1992–2012. Routledge, London/New York.

  37. 37.

    Cf Barral V (2012) Sustainable development in international law: nature and operation of an evolutive legal norm. Eur J Int Law 23:377–400, pp. 383–385; International Law Association (2018), Sydney Conference (2018), Role of international law in sustainable natural resource management for development, 2nd report of the Committee 2016–2018, pp. 14; generally Condonier Segger M-C, Khalfan A (2004) Origins of the concept of sustainable development. In: Cordonier Segger M-C, Khalfan A (eds) Sustainable development law. Principles, practices, & prospects. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 15–43, pp. 70–91.

  38. 38.

    UN 2030 Agenda, paras 18 and 23.

  39. 39.

    See UN 2030 Agenda, paras 10, 19, 31, and SDGs, paras 3a and 13a.

  40. 40.

    UN Framework convention on climate change (1992). 1771 UNTS 107; see also UN 2030 Agenda, para 31 and SDG, para 13a.

  41. 41.

    UN Convention to combat desertification in countries experiencing serious drought and/or desertification (1994). 1954 UNTS 3.

  42. 42.

    UN Convention on biological diversity (1992). 1760 UNTS 79 (CBD).

  43. 43.

    ILO Declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work (1998). 37 ILM (1998) 1233.

  44. 44.

    See ILO, Conventions and Recommendations. https://www.ilo.org/global/standards/introduction-to-international-labour-standards/conventions-and-recommendations/lang%2D%2Den/index.htm; see also SDGs, paras 8.5 and 8.8.

  45. 45.

    UN General Assembly, Universal declaration of human rights (1948). UNGA Res 217 (a) (III).

  46. 46.

    International covenant on civil and political rights (1966). 999 UNTS 171 (CCPR); International covenant on economic, social and cultural Rights (1966). 993 UNTS 3 (CESCR); see also UN 2030 Agenda, paras 10 and 19.

  47. 47.

    See SDGs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, and 16.

  48. 48.

    Cf only the state reporting procedures of the UN human rights treaties, at UNHCHR, Monitoring the Core International Human Rights Treaties. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/Pages/Overview.aspx and the General Comments to the core human rights instruments. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/Pages/TBGeneralComments.aspx; for the ILO supervisory system, see ILO, Applying and Promoting International Labor Standards. https://www.ilo.org/global/standards/applying-and-promoting-international-labour-standards/lang%2D%2Den/index.htm.

  49. 49.

    Art. 2(2) CCPR; cf also Art. 2(1) CESCR; cf also Barral V (2012) Sustainable development in international law: nature and operation of an evolutive legal norm. Eur J Int Law 23:377–400, pp. 390–393.

  50. 50.

    For example, Art. 40 CCPR; Art. 26 CBD.

  51. 51.

    For example, Optional protocol to the CCPR (1966). 999 UNTS 171.

  52. 52.

    See, e.g., CESCR General Comment No. 1 (1989), paras 3, 8, and 9; CCPR General Comment No. 31 (2004), para 7. both https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/Pages/TBGeneralComments.aspx.

  53. 53.

    For example, Bulmer J (2011) Compliance regimes in multilateral environmental agreements. In: Brunnée J, Doelle M, Rajamani L (eds) Promoting compliance in an evolving climate regime. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 55–73; ILO (ed) (2019) Monitoring compliance with international labour standards. International Labour Organization, Geneva.

  54. 54.

    UN 2030 Agenda, paras 41 and 43.

  55. 55.

    UN 2030 Agenda, para 9, SDGs, paras 1b and 8.b.

  56. 56.

    See generally on IIAs Newcombe A, Paradell L (2009) Law and practice of investment treaties: standards of treatment. Wolters Kluwer, Austin/Boston/Chicago/New York/The Netherlands, pp. 41–61; Dolzer R, Stevens M (1995) Bilateral investment treaties. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague/Boston/London; Salacuse JW (2015) The law of investment treaties, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford; Sornarajah M (2017) The international law on foreign investment, 4th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 204–279.

  57. 57.

    Newcombe A, Paradell L (2009) Law and practice of investment treaties: standards of treatment. Wolters Kluwer, Austin/Boston/Chicago/New York/The Netherlands, pp. 41–49.

  58. 58.

    The first was the 1959 Treaty between the Federal Republic of Germany and Pakistan for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (signed 25 November 1959, entered into force 28 April 1962); all IIAs cited are available at https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements.

  59. 59.

    North American Free Trade Agreement (1992). 32 ILM 289 (1993) (NAFTA (1992)).

  60. 60.

    For example, Comprehensive Trade and Economic Agreement between Canada and the European Union (signed 30 October 2016, not in force, provisionally applicable since 21 September 2017) (CETA (2016)), chapter 8; Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (signed 8 March 2018, in force 31 December 2018) (CPTPP (2018)), chapter 9.

  61. 61.

    For example, Investment Cooperation and Facilitation Treaty between the Federative Republic of Brazil and the Republic of India (signed 25 January 2020, not in force) (Brazil-India BIT (2020)); Reciprocal Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement between the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco and the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (signed 3 December 2016, not in force) (Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016)); see also Newcombe A, Paradell L (2009) Law and practice of investment treaties: standards of treatment. Wolters Kluwer, Austin/Boston/Chicago/New York/The Netherlands, pp. 50–57.

  62. 62.

    For a survey, see UNCTAD Investment Policy Hub. https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements.

  63. 63.

    Newcombe A, Paradell L (2009) Law and practice of investment treaties: standards of treatment. Wolters Kluwer, Austin/Boston/Chicago/New York/The Netherlands, pp. 65–70; Dolzer R, Stevens M (1995) Bilateral investment treaties. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague/Boston/London, pp. 58–117; Salacuse JW (2015) The law of investment treaties, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 228–283.

  64. 64.

    Cf Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 60–78; Newcombe A, Paradell L (2009) Law and practice of investment treaties: standards of treatment. Wolters Kluwer, Austin/Boston/Chicago/New York/The Netherlands, pp. 65–68; Salacuse JW (2015) The law of investment treaties, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 174–212.

  65. 65.

    Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 98–160; Newcombe A, Paradell L (2009) Law and practice of investment treaties: standards of treatment. Wolters Kluwer, Austin/Boston/Chicago/New York/The Netherlands, pp. 255–307 and 321–398.

  66. 66.

    See generally Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 235–312; Newcombe A, Paradell L (2009) Law and practice of investment treaties: standards of treatment. Wolters Kluwer, Austin/Boston/Chicago/New York/The Netherlands, pp. 70–73; Salacuse JW (2015) The law of investment treaties, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 392–435.

  67. 67.

    See also Newcombe A (2007) Sustainable development and investment treaty law. J World Invest Trade 8:357–407, p. 366.

  68. 68.

    See for a general discussion Bonnitcha J, Poulsen LS, Waibel M (2017) The political economy of the investment treaty regime. Oxford University Press, Oxford; see also references at Gazzini T (2014) Bilateral investment treaties and sustainable development. J World Invest Trade 15:929–963, id n22; Mann H (2013) Reconceptualizing international investment law: its role in sustainable development. Lewis Clark Law Rev 17:521–544, pp. 528–529; Newcombe A, Paradell L (2009) Law and practice of investment treaties: standards of treatment. Wolters Kluwer, Austin/Boston/Chicago/New York/The Netherlands, pp. 62–64.

  69. 69.

    See, e.g., Marisi F (2020) Environmental interests in investment arbitration: challenges and directions. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn; Qian X (2020) Water services disputes in international arbitration: reconsidering the nexus of investment protection, environment, and human rights. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn.

  70. 70.

    See references at n4; cf SDG 15.

  71. 71.

    See references at n6; cf SDG 6.

  72. 72.

    See references at n5; cf SDG 7.

  73. 73.

    See references at n7; cf SDG 3.

  74. 74.

    For example, Philip Morris v Australia and Philip Morris v Uruguay; for statistics see ICSID (ed) (2019) The ICSID Caseload – Statistics (Issue 2019-1). https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Documents/resources/ICSID%20Web%20Stats%202019-1(English).pdf, p. 15.

  75. 75.

    For example, Bilcon; Metalclad; Eiser; Vivendi I; Tecnicas Medioambientales Tecmed S.A. v United Mexican States (2000). ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2 (Tecmed); Compañia del Desarrollo de Santa Elena SA v Republic of Costa Rica (1995). ICSID Case No. ARB/96/1 (Sta Elena).

  76. 76.

    For example, Cortec; Philip Morris v Uruguay; Urbaser; for the cost factor of ISDS, see Gaukrodger D, Gordon K (2012) Investor-state dispute settlement. A scoping paper for the investment policy community. OECD working papers on international investment 2012/03. OECD, Paris, pp. 19–24.

  77. 77.

    See also Bilcon, Dissenting Opinion of McRae, paras 48 and 51.

  78. 78.

    See Newcombe A (2007) Sustainable development and investment treaty law. J World Invest Trade 8:357–407, pp. 365–366.

  79. 79.

    UN 2030 Agenda, paras 28, 41, 63, and 67; SDG, para 17.5.

  80. 80.

    See Mann H (2013) Reconceptualizing international investment law: its role in sustainable development. Lewis Clark Law Rev 17:521–544, p. 532.

  81. 81.

    See also Mann H (2013) Reconceptualizing international investment law: its role in sustainable development. Lewis Clark Law Rev 17:521–544, p. 532.

  82. 82.

    See UNCITRAL, Working Paper No. 149, Possible reform of ISDS. Note by the Secretariat, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.149; Newcombe A, Paradell L (2009) Law and practice of investment treaties: standards of treatment. Wolters Kluwer, Austin/Boston/Chicago/New York/The Netherlands, pp. 64–65 with further reference.

  83. 83.

    See, e.g., UNCITRAL, Report of Working Group III, 14–18 October 2019, A/CN.9/1004, paras 5–8; Cf, e.g., UNCITRAL Working Group III Academic Forum; see also IISD contributions to reforming IIAs.

  84. 84.

    UN 2030 Agenda, para 45.

  85. 85.

    http://www.iisd.org.

  86. 86.

    IISD, Model International Agreement on Investment for Sustainable Development (2005). https://www.iisd.org/pdf/2005/investment_model_int_agreement.pdf; for a discussion, see Malik M (2011) The IISD model international agreement on investment for sustainable development. In: Cordonier Segger M-C, Gehring MW, Newcombe A (eds) Sustainable development in world investment law. Wolters Kluwer, Alphenaan den Rijn, pp. 561–584.

  87. 87.

    A famous example is the Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016).

  88. 88.

    See https://www.iisd.org/project/investment-capacity-building-and-advisory-services.

  89. 89.

    Cf for an overview UNCTAD (2018) UNCTAD’s reform package for the International Investment Regime (2018 edition). https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/publications/1190/unctad-s-reform-package-for-the-international-investment-regime-2018-edition-, pp. 22–31.

  90. 90.

    UNCTAD (2012) World investment report 2012. UNCTAD/WIR/2012. UNCTAD, New York/Geneva.

  91. 91.

    UNCTAD (2013) World investment report 2013. UNCTAD/WIR/2013. UNCTAD, New York/Geneva.

  92. 92.

    UNCTAD (2015) World investment report 2015. UNCTAD/WIR/2015. UNCTAD, New York/Geneva.

  93. 93.

    UNCTAD (2018) UNCTAD’s reform package for the International Investment Regime (2018 edition). https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/publications/1190/unctad-s-reform-package-for-the-international-investment-regime-2018-edition-, pp. 22–24.

  94. 94.

    UNCTAD (2018) UNCTAD’s reform package for the International Investment Regime (2018 edition). https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/publications/1190/unctad-s-reform-package-for-the-international-investment-regime-2018-edition-, pp. 24–30.

  95. 95.

    UNCTAD (2018) UNCTAD’s reform package for the International Investment Regime (2018 edition). https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/publications/1190/unctad-s-reform-package-for-the-international-investment-regime-2018-edition-, pp. 32–110.

  96. 96.

    IISD Model IIA, Arts. 42ff; UNCTAD (2018) World investment report 2018. UNCTAD/WIR/2018. UNCTAD, New York/Geneva, pp. 47–59.

  97. 97.

    UNCTAD (2018) UNCTAD’s reform package for the International Investment Regime (2018 edition). https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/publications/1190/unctad-s-reform-package-for-the-international-investment-regime-2018-edition-, p. 49; UNCTAD (2018) World investment report 2018. UNCTAD/WIR/2018. UNCTAD, New York/Geneva, p. 101; for details, see UNCITRAL: http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/commission/working_groups/3Investor_State.html.

  98. 98.

    UNCTAD (2018) UNCTAD’s reform package for the International Investment Regime (2018 edition). https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/publications/1190/unctad-s-reform-package-for-the-international-investment-regime-2018-edition-, pp. 49–59, UNCITRAL, Possible Reforms of ISDS, 30 July 2019, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.166 and Addendum A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.166. Add.1.

  99. 99.

    UNCTAD (2018) World investment report 2018. UNCTAD/WIR/2018. UNCTAD, New York/Geneva, p. 101; the amendment is planned to be submitted to adoption in 2020; see https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/amendments.

  100. 100.

    For details, see infra text accompanying n273ff.

  101. 101.

    UNCTAD (2018) World investment report 2018. UNCTAD/WIR/2018. UNCTAD, New York/Geneva, pp. 95–96.

  102. 102.

    NAFTA Side Agreements on Environmental Cooperation and on Labor Cooperation. 32 ILM 1480 (1993) and 32 ILM 1499 (1993).

  103. 103.

    ECOWAS Supplementary Act A/SA.3/12/08 adopting community rules on investment and the modalities for their implementation with Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) (signed 12 December 2008, entered into force 19 January 2009) (ECOWAS Supplementary Act (2008)).

  104. 104.

    UNCTAD (2018) World investment report 2018. UNCTAD/WIR/2018. UNCTAD, New York/Geneva, pp. 95–96.

  105. 105.

    Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania for the promotion and protection of investments (signed 7 January 1994, entered into force 2 August 1996) (Tanzania-United Kingdom BIT (1994)), preamble, 1st and 2nd recital; see generally Spears SA (2010) The quest for policy space in a new generation of international investment agreements. J Int Econ Law 13:1037–1075, pp. 1064–1065.

  106. 106.

    For details, see text accompanying n182ff.

  107. 107.

    Art. 31(1) and (2) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969). 1155 UNTS 331 (VCLT); cf., e.g., Siemens AG v The Argentine Republic (Decision on jurisdiction, 2004). ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8 (Siemens), para 80; see generally Salacuse JW (2015) The law of investment treaties, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 163–163; Dolzer R, Stevens M (1995) Bilateral investment treaties. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague/Boston/London, p. 20; Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 28–30.

  108. 108.

    Cf for references Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 29, id n9.

  109. 109.

    Spears SA (2010) The quest for policy space in a new generation of international investment agreements. J Int Econ Law 13:1037–1075, p. 1065.

  110. 110.

    Cf Spears SA (2010) The quest for policy space in a new generation of international investment agreements. J Int Econ Law 13:1037–1075, pp. 1067–1068.

  111. 111.

    For example, Agreement between the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania governing the promotion and reciprocal protection of investments (signed 24 March 2013, entered into force 17 April 2014) (China-Tanzania BIT (2013)), preamble, 5th recital; Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement (signed 29 May 2008, entered into force 1 August 2009) (Canada-Peru FTA (2008)), preamble, 12th recital; Model Text for the Indian Bilateral Investment Treaty, 28 December 2015. https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements/treaty-files/3560/download (India Model BIT (2015)), preamble, 2nd recital; African Union, Draft Pan-African Investment Code (adopted in Addis Bababa 31 March–2 April 2016, revised December 2016), ECOSOC Doc E/ECA/CM/50/1/AU/STC/FMEPI/MIN/1(III) (8 February 2017) (PAIC (2016)), preamble, 7th recital.

  112. 112.

    For example, Canada-Peru FTA (2008), preamble, 10th, 12th, and 20th recital; see also UNCTAD (2018) UNCTAD’s reform package for the International Investment Regime (2018 edition). https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/publications/1190/unctad-s-reform-package-for-the-international-investment-regime-2018-edition-, p. 29.

  113. 113.

    Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016), Art. 1(1); PAIC (2016), Art. 1; for further reference, see text accompanying n182ff.

  114. 114.

    See Spears SA (2010) The quest for policy space in a new generation of international investment agreements. J Int Econ Law 13:1037–1075, pp. 1068–1070; see generally Dolzer R, Stevens M (1995) Bilateral investment treaties. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague/Boston/London, p. 20.

  115. 115.

    For example, India Model BIT (2015); China-Tanzania BIT (2013).

  116. 116.

    For example, Investment Agreement for the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) Common Investment Area (signed 23 May 2007, not in force) (COMESA Investment Agreement (2007)), preamble, 1st and 7th recital; Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016), preamble; SADC Protocol on Finance and Investment (signed 18 August 2006, entered into force 16 April 2010) (SADC Investment Protocol (2006)), preamble; Cooperation and Facilitation Investment Agreement between the Federative Republic of Brazil and… (Brazil Model BIT (2015)), preamble, 3rd recital.

  117. 117.

    PAIC (2016), Art. 1; SADC Model Bilateral Investment Treaty Template. http://www.iisd.org/itn/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/SADC-Model-BIT-Template-Final.pdf (SADC Model BIT (2012)), Art. 1; ECOWAS Supplementary Act (2008), Art. 3.

  118. 118.

    For a discussion of the jurisdiction of IIAs, see text accompanying n306ff.

  119. 119.

    Cf text accompanying n182ff.

  120. 120.

    See also text accompanying n182ff.

  121. 121.

    For example, CPTPP (2018), CETA (2016), Canada-Peru FTA (2008).

  122. 122.

    Cf the general exception clauses in India Model BIT (2015), Art. 32; Canada-Peru FTA, Arts. 809 and 810.

  123. 123.

    For example, Investment Protection Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Singapore on the other part (signed 15 October 2018, not in force) (EU-Singapore IIA (2018)); see also CETA; Chapter 22.

  124. 124.

    CETA (2016), Chapters 23 and 24; cf also the NAFTA Side Agreements on Environmental Cooperation and on Labor Cooperation.

  125. 125.

    For example, Arts. 22.3(3) and 22.4 CETA (2016).

  126. 126.

    For details, see infra text accompanying n50ff.

  127. 127.

    Cf, e.g., Bear Creek Mining Corporation v Republic of Peru (2014). ICSID Case No. ARB/14/21.

  128. 128.

    Arts. 22.1, 22.3, and 22.4 CETA (2016).

  129. 129.

    Arts. 23.11(1) and 24.16(1) CETA (2016).

  130. 130.

    For example, Arts. 8.39 and 8.41 CETA (2016).

  131. 131.

    For example, Arts. 1.18.5, 8.18.1, 23.11.1., and 24.16.1 CETA (2016).

  132. 132.

    For example, Art. 8.9 CETA (2016).

  133. 133.

    For example, India Model BIT (2015); China-Tanzania BIT (2013).

  134. 134.

    See references in n14.

  135. 135.

    Cf Gazzini T (2014) Bilateral investment treaties and sustainable development. J World Invest Trade 15:929–963, pp. 932–934; cf also text accompanying n40ff.

  136. 136.

    See Cordonier Segger M-C, Newcombe A (2011) An integrated agenda for sustainable development in international investment law. In: Cordonier Segger M-C, Gehring MW, Newcombe A (eds) Sustainable development in world investment law. Wolters Kluwer, Alphenaan den Rijn, pp. 101–142, pp. 110–111.

  137. 137.

    Cf also Hirsch M (2009) Investment tribunals and human rights: divergent paths. In: Dupuy P-M, Petersmann E-U, Francioni F (eds) Human rights in international investment law and arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 97–114, pp. 112–113.

  138. 138.

    Cf Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016), Arts. 13-15, 18, 19, and 24.

  139. 139.

    CETA (2016), Chapters 23 and 24.

  140. 140.

    For example, the Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016) does not contain a reference to the UN Convention against Corruption (2004), which is a relevant treaty relating to SDG 16. Also CETA (2016) does not contain references to human rights treaties or the UN Convention against Corruption (2004).

  141. 141.

    Art. 2 CCPR; Art. 2 CESCR; for references, see n 49.

  142. 142.

    For a discussion and further reference, see Gehring M, Newcombe A (2011) An introduction to sustainable development in world investment law. In: Cordonier Segger M-C, Gehring MW, Newcombe A (eds) Sustainable development in world investment law. Wolters Kluwer, Alphenaan den Rijn, pp. 3–11, pp. 6–9; Cordonier Segger M-C, Newcombe A (2011) An integrated agenda for sustainable development in international investment law. In: Cordonier Segger M-C, Gehring MW, Newcombe A (eds) Sustainable development in world investment law. Wolters Kluwer, Alphenaan den Rijn, pp. 101–142, pp. 104–111; Gazzini T (2014) Bilateral investment treaties and sustainable development. J World Invest Trade 15:929–963, pp. 930–934.

  143. 143.

    Bernasconi-Osterwalder N, Brauch MD (eds) (2018) International investment law and sustainable development: key cases from the 2010s. IISD, Winipeg, p. 5; Newcombe A, Paradell L (2009) Law and practice of investment treaties: standards of treatment. Wolters Kluwer, Austin/Boston/Chicago/New York/The Netherlands, p. 64.

  144. 144.

    See for many Spears SA (2010) The quest for policy space in a new generation of international investment agreements. J Int Econ Law 13:1037–1075, pp. 1064–1065.

  145. 145.

    UN 2030 Agenda, preamble, 2nd recital and paras 5 and 41.

  146. 146.

    Mann H (2013) Reconceptualizing international investment law: its role in sustainable development. Lewis Clark Law Rev 17:521–544, p. 540

  147. 147.

    Other examples are Art. 14 SADC Investment Protocol (2006) or Art. 22(2) COMESA Investment Agreement (2007).

  148. 148.

    Spears SA (2010) The quest for policy space in a new generation of international investment agreements. J Int Econ Law 13:1037–1075, pp. 1059–1062; Gazzini T (2014) Bilateral investment treaties and sustainable development. J World Invest Trade 15:929–963, pp. 952–955; Mann H (2013) Reconceptualizing international investment law: its role in sustainable development. Lewis Clark Law Rev 17:521–544, p. 540.

  149. 149.

    For example, Dolzer R, Stevens M (1995) Bilateral investment treaties. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague/Boston/London, pp. 71–76; Spears SA (2010) The quest for policy space in a new generation of international investment agreements. J Int Econ Law 13:1037–1075, p. 1059; Newcombe A, Paradell L (2009) Law and practice of investment treaties: standards of treatment. Wolters Kluwer, Austin/Boston/Chicago/New York/The Netherlands, pp. 482–485; Chaisse J (2015) Investor-state arbitration in international tax dispute resolution – a cut above dedicated tax dispute resolution? Virginia Tax Rev 41(2):149–222; see, e.g., SADC Investment Protocol (2006), Art. 7.

  150. 150.

    Cf text accompanying n205ff; e.g., India Model BIT (2015), Art. 5(5); CETA (2016), Annex 8–1, para 3.

  151. 151.

    Spears SA (2010) The quest for policy space in a new generation of international investment agreements. J Int Econ Law 13:1037–1075, p. 1046 with further reference; Newcombe A, Paradell L (2009) Law and practice of investment treaties: standards of treatment. Wolters Kluwer, Austin/Boston/Chicago/New York/The Netherlands, p. 358; UNCTAD (ed) (2012) Expropriation, UNCTAD series on issues in international investment agreements II. United Nations, New York/Geneva, pp. 78–86; see also Tecmed [119].

  152. 152.

    UNCTAD (2018) UNCTAD’s reform package for the International Investment Regime (2018 edition). https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/publications/1190/unctad-s-reform-package-for-the-international-investment-regime-2018-edition-, p. 103.

  153. 153.

    See only Art. 8.9 CETA (2016); Art. 13(4) Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016).

  154. 154.

    For example, CETA (2016), Art. 8.9(1), CETA (2016) Annex 8-1, para 3; Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016), Art. 13(4); India Model BIT (2015), Arts. 5(5) and 32(1).

  155. 155.

    For example, SDGs 8 and 16.

  156. 156.

    For example, Art. 14 SADC Investment Protocol (2006).

  157. 157.

    For example, Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016), Arts. 13(4) and 23; COMESA Investment Agreement (2007), Art. 22; PAIC (2016), Arts. 11(3) and 14(1); India Model BIT (2015), Arts. 5(5) and 32(1).

  158. 158.

    See, e.g., China-Tanzania BIT (2013), Art. 6(3); see also Art. 14 PAIC (2016); Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016), Art. 8(2)(b).

  159. 159.

    Cf also text following n 142.

  160. 160.

    Free Trade Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the People’s Republic of China (signed 17 June 2015, entered into force 20 December 2015) (FTA Australia-China (2015)).

  161. 161.

    Nowrot K (2015) Obligations of investors. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law. Beck/Hart/Nomos, Baden-Baden/München/Oxford, pp. 1154–1185; Bernasconi-Osterwalder N, Brauch MD (eds) (2018) International investment law and sustainable development: key cases from the 2010s. IISD, Winipeg.

  162. 162.

    For example, Arts. 19ff, 30, and 34 PAIC (2016); Arts. 11 and 12 India Model BIT (2015); Arts. 11–18 ECOWAS Supplementary Act (2008).

  163. 163.

    UN 2030 Agenda, paras 62 and 67.

  164. 164.

    Bernasconi-Osterwalder N, Brauch MD (eds) (2018) International investment law and sustainable development: key cases from the 2010s. IISD, Winipeg, p. 6; see also Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016), preamble, 6th recital.

  165. 165.

    Arts. 11ff IISD Model IIA; see Mann H (2013) Reconceptualizing international investment law: its role in sustainable development. Lewis Clark Law Rev 17:521–544, pp. 540–541; Malik M (2011) The IISD model international agreement on investment for sustainable development. In: Cordonier Segger M-C, Gehring MW, Newcombe A (eds) Sustainable development in world investment law. Wolters Kluwer, Alphenaan den Rijn, pp. 561–584, pp. 570–557.

  166. 166.

    Art. 14 Brazil Model BIT (2015); PAIC (2016), Art. 22; Art. 12 India Model BIT (2015).

  167. 167.

    India Model BIT (2015), Art. 11.

  168. 168.

    For example, ECOWAS Supplementary Act (2008), Arts. 11–18; PAIC (2016), Arts. 19–24.

  169. 169.

    Arts. 13ff Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016).

  170. 170.

    Art. 1(3) Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016).

  171. 171.

    Art. 24(1) Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016).

  172. 172.

    Arts. 17–19 Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016).

  173. 173.

    Arts. 14 and 18 Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016).

  174. 174.

    Arts. 19 and 24 Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016).

  175. 175.

    Arts. 13 and 15 Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016).

  176. 176.

    See Mann H (2013) Reconceptualizing international investment law: its role in sustainable development. Lewis Clark Law Rev 17:521–544, p. 540.

  177. 177.

    Arts. 17 (host state court, civil liability for damages) and 29 (home state court, civil liability for damages) ECOWAS Supplementary Act (2008); Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016), Art. 20.

  178. 178.

    For details, see text accompanying n 306ff.

  179. 179.

    ECOWAS Supplementary Act (2008), Art. 18.

  180. 180.

    See only the OHCHR (2011), Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. United Nations, New York/Geneva. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf.

  181. 181.

    UN 2030 Agenda, preamble, 2nd recital, and paras 5, 41, 60, and 62.

  182. 182.

    For a discussion on the impact of expropriation on the regulatory sovereignty, see Spears SA (2010) The quest for policy space in a new generation of international investment agreements. J Int Econ Law 13:1037–1075, pp. 1049–1052 with further reference.

  183. 183.

    Cf for many Agreement between the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and the Government of the People’s Republic of China concerning the encouragement and reciprocal protection of investments (signed 11 May 1998, entered into force 1 May 2000) (China-Ethiopia BIT (1998)), Art. 4; Agreement between the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania and the Government of the Kingdom of Sweden on the promotion and reciprocal protection of investments (signed 1 September 1999, entered into force 1 March 2002) (Sweden-Tanzania BIT (1999)), Art. 4; see generally Dolzer R, Stevens M (1995) Bilateral investment treaties. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague/Boston/London, pp. 97–117; Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 98–129.

  184. 184.

    Crawford J (2012) Brownlie’s principles of public international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 620–626; Jennings R, Watts A (1992) Oppenheim’s international law, volume I peace. Longman, Harlow, pp. 911–926.

  185. 185.

    For example, Agreement between the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania and the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark concerning the promotion of reciprocal protection of investments (signed 22 April 1999, entered into force 21 October 2005) (Denmark-Tanzania BIT (1999)), Art. 5(1); Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Rwanda and the Government Kingdom of Morocco on the reciprocal promotion and protection of investments (signed 19 October 2016, not in force), Art. 4(1) (Morocco-Rwanda BIT (2016)); for further IIA rules, see Dolzer R, Stevens M (1995) Bilateral investment treaties. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague/Boston/London, pp. 104–114; details on these criteria, see Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 99–129; UNCTAD (ed) (2012) Expropriation, UNCTAD series on issues in international investment agreements II. United Nations, New York/Geneva, pp. 27–51; Jennings R, Watts A (1992) Oppenheim’s international law, volume I peace. Longman, Harlow, pp. 918–922; Newcombe A, Paradell L (2009) Law and practice of investment treaties: standards of treatment. Wolters Kluwer, Austin/Boston/Chicago/New York/The Netherlands, pp. 369–379.

  186. 186.

    Newcombe A, Paradell L (2009) Law and practice of investment treaties: standards of treatment. Wolters Kluwer, Austin/Boston/Chicago/New York/The Netherlands, pp. 379–383; Yannaca-Small K (2018) Indirect expropriation and the right to regulate. In: Yannaca-Small K (ed) Arbitration under international investment agreements. A guide to key issues, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 562–593.

  187. 187.

    See UNCTAD (ed) (2012) Expropriation, UNCTAD series on issues in international investment agreements II. United Nations, New York/Geneva, pp. 5–6; Newcombe A, Paradell L (2009) Law and practice of investment treaties: standards of treatment. Wolters Kluwer, Austin/Boston/Chicago/New York/The Netherlands, pp. 324–325; cf., e.g., Sta Elena.

  188. 188.

    Cf for many Sweden-Tanzania BIT (1999), Art. 4(1); Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016), Art. 8(1) and (2); see also an overview at Dolzer and Stevens (2012), pp. 98–102; Newcombe A, Paradell L (2009) Law and practice of investment treaties: standards of treatment. Wolters Kluwer, Austin/Boston/Chicago/New York/The Netherlands, pp. 325–328; cf Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, SA and Interagua Servicios Integrales de Agua, SA v Argentine Republic (Decision on liability, 2010). ICSID Case No. ARB/03/17 (Suez and Interagua) [121]; for the distinction between a direct and an indirect expropriation, see Tecmed [113f].

  189. 189.

    Cf Newcombe A, Paradell L (2009) Law and practice of investment treaties: standards of treatment. Wolters Kluwer, Austin/Boston/Chicago/New York/The Netherlands, pp. 344–348.

  190. 190.

    Eg Tecmed, Cortec.

  191. 191.

    Eg Biwater, Urbaser.

  192. 192.

    Eg Vivendi I.

  193. 193.

    UNCTAD (ed) (2012) Expropriation, UNCTAD series on issues in international investment agreements II. United Nations, New York/Geneva, pp. 62–73; Yannaca-Small K (2018) Indirect expropriation and the right to regulate. In: Yannaca-Small K (ed) Arbitration under international investment agreements. A guide to key issues, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 562–593, pp. 576–592.

  194. 194.

    For example, Metalclad, [103]; Biloune and Marine Drive Complex Ltd. v Ghana Investments Centre and the Government of Ghana (Ad-hoc Award on jurisdiction and liability of 27 October 1989 and Ad-hoc Award on Damages and Costs of 30 June 1990), 183 ILR 209 (Biloune); Vivendi I; for further reference, see Yannaca-Small K (2018) Indirect expropriation and the right to regulate. In: Yannaca-Small K (ed) Arbitration under international investment agreements. A guide to key issues, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 562–593, pp. 583–585 with case-law.

  195. 195.

    See, e.g., Metalclad [111]; Sta Elena [72].

  196. 196.

    See Tecmed [119]; see also Newcombe A (2005) The boundaries of regulatory expropriation in international law. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 20:1–57, p. 23; Yannaca-Small K (2018) Indirect expropriation and the right to regulate. In: Yannaca-Small K (ed) Arbitration under international investment agreements. A guide to key issues, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 562–593, pp. 585–588.

  197. 197.

    For example, S D Myers, Inc. v Government of Canada (1st Partial Award (merits), 13 November 2000) [285] (Myers).

  198. 198.

    See Methanex Corporation v United States of America (Final Award on jurisdiction and merits, 3 August 2005), Part IV, Chapter D [7] (Methanex); see also Saluka Investments BV v The Czech Republic (Partial Award, 17 March 2006), [255] (Saluka); ADC Affiliate Limited and ADC & ADMC Management Limited v Republic of Hungary (Award, 2006). ICSID Case No. ARB/03/16 (ADC), [423ff]; see also Dolzer and Schreuer, pp. 122–123; Schreuer C (2010) Fair and equitable treatment. In: Hoffmann AK (ed) Protection of foreign investment through modern treaty arbitration: diversity and harmonization. Association Suisse de l’Arbitrage, Geneva, pp. 125–135, p. 133; Chochorelou M, Espaliu Berdud C (2018) Sustainable development in new generation FTAs: could arbitrators further the principle through ISDS? Rev Eur Comp Int Environ Law 27:176–187, pp. 181–182; Yannaca-Small K, Katsikis D (2018) The meaning of investment in investment treaty arbitration. In: Yannaca-Small K (ed) Arbitration under international investment agreements. A guide to key issues, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 266–301, pp. 285–288.

  199. 199.

    Cf Vivendi I, [7.5.21].

  200. 200.

    Cf Tecmed, [122]; for further reference, see UNCTAD (ed) (2012) Expropriation, UNCTAD series on issues in international investment agreements II. United Nations, New York/Geneva, pp. 98–100; Gazzini T (2010) Drawing the line between non-compensable regulatory powers and indirect expropriation of foreign investment – an economic analysis of law perspective. Manchester J Int Econ Law 7:36–51, pp. 42–43; Yannaca-Small K (2018) Indirect expropriation and the right to regulate. In: Yannaca-Small K (ed) Arbitration under international investment agreements. A guide to key issues, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 562–593, pp. 588–590.

  201. 201.

    See for an overview Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 104–112.

  202. 202.

    Newcombe A, Paradell L (2009) Law and practice of investment treaties: standards of treatment. Wolters Kluwer, Austin/Boston/Chicago/New York/The Netherlands, p. 357.

  203. 203.

    Cf only Myers, [281]; Methanex, Part IV, Chapter D [7].

  204. 204.

    On the controversies with regard to the valuation of compensation, see text accompanying n325ff.

  205. 205.

    Cf text accompanying n110ff and n146ff.

  206. 206.

    See also SADC Model BIT (2012), Art. 6.7.

  207. 207.

    PAIC (2016), Art. 11(3); India Model BIT (2015), Art. 5(5).

  208. 208.

    COMESA Investment Agreement (2007), Art. 20(8).

  209. 209.

    Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania for the promotion and reciprocal protection of investments (signed 17 May 2013, entered into force 9 December 2013) (Canada-Tanzania BIT (2013)), Art. 5(5); China-Tanzania BIT (2013), Art. 6(3); this approach follows the US and the Canadian Model BITs; see Spears SA (2010) The quest for policy space in a new generation of international investment agreements. J Int Econ Law 13:1037–1075, p. 1051.

  210. 210.

    Cf text accompanying n 194ff.

  211. 211.

    For example, SADC Investment Protocol (2006), Art. 14; South African Development Community (SADC) Amendment 2016 to the SADC Protocol on Finance and Investment (2006) (signed 17 May 2017, not in force). https://www.sadc.int/documents-publications/show/4999 (SADC Investment Protocol Amendment (2017)), Art. 5(7).

  212. 212.

    See Spears SA (2010) The quest for policy space in a new generation of international investment agreements. J Int Econ Law 13:1037–1075, pp. 1051–1052; see also text accompanying n 196ff.

  213. 213.

    For example, COMESA Investment Agreement (2007), Art. 20(8); Canada-Tanzania BIT (2013), Art. 5(5); China-Tanzania BIT (2013), Art. 6(3).

  214. 214.

    For example, PAIC (2016), Arts. 11(3) and 14(1).

  215. 215.

    See, e.g., China-Tanzania BIT (2013), Art. 6(3); see also PAIC (2016), Art. 14; Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016), Art. 8(2)(b).

  216. 216.

    Cf references in n 193–200.

  217. 217.

    For the customary rules on expropriation, see Jennings R, Watts A (1992) Oppenheim’s international law, volume I peace. Longman, Harlow, pp. 910–922.

  218. 218.

    Cf, e.g., ADC, [480ff].

  219. 219.

    Cf, e.g., Morocco-Rwanda BIT (2016), Art. 8; PAIC (2016), Art. 44; CETA (2016), Art. 8.31(1).

  220. 220.

    See Simma B, Pulkowski D (2015) Two worlds, but not apart: international investment law and general international law. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law. Beck/Hart/Nomos, Baden-Baden/München/Oxford, pp. 361–371, in particular paras 15–17.

  221. 221.

    For example, Art. 6(4) Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016) and Art. 4 Morocco-Rwanda BIT (2016); for details on MFN clauses, see Cohen Smutny A, Polasek P, Farrell C (2018) The MFN clause and its evolving boundaries. In: Yannaca-Small K (ed) Arbitration under international investment agreements. A guide to key issues, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 594–629.

  222. 222.

    Cf text accompanying n 105ff.

  223. 223.

    Cf text accompanying n 133–142.

  224. 224.

    See text accompanying n 142ff.

  225. 225.

    Cf Jennings R, Watts A (1992) Oppenheim’s international law, volume I peace. Longman, Harlow, p. 1270 with further reference.

  226. 226.

    Cf, e.g., Accord entre le Gouvernement du Royaume du Maroc et le Gouvernement de la République Gabonaise portant sur la promotion et la protection réciproques des investissements (signed 21 June 2004, entered into force 27 July 2009) (Morocco-Gabon BIT 2004), Art. 2(2); Sweden-Tanzania BIT (1999), Art. 2(3); China-Tanzania BIT (2013), Art. 5(1); for further reference, see Dolzer R, Stevens M (1995) Bilateral investment treaties. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague/Boston/London, pp. 58–60.

  227. 227.

    Cf Sempra Energy International v Argentine Republic (Award, 2007). ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16 [297] (Sempra); see also Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 132.

  228. 228.

    See Tecmed [153]; Myers [134].

  229. 229.

    Tecmed [153]; see also El Paso [373]. Generally see Kläger R (2011) Fair and equitable treatment in international investment law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; Schreuer C (2010) Fair and equitable treatment. In: Hoffmann AK (ed) Protection of foreign investment through modern treaty arbitration: diversity and harmonization. Association Suisse de l’Arbitrage, Geneva, pp. 125–135; Jacob M, Schill S (2015) Fair and equitable treatment: content, practice, method. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law. Beck/Hart/Nomos, Baden-Baden/München/Oxford, pp. 700–763.

  230. 230.

    Schreuer C (2010) Fair and equitable treatment. In: Hoffmann AK (ed) Protection of foreign investment through modern treaty arbitration: diversity and harmonization. Association Suisse de l’Arbitrage, Geneva, pp. 125–135, p. 133; e.g., Sempra [300ff].

  231. 231.

    Cf, e.g., PSEG Global Inc. and Konya Ilgin Elektrik Üretim ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi v Republic of Turkey (Award, 2007). ICSID Case No. ARB/02/5 (PSEG) [238]; Continental Casualty Company v Argentine Republic (Award, 2008). ICSID Case No. ARB/03/9 (Continental) [254].

  232. 232.

    For example, Tecmed; ADC; Metalclad; Saluka; see also UNCTAD (ed) (2012) Fair and equitable treatment, UNCTAD series on issues in international investment agreements II. United Nations, New York/Geneva, p. 10.

  233. 233.

    Mbengue M, Schacherer S (2017) The “Africanization” of international investment law: the Pan-African investment code and the reform of the international investment regime. J World Invest Trade 18:414–448, p. 429; Schreuer C (2010) Fair and equitable treatment. In: Hoffmann AK (ed) Protection of foreign investment through modern treaty arbitration: diversity and harmonization. Association Suisse de l’Arbitrage, Geneva, pp. 125–135, p. 133; Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 130; Newcombe A, Paradell L (2009) Law and practice of investment treaties: standards of treatment. Wolters Kluwer, Austin/Boston/Chicago/New York/The Netherlands, p. 255.

  234. 234.

    De Brabandere E (2017) Fair and equitable treatment and (full) protection and security in African investment treaties. Grotius Centre Working Paper 2017/063-IEL, Leiden, pp. 4–5; UNCTAD (ed) (2012) Fair and equitable treatment, UNCTAD series on issues in international investment agreements II. United Nations, New York/Geneva, pp. 11–12; Jacob M, Schill S (2015) Fair and equitable treatment: content, practice, method. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law. Beck/Hart/Nomos, Baden-Baden/München/Oxford, pp. 700–763, pp. 713–717; Yannaca-Small K (2018) Fair and equitable treatment: have it contours fully evolved? In: Yannaca-Small K (ed) Arbitration under international investment agreements. A guide to key issues, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 501–531, p. 510; see, e.g., Sempra [296]; Suez [296]; Total SA v Argentine Republic (Decision on liability, 2010). ICSID Case No. ARB/04/1 (Total) [106ff].

  235. 235.

    Cf infra text accompanying n79–82.

  236. 236.

    For example, Denmark-Tanzania BIT (1999), Art. 3(1).

  237. 237.

    Cf Schreuer C (2010) Fair and equitable treatment. In: Hoffmann AK (ed) Protection of foreign investment through modern treaty arbitration: diversity and harmonization. Association Suisse de l’Arbitrage, Geneva, pp. 125–135, p. 125, with reference to case-law; Jacob M, Schill S (2015) Fair and equitable treatment: content, practice, method. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law. Beck/Hart/Nomos, Baden-Baden/München/Oxford, pp. 700–763, pp. 717–743-; Kläger R (2011) Fair and equitable treatment and sustainable development. In: Cordonier Segger M-C, Gehring MW, Newcombe A (eds) Sustainable development in world investment law. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp. 241–263, pp. 246–249; Newcombe A, Paradell L (2009) Law and practice of investment treaties: standards of treatment. Wolters Kluwer, Austin/Boston/Chicago/New York/The Netherlands, pp. 275–278; Yannaca-Small K (2018) Fair and equitable treatment: have it contours fully evolved? In: Yannaca-Small K (ed) Arbitration under international investment agreements. A guide to key issues, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 501–531, pp. 510–529.

  238. 238.

    Tecmed [154]; see also Saluka [302] with further reference to earlier case-law; El Paso [348]; see also Newcombe A, Paradell L (2009) Law and practice of investment treaties: standards of treatment. Wolters Kluwer, Austin/Boston/Chicago/New York/The Netherlands, pp. 279–289; UNCTAD (ed) (2012) Fair and equitable treatment, UNCTAD series on issues in international investment agreements II. United Nations, New York/Geneva, p. 63 with further references; Jacob M, Schill S (2015) Fair and equitable treatment: content, practice, method. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law. Beck/Hart/Nomos, Baden-Baden/München/Oxford, pp. 700–763, pp. 724–725 with further references; Kläger R (2011) Fair and equitable treatment and sustainable development. In: Cordonier Segger M-C, Gehring MW, Newcombe A (eds) Sustainable development in world investment law. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp. 241–263, pp. 247–248.

  239. 239.

    For details and related case-law, see Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 145–160; UNCTAD (ed) (2012) Fair and equitable treatment, UNCTAD series on issues in international investment agreements II. United Nations, New York/Geneva, pp. 61–89; Jacob M, Schill S (2015) Fair and equitable treatment: content, practice, method. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law. Beck/Hart/Nomos, Baden-Baden/München/Oxford, pp. 700–763, pp. 719–743; Yannaca-Small K (2018) Fair and equitable treatment: have it contours fully evolved? In: Yannaca-Small K (ed) Arbitration under international investment agreements. A guide to key issues, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 501–531, pp. 518–523. For the stable legal and business framework, see, e.g., CMS Gas Transmission Company v The Argentine Republic (Award, 2005). ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8 [274ff] (CMS); Sempra [298] and [303].

  240. 240.

    Schreuer C (2010) Fair and equitable treatment. In: Hoffmann AK (ed) Protection of foreign investment through modern treaty arbitration: diversity and harmonization. Association Suisse de l’Arbitrage, Geneva, pp. 125–135, p. 126; see also Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 145–146 for relevant case-law.

  241. 241.

    Sempra [298f]; Total [119f]; Metalclad [74ff].

  242. 242.

    Newcombe A, Paradell L (2009) Law and practice of investment treaties: standards of treatment. Wolters Kluwer, Austin/Boston/Chicago/New York/The Netherlands, pp. 282–289.

  243. 243.

    Cf El Paso [402]; for a discussion of the different approaches see Ngangjoh-Hodu Y, Ajibo, CC (2018) Legitimate expectation in investor-state arbitration: re-contextualising controversial concept from developing country perspective. Manchester J Int Econ Law 15:45–61, pp. 47–58.

  244. 244.

    See, e.g., El Paso [402]; Saluka [306]; Vivendi I [7.4.24], where the tribunal found a misuse of powers of Argentina.

  245. 245.

    For details, see Jacob M, Schill S (2015) Fair and equitable treatment: content, practice, method. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law. Beck/Hart/Nomos, Baden-Baden/München/Oxford, pp. 700–763, pp. 726–728; UNCTAD (ed) (2012) Fair and equitable treatment, UNCTAD series on issues in international investment agreements II. United Nations, New York/Geneva, pp. 64–67.

  246. 246.

    Cf Occidental Exploration and Production Company v Republic of Ecuador (I) (Award, 2004). LCIA Case No. UN3467 [196]; Tecmed [154]; CMS [274].

  247. 247.

    Methanex, Part IV, Chapter D [7ff].

  248. 248.

    Saluka [304]; El Paso [368ff].

  249. 249.

    Cf also UNCTAD (ed) (2012) Fair and equitable treatment, UNCTAD series on issues in international investment agreements II. United Nations, New York/Geneva, pp. 11–12 with further references.

  250. 250.

    Cf also De Brabandere E (2017) Fair and equitable treatment and (full) protection and security in African investment treaties. Grotius Centre Working Paper 2017/063-IEL, Leiden, pp. 9–17.

  251. 251.

    For example, Investment Cooperation and Facilitation Agreement between the Federative Republic of Brazil and the Republic of Malawi (signed 24 June 2015, not in force) (Brazil-Malawi BIT (2015)); Morocco-Rwanda BIT (2016); see also Mbengue M, Schacherer S (2017) The “Africanization” of international investment law: the Pan-African investment code and the reform of the international investment regime. J World Invest Trade 18:414–448, p. 431.

  252. 252.

    SADC Model BIT (2012), Art. 5, commentary, at 22.

  253. 253.

    SDG 16; see also Gazzini T (2014) Bilateral investment treaties and sustainable development. J World Invest Trade 15:929–963, p. 949.

  254. 254.

    See for further reference UNCTAD (ed) (2012) Fair and equitable treatment, UNCTAD series on issues in international investment agreements II. United Nations, New York/Geneva, pp. 19–20; this problem also occurs regarding the clauses on expropriation; see text accompanying n 221.

  255. 255.

    Morocco-Rwanda BIT (2016), Art. 3.

  256. 256.

    Traitéentre la République fédérale d’Allemagne et le Royaume du Maroc relatif à l’encouragement et à la protection mutuels des investissements (signed 6 August 2001, in force 12 April 2008).

  257. 257.

    Cf for many ADC [288ff]; for further references, see Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 291.

  258. 258.

    For example, PAIC (2016), Art. 44; BIT China-Tanzania (2013), Art. 14(1).

  259. 259.

    Cf Jennings R, Watts A (1992) Oppenheim’s international law, volume I peace. Longman, Harlow, pp. 904–939.

  260. 260.

    Cf also UNCTAD (ed) (2012) Fair and equitable treatment, UNCTAD series on issues in international investment agreements II. United Nations, New York/Geneva, pp. 18–19; Simma B, Pulkowski D (2015) Two worlds, but not apart: international investment law and general international law. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law. Beck/Hart/Nomos, Baden-Baden/München/Oxford, pp. 361–371, pp. 366–367; on the question of the relationship between minimum standard and FET, see Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 134–139; Newcombe A, Paradell L (2009) Law and practice of investment treaties: standards of treatment. Wolters Kluwer, Austin/Boston/Chicago/New York/The Netherlands, pp. 264–272.

  261. 261.

    De Brabandere E (2017) Fair and equitable treatment and (full) protection and security in African investment treaties. Grotius Centre Working Paper 2017/063-IEL, Leiden, p. 17.

  262. 262.

    SADC Model BIT (2012), Art. 5, option 2.

  263. 263.

    See also SDG 16.

  264. 264.

    SADC Model BIT (2012), Art. 5, option 1, para 5.2.

  265. 265.

    This formula corresponds to the Neer standard.

  266. 266.

    L.F.H. Neer and Pauline E. Neer (USA) v Mexico, Opinion 15 October 1926, 4 UNRIAA 61–62.

  267. 267.

    Jacob M, Schill S (2015) Fair and equitable treatment: content, practice, method. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law. Beck/Hart/Nomos, Baden-Baden/München/Oxford, pp. 700–763, pp. 707–708.

  268. 268.

    For a detailed discussion of the clause, see UNCTAD (ed) (2012) Fair and equitable treatment, UNCTAD series on issues in international investment agreements II. United Nations, New York/Geneva, pp. 33–34.

  269. 269.

    See also UNCTAD (ed) (2012) Fair and equitable treatment, UNCTAD series on issues in international investment agreements II. United Nations, New York/Geneva, pp. 22–23 and 28–29.

  270. 270.

    For example, India Model BIT (2015), Art. 3; Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016), Art. 7.

  271. 271.

    For example, EU-Singapore IIA (2018), Art. 9.4.2.e.

  272. 272.

    Cf, e.g., Methanex; for further reference, see Newcombe A, Paradell L (2009) Law and practice of investment treaties: standards of treatment. Wolters Kluwer, Austin/Boston/Chicago/New York/The Netherlands, pp. 280–286.

  273. 273.

    Newcombe A (2007) Sustainable development and investment treaty law. J World Invest Trade 8:357–407, p. 365; Mann H (2013) Reconceptualizing international investment law: its role in sustainable development. Lewis Clark Law Rev 17:521–544, pp. 532–534.

  274. 274.

    For an overview, see UNCITRAL Working Paper No. 150, Possible reform of ISDS – Consistency and related matters, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.150; UNCITRAL Working Paper No. 151, Possible reform of ISDS – Ensuring independence and impartiality on the part of arbitrators and decision-makers in ISDS, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.151; UNCITRAL Working Paper No. 152, Possible reform of ISDS – Arbitrators and decision makers: appointment mechanisms and related issues, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.152; 1 UNCITRAL Working Paper No. 153, Possible reform of ISDS – Cost and duration, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.153; see also Mann H (2013) Reconceptualizing international investment law: its role in sustainable development. Lewis Clark Law Rev 17:521–544, pp. 532–533.

  275. 275.

    Cf for the ICSID amendment process launched in 2016 https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/amendments.

  276. 276.

    Cf for the UNCITRAL Working Group III proceedings https://uncitral.un.org/en/working_groups/3/investor-state.

  277. 277.

    Cf CETA (2016), Arts. 8.18ff; for details, see Sardinha E (2017) The new EU-led approach to investor-state arbitration: the investment tribunal system in the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) and the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law Journal 32:625–672.

  278. 278.

    Cf European Commission (2017) A Multilateral Investment Court. https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2017/september/tradoc_156042.pdf; see for an extensive discussion UNGA (2019) Possible Reform of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), Submission from the European Union and its Member States, A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.159/Add.1; see also CETA (2016), Art 8.29.

  279. 279.

    Arts. 17ff Brazil Model BIT (2015); for details, see Muniz JP, Duggal KAN, Peretti LAS (2017) The new Brazilian BIT on cooperation, and facilitation of investments: a new approach in times of change. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 32:404–417, pp. 414–416.

  280. 280.

    Arts 13ff India Model BIT (2015).

  281. 281.

    For example, PAIC (2016), Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016), ECOWAS Supplementary Act (2008).

  282. 282.

    For the ISDS rules in traditional IIAs, generally see Dolzer R, Stevens M (1995) Bilateral investment treaties. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague/Boston/London, pp. 129–156; Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 236–312; Waibel M (2015) Investment arbitration: jurisdiction and admissibility. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law. Beck/Hart/Nomos, Baden-Baden/München/Oxford, pp. 1212–1287, pp. 1215–1287.

  283. 283.

    See Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 300–309.

  284. 284.

    Art. 17 Brazil Model BIT (2015).

  285. 285.

    Art. 4 Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016).

  286. 286.

    Art. 8.44 CETA (2016); Sardinha E (2017) The new EU-led approach to investor-state arbitration: the investment tribunal system in the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) and the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 32:625–672, pp. 631–633.

  287. 287.

    Arts. 8.31.3 and 8.44.3 CETA (2016); Art. 4 Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016); Art. 24 India Model BIT (2015).

  288. 288.

    See, e.g., Art. 13(1) China-Tanzania BIT (2013); generally Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 269–270.

  289. 289.

    Art. 26 Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016); Art. 23 Brazil Model BIT (2015).

  290. 290.

    For example, Art. 26(2)(c) Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016); Art. 23(3)(c) Brazil Model BIT (2015).

  291. 291.

    Generally Tams CJ (2014) Procedural aspects of investor-state dispute settlement: the emergence of a European approach. J World Invest Trade 15:585–611, pp. 595–598; Sardinha E (2017) The new EU-led approach to investor-state arbitration: the investment tribunal system in the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) and the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 32:625–672, pp. 628–631; European Commission (2015) TTIP and beyond: enhancing the right to regulate and moving from current ad hoc arbitration towards an Investment Court, Concept Paper. https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/may/tradoc_153408.PDF.

  292. 292.

    Arts. 8.18ff CETA (2016); see also European Commission (2015) TTIP and beyond: enhancing the right to regulate and moving from current ad hoc arbitration towards an Investment Court, Concept Paper. https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/may/tradoc_153408.PDF, p. 7; Sardinha E (2017) The new EU-led approach to investor-state arbitration: the investment tribunal system in the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) and the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 32:625–672, pp. 633–650.

  293. 293.

    CETA (2016), Arts. 8.27 and 8.28.

  294. 294.

    Arts 50–52 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (signed 18 March 1965, entered into force 14 October 1966) 575 UNTS 159 (ICSID Convention); see also Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 300–309.

  295. 295.

    SDG 16.

  296. 296.

    See text accompanying n287.

  297. 297.

    For example, Arts 24 and 29 India Model BIT (2015).

  298. 298.

    For details, see text accompanying n105ff.

  299. 299.

    See cases cited in n4-n8.

  300. 300.

    Cf for many Dolzer R, Stevens M (1995) Bilateral investment treaties. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague/Boston/London, pp. 25–42; Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 44–76; see also references in n63 and n64.

  301. 301.

    See Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 58–60.

  302. 302.

    Chochorelou M, Espaliu Berdud C (2018) Sustainable development in new generation FTAs: could arbitrators further the principle through ISDS? Rev Eur Comp Int Environ Law 27:176–187, pp. 180–181.

  303. 303.

    Chochorelou M, Espaliu Berdud C (2018) Sustainable development in new generation FTAs: could arbitrators further the principle through ISDS? Rev Eur Comp Int Environ Law 27:176–187, pp. 180–181; Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 66–74.

  304. 304.

    Salini Costruttori SpA and Italstrade SpA. v Kingdom of Morocco (Decision on jurisdiction, 2001). ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4 [52] (Salini); for details, see Bischoff JA, Happ R (2015) The notion of investment. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law. Beck/Hart/Nomos, Baden-Baden/München/Oxford, pp. 495–544, p. 510.

  305. 305.

    Cf for the inconsistent arbitral practice Chochorelou M, Espaliu Berdud C (2018) Sustainable development in new generation FTAs: could arbitrators further the principle through ISDS? Rev Eur Comp Int Environ Law 27:176–187, pp. 180–181; Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 66–74.

  306. 306.

    Arts. 1 and 4(4) PAIC (2016).

  307. 307.

    Cf Mbengue M, Schacherer S (2017) The “Africanization” of international investment law: the Pan-African investment code and the reform of the international investment regime. J World Invest Trade 18:414–448, p. 434.

  308. 308.

    Cf Bischoff JA, Happ R (2015) The notion of investment. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law. Beck/Hart/Nomos, Baden-Baden/München/Oxford, pp. 495–544, pp. 513–514.

  309. 309.

    SGS Société Générale de Surveillance SA v Republic of Paraguay (Award, 2012) (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/29) (SGS), para 107.

  310. 310.

    See text accompanying n137ff.

  311. 311.

    See text accompanying n138 and n169ff.

  312. 312.

    For example, India Model BIT (2015), Art. 11; ECOWAS Supplementary Act (2008), Art. 11(2).

  313. 313.

    Arts. 20–24 PAIC (2016); Arts. 14, 17, and 19 Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016); on investor obligations, generally see text accompanying n161.

  314. 314.

    Arts. 14, 17, and 19 Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016).

  315. 315.

    Art. 8.18.3 CETA (2016); Tams CJ (2014) Procedural aspects of investor-state dispute settlement: the emergence of a European approach. J World Invest Trade 15:585–611, pp. 605–607.

  316. 316.

    Arts. 8.32 and 8.33 CETA (2016).

  317. 317.

    Art. 13.4 India Model BIT (2015).

  318. 318.

    Art. 21 India Model BIT (2015).

  319. 319.

    For example, Art. 20(9) COMESA Investment Agreement (2007), Art. 18(3)–(5) ECOWAS Supplementary Act (2008); Art. 43 PAIC (2016).

  320. 320.

    See Clodfelter MA, Tsutieva D (2018) Counterclaims in investment treaty arbitration. In: Yannaca-Small K (ed) Arbitration under international investment agreements. A guide to key issues, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 417–454, paras 17.19–17.94.

  321. 321.

    See Clodfelter MA, Tsutieva D (2018) Counterclaims in investment treaty arbitration. In: Yannaca-Small K (ed) Arbitration under international investment agreements. A guide to key issues, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 417–454, paras 17.06–17.18.

  322. 322.

    Saluka Investments BV v the Czech Republic (Decision on jurisdiction over the Czech Republic’s Counterclaim, 7 May 2004).

  323. 323.

    Gustav F W Hamester GmbH & Co KG v Republic of Ghana (Award, 2004). ICSID Case No. ARB/07/24 [353ff].

  324. 324.

    See Clodfelter MA, Tsutieva D (2018) Counterclaims in investment treaty arbitration. In: Yannaca-Small K (ed) Arbitration under international investment agreements. A guide to key issues, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 417–454, para 17.03.

  325. 325.

    On remedies, generally see Dolzer and Schreuer (2015), pp. 293–298.; Wittich S (2015) Investment arbitration: remedies. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law. Beck/Hart/Nomos, Baden-Baden/München/Oxford, pp. 1391–1430.

  326. 326.

    Cf Marboe I (2006) Compensation and damages in international law. The limits of “fair market value”. J World Invest Trade 7:723–759.

  327. 327.

    Cf The Factory at Chorzów (Claim for Indemnity) (The Merits), Germany v Poland (Judgment, 1929) 1928 PCIJ (Ser A) No. 17 [47]; Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001), UNGA Res A/RES/56/83, Annex, Arts. 31ff (ASR); see also for many ADC [484ff].

  328. 328.

    Cf UNCTAD (ed) (2012) Expropriation, UNCTAD series on issues in international investment agreements II. United Nations, New York/Geneva, p. 111; Marboe I (2006) Compensation and damages in international law. The limits of “fair market value”. J World Invest Trade 7:723–759, pp. 729–732; Marboe I (2015) The system of reparation and questions of terminology. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law. Beck/Hart/Nomos, Baden-Baden/München/Oxford, pp. 1031–1044, pp. 1033–1034; Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 287.

  329. 329.

    Cf The Factory at Chorzów, p. 47; Arts 31ff ASR; see also UNCTAD (ed) (2012) Expropriation, UNCTAD series on issues in international investment agreements II. United Nations, New York/Geneva, pp. 111–112; Marboe I (2015) The system of reparation and questions of terminology. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law. Beck/Hart/Nomos, Baden-Baden/München/Oxford, pp. 1031–1044, 1034–1040; see also ADC [484ff]; Biwater [773].

  330. 330.

    Cf also Marboe I (2006) Compensation and damages in international law. The limits of “fair market value”. J World Invest Trade 7:723–759, pp. 723–724; Marboe I (2015) The system of reparation and questions of terminology. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law. Beck/Hart/Nomos, Baden-Baden/München/Oxford, pp. 1031–1044, p. 1032.

  331. 331.

    For example, China-Ethiopia BIT (1998), Art. 4(1); Tanzania-United Kingdom BIT (1994), Art. 5(1); see also Dolzer R, Stevens M (1995) Bilateral investment treaties. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague/Boston/London, pp. 108–117.

  332. 332.

    See Franck SD (2019) Arbitration costs, myths and realities in investment treaty arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 141–180.

  333. 333.

    Cf for many ADC [480ff].

  334. 334.

    Cf, e.g., CMS [410]; Metalclad [113]; Biwater [777]; for an overview of the inconsistent practice, see Ratner SR (2017) Compensation for expropriations in a world of investment treaties: beyond the lawful/unlawful distinction. Am J Int Law 111:7–56 , pp. 16–18; see also UNCTAD (ed) (2012) Expropriation, UNCTAD series on issues in international investment agreements II. United Nations, New York/Geneva, pp. 120–122.

  335. 335.

    Cf Azurix [421ff] with further reference.

  336. 336.

    Cf, e.g., CETA (2016), Art. 8.12.2; India Model BIT (2015), Art. 5.1.

  337. 337.

    Art. 8.39.3 and 4 CETA (2016), Arts. 26.3 and 26.4 India Model BIT (2015).

  338. 338.

    Art. 26.3, id n4 India Model BIT (2015).

  339. 339.

    Arts. 18(2) and (4) ECOWAS Supplementary Act (2008).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public, International and European Law, University of Salzburg School of Law, Salzburg, Austria

    Gudrun Monika Zagel

Authors
  1. Gudrun Monika Zagel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gudrun Monika Zagel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong

    Julien Chaisse

  2. School of Business and Law, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK

    Leïla Choukroune

  3. Institute of Malaysia and International Studies, National University of Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

    Sufian Jusoh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Zagel, G.M. (2020). Achieving Sustainable Development Objectives in International Investment Law. In: Chaisse, J., Choukroune, L., Jusoh, S. (eds) Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5744-2_57-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5744-2_57-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-5744-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-5744-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Law and CriminologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation