A law for need or a law for greed?: Restoring the lost law in the international law of foreign investment

  • M. SornarajahEmail author
Original Paper


The 1990s brought about a change in the international law of foreign investment due to the primacy achieved by the tenets of neo-liberalism. They drove concerns about the environment and poverty away from the concerns of the law and gave priority to the interests of multinational corporations by enhancing their ability for movement of assets and the absolute protection of these assets through treaty rules. The regime created by this law was operated through secure systems of dispute settlement through arbitration which also enabled the stabilization of these rules. In the process, private power of a section within the hegemonic state was able to subvert international law through the use of low order sources of the law and secure a system of investment promotion and protection. The restoration of the more universal themes of environmental protection and poverty alleviation is necessary. This paper outlines the developments that accentuated the sectional interests of multinational capital and explores the means by which a change that reflects the global interests could be effected.


Investment Arbitration International law Environment Awards 



Association of South-East Asian Nations


Bilateral Investment Treaty


Free Trade Agreement


General Agreement on Trade in Services


International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes


International Institute for Sustainable Development


North American Free Trade Agreement


New International Economic Order


Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development


Trade-Related Investment Measures


United Nations Commission on International Trade Law


United Nations Conference on Trade and Development


World Trade Organization


  1. AAP v Sri Lanka (1991). International Legal Materials, 30, 577.Google Scholar
  2. Allott, P. (2004). The health of nations: Society and law beyond the state. Cambridge: CUP, p. 399.Google Scholar
  3. Amerasinghe, C. F. (2004). The local remedies rule (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barcelona Traction Case (1970). International Court of Justice Reports, 1. Google Scholar
  5. Brower, C. (1998). Iran-US claims tribunal. Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  6. Compania del Deserello Santa Elena v Costa Rica (2003) ICSID Reports, 5, 157.Google Scholar
  7. de Soto, H. (2000). The mystery of capitalism: Why capitalism triumphs in the west and fails elsewhere. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  8. Dezaley & Garth (1996) Dealing in virtue: International commercial arbiration and the construction of a transnational legal order. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dine, J. (2004). Companies, international trade and human rights. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  10. Dodge, W. (2006). Investor-state dispute settlement between developed countries: Reflections on the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 39, 1.Google Scholar
  11. Elkins et al. (1960–2000). Competing for capital: The diffusion of bilateral investment treaties, 1960–2000. online: <>.Google Scholar
  12. Fukuyuma, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gallagher, K. P., & Birch, M. (2006). Do investment agreements attract investment? Evidence from Latin America. European Journal of Development Research, (forthcoming in 2006).Google Scholar
  14. Goldsmith, J., & Posner, E. (2005). The limits of international law. New York: OUP.Google Scholar
  15. Hadiz, V. (2006). Empire and neoliberalism in Asia. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Hallward-Dreimeier, M. Do Bilateral Investment Treaties Attract FDI? Only a bit... and it might bite. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series, Number 3121. Washington: World Bank.Google Scholar
  17. Harvey, D. (2006). Spaces of global capitalism: Towards a theory of uneven geographical development. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  18. Jessup, P. (1956). Transnational law. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Joseph, S. (2004). Corporations and transnational human rights litigation. Oxford: Hart Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Keenan, F. (2005) How mumbo jumbo conquered the world. London, p. 50.Google Scholar
  21. Kronman, A. (1993). The lost lawyer: failing ideals of the legal profession. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Mah, A. (2004). Uneasy partnership and contradictions: Corporate, social and environmental responsibility. Paper presented to the 3rd Annual Global Studies Association Conference, Brandeis University, online:, analyses CSR as a “hegemonic discursive strategy” and as “a strategy for the legitimation of capitalism”.Google Scholar
  23. Mann, H., & von Moltke, K. (2005). A southern agenda on investment? Promoting development with balanced rights and obligations for investors, host states and home states. Winnipeg: IISD.Google Scholar
  24. Mann, H., von Moltke, K., Cosbey, A., & Peterson, L. E. (2005). IISD model international agreement on investment for sustainable development – Negotiators’ Handbook. Winnipeg: IISD.Google Scholar
  25. Metalclad (2000) Award at Scholar
  26. Milton, & Friedman, R. (1980). Free to choose: A personal statement. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  27. Neumayer, E., & Spess, L. (2005). Do bilateral investment treaties increase foreign direct investment to developing countries. online: (revised version, May, 2005).Google Scholar
  28. O’Brien, R., Goetz, A. M., Scholte, J. A., & Williams, M. (Eds.) (2000). Contesting global governance: Multilateral economic institutions and global social movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 18.Google Scholar
  29. OECD (2004). Report on fair and equitable standard of treatment in international investment law. Paris.Google Scholar
  30. Pogge, T. (Ed.) (2001). Global Justice. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  31. Pogge, T. (2002). World poverty and human rights. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  32. Pope and Talbot v Canada, NAFTA/UNCITRAL Tribunal (2002). International Legal Materials 41, 1347.Google Scholar
  33. Saad-Filho, A., & Johnston, D. (Eds.) (2005). Neo-liberalism: A critical reader. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Salacuse, J., & Sullivan, N. (2005). Do BITs really work: An evaluation of bilateral investment treaties and their grand bargain. Harvard Journal of International Law, 46, 67–130.Google Scholar
  35. Schreuer, C. (2005). Fair and equitable treatment in arbitral practice. Journal of World Investment and Trade 6, 357.Google Scholar
  36. Sell, S. (2003). Private power, public law: The globalization of intellectual property rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Shea, D. (1955). The calvo clause: A problem of Inter-American and international law and diplomacy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  38. Simmons, G., & Elkins (2006). Diffusion of bilateral investment treaties. International Organization.Google Scholar
  39. Sornarajah, M. (2003a). Linking state responsibility to corporate nationals abroad. In C. Scott (Ed.), Torture as tort. London: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  40. Sornarajah, M. (2003b). The settlement of foreign investment disputes. The Hague: Kluwer, p. 365.Google Scholar
  41. Stiglitz, J. (2003). The roaring nineties. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  42. Technica Medioambientales Techmed SA v Mexico (2004). International Legal Materials, 43, 133.Google Scholar
  43. Tobin, J., & Rose-Ackerman, S. (2005). Foreign direct investment and the business environment in developing countries: The impact of bilateral investment treaties, (2 May 2005) online:<>.Google Scholar
  44. Tumman, J. P., & Emmert, C. F. (2004). The political economy of U.S. Foreign Direct Investment in Latin America: A reappraisal. Latin American Research Review, 39(3), 9–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2004) State contracts. Geneva: United Nations.Google Scholar
  46. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (1998) Bilateral Investment Treaties in the Mid-1990s, 1998, New York, United Nations.Google Scholar
  47. Yanckee, J. (2005). Are BITS such a bright idea? Exploring the Ideational basis of investment treaty enthusiasm. UC Davis Journal of International Law & Policy, 12, 195.Google Scholar
  48. Yaung Chi Oo Ltd v Republic of Myanmar, (ASEAN Arbitral Tribunal) (2003). International Legal Materials, 42, 540.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Centre for Petroleum and Natural Resources LawUniversity of DundeeDundeeUK

Personalised recommendations