Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Full Protection and Security in International Investment Law

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((EYIELMONO,volume 8))

  • 633 Accesses

Abstract

The FPS standard embodies the customary duty to provide protection and security to aliens. The obligation has been the subject of numerous political and legal disputes throughout the centuries. Most present-day investment treaties include an FPS clause. Still, the meaning and scope of the obligation continues to be the subject of intense controversy. Debate has chiefly focused on whether FPS is a guarantee of physical security only or ensures legal security too. In addition, FPS’s complex connection to the notion of due diligence poses significant challenges for theory and practice.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a historical account of the incident see: Mercedes Chen Daley, ‘The Watermelon Riot: Cultural Encounters in Panama City, April 15, 1856’ (1990) 70(1) HAHR 85, 85-90. For a more detailed account of the facts see: John Bassett Moore, History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to which the United States has been a Party (Volume 2: Government Printing Office, Washington 1898) 1362-6. See also: John Bassett Moore, ‘The Responsibility of Governments for Mob Violence’ (1892) 5 Columb. L. T. 211, 212-3; Michael Donoghue, ‘Watermelon Riot, Panama (1856)’ in Alan McPherson (ed), Encyclopedia of U.S. Military Interventions in Latin America (Volume 1: ABC-Clio, Santa Barbara CA 2013) 688-90; Aimes McGuinness, Path of Empire. Panama and the California Gold Rush (Cornell University Press, New York 2008) 1-3, 123 et seq.; George Washington Crichfield, American Supremacy. The Rise and Progress of the Latin American Republics and their Relations to the United States under the Monroe Doctrine (Volume 2: Bentano’s, New York 1908) 203-9; Óscar Guardiola, What if Latin America Ruled the World? How the South Will Take the North into the 22nd Century (Bloomsbury Publishing Plc., London 2010) 223-5. For a description of the facts from the American perspective, see: Amos Corwine, ‘The Panama Massacre. Report of the United States Commissioner of July 18, 1856/Evidence Taken at Panama’ The New York Times, September 23, 1856.

  2. 2.

    The Republic of New Granada (República de la Nueva Granada) encompassed the present-time national territories of Colombia and Panama. It also included areas that are nowadays part of Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The Republic was established in 1832 and was replaced in 1858 by the Granadine Confederation. See generally: David Bushnell, The Making of Modern Colombia: A Nation in Spite of Itself (University of California University Press, London 1993) 74-100.

  3. 3.

    The treaty was explicit in the protection of this core political interest. See: Treaty of Peace, Amity, Navigation, and Commerce between the United States of America and the Republic of New Granada (adopted 12 December 1846, entered into force 18 February 1848) Charles Bevans (ed), Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America 1776–1949 (Volume 6: U.S. Department of State Publication, Washington 1971) 868, 868 art. 35.

  4. 4.

    Treaty of Peace, Amity, Navigation, and Commerce between the United States of America and the Republic of New Granada (adopted 12 December 1846, entered into force 18 February 1848) Charles Bevans (ed), Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America 1776—1949 (Volume 6: U.S. Department of State Publication, Washington 1971) 868, 872 art. 13. The Treaty further guaranteed American citizens ‘the most perfect and entire security of conscience without being annoyed, prevented, or disturbed on account of their religious belief’ (art. 14).

  5. 5.

    For a compilation of the most relevant documents of the diplomatic crisis see: Luis Santamaría (ed), Final Diplomatic Controversy relating to the Occurrences that Took Place at Panama on the 15th of April, 1856 (Mail Office, Liverpool 1857).

  6. 6.

    Amos Corwine, ‘The Panama Massacre. Report of the United States Commissioner of July 18, 1856/Evidence Taken at Panama’ The New York Times, September 23, 1856.

  7. 7.

    Amos Corwine, ‘The Panama Massacre. Report of the United States Commissioner of July 18, 1856/Evidence Taken at Panama’ The New York Times, September 23, 1856 (“I feel it a duty incumbent on me to recommend the immediate occupancy of the Isthmus, from Ocean to Ocean, by the United States, as the best practicable mode to insure safety and tranquility to the transit; unless New-Granada […] in pursuance of treaty stipulations, can satisfy us as to her ability and inclination to afford the proper protection and make speedy and ample atonement for the wrongs inflicted upon our countrymen by the people and officials of the State of Panama”). See also: ‘Note of the Legation of the United States to the Honourables Mssrs. Lino de Pombo and Florentino González, Commissioners on the part of New Granada’ (26 February 1857) in Luis Santamaría (ed), Final Diplomatic Controversy relating to the Occurrences that Took Place at Panama on the 15th of April, 1856 (Mail Office, Liverpool 1857) 37, 39 (underscoring that New Granada seemed to be ‘either unable or unwilling to enforce those guarantees, or to give such protection as by the treaty and the charter of the Railroad Company she is pledged to do so’).

  8. 8.

    Robert Harding, The History of Panama (Greenwood Press, Westport 2006) 21; Michael Donoghue, ‘Watermelon Riot, Panama (1856)’ in Alan McPherson (ed), Encyclopedia of U.S. Military Interventions in Latin America (Volume 1: ABC-Clio, Santa Barbara CA 2013) 688, 690.

  9. 9.

    On the influence of the poem see: Aimes McGuinness, Path of Empire. Panama and the California Gold Rush (Cornell University Press, New York 2008) 153; João Feres, La historia del concepto “Latin America” en los Estados Unidos de América (Universidad de Cantabria, Santander 2008) 60; Walter Mignolo, The Idea of Latin America (Blackwell Publishing, Oxford 2005) 79-80. For a critical discussion on the origin of the term ‘Latin America’ see: Miguel Rojas Mix, Los cien nombres de América, eso que descubrió Colón (Universidad de Costa Rica, San José 1997) 343-7.

  10. 10.

    The poem appeared in a Spanish-language pamphlet titled El Correo Ultramar published in Paris on 15th February, 1857. See: Álvaro García San Martín, ‘Francisco Bilbao y el proyecto latinoamericano’ in Andrés Kozel and Héctor Palma (eds), Heterodoxia y fronteras en América Latina (Teseo, Buenos Aires 2013) 129, 131.

  11. 11.

    The verses read: “Its large banner needs more stars; its trade requires more regions; but free banners flap in the South. – Let them fall! Says the powerful Union. Central America is being invaded; the Isthmus, constantly threatened; and Walker, the pirate, supported by the North. What a deceitful nation!” Author’s translation. The original Spanish text reads: “A su ancho pabellón estrellas faltan, requiere su comercio otras regiones; mas flotan en el Sur libres pendones – Que caigan! dice la potente Unión. La América central es invadida, el Istmo sin cesar amenazado, y Walker, el pirata, es apoyado, por la del Norte pérfida nación!” The full text of the poem was reproduced in a collection of Torres Caicedo’s poetic works, published in 1860. See: José María Torres Caicedo, Religión, patria y amor. Colección de versos escritos (Th. Ducessoirs, Paris 1860) 448-61.

  12. 12.

    José María Torres Caicedo, ‘Importante cuestión de derecho de gentes. A propósito del conflicto venezolano-hispano en 1860’ in José María Torres Caicedo, Unión Latino-Americana (Librería de Rosa y Bouret, Paris 1865) 307, 313. On the origins of the Calvo Doctrine see Sect. 4.3.1.

  13. 13.

    ‘Extract from the Presidential Message to the Congress of New Granada’ (1 February 1857) in Luis Santamaría (ed), Final Diplomatic Controversy relating to the Occurrences that Took Place at Panama on the 15th of April, 1856 (Mail Office, Liverpool 1857) 47, 49-50.

  14. 14.

    Convention between the United States of America and the Republic of New Granada (adopted 10 September 1857, entered into force 5 November 1860) Charles Bevans (ed), Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America 1776—1949 (Volume 6: U.S. Department of State Publication, Washington 1971) 888, 889, art. I.

  15. 15.

    Convention between the United States of America and the Republic of New Granada (adopted 10 September 1857, entered into force 5 November 1860) Charles Bevans (ed), Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America 1776—1949 (Volume 6: U.S. Department of State Publication, Washington 1971) 888, 891, Explanatory Note No. 1.

  16. 16.

    Convention between the United States of America and the Republic of New Granada (adopted 10 September 1857, entered into force 5 November 1860) Charles Bevans (ed), Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America 1776—1949 (Volume 6: U.S. Department of State Publication, Washington 1971) 888, 889-90 art. II. For a detailed account of the Claims Commission’s work see: John Bassett Moore, History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to which the United States has been a Party (Volume 2: Government Printing Office, Washington 1898) 1361-96.

  17. 17.

    See: Robert Harding, The History of Panama (Greenwood Press, Westport 2006) 21-2; Alan McPherson, Yankee No! Anti Americanism in U.S.–Latin American Relations (Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA/London 2003), 78-81. Panama declared its independence from Colombia on November 3rd, 1903. The Roosevelt Administration recognized the Republic of Panama on November 6th, 1903. A few days later, the United States and Panama signed the Panama Canal Convention. See: Convention between the United States and the Republic of Panama for the Construction of a Ship Canal to Connect the Waters of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans (adopted 18 November 1903, entered into force 26 February 1904) Papers relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States with the Annual Message of the President (Government Printing Office, Washington 1905) 543-52. For a critical discussion of the recognition of Panama by the United States see: Moorfield Storey, The Recognition of Panama (Geo. H. Ellis Co. Printers, Boston 1904).

  18. 18.

    Chapter 3 presents a survey of early scholarly writings on the subject.

  19. 19.

    See Chap. 4et seq.

  20. 20.

    See Chaps. 5, 7, 8 and 14.

  21. 21.

    For representative examples of international investment treaties containing FPS clauses see: Martin Paparinskis, Basic Documents on International Investment Protection (Hart Publishing, Portland OR 2012). See also Chap. 14.

  22. 22.

    Treaty between the Federal Republic of Germany and Pakistan for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (adopted 25 November 1959, entered into force 28 April 1962) art. 3(1).

  23. 23.

    Chapter 14 addresses the wording of FPS clauses in detail.

  24. 24.

    Section 14.2 provides representative examples of these treaty clauses.

  25. 25.

    Adel A Hamadi Al Tamini v Oman, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/33 (3 November 2015) [380, 382 and 448-52]; ADF v United States, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/1 (9 January 2003) [182-6]; AES Corporation and Tau Power B.V. v Kazakhstan, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/16 (1 November 2013) [337-9]; AES Summit Generation Ltd. and AES-Tisza Erömü Kft. v Hungary, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22 (23 September 2010) [13.3]; American Manufacturing & Trading Inc. v Zaire, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB 93/1 (21 February 1997) [6.04-6.11]; Ampal-American Israel Corp., Egi-Fund (08-10) Investors LLC, Egi-Series Investments LLC and BSS-EMG Investors LLC v Egypt, Decision on Liability and Heads of Loss, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11 (21 February 2017) [150, 187, 194-216, 235-47, 271-4, 283-91 and 350(d)]; Anglo American PLC v Venezuela, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/14/1 (18 January 2019) [473-85]; Asian Agricultural Products v Sri Lanka, Final Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/87/3 (17 June 1990) [45 et seq.]; Azurix Corp. v Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12 (14 July 2006) [406-8]; Bernhard Friedrich Arnd Rüdiger von Pezold et al. v Zimbabwe, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/15 (28 July 2015) [593-9]; Biwater Gauff Ltd. v Tanzania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22 (24 July 2008) [724-31]; Československá Obchodní Banka A.S. v Slovakia, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/4 (29 December 2004) [161, 170 and 183]; Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3 (20 August 2007) [7.4.13-7.4.17]; Convial Callao S.A. and CCI – Compañía de Concesiones de Infraestructura S.A. v Peru, Laudo Final, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/2 (21 May 2013) [641-62]; Crystallex International Corp. v Venezuela, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/11/2 (4 April 2016) [632-5]; Deutsche Bank AG v Sri Lanka, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/02 (31 October 2012) [535-8]; EDF International S.A., Saur International S.A. and Leon Participaciones Argentinas S.A. v Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/23 (11 June 2012) [403-20 and 1108-12]; Electrabel S.A. v Hungary, Decision on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law and Liability, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19 (30 November 2012) [7.80 et seq. and 7.145-7]; El Paso Energy International Co. v Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15 (31 October 2011) [522-5]; Emilio Agustín Maffezini v Spain, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7 (13 November 2000) [83]; Enron Corp. and Ponderosa Assets L.P. v Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3 (22 May 2007) [284-7]; Gea Group Aktiengesellschaft v Ukraine, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/16 (31 March 2011) [242-67]; Gemplus S.A., SLP S.A. and Gemplus Industrial S.A. de C.V. v Mexico, Award, ICSID Cases No. ARB(AF)/04/3 & ARB(AF)/04/4 (16 June 2010) [9.9-9.14]; Gold Reserve Inc. v Venezuela, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/09/1 (22 September 2014) [622-3]; Impregilo S.p.A. v Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/17 (21 June 2011) [334]; Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v Egypt, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13 (6 November 2008) [266-71]; Joseph Charles Lemire v Ukraine, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18 (14 January 2010) [246 and 496]; Joseph Houben v Burundi, Sentence, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/7 (12 January 2016) [157-79]; Koch Minerals SÁRL and Koch Nitrogen International SÁRL v Venezuela, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/19 (30 October 2017) [8.42-8.46]; LESI S.p.A. and ASTALDI S.p.A. v Algeria, Sentence, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/3 (12 November 2008) [152-4]; Liman Caspian Oil BV and NCL Dutch Investment BV v Kazakhstan, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/14 (22 June 2010) [289]; Loewen Group Inc. and Raymond L. Loewen v United States, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/98/3 (26 June 2003) [124 et seq.; particularly at 128]; Mamidoil Jetoil Greek Petroleum Products Societe S.A. v Albania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/24 (30 March 2015) [799-829]; Marion Unglaube and Reinhard Unglaube v Costa Rica, Award, ICSID Cases No. ARB/01/1 and ARB/09/20 (16 May 2012) [280-8]; M.C.I. Power Group L.C. and New Turbine Inc. v Ecuador, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/6 (31 July 2007) [245-6 and 252 et seq.]; Mercer International Inc. v Canada, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/3 (6 March 2018) [7.80]; Millicom International Operations B.V. and Sentel GMS SA v Senegal, Decision on Jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/20 (16 July 2010) [65]; MNSS B.V. and Recupero Credito Acciaio N.V. v Montenegro, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/8 (4 May 2016) [348-56]; Mobil Exploration and Development Argentina Inc. Suc. Argentina and Mobil Argentina S.A. v Argentina, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/16 (10 April 2013) [988-1005]; Mondev International v United States, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/2 (11 October 2002) [113-25]; Noble Ventures v Romania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/11 (12 October 2005) [164-7]; OI European Group B.V. v Venezuela, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/25 (10 March 2015) [571-81]; Pantechniki S.A. Contractors & Engineers v Albania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/21 (30 July 2009) [71-84]; Parkerings-Compagniet AS v Lithuania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8 (11 September 2007) [354-61]; Plama Consortium Ltd. v Bulgaria, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24 (27 August 2008) [179-81, 194, 222, 226, 229, 236, 248-55, 259, 270-1, 277-84 and 325]; PSEG Global Inc. and Konya Ilgin Elektrik Üretim ve Ticaret Limited Şirketi v Turkey, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/5 (19 January 2007) [257-9]; Rumeli Telekom A.S. and Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. v Kazakhstan, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/16 (29 July 2008) [668-70]; Rusoro Mining Ltd. v Venezuela, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/5 (22 August 2016) [542-54]; Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Europe v Venezuela, Decision on Liability and the Principles of Quantum, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/13 (30 December 2016) [550-65]; SAUR International S.A. v Argentina, Décision sur la compétence et sur la responsabilité, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/4 (6 June 2012) [499-501 and 508-11]; Sempra Energy International v Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16 (28 September 2007) [321-4]; Siemens AG v Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8 (6 February 2007) [301-9]; Suez Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v Argentina, Decision on Liability, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19 (30 July 2010) [158-79]; Spyridon Roussalis v Romania, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1 (7 December 2011) [319-22]; Tecnicas Medioambientales TECMED S.A. v Mexico, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2 (29 May 2003) [175-81]; Teinver S.A., Transportes de Cercanías S.A. and Autobuses Urbanos del Sur S.A. v Argentina, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/1 (21 July 2017) [866-910]; Tenaris S.A. and Talta-Trading E Marketing Sociedade Unipessoal Lda. v Venezuela, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/26 (29 January 2016) [438-48]; Tokios Tokelés v Ukraine, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18 (26 July 2007) [85-5 and 123 et seq.]; Total S.A. v Argentina, Decision on Liability, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/1 (27 December 2010) [343]; Toto Costruzioni Generali S.p.A. v Lebanon, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/12 (7 June 2012) [226-30]; Tulip Real Estate Investment and Development Netherlands B.V. v Turkey, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/28 (10 March 2014) [419-37]; Vannessa Ventures Ltd. v Venezuela, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)04/6 (16 January 2013) [216-32]; Waguih George Siag and Clorinda Vecchi v Egypt, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/15 (1 June 2009) [445-8]; Waste Management v Mexico, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/3 (30 April 2004) [91 and 96]; Wena Hotels Ltd. v Egypt, Award, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4 (8 December 2000) [83-95 and 134].

  26. 26.

    Achmea B.V. v Slovakia (UNCITRAL), Award on Jurisdiction, Arbitrability and Suspension, PCA Case No. 2008-13 (26 October 2010) [259-63 and 284]; Anglia Auto Accessories Ltd. v Czech Republic, Final Award, SCC Case No. V 2014/181 (10 March 2017) [190]; BG Group v Argentina (UNCITRAL), Final Award (24 December 2007) [323-8]; CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd., Devas Employees Mauritius Private Ltd. and Telcom Devas Mauritius Ltd. v India (UNCITRAL), Award on Jurisdiction and Merits, PCA Case No. 2013-09 (25 July 2016) [491-500]; CME Czech Republic B.V. v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Partial Award (13 September 2001) [351-8 and 613]; Eastern Sugar B.V. v Czech Republic, Partial Award, SCC Case No. 088/2004 (27 March 2007) [201-7]; Eureko B.V. v Poland (Ad Hoc Arbitration), Partial Award (19 August 2005) [236-7]; Frontier Petroleum Ltd. v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Final Award (12 November 2010) [260-73]; Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Ltd. et al. v United States of America (UNCITRAL), Award (12 January 2011) [174-6]; Hesham Talaat M. Al-Warraq v Indonesia (UNCITRAL), Final Award (15 December 2014) [622-30]; I.P. Busta and J.P. Busta v Czech Republic, Final Award, SCC Case No. V 2015/014 (10 March 2017) [165 and 422]; Isolux Netherlands B.V. v Spain, Laudo, SCC Case No. V 2013/153 (17 July 2016) [816-9]; Iurii Bogdanov et al. v Moldova (SCC), Arbitral Award (22 September 2005) 15; Jan Oostergetel and Theodora Laurentius v Slovakia (UNCITRAL), Final Award (23 April 2012) [305-8]; Mohammad Ammar Al-Bahloul v Tajikistan, Partial Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, SCC Case No. V 064/2008 (9 September 2009) [243-7]; National Grid P.L.C. v Argentina (UNCITRAL), Award (3 November 2008) [187-90]; OAO Tatneft v Ukraine (UNCITRAL), Award (29 July 2014) [414-30]; Occidental Exploration and Production Co. v Ecuador, Final Award, LCIA Case No. UN 3467 (1 July 2004) [180 and 187]; Oxus Gold v Uzbekistan (UNCITRAL), Final Award (17 December 2015) [348 et seq. and 829 et seq.]; Peter A. Allard v Barbados (UNCITRAL), Award (27 June 2016) [239-52]; Ronald Lauder v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Final Award (3 September 2001) [305-14]; Saluka Investments v Czech Republic (UNCITRAL), Partial Award (17 March 2006) [483-96]; Sergei Paushok, CJSC Golden East Co., CJSC Vostoknefte v Mongolia (UNCITRAL), Award on Jurisdiction and Liability (28 April 2011) [278-9 and 322-7]; Ulysseas Inc. v Ecuador (UNCITRAL), Final Award (12 June 2012) [271-4]; William Ralph Clayton, William Richard Clayton, Douglas Clayton, Daniel Clayton and Bilicon of Delaware Inc. v Canada (UNCITRAL), Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, PCA Case No. 2009-05 (17 March 2015) [360, 376, 392-3, 422-3, 427 et seq. and 742(a)(ii)]; Windstream Energy LLC v Canada (UNCITRAL), Award (27 September 2016) [355-8].

  27. 27.

    Academic publications about the FPS standard include: Caline Mouawad and Sarah Vasani, ‘Energy Disputes in Times of Civil Unrest: Transitional Governments and Foreign Investment Protections’ in Arthur Rovine (ed), Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration and Mediation (Brill, Leiden/Boston 2015) 234, 242-9; Catharine Titi, ‘Full Protection and Security, Arbitrary or Discriminatory Treatment and the Invisible EU Model BIT’ (2014) 14 J. World Investment & Trade 534-50; Christoph Schreuer, ‘Full Protection and Security’ (2010) 1(2) J. Int’l Disp. Settlement 353-69; Eric De Brabandere, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment and (Full) Protection and Security in African Investment Treaties: Between Generality and Contextual Specificity’ (2017) Grotius Centre Working Paper 2017/063 1-25; Eric De Brabandere, ‘Host States’ Due Diligence Obligations in International Investment Law’ (2014-5) 42 Syracuse J. Int’l L. & Com. 319-61; Finnur Magnússon, Full Protection and Security in International Law (University of Vienna, Vienna 2012); Francisco Endara Flores, ‘La protección y seguridad plena de las inversiones. ¿El estándar olvidado de los tratados bilaterales de inversión?’ (2009) 2 Revista de Derecho Público 443-60; Geneviève Bastid Burdeau, ‘La clause de protection et sécurité pleine et entière’ (2015) 119(1) RGDIP 87-101; George Foster, ‘Recovering “Protection and Security”: The Treaty Standard’s Obscure Origins, Forgotten Meaning, and Key Current Significance’ (2012) 45(4) Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 1095-156; Giuditta Cordero Moss, ‘Full Protection and Security’ in August Reinisch (ed), Standards of Investment Protection (Oxford University Press, New York 2008) 131-50; Gleider Hernández, ‘The Interaction Between Investment Law and the Law of Armed Conflict in the Interpretation of Full Protection and Security Clauses’ in Freya Baetens (ed), Investment Law within International Law (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2013) 21-50; Heather Bray, ‘SOI – Save Our Investments! International Investment Law and International Humanitarian Law’ (2013) 14 J. World Investment & Trade 578-94; Helge Elisabeth Zeitler, ‘Full Protection and Security’ in Stephan Schill (ed), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (Oxford University Press, New York 2010) 183-212; Helge Elisabeth Zeitler, ‘The Guarantee of Full Protection and Security in Investment Treaties regarding Harm Caused by Private Parties’ (2005) 3 SIAR 1-34; J. Anthony VanDuzer, ‘Full Protection and Security’ in Thomas Cottier and Krista Nadakavukaren Schefer (eds), Elgar Encyclopedia of International Economic Law (Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton MA 2018) 212-4; John Riggs, ‘Investment Protection in Colombia: Can Investors Rely on the Full Protection and Security Clause?’ (2014) 7(3) J. World Investment & Trade 264-73; Levon Golendukhin, ‘Reference to Intellectual Property Treaty Norms in Full Protection and Security and Fair and Equitable Treatment Claims’ in Ian Laird, Borzu Sabahi, Frédéric Sourgens and Todd Weiler (eds), Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law (Juris Net, Huntington NY 2018) 89-110; Lucas Bastin, State Responsibility for Omissions: Establishing a Breach of the Full Protection and Security Obligation by Omissions (Oxford University, Oxford 2016) [D.Phil. Thesis]; Lucas Bastin, Violation of the Full Protection and Security Obligation by Regulatory Omissions [M.Phil. Thesis] (Oxford University, Oxford 2011); Margarita Sánchez and Robert DeRise, ‘The Full Measure of Full Protection and Security’ in Ian Laird, Borzu Sabahi, Frédéric Sourgens and Todd Weiler (eds), Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law (Juris Net, Huntington NY 2015) 99-123; Nartnirun Junngam, ‘The Full Protection and Security Standard in International Investment Law: What and Who is Investment Fully[?] Protected and Secured From?’ (2018) 7(1) AUBLR 1-100; Nicole O’Donnell, ‘Reconciling Full Protection and Security Guarantees in Bilateral Investment Treaties with Incidence of Terrorism’ (2018) 29(3) ARIA 293-313; Nnaemeka Nwokedi Anozie, The Full Security and Protection Due Diligence Obligation (University of Ottawa, Ottawa 2016) [LL.M. Thesis]; Onyema Awa Oyeani, The Obligation of Host States to Accord the Standard of “Full Protection and Security” to Foreign Investments under International Investment Law (Brunel University, London 2018) [D.Phil. Thesis]; Petr Stejskal, ‘War: Foreign Investments in Danger – Can International Humanitarian Law or Full Protection and Security Always Save It?’ (2017) 8 CYIL 529-49; Ralph Alexander Lorz, ‘Protection and Security (Including the NAFTA Approach)’ in Marc Bungenberg, Jörn Griebel, Stephan Hobe and August Reinisch (eds), International Investment Law (Nomos, Baden-Baden 2015) 764-89; Robert Reyes Landicho, ‘Enforcing a State’s International IP Obligations through Investment Law Standards of Protection – An Ill-Fated Romance’ in Ian Laird, Borzu Sabahi, Frédéric Sourgens and Todd Weiler (eds), Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law (Juris Net, Huntington NY 2018) 111-32; Stanimir Alexandrov, ‘The Evolution of the Full Protection and Security Standard’ in Meg Kinnear, Geraldine Fischer, Jara Mínguez Almeida, Luisa Torres and Mairée Uran Bidegain (eds), Building International Investment Law. The First 50 Years of ICSID (Wolters Kluwer/ICSID, Alphen aan den Rijn 2016) 319-29; Todd Weiler, The Interpretation of International Investment Law: Equality, Discrimination, and Minimum Standards of Treatment in Historical Context (Brill, Leiden 2013) 59-182. In addition to these academic publications, most textbooks on international investment law include some brief reference to the FPS standard.

  28. 28.

    Section 15.2 addresses the FET standard and its relationship to the FPS standard.

  29. 29.

    See Chap. 5.

  30. 30.

    See, for example, the debate on whether FPS encompasses the notion of legal stability (at Sect. 9.3).

  31. 31.

    Chapter 9 provides some examples of these argumentative deficits. For a detailed analysis of the use of assertion as a means to determine international custom see: Stefan Talmon, ‘Determining Customary International Law: The ICJ’s Methodology between Induction, Deduction and Assertion’ (2015) 26(2) EJIL 417, 434-40 (particularly focusing on ICJ decisions).

  32. 32.

    For two representative examples see: George Foster, ‘Recovering “Protection and Security”: The Treaty Standard’s Obscure Origins, Forgotten Meaning, and Key Current Significance’ (2012) 45(4) Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 1095, 1095-156; Todd Weiler, The Interpretation of International Investment Law: Equality, Discrimination, and Minimum Standards of Treatment in Historical Context (Brill, Leiden 2013) 59-182.

  33. 33.

    Chapter 9 provides an overview of this particular subject.

  34. 34.

    Section 9.3 provides a critical analysis of this line of argument.

  35. 35.

    Sections 9.2 and 9.4 discuss the notions of physical and nonphysical security.

  36. 36.

    Section 8.3 addresses the sources of risk covered by the customary FPS standard.

  37. 37.

    It is worth noting that some publicists have suggested that FPS and due diligence are not unavoidably intertwined. According to them, the notion of due diligence is only relevant in respect of the use of the municipal legal and administrative system in the prevention and punishment of private injuries to aliens. In all other cases, they argue, a breach of FPS is not dependent on a lack of diligence. Section 11.2.3.2 discusses these views in detail.

  38. 38.

    See Chap. 11.

  39. 39.

    See Chaps. 12 and 13.

  40. 40.

    For an overview of the legitimacy concerns arising out of the inconsistent application of investment protection standards see: Muthucumaraswamy Sornarajah, ‘A Coming Crisis: Expansionary Trends in Investment Treaty Arbitration’ in Karl Sauvant (ed), Appeals Mechanism in International Investment Disputes (Oxford University Press, New York 2008) 39, 41 et seq.; Stephan Schill, ‘International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law – An Introduction’ in Stephan Schill (ed), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (Oxford University Press, New York 2010) 3, 4-7; Trihn Hai Yen, The Interpretation of International Investment Treaties (Brill, Leiden 2014) 9 et seq. For some critical remarks about the call for consistency in investment law see: Irene Ten Cate, ‘The Costs of Consistency: Precedent in Investment Treaty Arbitration’ (2013) 51 Columb. J. Transnat’l L. 418-78; Thomas Schultz, ‘Against Consistency in Investment Arbitration’ in Zachary Douglas, Joost Pauwelyn and Jorge Viñuales (eds), The Foundations of International Investment Law. Bringing Theory into Practice (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2014) 297-316.

  41. 41.

    The aspiration to accuracy does not only pertain to academic undertakings, but is moreover fundamental to international adjudication. On the role of ‘accuracy’ in international arbitration see generally: William Park, ‘Arbitrators and Accuracy’ (2010) 1(1) J. Int’l Disp. Settlement 25-53 (particularly referring to fact-finding but also considering ‘the arbitrator’s truth-seeking function with respect to legal norms’ at pp. 42 et seq.). On the trade-off between consistency and accuracy in investment arbitration see: Irene Ten Cate, ‘The Costs of Consistency: Precedent in Investment Treaty Arbitration’ (2013) 51 Columb. J. Transnat’l L. 418, 457-9 (particularly focusing on consistency as a restraint on the exercise of adjudicatory authority).

  42. 42.

    Chapter 2 elaborates further on these ideas.

  43. 43.

    Section 8.3.3.1 discusses the notion of ‘collateral damages’ in detail.

  44. 44.

    Chapter 6 explains the distinction between the FPS standard’s scope of application and its content.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bonn, Germany

    Sebastián Mantilla Blanco

Authors
  1. Sebastián Mantilla Blanco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mantilla Blanco, S. (2019). Introduction. In: Full Protection and Security in International Investment Law. European Yearbook of International Economic Law(), vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24838-3_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24838-3_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-24837-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-24838-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation