The Cross-Fertilisation of International Investment Law and International Humanitarian Law: Prospects and Pitfalls

  • Teerawat WongkaewEmail author
Part of the European Yearbook of International Economic Law book series (EUROYEAR)


This chapter examines the possible cross-fertilisation of international investment law (IIL) and international humanitarian law (IHL), applying the scholarship on judicial borrowing. Cross-fertilisation is understood as using IHL concepts and principles as the interpretive reference as opposed to direct application of those in IIL. The core argument is that the use of IHL concepts can facilitate the arbitrator in investment treaty disputes involving situations of armed conflicts. Notwithstanding some limitations and pitfalls of the cross-fertilisation, it offers a sophisticated framework for incorporating IHL into IIL provided that contextual, ideological and institutional similarities and differences between the two regimes are considered. The chapter concludes that the successful cross-fertilisation will bring clarity and precision to the IIA provisions, enhance legitimacy of arbitral awards and foster coherence in the interpretation of international law.


  1. Baetens F (2011) When international rules interact: international investment law and the law of armed conflict. Investment Treaty NewsGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnidge P (2006) The due diligence principle under international law. Int Community Law Rev 8(1):81–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bellal A (2017) The war report armed conflict in 2016, The Geneva academy of international humanitarian law and human rights. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Biehler G (2007) Property rights for individuals under international humanitarian law. Archiv des Völkerrechts 45(3):432–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bray HL (2013) SOI -Save Our Investments! International investment law and international humanitarian law. J World Invest Trade 14(3):578–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brilmayer L, Chepiga G (2008) Ownership or use? Civilian property interests in international humanitarian law. Harv Int Law J 2435:413–446Google Scholar
  7. Brown C (2008) The cross-fertilization of principles relating to procedure and remedies in the jurisprudence of international courts and tribunals. Loyola Los Angeles Int Comp Law Rev 30:219–245Google Scholar
  8. Cassese A (1998) On the current trends towards criminal prosecution and punishment of breaches of international humanitarian law. Eur J Int law 9:2–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chetail V (2003) The contribution of the international court of justice to international humanitarian law. Int Rev Red Cross 85(850):235–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cryer R (2010) The interplay of human rights and international humanitarian law: the approach of the ICTY. J Confl Secur Law 14(3):511–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Brabandere E (2016) ‘Host States’ due diligence obligations in international investment law. Syracuse J Int Law Commerce 42(2):319–360Google Scholar
  12. Dorrmann K, Serralvo J (2014) Common Article 1 to the Geneva Conventions and the obligation to prevent international humanitarian law violations. Int Rev Red Cross 96(895/896):707–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Douglas Z (2004) The hybrid foundations of investment treaty arbitration. Br Yearb Int Law 74(1):151–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Farrell M (2015) Just How Ill-treated Were You? An investigation of cross-fertilisation in the interpretative approaches to torture at the European Court of human rights and in international criminal law. Nordic J Int Law Source 84(3):482–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Forrest CJS (2007) The doctrine of military necessity and the protection of cultural property during armed conflicts. Calif West Int Law J 37(2):177–221Google Scholar
  16. Gallus N (2011) In: Brown C, Miles K (eds) Evolution in investment treaty law and arbitration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 223–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Geneuss J (2015) Obstacles to cross-fertilisation: the international criminal tribunals ‘Unique Context’ and the flexibility of the European Court of human rights case law. Nordic J Int Law 84(3):404–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Giorgetti C (2015) Cross-fertilisation of procedural law among international courts and tribunals: methods and meanings. In: Sarvarian A et al (eds) Procedural fairness in international courts and tribunals. Law School Journals at UR Scholarship Repository, pp 223–240Google Scholar
  19. Harmsen R and Wilson TM eds (2000) Europeanization: institution, identities and citizenship, yearbook of European studies, Rodopi, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  20. Hayashi N (2010) Requirements of military necessity in international humanitarian law and international criminal law. Boston Univ Int Law J 28(1):39–73Google Scholar
  21. Heintze HJ (2004) On the relationship between human rights law protection and international humanitarian law. Int Rev Red Cross 86(856):789–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hindelang S, Krajewskieds M (2016) Shifting paradigms in international investment law – more balanced, less isolated, increasingly diversified. Eur J Int Law 27(2):545–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jaquemet S (2001) The cross-fertilization of international humanitarian law and international refugee law. Int Rev Red Cross 83(843):651–674Google Scholar
  24. Kahn-Freund O (1974) On uses and misuses of comparative law. Mod Law Rev 37(1):1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Koskenniemi M (2006) Fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from diversification and expansion of international law. Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission Fifty-eighth session Geneva, 1 May–9 June and 3 July–11 August 2006Google Scholar
  26. Linderfalk U (2015) Cross-fertilization in international law. Nordic J Int Law 84(3):428–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maculan E (2015) Judicial definition of torture as a paradigm of cross-fertilization: combining harmonisation and expansion. Nordic J Int Law 84(3):456–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marco R (2010) The United Nations Security Council and the enforcement of international humanitarian law. Israel Law Rev 43:330–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mayorga O (2013) Arbitrating war: military necessity as a defense to the breach of investment treaty obligations, program on humanitarian policy and conflict research policy brief. Harvard University, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. McLachlan C (2005) The principle of systemic integration and Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention. Int Comp Law Q 54:279–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Melzer N (2009) Interpretive guidance on the notion of direct participation in hostilities. International Committee of the Red Cross, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  32. Momirov A, Naudé Fourie A (2009) Vertical comparative law methods: tools for conceptualizing the international rule of law. Erasmus Law Rev 2(3):291–309Google Scholar
  33. Moss GC (2008) In: August R (ed) Full protection and security standards of investment protection, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  34. Nelken D (2001) The meaning of success in transnational legal transfers. Windsor Yearb Access Justice 19:349–365Google Scholar
  35. Ostřanský J (2015) The termination and suspension of bilateral investment treaties due to an armed conflict. J Int Dispute Settlement 6(1):136–162. The ILC Draft Articles on the Effects of Armed Conflicts on TreatiesCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pauwelyn J (2004) Bridging fragmentation and unity: international law as a universe of inter-connected Islands. Mich J Int Law 25(4):903–916Google Scholar
  37. Pisillo-Mazzeschi R (1992) The due diligence rule and the nature of the international responsibility of states. German Yearb Int Law 35:47–48Google Scholar
  38. Rachovitsa A (2017) The principle of systemic integration in human rights law - a critical appraisal. Int Comp Law Q 66:557–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sandoz Y, Swinarski C, Zimmerman B (eds) (1987) Commentary on the additional protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. ICRC, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  40. Sands P (1998) Treaty, custom and the cross-fertilization of international law. Yale Hum Rights Dev J 1(1):85–106. Article 4Google Scholar
  41. Schmitt MN (2010) Military necessity and humanity in international humanitarian law: preserving the delicate balance. Va J Int Law 50(4):795–839Google Scholar
  42. Schreuer C (2012) The protection of investment in armed conflicts. TDM J 3Google Scholar
  43. Slaughter AM (1994) A typology of transjudicial communications. Univ Richmond Law Rev 29(1):99–138Google Scholar
  44. Tabak S (2016) Ambivalent enforcement: international humanitarian law at human rights tribunals. Mich J Int Law 37(4):661–712Google Scholar
  45. The ICRC Advisory Service on International Humanitarian Law (2004) What is international humanitarian law?Google Scholar
  46. Tomuschat C (2010) Human rights and international humanitarian law. Eur J Int Law 21(1):15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Voeten E (2010) Borrowing and nonborrowing among international courts. J Leg Stud 39(2):547–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Volterra R (2010) International law commission articles on state responsibility and investor-state arbitration: do investors have rights? ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 25(1):218–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Weiler JHH, Trachtman Joel P (1997) European constitutionalism and its discontents. Northwest J Int Law Bus 17(1):354–397Google Scholar
  50. Wiener A, Liste P (2014) Lost without translation? Cross-referencing and a new global community of courts. Indiana J Global Leg Stud 21(1):263–296. Article 10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yotova R (2017) Systemic integration: an instrument for reasserting the state’s control in investment arbitration? University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 37/2017Google Scholar
  52. Zegveld L (2003) Remedies for victims of violations of international humanitarian law. Int Committee Red Cross 85:497–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ministry of Foreign AffairsBangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations