Advertisement

The Third Generation of National Security Exceptions: Protecting the Sovereign State

  • Sebastián Mantilla Blanco
  • Alexander Pehl
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Law book series (BRIEFSLAW)

Abstract

The latest treaty practice indicates a trend to introduce broadly-worded security exceptions into investment and trade agreements. This third generation is driven by the goal of ensuring that the State enjoys an ample degree of discretion in the protection of its security interests. Reluctance to interpret security exceptions as self-judging provisions has led some States to go as far as to include explicit language excluding them from the scope of dispute settlement clauses.

References

  1. Brewster R (2018) The Trump administration and the future of the WTO. Yale J Int Law 44:1–10Google Scholar
  2. Brewster R (2019) Analyzing the Trump administration’s international Trade strategy. Fordham Int Law J. 42:1419–1430Google Scholar
  3. de Mestral A, Vanhonnaeker L (2017) Exception clauses in mega-regionals (international investment protection and trade agreements). In: Rensmann T (ed) Mega-regional trade agreements. Springer, Cham, pp 75–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hahn M (1991) Vital interests and the Law of GATT: an analysis of GATT’s security exception. Mich J Int Law 12:558–620Google Scholar
  5. Henckels C (2018) Should investment treaties contain public policy exceptions? Boston College Law Rev 59(1):2825–2844Google Scholar
  6. Herdegen M (2016) The dynamics of international law in a globalised world. Cosmopolitan values, constructive consent and diversity of legal cultures. Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  7. Koh H (2019) The Trump administration and international law. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Lévesque C, Newcombe A (2013) Canada. In: Brown C (ed) Commentaries on selected model investment treaties. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 53–130Google Scholar
  9. Malhotra S (2016) India’s Joint Interpretive Statement for BITs: an attempt to slay the ghosts of the Past. Investment Treaty News, 12 December 2016. https:\\iisd.org/itn/2016/12/12/indias-joint-interpretive-statement-for-bits-an-attempt-to-slay-the-ghosts-of-the-past-sarthak-malhotra. Accessed 01 September 2019
  10. Malmström C (2018) Speech—a multilateral investment court: a contribution to the conversation about reform of investment dispute settlement. https:\\trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2018/november/tradoc_157512.pdf. Accessed 01 September 2019
  11. Mantilla Blanco S (2019) Full protection and security in international investment law. Springer, ChamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mitchell A, Munro J, Voon T (2019) Importing WTO general exceptions into international investment agreements: proportionality, myths and risks. In: Sachs L, Johnson L, Coleman J (eds) Yearbook on international investment law and policy 2017. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 305–355Google Scholar
  13. Pehl A (2019) Repräsentative Auslegung völkerrechtlicher Verträge. Nomos, Baden-BadenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schreuer C (2013) The protection of investments in armed conflicts. In: Baetens F (ed) Investment law within International Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Shan W, Gallagher N (2013) China. In: Brown C (ed) Commentaries on selected model investment treaties. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 131–182Google Scholar
  16. Singh Grewal D (2018) Three theses on the current crisis of international liberalism. Indiana J Global Legal Stud 25(2):595–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Suttle O (2019) Rules and values in international adjudication. The Case of the WTO Appellate Body. ICLQ 68(2):399–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastián Mantilla Blanco
    • 1
  • Alexander Pehl
    • 2
  1. 1.BonnGermany
  2. 2.CologneGermany

Personalised recommendations