In Defense of International Investment Law

Chapter

Abstract

The present article responds to the critical perspective Kate Miles offers on international investment law in her article “Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Conflict, Convergence, and Future Directions”, published in this Yearbook. While sharing several concerns Miles identifies, and supporting present reform efforts to make the system more transparent, increase possibilities of involvement for third parties, and ensure policy space, this article presents a generally positive perspective on the foundations of international investment law. It argues that the present system has to be seen as a mechanism to subject international investment relations to the international rule of law, with investor-state arbitration providing a form of access to justice to foreign investors in cases where domestic courts are not sufficiently well-placed to effectively control government action and enforce investment treaty obligations. The system, in other words, vindicates fundamental values of a just world order under law. Furthermore, the article argues that Miles paints a misleading picture of the power arbitrators exercise in the interpretation and application of investment treaties. Rather than developing the system to the detriment of public interests, arbitrators are subject to numerous mechanisms of state control; moreover, they regularly apply interpretative techniques that are respectful of public interests. Finally, the article discusses the cases Kate Miles presents as pathologies of the system and argues that they are not encroachments on governments’ policy space, but involve legitimate disputes that are appropriate for resolution in an international forum.

References

  1. Aisbett E (2009) Bilateral investment treaties and foreign direct investment: correlation and causation. In: Sauvant K, Sachs L (eds) The effect of treaties on foreign direct investment: bilateral investment treaties, double taxation treaties, and investment flows. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 395–435. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195388534.003.0015
  2. Amerasinghe C (2005) Local remedies in international law, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Amerasinghe C (2008) Diplomatic protection. Oxford University Press, Oxford. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199212385.001.0001
  4. Berger A, Busse M, Nunnenkamp P, Roy M (2012) Do trade and investment agreements lead to more FDI? accounting for key provisions inside the black box. Int Econ & Econ Policy 10(2):247–275. doi:10.1007/s10368-012-0207-6
  5. Borchard E (1915) The diplomatic protection of citizens abroad. Banks Law Publishing Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Brower C, Blanchard S (2014) What’s in a meme? The truth about investor-state arbitration: why it need not, and must not, be repossessed by states. Columbia J Transl Law 52(3):689–777Google Scholar
  7. Brower C, Schill S (2009) Is arbitration a threat or a boon to the legitimacy of international investment law? Chicago J Int Law 9(2):471–498Google Scholar
  8. Brower C, Pulos M, Rosenberg C (2013) So is there anything really wrong with international arbitration as we know it? In: Rovine A (ed) Contemporary issues in international arbitration and mediation: the Fordham Papers. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 1–13. doi:10.1163/9789004260207_002
  9. Bücheler G (2015) Proportionality in investor-state arbitration. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burke-White W, von Staden A (2010a) The need for public law standards of review in investor-state arbitrations. In: Schill S (ed) International investment law and comparative public law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 689–720. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199589104.003.0022
  11. Burke-White W, von Staden A (2010b) Private litigation in a public law sphere: the standard of review in investor-state arbitrations. Yale J Int Law 35:283–346Google Scholar
  12. Buscaglia E, Dakolias M (1999) An analysis of the causes of corruption in the judiciary. Law Policy Int Bus 30:95–116Google Scholar
  13. Büthe T, Milner H (2014) Foreign direct investment and institutional diversity in trade agreements: credibility, commitment, and economic flows in the developing world, 1971-2007. World Pol 66(1):88–122. doi:10.1017/S0043887113000336
  14. Cancado Trindade A (1983) The application of the rule of exhaustion of local remedies in international law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Cooter R, Ulen T (2004) Law and economics, 4th edn. Addison Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  16. Dakolias M, Thachuk K (2000) The problem of eradicating corruption from the judiciary: attacking corruption in the judiciary: a critical process in judicial reform. Wis Int Law J 18:353–406Google Scholar
  17. Elkins Z, Guzman A, Simmons B (2006) Competing for capital: the diffusion of bilateral investment treaties, 1960-2000. Int Organ 60(4):811–846. doi:10.1017/S0020818306060279
  18. Fontoura Costa J (2011) Comparing WTO panelists and ICSID arbitrators: the creation of international legal fields. Oñati Socio-Legal Series 1(4), http://opo.iisj.net/index.php/osls/article/view/63/207
  19. Francioni F (ed) (2007) Access to justice as a human right. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Franck S, Freda T, Lavin K, Lehmann T, van Aaken A (2015) The diversity challenge: exploring the “invisible college” of international arbitration. Columbia J Transl Law 53:429–506Google Scholar
  21. French R (2015) ISDS: litigating the judiciary. Public Law Rev 26(3):155–165Google Scholar
  22. Guzman A (1998) Why LDCs sign treaties that hurt them: explaining the popularity of bilateral investment treaties. Virginia J Int Law 38:639–688Google Scholar
  23. Guzman A (2008) How international law works: a rational choice theory. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hagelberg J (2006) Die völkerrechtliche Verfügungsbefugnis des Staates über Rechtsansprüche von Privatpersonen. Nomos, Baden-Baden. doi:10.5771/9783845225081
  25. Henckels C (2012) Indirect expropriation and the right to regulate: revisiting proportionality analysis and the standard of review in investor-state arbitration. J Int Econ Law 15(2):223–255. doi:10.1093/jiel/jgs012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hindelang S, Krajewski M (eds) (2016) Shifting paradigms in international investment law: more balanced, less isolated, increasingly diversified. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Jandhyala S, Weiner R (2014) Institutions sans frontières: international agreements and foreign investment. J Int Bus Stud 45(6):649–669. doi:10.1057/jibs.2013.70
  28. Johnson OT, Gimblett J (2012) From gunboats to BITs: the evolution of modern international investment law. In: Sauvant K (ed) Yearbook on international investment law and policy 2010–2011. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 649–692Google Scholar
  29. Kalicki J, Joubin-Bret A (eds) (2015) Reshaping the investor-state dispute settlement system: journeys for the 21st century. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden. doi:10.1163/9789004291102
  30. Kapeliuk D (2010) The repeat appointment factor: exploring decision patterns of elite investment arbitrators. Cornell Law Rev 96:47–90Google Scholar
  31. Karton J (2013) The culture of international arbitration and the evolution of contract law. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kingsbury B, Schill S (2010) Public law concepts to balance investors’ rights with state regulatory actions in the public interest—the concept of proportionality. In: Schill S (ed) International investment law and comparative public law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 75–104. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199589104.003.0003
  33. Leonhardsen E (2012) Looking for legitimacy: exploring proportionality analysis in investment treaty arbitration. J Int Disp Settlement 3(1):95–136. doi:10.1093/jnlids/idr014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lillich R, Weston B (1975) International claims: their settlement by lump-sum agreements. University Press of Virginia, CharlottesvilleGoogle Scholar
  35. Miles K (2016) Investor-state dispute settlement: conflict, convergence, and future directions. In: Bungenberg M, Hermann C, Krajewski M, Terchechte JP (eds) European yearbook of international economic Law, vol 7. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 273–308Google Scholar
  36. Montt S (2009) State liability in investment treaty arbitration. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  37. Puig S (2014) Social capital in the arbitration market. Eur J Int Law 25(2):387–424. doi:10.1093/ejil/chu045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rebentisch M (2011) “Kraftwerks-Moratorium” versus Rechtsstaat. Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 30:533–535Google Scholar
  39. Roberts A (2010) Power and persuasion in investment treaty interpretation: the dual role of states. Am J Int Law 104(2):179–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schill S (2010) International investment law and comparative public law: an introduction. In: Schill S (ed) International investment law and comparative public law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–37. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199589104.003.0001
  41. Schill S (2011a) Enhancing international investment law’s legitimacy: conceptual and methodological foundations of a new public law approach. Virginia J Int Law 52(1):57–102Google Scholar
  42. Schill S (2011b) W(h)ither fragmentation? On the literature and sociology of international investment law. Eur J Int Law 22(3):875–908. doi:10.1093/ejil/chr062 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schill S (2012a) Cross-regime harmonization through proportionality analysis: the case of international investment law, the law of state immunity, and human rights. ICSID Rev-Foreign Investment Law J 27(1):87–119. doi:10.1093/icsidreview/sis002
  44. Schill S (2012a) Deference in investment treaty arbitration: re-conceptualizing the standard of review. J Int Disp Settlement 3(3):577–607. doi:10.1093/jnlids/ids010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schill S (2015a) Developing a framework for the legitimacy of international arbitration. In: van den Berg A (ed) Legitimacy: myths, realities, challenges. ICCA Congress Series, vol. 18, Miami 2014, Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 789–827Google Scholar
  46. Schill S (2015b) The overlooked role of arbitration in international adjudicatory theory. ESIL Reflection 4(2)Google Scholar
  47. Schill S (2015c) The sixth path: reforming investment law from within. In: Kalicki J, Joubin-Bret A (eds.) Reshaping the investor-state dispute settlement system: journeys for the 21st century. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 621–652Google Scholar
  48. Schill S, Tvede K (2015) Mainstreaming investment treaty jurisprudence: the contribution of investment treaty tribunals to the consolidation and development of general international law. Law Pract Int Courts Trib 14(1):94–129. doi:10.1163/15718034-12341287 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schmitt T, Wohlrab S (2015) Haftung des Bundes in der Auftragsverwaltung am Beispiel des so genannten “Moratoriums” für Kernkraftwerke. Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 34(14):932–937Google Scholar
  50. Schwartz A, Scott R (2003) Contract theory and the limits of contract law. Yale Law J 113:541–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schwebel S (2015) In defense of bilateral investment treaties. In: van den Berg A (ed) Legitimacy: myths, realities, challenges. ICCA Congress Series, vol. 18, Miami 2014, Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  52. Sornarajah M (2015) Resistance and change in the international law on foreign investment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, doi:10.1017/CBO9781316156339 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stone Sweet A (2010) Investor–state arbitration: proportionality’s new frontier. Law Ethics Hum Rights 4(1):48–76. doi:10.2202/1938-2545.1044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tienhaara K (2011) Regulatory chill and the threat of arbitration: a view from political science. In: Brown C, Miles K (eds) Evolution in investment treaty law and arbitration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 606–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tobin J, Rose-Ackerman S (2009) When BITs have some bite. In: Rogers C, Alford R (eds) The future of investment arbitration. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 131–144Google Scholar
  56. van Aaken A (2009) Defragmentation of public international law through interpretation: a methodological proposal. Indiana J Glob Leg Stud 16(2):483–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Van Harten G (2007) Investment treaty arbitration and public law. Oxford University Press, New York. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199552146.001.0001
  58. Van Harten G (2010) Investment treaty arbitration, procedural fairness, and the rule of law. In: Schill S (ed) International investment law and comparative public law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 627–657. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199589104.003.0020
  59. Van Harten G (2013) Sovereign choices and sovereign constraints: judicial restraint in investment treaty arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199678648.001.0001
  60. Voon T, Mitchell A (2011) Time to quit? assessing international investment claims against plain tobacco packaging in Australia. J Int Econ Law 14(3):515–552. doi:10.1093/jiel/jgr030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Waibel M, Kaushal A, Chung KH, Balchin C (eds) (2010) The backlash against investment arbitration. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den RijnGoogle Scholar
  62. Weston B, Bederman D, Lillich R (1999) International claims: their settlement by lump-sum agreements 1975–1995. Brill Nijhoff, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  63. Williamson O (1985) The economic institutions of capitalism: firms, markets, and relational contracting. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  64. Yackee J (2008) Do we really need BITs? Asian J WTO Int Health Law Policy 3(1):121–146Google Scholar
  65. Waibel M (2015) Interpretive communities in international law. In: Bianchi A, Peat D, Windsor M (eds) Interpretation in international law. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 147–164. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198725749.003.0007

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations