Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Current Approaches to the International Investment Regime in South America

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2014

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((EUROYEAR,volume 5))

Abstract

The potential negative effects of investment treaties and investment treaty arbitration on public policy issues have thus produced that many states implemented reforms within International Investment Agreements (IIAs) towards rebalancing investment protection and the right of the host state to regulate. However, this practice has not been broadly welcomed by all South American countries. This paper only aims to provide an overview on the two current approaches to tackle such concerns within this region, hereby described as a participation and a non-participation approach, by addressing innovations in IIAs and in national policies on preventing and managing investment treaty claims, respectively concluded and adopted since 2004. After a brief description of some regional factors which contributed and influenced the formation of these approaches, this study concludes that, though their few own developed contributions, the “participation approach” of some South American states mainly follows the NAFTA pragmatism in reforming substantive and procedural provisions within IIAs; while others favoured a “non-participation approach” evinced by the withdrawal of the ICSID Convention as well as the revision and the denunciation of BITs. In addition to these national developments, the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) and to a lesser extent, the Bolivarian Alliance for the People of Our America's (ALBA), currently held the regional dialogue on seeking alternatives to the current regime for the settlement of investment disputes, without entering into the discussion of substantive and procedural issues within IIAs, which would be a more suitable strategy for dealing with the concerns initially mentioned

This article was completed in February 2013, and all sources, including websites, are current to that date.

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 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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.

    Muchlinski, Trends in international Investment Agreements, 2008/2009, Review of the Model Bilateral Investment Treaties of Norway, South Africa, and the United States, in: Sauvant (ed.), Yearbook on international investment law & policy 2009–2010, 2010, p. 41 (55–81); Schwebel, The United States 2004 Model Bilateral Investment Treaty and Denial of Justice in International Law, in: Binder/Kriebaum/Reinisch/Wittich (eds.), International Investment Law for the 21st Century, Essays in Honour of Christoph Schreuer, 2009, p. 519 (519–521); Vandevelde, A Comparison of the 2004 and 1994 U.S. Model BITs: Rebalancing Investor and Host Country Interests, in: Sauvant (ed.), Yearbook on International Investment Law & Policy 2008–2009, 2009, p. 283.

  2. 2.

    Muchlinski, Trends in International Investment Agreements: Balancing Investor Rights and the Right to Regulate the Issue of National Security, in: Sauvant (ed.), Yearbook on international investment law & policy 2008–2009, 2009, p. 35 (39–50); Muchlinski, Trends in international Investment Agreements, 2008/2009, Review of the Model Bilateral Investment Treaties of Norway, South Africa, and the United States, in: Sauvant (ed.), Yearbook on international investment law & policy 2009–2010, 2010, p. 41 (49–55).

  3. 3.

    Approximately, 62 BITs per year were negotiated between 2004 and 2008. This result was obtained from statistical data supplied by the UNCTAD between 2004 and 2008. UNCTAD, Recent Developments in International Investment Agreements (2005), IIA Monitor No. 2, p. 1; UNCTAD, Recent Developments in International Investment Agreements (2006 – June 2007), IIA Monitor No. 3 (2007), p. 2; UNCTAD, Recent Development in International Investment Agreements (2007 – June 2008), IIA Monitor No. 2 (2008), p. 2; UNCTAD, Recent Developments in International Investment Agreements (2008 – June 2009), IIA Monitor No. 3 (2009), p. 2. In this regard, an average of 147 BITs per year was signed during the 1990s; UNCTAD, International Investment Rule-Making: Stocktaking, Challenges and the Way Forward, in: UNCTAD, Series on International Investment Policies and Development, p. 23.

  4. 4.

    By June 2005, an average of 41% of trade agreements with investment provisions has been concluded from a total of 218 since the 2000s. UNCTAD, Investment Provisions in Economic Integration Agreements, p. 31.

  5. 5.

    This later development will be discussed in detail in the penultimate part of this article.

  6. 6.

    An average of 30 BITs was concluded by Latin American countries between 2004 and 2008 from a total of 249 BITs. This calculation is based on statistical data ascertained by the UNCTAD. UNCTAD, Recent Developments in International Investment Agreements, IIA Monitor No. 2 (2005), pp. 1–3; UNCTAD, Recent Developments in International Investment Agreements (2006 – June 2007), IIA Monitor No. 3 (2007), pp. 2–4; UNCTAD, Recent Developments in International Investment Agreements (2007 – June 2008), IIA Monitor No. 2 (2008), pp. 2–4; UNCTAD, Recent Developments in International Investment Agreements (2008 – June 2009), IIA Monitor No. 3 (2009), pp. 2–5.

  7. 7.

    From a global total of 46 trade agreements with investment provisions concluded between 2006 and 2008, sixteen agreements were concluded by Latin American states. This calculation is based on statistical data ascertained by the UNCTAD. UNCTAD, Recent Developments in International Investment Agreements, IIA Monitor No. 2 (2005), pp. 10–11 and pp. 17–18 (Annex table 1); UNCTAD, Recent Developments in International Investment Agreements (2006 – June 2007), IIA Monitor No. 3 (2007), pp. 6–9 (Table 1); UNCTAD, Recent Developments in International Investment Agreements (2007 – June 2008), IIA Monitor No. 2 (2008), pp. 8–11 (Annex, treaties only concluded in 2007); UNCTAD, Recent Developments in International Investment Agreements (2008 – June 2009), IIA Monitor No. 3 (2009), pp. 8–9 and p. 15 (Annex 2, only the agreements concluded in 2008).

  8. 8.

    This later development will be discussed in detail in the penultimate section of this article.

  9. 9.

    UNCTAD, Latest Developments in Investor-State Dispute Settlement, IIA Issue Notes, N. 1, March 2011, available at: http://unctad.org/en/Docs/webdiaeia20113_en.pdf. From the 51 investor-state claims against Argentina, 49 were brought before ICSID tribunals. International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, available at: https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet.

  10. 10.

    The last BIT concluded by Argentina was with Panama in September 2004, the negotiation of which probably took place before this country faced a large number of investment claims. UNCTAD, Country List of BITs, Argentina, available at: http://unctad.org/Sections/dite_pcbb/docs/bits_argentina.pdf.

  11. 11.

    Member states of the Andean Community are Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. Regarding MERCOSUR, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Venezuela are member states. This later country became member state on August 2012. MERCOSUR, Protocolo de Adhesión de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela al MERCOSUR, available in Spanish at http://www.mercosur.int/t_generic.jsp?contentid=4827&site=1&channel=secretaria.

  12. 12.

    Colonia Protocol on Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments within MERCOSUR and the Protocol on Promotion and Protection of Investments coming from non-MERCOSUR State Parties (Buenos Aires Protocol) have been signed on 17th January and 5th August 1994, respectively. These instruments are available at http://www.mercosur.int/t_ligaenmarco.jsp?contentid=4823&site=1&channel=secretaria.

  13. 13.

    Decision 291 “Régimen Común de Tratamiento a los Capitales Extranjeros y sobre Marcas, Patentes, Licencias y Regalías” and Decision 292 “Régimen Uniforme para Empresas Multinacionales Andinas” were signed on 21st March 1991 and are available at http://www.comunidadandina.org/Normativa.aspx.

  14. 14.

    Further explanations of investment provisions of these instruments can be found in the following articles: Fraga Lerner, The Protection of Foreign Investment in MERCOSUR, in: Franco Filho/Lixinski/Olmos Giupponi (eds), The Law of Mercosur, 2010, p. 275 (16); Hummer, Investment Rules in Regional Integration Agreements in Latin America: The Case of the Andean Pact/Andean Community, in: Binder/Kriebaum/Reinisch/Wittich, International Investment Law for the 21 st Century, 2009, p. 561 (30).

  15. 15.

    Comunidad Andina, Reunión de Trabajo para la discusión de una Estrategia Andina de Promoción de Inversiones, 4th and 5th December 2003. In this regard, complementary materials of this technical meeting are only available in Spanish at http://www.comunidadandina.org/inversiones/inversiones5-12-03.htm. Comunidad Andina, Secretaria General, Documento de Trabajo, Estrategia Andina de Promocion de Inversiones, 1st December 2003, available in Spanish at http://www.comunidadandina.org/prensa/notas/np17-6-04.htm.

  16. 16.

    Comunidad Andina, Secretaria General, Nota de Prensa, del 17 de Junio 2004, available in Spanish at: http://www.comunidadandina.org/Prensa.aspx?id=1228&accion=detalle&cat=NP&title=can-y-unctad-lanzan-estrategia-andina-de-promocion-de-inversiones.

  17. 17.

    Banderas, The Latin American Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement: A Proposal for Integration, SELA publications, Finance, Investment and Growth 59 (2000), available at http://www.sela.org/DB/ricsela/EDOCS/SRed/2005/11/T023600000088-9-The_Latin_American_Investment.htm; Fach Gómez, Latin America and ICSID: David versus Goliath?, p. 1 (38–39), available at Social Science Research Network (SSRN): http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1708325.

  18. 18.

    Free Trade Area of the Americas - FTAA, Third Draft FTAA Agreement, 21st November 21, 2003, article 2, lit. (a, (d and (e, available at: http://www.ftaa-alca.org/ftaadrafts_e.asp. Information regarding the evolution of FTAA is available at: http://www.ftaa-alca.org/View_e.asp#PROGRESS.

  19. 19.

    Free Trade Area of the Americas – FTAA, Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC), “Vision of the FTAA” document by Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Canada, Mexico, Chile, Dominican Republic, Panama, Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia, available at http://www.ftaa-alca.org/TNC_e.asp.

  20. 20.

    For instance, Venezuela stressed the necessity to transform a consultative organ (for FTAA negotiations rounds) to a negotiator one, which “must receive a clear and precise mandate for the formulation of provisions and mandatory agreements referring to special and differentiated treatment for smaller economies and less-developed countries”. Free Trade Area of the Americas – FTAA, Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC), Documents Presented by Countries to the FTAA Trade Negotiations Committee, Venezuela – Working Document, available at http://www.ftaa-alca.org/TNC_e.asp.

  21. 21.

    The Bolivarian Alternative for the Peoples of Our America, People’s Trade Treaty (ALBA-TCP), was founded on 14th December 2004. Bolivia, Nicaragua, Dominica, Honduras, Ecuador, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Antigua and Barbuda became subsequently member states of this organisation. Information about this organisation may be found in English at http://www.alba-tcp.org/en. Concerning the FTAA, the official website of the ALBA-TCP states, in relation to its historical foundation, that “In the III Summit of the Americas, in Québec/Canada held from April 20th to April 22nd, 2001, the President Hugo Chávez, signed the final declaration, specifying that Venezuela objected to the proposal of the FTAA (Free trade Area of the Americas). Shortly after, the Cuban President Fidel Castro and Chávez, found themselves creating the basis of what is today ALBA”, first paragraph, available at http://www.alba-tcp.org/en/contenido/history-alba-tcp.

  22. 22.

    Ministerio de Relaciones y Cultos de la República de Bolivia, Notas y Comunicados de Prensa, Cancillería Oficializa la Salida de Bolivia del Ciadi, 1st May 2007, available at http://www.rree.gob.bo/webmre/notasprensa/2007/2007_mayo/np1.htm.

  23. 23.

    The Working Group on matters of International Law, Self-Determination, Respect for Sovereignty and Human Rights of the ALBA-TCP is a subunit of the Political Council of this organisation. The Bolivarian Alternative for the Peoples of Our America, People’s Trade Treaty (ALBA-TCP), VII Summit - Cochabamba, Bolivia - October 17, 2009, Joint Declaration, section II, paragraph 20, available at http://www.alba-tcp.org/en/contenido/joint-declaration-vii-summit; Investment Treaty News (ITN), ALBA moves forward with plan to create regional investment arbitration alternative to ICSID at 7th Summit, 1st November 2009, published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), available at http://www.iisd.org/itn/2009/11/01/alba-moves-forward-with-plan-to-create-regional-investment-arbitration-alternative-to-icsid-at-7th-summit-3/.

  24. 24.

    The South American Union of Nations Constitutive Treaty was signed on 23th May 2008 and entered into force on 11th March 2011. South American Union of Nations Constitutive Treaty, preamble, paragraph 7, and article 2, available in English at http://unasursg.org/PDFs/unasur/tratado-constitutivo/Tratado-constitutivo-version-ingles.pdf.

  25. 25.

    UNASUR, Secretaria General, Comunicado, Los cancilleres de UNASUR dejaron listo el texto de declaración presidencial de Quito, 9th August 2009, available in Spanish at http://www.unasursg.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=278:cancilleres-dejan-lista-declaraciasn-de-quito&catid=68:comunicados.

  26. 26.

    UNASUR, Secretaria General, Declaracion final de la reunión extraordinaria del Consejo de Jefas y Jefes de Estado de la Unión Sudamericana de Naciones, Los Cardales, Argentina, 4th May 2010, paragraph 15, available in Spanish at http://www.unasursg.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=359:declaracion-final-de-la-reunion-extraordinaria-del-consejo-de-jefas-y-jefes-de-estado-de-unasur-los-cardales-mayo-2010&catid=96:declaraciones.

  27. 27.

    UNASUR, Secretaria General, Declaración IV Reunión Ordinaria de Jefas y Jefes de Estado y Gobierno de la Unión Sudamericana de Naciones (UNASUR), Georgetown, República Cooperativa de Guyana, 26th November 2010, paragraph 20, available in Spanish at http://www.unasursg.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=372:iv-reunion-jefas-y-jefes-de-estado-georgetown-guyana-noviembre-26-de-2011&catid=96:declaraciones.

  28. 28.

    Fiezzoni, The Challenge of UNASUR Member Countries to Replace ICSID Arbitration, Beijing Law Review 2 (2011) 3, pp. 134 (139–142); Investment Treaty News (ITN), UNASUR Arbitration Centre: The Present Situation and the Principal Characteristics of Ecuador’s Proposal, 12th January 2012, published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), available at http://www.iisd.org/itn/2012/01/12/unasur/.

  29. 29.

    Echandi, Bilateral Investment Treaties and Investment Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements: Recent Developments in Investment Making, in: Yannaca-Small (ed.), Arbitration under International Investment Agreements, A Guide to the Key Issues, 2010, p. 3 (5).

  30. 30.

    To illustrate, President W. Bush argued in his letter of transmittal to the Senate for the ratification of the Uruguay–United States BIT that “[t]he Treaty is the first bilateral investment treaty (BIT) concluded since 1999 and the first negotiated on the basis of a new U.S. model BIT text, which was completed in 2004. The new model text draws on long-standing U.S. BIT principles, our experience with Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (…)”. This letter is available within the BIT aforementioned: http://www.sice.oas.org/Investment/BITSbyCountry/BITs/URU_US_e.asp. Other examples may be found in the negotiations of IIAs by Colombia and Peru with the United States and Canada. In 2003, the United States started negotiations of free trade agreements with all member states of the Andean Community, who are beneficiaries of the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA), now know as Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA). This is a United States preference program that aims at contributing to the fight of these states against drug production and trafficking by expanding their economic alternatives, currently conferring a duty-free treatment for certain products. Finally, only negotiations with Colombia and Peru were successful. Background of the negotiations of the Trade Promotion Agreement with Colombia and Peru is respectively available at http://www.sice.oas.org/TPD/AND_USA/col_usa_e.asp; http://www.sice.oas.org/TPD/AND_USA/PER_USA_e.ASP. Likewise, Canada signed Trade and Investment Cooperation Agreement (TICA) with all Andean states that geared towards establishing free trade agreements, which were finally only concluded with Peru and Colombia. Background of the negotiations of the trade agreements of Canada with Peru and Colombia are respectively available at http://www.sice.oas.org/TPD/AND_CAN/CAN_PER_e.ASP; http://www.sice.oas.org/tpd/AND_CAN/CAN_COL_e.ASP.

  31. 31.

    The Chile–United States Free Trade Agreement was signed on 6th June 2003 and entered into force on 1st January 2004. The Peru–United States Trade Promotion Agreement was signed on 12th April 2006 and entered into force on 1st February 2009. The Colombia–United States Trade Promotion Agreement was signed on 22th November 2006 and entered into force on 15th May 2012. The Uruguay–United States BIT was signed on 4th November 2005 and entered into force on 1st November 2006. All these treaties are available at http://www.sice.oas.org/ctyindex/USA/USAagreements_e.asp.

  32. 32.

    The Canada–Peru Free Trade Agreement was signed on 29th May 2008 and entered into force on 1st August 2008. The Canada–Colombia Free Trade Agreement was signed on 21st November 2008 and entered into force on 15th August 2011. In addition, Canada signed a Free Trade Agreement with Chile on 5th December 1996, which entered into force on 5th July 1997. All these treaties are available at http://www.sice.oas.org/ctyindex/CAN/CANagreements_e.asp.

  33. 33.

    The Mexico–Uruguay Economic Cooperation Agreement (ACE No. 60) was signed on 15th November 2003 and entered into force 15th June 2004. Furthermore, the Mexico–Peru Trade Integration Agreement was signed on 6th April 2011 and entered into force on 1st February 2012. In this regard, Mexico also signed with Colombia and Chile Economic Cooperation Agreements, which entered into force on 1st January 1995 and on 1st August 1999, respectively. All these treaties are available at http://www.sice.oas.org/ctyindex/MEX/MEXagreements_e.asp.

  34. 34.

    From the thirty-two BITs signed by Peru, only seven were negotiated during the 2000s, namely with Canada, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Japan, Luxembourg, and Singapore. These BITs are available at http://www.sice.oas.org/ctyindex/PER/PERBITS_e.asp; http://www.unctadxi.org/templates/DocSearch.aspx?id=779. Moreover, Peru has signed all its trade agreements with investment provisions in the 2000s with the following commercial partners: Canada, Chile, China, EFTA States, Japan, Mexico, Panama, Singapore, South Korea, and the United States of America. These treaties are available at http://www.sice.oas.org/ctyindex/PER/PERagreements_e.asp.

  35. 35.

    The majority of IIAs were concluded by Colombia during the 2000s. Colombia concluded eight BITs, from which only those signed with Spain, Switzerland, and Peru are in force. The other BITs that have not been ratified are those concluded with China, Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union, India, the United Kingdom, and Japan. All these treaties are available at http://www.unctadxi.org/templates/DocSearch.aspx?id=779. Additionally, Colombia negotiated trade agreements with investment provisions with Canada, Chile, Northern Triangle of Central America (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras), the European Trade Association (EFTA States), the United States, and Mexico. These agreements are available at http://www.sice.oas.org/ctyindex/COL/COLagreements_e.asp.

  36. 36.

    Uruguay has concluded 30 BITs, more than half during the 1990s. Concerning trade agreements with investment provisions, the free trade agreement with Mexico constitutes the unique treaty of this nature. Acuerdo de Libre Comercio México-Uruguay (ACE No. 60) signed on 15 of November 2003, available only in Spanish at http://www.sice.oas.org/Trade/mexurufta_s/mexuruind_s.asp#PDF.

  37. 37.

    While most of the fifty-one BITs had been negotiated during the 1990s, Chile has prioritised the conclusion of trade agreements with a detailed chapter of investment rules in the 2000s. In this regard, Chile has concluded free trade agreements with Canada, Mexico (ACE 46), the Republic of Korea, the United States of America, Peru, Colombia, Japan, and Australia. All these treaties are available at http://www.sice.oas.org/ctyindex/CHL/CHLagreements_e.asp.

  38. 38.

    The Colombia–Peru BIT signed on 11th of December 2007 replaced the former BIT signed on 26th April of 1994. See, Colombia–Peru BIT, article 40.

  39. 39.

    The Free Trade Agreement Chile–Colombia replaced the previous Economic Cooperation Agreement between these states (ACE 24). Acuerdo de Libre Comercio Chile - Colombia el cual constituye un protocolo adicional al ACE 24, article 22.3, paragraph 3, available in Spanish at: http://www.sice.oas.org/Trade/ChL_COL_FTA/CHL_COL_ind_s.asp. Similarly, the Free Trade Agreement Chile–Peru has replaced the previous Economic Cooperation Agreement between these countries (ACE 38). Acuerdo de Libre Comercio entre la República del Perú y el Gobierno de la República de Chile, que modifica y sustituye el ACE no. 38, sus anexos, apéndices, protocolos y demás instrumentos que hayan ido suscritos a su amparo, article 1.1, paragraph 2, available in Spanish at http://www.sice.oas.org/Trade/CHL_PER_FTA/Index_s.asp.

  40. 40.

    For instance, the Free Trade Agreement Australia–Chile, signed on 30th July 2008, replaced the BIT in force between these parties, signed on 9th July 1996. Australia–Chile FTA, chapter 10, Annex 10-E, paragraph 2, available at http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/CHL_AUS_Final_s/CHL_AUSind_s.asp.

  41. 41.

    For this section, the treaties mentioned in footnotes 34, 35, 36, and 37 will be used randomly as examples of this trend.

  42. 42.

    Japan–Colombia BIT, article 4, paragraphs 1; Colombia–Peru BIT, article 4, paragraph 1; Colombia–United States Trade Promotion Agreement, chapter 10, article 10.5, paragraphs 1 and 2; Canada–Peru BIT, article 5, paragraph 1; Peru–United States Trade Promotion Agreement, chapter 10, article 10.5, paragraph 1; Australia–Chile FTA, chapter 10, article 10.5, paragraph 1; Chile–Colombia FTA, chapter 9, article 9.4, paragraph 1; Uruguay–United States BIT, article 5, paragraph 1; Mexico–Uruguay FTA (ACE No. 60), chapter XIII, article 13-06, paragraph 1.

  43. 43.

    Japan–Colombia BIT, article 4, paragraph 2, note 1; Canada–Colombia FTA, chapter 8, article 805, paragraph 1; Colombia–Peru BIT, article 4, paragraph 2; Japan–Peru BIT, article 5, paragraph 2; Panama–Peru FTA, chapter 12, article 12.4, paragraph 1; China–Peru FTA, chapter 10, article 132, paragraph 2, lit. a; Chile–Colombia FTA, chapter 9, article 9.4, paragraph 2; Chile–Peru FTA, chapter 11, article 11.4, paragraph 2; Panama–Peru FTA, chapter 12, article 12.4, paragraph 2; Uruguay–United States BIT, article 5, paragraph 2.

  44. 44.

    Colombia–Peru BIT, Annex A. Colombia–United States Trade Promotion Agreement, chapter 10, Annex 10-A; Peru–United States Trade Promotion Agreement, chapter 10, Annex 10-A. Panama–Peru FTA, chapter 12, Annex 12.4.

  45. 45.

    Japan–Colombia BIT, article 4, paragraph 2, note 3; Chile–Colombia FTA, chapter 9, article 9.4, paragraph 2, lit. a; Colombia–Peru BIT, article 4, paragraph 2, lit. a; Japan–Peru BIT, article 5, paragraph 2, note; China–Peru FTA, chapter 10, article 132, paragraph 2, lit. C; Australia–Chile FTA, chapter 10, article 10.5, paragraph 2, lit. a; Uruguay–USA BIT, article 5, paragraph 2, lit. a.

  46. 46.

    Colombia–United States Trade Promotion Agreement, chapter 10, article 10.5, paragraph 2, lit. b; Colombia–Peru BIT, article 4, paragraph 2, lit. b; Panama–Peru FTA, chapter 12, article 12.4, paragraph 2, lit. b; Australia–Chile FTA, chapter 10, article 10.5, paragraph 2, lit. b; Uruguay–United States BIT, article 5, paragraph 2, lit. b.

  47. 47.

    Japan–Peru BIT, article 5, paragraph 3; Uruguay–United States BIT, article 5, paragraph 3; Colombia–United States Trade Promotion Agreement, chapter 10, article 10.5, paragraph 3; China–Peru FTA, chapter 10, article 132, paragraph 2, lit. b; Australia–Chile FTA, chapter 10, article 10.5, paragraph 3; Japan–Peru BIT, article 5, paragraph 1. Certainly, Colombia is the sole country that excludes changes of domestic regulation to be considered as a violation of this standard. Japan–Colombia BIT, article 4, paragraph 2.

  48. 48.

    The following material may contribute to further analysis of this issue. UNCTAD, Fair and Equitable Treatment, UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II (2012), p. 44 [pp. 44–58], available at http://unctad.org/en/Docs/unctaddiaeia2011d5_en.pdf.

  49. 49.

    Canada–Colombia FTA, chapter 8, article 811, paragraph 1 and Annex 811, paragraphs 1 and 2; Colombia–Japan BIT, article 11, paragraph 1 and Annex III referred to in article 11; Japan–Peru BIT, article 5, paragraph 1; Canada–Peru BIT, article 13, paragraph 1; Uruguay–United States BIT, article 6, paragraph 1; Mexico–Uruguay FTA (ACE 60), chapter XIII, article 13-11, paragraph 1; Chile–Colombia FTA, chapter 9, article 9.10, paragraph 1 and Annex 9-C, paragraphs 2 and 3.

  50. 50.

    Japan–Colombia BIT, article 11, paragraph 1, note; Protocol to the Switzerland–Colombia BIT, Additional provision to article 6, paragraph 2, lit. a; China–Peru Free Trade Agreement, chapter 10, article 133, paragraph 1, lit. a; Japan–Peru BIT, article 13, note and Annex III.

  51. 51.

    Uruguay–United States BIT, article 6, paragraph 1, lit. a and Annex B, paragraph 1; Peru–United States Trade Promotion Agreement, chapter 10, article 10.7, and footnote 5; Canada–Colombia FTA, chapter 8, article 811, paragraph 1, lit. a, footnote 7; Chile–Peru FTA, chapter 11, article 11.10, paragraph 1, lit. a, footnote 11. In particular, only the China–Peru FTA allows expropriation measures if, in addition, these are adopted under domestic legal procedure of the state parties. China–Peru FTA, chapter 10, article 133, paragraph 1, lit. b.

  52. 52.

    Panama–Peru FTA, chapter 12, article 12.10, Annex 12.10, lit. e; Colombia–Japan BIT, Annex III referred to in article 11, paragraph 3; Chile–Colombia FTA, chapter 9, article 9.10, paragraph 1 and Annex 9-C, paragraph 3, lit. b.

  53. 53.

    Colombia–Peru BIT, preamble, paragraph 2; Agreement between Japan and the Republic of Chile for a Strategic Economic Partnership, preamble, paragraph 6. This later treaty acknowledges this right “in order to meet national policy objectives”.

  54. 54.

    Markert, The Crucial Question of Future Investment Treaties: Balancing Investor’s Rights and Regulatory Interests of Host States, in: Bungenberg/Griebel/Hindenlang (eds.), European Yearbook of International Economic Law, Special Issue: International Investment Law and EU Law, 2011, pp. 145 (161–163).

  55. 55.

    This provision is ruled in similar manner to the security exceptions provided in article XXI GATT and article XIV bis GATS.

  56. 56.

    Japan–Colombia BIT, article 15, paragraph 2; Canada–Peru BIT, article 10, paragraph 4; Colombia–Peru BIT, article 8, paragraph 4; China–Peru FTA, chapter 10, article 141. In this regard, the maintenance of public order may only be applied in situations where “a genuine and sufficiently serious threat is posed to one of the fundamental interests of society”. Japan–Colombia BIT, article 15, paragraph 1, lit. b, note.

  57. 57.

    The IIAs under review do not protect the same beneficiaries. While the Japan–Colombia BIT prevents the adoption of these measures as means of arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination against other states and a disguised restriction on investment of investors of the other contracting state, the Canada–Peru BIT and the Colombia–Peru BIT protect investment and investors and international trade or investment, respectively; Japan–Colombia BIT, article 15, paragraph 1; Canada–Peru BIT, article 10, paragraph 1; Colombia–Peru BIT, article 8, paragraph 1.

  58. 58.

    Uruguay–United States BIT, preamble, paragraph 4; Australia–Chile FTA, preamble, paragraph 7; Chile–Peru FTA, preamble, paragraph 14.

  59. 59.

    Uruguay–United States BIT, preamble, paragraph 5.

  60. 60.

    Japan–Peru BIT, preamble, paragraph 5. In addition, the Japan–Colombia BIT includes the promotion of sustainable development as a goal to be achieved without relaxing these public concerns. Japan–Colombia BIT, preamble, paragraph 5.

  61. 61.

    Canada–Peru BIT, preamble, paragraph 2; Colombia–Peru BIT, preamble, paragraph 2; Chile–Colombia FTA, preamble, paragraph 13 and 14.

  62. 62.

    Japan–Colombia BIT, article 21, paragraph 1; Canada–Peru BIT, article 11; Colombia–Peru BIT, article 9, paragraph 1; Peru–United States Trade Promotion Agreement, chapter 10, article 10.11; Agreement between Japan and the Republic of Chile for a Strategic Economic Partnership, chapter 8, article 87.

  63. 63.

    Japan–Colombia BIT, article 21, paragraph 2; Panama–Peru FTA, chapter 12, article 12.8, paragraph 2; Chile–Colombia FTA, chapter 9, article 9.13.

  64. 64.

    Colombia–United States Trade Promotion Agreement, chapter 10, article 10.11; Uruguay–United States BIT, article 12, paragraph 2. Additionally, this later treaty enables their parties the adoption of any measure in order to ensure a sensitive undertaking of investment activity with labour concerns. Uruguay–United States BIT, article 13, paragraph 3; Chile–Peru FTA, chapter 11, paragraph 11.13.

  65. 65.

    This object afforded less protection within IIAs under review than clients of financial institutions or financial system. Colombia–Peru BIT, article 8, paragraph 2, lit. a y c; Canada–Peru BIT, article 10, paragraph 4, lit. b.

  66. 66.

    Japan–Colombia BIT, article 17, paragraphs 1 and 2; Uruguay–United States BIT, article 20, paragraph 1; Colombia–Peru BIT, article 8, paragraph 2, lit. a y c; Canada–Peru BIT, article 10, paragraph 4, lit. a and lit. c.

  67. 67.

    Japan–Colombia BIT, article 16, paragraph 1, lit. a; Protocol to the Switzerland–Colombia BIT, Additional provision to article 5, paragraph 1; Japan–Peru BIT, article 20, paragraph 1, lit. a; Colombia–Peru BIT, article 8, paragraph 7.

  68. 68.

    Japan–Colombia BIT, article 16, paragraph 1, lit. b; Protocol to the Switzerland–Colombia BIT, Additional provision to article 5, paragraph 2; Japan–Peru BIT, article 20, paragraph 1, lit. b.

  69. 69.

    Regarding domestic law, Chile may adopt measures in accordance with Law 18.840, Constitutional Organic Law of the Central Bank of Chile (Ley 18.840, Ley Orgánica Constitucional del Banco Central de Chile); Australia–Chile FTA, chapter 10, Annex 10-C; Japan–Chile FTA, chapter 10, article 81, paragraph 4, and Annex 8. However, the Chile–Peru FTA has a broad provision wording in this sense due to its devoid of determination of a specific competent authority. See, Chile–Peru FTA, chapter 11, Annex 11-C.

  70. 70.

    Likewise, Colombia established the Law No. 31 (Ley N°31 de 1992) as pertinent domestic law to be observed for the adoption of temporary safeguard measures. Colombia–Chile FTA, chapter 9, Annex 9-B. Colombian Model BIT, article V, paragraph 4, available at http://www.italaw.com/investment-treaties.

  71. 71.

    Switzerland–Colombia BIT, article 11, paragraph 1; Japan–Colombia BIT, article 27, paragraph 2; Japan–Peru BIT, article 18, paragraph 1; Canada–Peru BIT, article 22, paragraph 1, and article 23, paragraph 1.

  72. 72.

    Canada–Colombia FTA, chapter 8, article 839; Uruguay–United States BIT, article 24, paragraph 1.

  73. 73.

    Japan–Colombia BIT, article 30, paragraph 4; Canada–Peru BIT, article 29, paragraph 2, lit. a; Colombia–Peru BIT, article 24, paragraph 3, lit. a; Australia–Chile FTA, chapter 10, article 10.19, paragraph 2.

  74. 74.

    Uruguay–United States BIT, Annex E. Colombia–United States Trade Promotion Agreement, chapter 10, article 10.20; Peru–United States Trade Promotion Agreement, chapter 10, article 10.20, paragraph 10; Panama–Peru FTA, chapter 12, article 12.21, paragraph 9; Chile–Colombia FTA, chapter 9, article 9.20, paragraph 10; Chile–Peru FTA, chapter 11, article 11.20, paragraph 10.

  75. 75.

    Uruguay–United States BIT, article 30, paragraphs 1 and 2.

  76. 76.

    Protocol to the Switzerland–Colombia BIT, Additional provision to article 11, paragraph 1; Japan–Colombia BIT, article 31, Note.

  77. 77.

    Canada–Peru BIT, article 35, paragraph 1; Colombia–Peru BIT, article 25, paragraph 2; Uruguay–United States BIT, article 28, paragraph 3; Peru–United States Trade Promotion Agreement, chapter 10, article 10.20, paragraph 3; Chile–Peru FTA, chapter 11, article 11.20, paragraph 3.

  78. 78.

    Canada–Peru BIT, article 38, paragraph 1; Colombia–Peru BIT, article 26, paragraph 1 and 5; Uruguay–United States BIT, article 29, paragraph 2; Panama–Peru FTA, chapter 12, article 12.22, paragraph 2; Australia–Chile FTA, chapter 10, article 10.22, paragraph 2.

  79. 79.

    Canada–Peru BIT, article 38, paragraph 3; Colombia–Peru BIT, article 26, paragraph 5.

  80. 80.

    Invoked defence such as measures for prudential reasons or concerning monetary and related credit policies.

  81. 81.

    Invoked defence such as non-conforming measures.

  82. 82.

    UNCTAD, Best Practices in Investment for Development, How to prevent and manage investor-State disputes: Lessons from Peru, Investment Advisory Series, Series B, N. 10, pp. 21–33, available at http://unctad.org/en/Docs/webdiaepcb2011d9_en.pdf.

  83. 83.

    UNCTAD, Latest Developments in Investor – State Dispute Settlement, IIA Issue Notes 1 (2011), available at http://unctad.org/en/Docs/webdiaeia20113_en.pdf.

  84. 84.

    Further explanations regarding the national investment policy of Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia can be found at the following article: Fach Gómez, Latin America and ICSID: David versus Goliath?, p. 1 (9–32), available at Social Science Research Network (SSRN): http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1708325.

  85. 85.

    Investment Arbitration Reporter (IA Reporter), Venezuela surprises the Netherlands with termination notice for BIT; treaty has been used by many investors to “route” investments into Venezuela, available at http://www.iareporter.com/articles/20091001_93.

  86. 86.

    Venezuela denunciated the ICSID Convention on 24th January 2012. International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, Venezuela Submits a Notice under Article 71 of the ICSID Convention, available at https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=OpenPage&PageType=AnnouncementsFrame&FromPage=Announcements&pageName=Announcement100.

  87. 87.

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, Case No. ARB/07/27, Mobil Corporation, Venezuela Holdings, B.V., Mobil Cerro Negro Holding, Ltd., Mobil Venezolana de Petróleos Holdings, Inc., Mobil Cerro Negro, Ltd., and Mobil Venezolana de Petróleos, Inc. vs. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Decision on jurisdiction, 10th June 2010, available at http://www.italaw.com/cases/713.

  88. 88.

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, “Search ICSID Cases”: https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet.

  89. 89.

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, Case No. ARB/12/19, Ternium S.A. and Consorcio Siderurgia Amazonia S.L. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; Case No. ARB/12/20, Blue Bank International & Trust (Barbados) Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; Case No. ARB/12/21, Fábrica de Vidrios Los Andes, C.A. and Owens-Illinois de Venezuela, C.A. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; Case No. ARB/12/22, Venoklim Holding B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; Case No. ARB/12/23, Tenaris S.A. and Talta - Trading e Marketing Sociedade Unipessoal Lda. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and Case No. ARB/12/24, Transban Investments Corp. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. These cases were registered on 1st August 2012, 7th August 2012, 10th August 2012, 15th August 2012, 21st August 2012, 27th August 2012, respectively.

  90. 90.

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, Case No. ARB/12/13, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Europe v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

  91. 91.

    Venezuela signed a BIT with Iran on 2nd December 2005, with Belarus on 8th December 2007, with Vietnam on 20th November 2008, and with Russia on 7th December 2008. These BITs are available at http://www.unctadxi.org/templates/DocSearch____779.aspx. In contrast to Venezuela, both Bolivia and Ecuador have signed 18 and 23 BITs, respectively, all of them concluded before 2005. These treaties are available at http://www.sice.oas.org/countries_e.asp. http://www.unctadxi.org/templates/DocSearch____779.aspx.

  92. 92.

    Bolivia denunciated ICSID Convention on 2th May 2007. International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, News Releases, Bolivia Submits a Notice under Article 71 of the ICSID Convention, 16th May 2007, available at https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=OpenPage&PageType=AnnouncementsFrame&FromPage=NewsReleases&pageName=Announcement3; Ministerio de Relaciones y Cultos de la República de Bolivia, Notas y Comunicados de Prensa; Cancillería Oficializa la Salida de Bolivia del CIADI, 1st May 2007, available at http://www.rree.gob.bo/webmre/notasprensa/2007/2007_mayo/np1.htm.

  93. 93.

    In this regard, the Bolivian government alleged that deliberations of arbitral tribunals are not open to the public, as well as lack of case law and compensation not only for investment but also for loss of earnings and only for investors, not for states; arbitral decision are irrevocable; arbitrators define the applicable law and can not only be judges in some cases but also litigation lawyers in others. Ministerio de Relaciones y Cultos de la República de Bolivia, Notas y Comunicados de Prensa, Cancillería Oficializa la Salida de Bolivia del CIADI, 1st May 2007, available at http://www.rree.gob.bo/webmre/notasprensa/2007/2007_mayo/np1.htm. In this regard, article 366 of the Bolivian Constitution provides that all foreign companies that develop activities in the oil and gas sectors are subject to the laws of Bolivia, excluding the possibility to submit a claim regarding these activities to arbitral tribunals.

  94. 94.

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, Case No. ARB/10/8, Pan American Energy LLC v. Plurinational State of Bolivia.

  95. 95.

    Investment Treaty News (ITN), Bolivia notifies World Bank of withdrawal from ICSID, pursues BIT revisions, 9th May 2007, published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), available at http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2007/itn_may9_2007.pdf. See also, Bolpress, Bolivia revisará y renegociará cada uno de los 24 tratados de protección a las inversiones extranjeras, 11th May 2007, available at http://www.bolpress.com/index.php.

  96. 96.

    Polasek/Mellske, Termination of Bolivia-United States Bilateral Investment Treaty, 31st May 2012, in: Latin Arbitration Law, available at: http://www.latinarbitrationlaw.com/termination-of-bolivia-united-states-bilateral-investment-treaty/. See, Los tiempos.com, Bolivia pone fin a tratado con EEUU, 24th May, 2012, available at http://www.lostiempos.com/diario/actualidad/economia/20120524/bolivia-pone-fin-a-tratado-con-eeuu_172533_362858.html.

  97. 97.

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, News Releases, Ecuador’s Notification under Article 25(4) of the ICSID Convention, 5th December 2007, available at https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=OpenPage&PageType=AnnouncementsFrame&FromPage=Announcements&pageName=Announcement9.

  98. 98.

    Ecuador withdrew the ICSID Convention on 6th July 2009. Contrary to Venezuela and Bolivia, no investor claim has been brought since its notice of withdrawal from ICSID Convention. International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, News Releases, Ecuador Submits a Notice under Article 71 of the ICSID Convention, 9th July 2009, available at https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=OpenPage&PageType=AnnouncementsFrame&FromPage=NewsReleases&pageName=Announcement20.

  99. 99.

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, “Search ICSID Cases”: https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet.

  100. 100.

    The Ecuadorian National Assembly has authorised the termination of BITs signed with Germany and the United Kingdom on 14th of September of 2010, with Finland on 23th November 2010, with Sweden and France on 15th March 2011. Asamblea Nacional de la República del Ecuador, Tratados e instrumentos internacionales aprobados por el Pleno desde agosto de 2009, numerales 11, 12, 16, 22, and 23, available at http://www.asambleanacional.gov.ec/tratados-e-instrumentos-internacionales-aprobados.html. See also http://www.eluniverso.com/2010/09/15/1/1355/fin-tratados-inversion-alemania-reino-unido-irlanda.html.

  101. 101.

    Asamblea Nacional de la República del Ecuador, Comisión Especializada Permanente No. 5 de Soberanía, Integración, Relaciones Internacionales y Seguridad Integral, Informe de la Comisión sobre el “Convenio entre el Gobierno de la República del Ecuador y el Gobierno de la República de Finlandia sobre la Promoción y Protección de las Inversiones”, DM, 18th October 2010, paragraph 3.1, available in Spanish at http://documentacion.asambleanacional.gob.ec/alfresco/d/d/workspace/SpacesStore/9521beb0-e7f9-4398-bbdd-7ab6acfa7083/Informe%20de%20Comisi%c3%b3n%20con%20relaci%c3%b3n%20al%20pedido%20del%20Presidente%20de%20la%20Rep%c3%bablica%20de%20que%20la%20Asamblea%20Nacional%20apruebe%20la%20denuncia%20del%20Convenio%20entre%20Ecuador%20y%20Finlandia%20sobre%20la%20Promoci%c3%b3n%20y%20Protecci%c3%b3n%20de%20Inversiones%20(19-10-10).pdf.

  102. 102.

    Asamblea Nacional de la República del Ecuador, Comisión Especializada Permanente No. 5 de Soberanía, Integración, Relaciones Internacionales y Seguridad Integral, Informe de la Comisión sobre el “Convenio entre el Gobierno de la República del Ecuador y el Gobierno de la República de Finlandia sobre la Promoción y Protección de las Inversiones”, paragraph 3.2.

  103. 103.

    Asamblea Nacional de la República del Ecuador, Comisión Especializada Permanente No. 5 de Soberanía, Integración, Relaciones Internacionales y Seguridad Integral, Informe de la Comisión sobre el “Convenio entre el Gobierno de la República del Ecuador y el Gobierno de la República de Finlandia sobre la Promoción y Protección de las Inversiones”, paragraph 3.3.

  104. 104.

    Asamblea Nacional de la República del Ecuador, Comisión Especializada Permanente No. 5 de Soberanía, Integración, Relaciones Internacionales y Seguridad Integral, Informe de la Comisión sobre el “Convenio entre el Gobierno de la República del Ecuador y el Gobierno de la República de Finlandia sobre la Promoción y Protección de las Inversiones”, paragraph 3.6.

  105. 105.

    Asamblea Nacional de la República del Ecuador, Comisión Especializada Permanente No. 5 de Soberanía, Integración, Relaciones Internacionales y Seguridad Integral, Informe de la Comisión sobre el “Convenio entre el Gobierno de la República del Ecuador y el Gobierno de la República de Finlandia sobre la Promoción y Protección de las Inversiones”, paragraph 4.1.2. Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador, article 417.

  106. 106.

    Asamblea Nacional de la República del Ecuador, Comisión Especializada Permanente No. 5 de Soberanía, Integración, Relaciones Internacionales y Seguridad Integral, Informe de la Comisión sobre el “Convenio entre el Gobierno de la República del Ecuador y el Gobierno de la República de Finlandia sobre la Promoción y Protección de las Inversiones”, paragraph 4.1.3. Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador, article 419, paragraph 7, and article 422.

  107. 107.

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, Case No. ARB/06/11, Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador, Award, paragraph 876, lit. (v, available at the following address: https://icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet.

  108. 108.

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, Case No. ARB/06/11, Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador, Award, paragraph 876, lit. (i and (ii, respectively.

  109. 109.

    Procuraduria General del Estado Ecuador, Boletin de Prensa CS/01, Se inicia proceso de anulación del Caso Oxy con la conformación del Comité, 15 de Enero del 2013, available in Spanish at http://www.pge.gob.ec/es/rotativo/1942-segun-notificacion-de-la-secretaria-general-del-ciadi-se-inicia-el-proceso-de-anulacion-del-caso-oxy-con-la-conformacion-del-comite-ad-hoc-que-lo-conocera.html.

  110. 110.

    Both the Venezuela–Netherlands BIT and Bolivia–USA BIT will continue to be effective for a further period of 15 and 10 years, respectively. Venezuela–Netherlands BIT, article 14, paragraph 3, and Bolivia–USA BIT, article XVI, paragraph 3. Concerning the BITs signed by Ecuador, almost all terminated BITs remain in force for a further period of 15 years, while only the BIT with Finland will still be effective for an additional period of 10 years. Ecuador–Germany BIT, article 12, paragraph 3; Ecuador–United Kingdom BIT, article 14, paragraph 1; Ecuador–Sweden BIT, article 11, paragraph 3; Ecuador–France BIT, article 14, paragraph 2, and Ecuador–Finland BIT, article 14, paragraph 2.

  111. 111.

    Pursuant to article 72 ICSID Convention, the “[written] [n]otice [of denunciation of ICSID Convention] by a Contracting State (…) shall not affect the rights or obligations under this Convention of that State or of any of its constituent subdivisions or agencies or of any national of that State arising out of consent to the jurisdiction of the Centre given by one of them before such notice was received by the depositary”.

  112. 112.

    Tzanakopoulos, Denunciation of the ICSID Convention under the General International Law of Treaties, in: Hofmann/Tams (eds.), International Investment Law and General International Law, From Clinical Isolation to Systemic Integration?, Schriften zur Europäischen Integration und Internationalen Witschaftsordnung, 2011, p. 75 (88–92).

  113. 113.

    Schreuer, The ICSID convention: a Commentary on the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, 2009, 2. ed., pp. 211–213 (Article 25, paras. 447–449). and pp. 1280 (Article 72, paras. 5 and 6).

  114. 114.

    Garibaldi, On the Denunciation of the ICSID Convention, Consent to ICSID Jurisdiction, and the Limits of the Contract Analogy, in: Binder/Kriebaum/Reinisch/Wittich, International Investment Law for the 21st Century, 2009, p. 251.

  115. 115.

    Tietje/Nowrot/Wackernagel, Once and Forever? The Legal Effects of a Denunciation of ICSID, Beiträge zum Internationalen Wirtschaftsrecht (2008) 74, p. 22.

  116. 116.

    Nolan/Sourgens, The Interplay between State Consent to ICSID Arbitration and Denunciation of the ICSID Convention: The (Possible) Venezuela Case Study, TDM 5 2007.

  117. 117.

    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, Case No. ARB/12/19, Ternium S.A. and Consorcio Siderurgia Amazonia S.L. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; Case No. ARB/12/20, Blue Bank International & Trust (Barbados) Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; Case No. ARB/12/21, Fábrica de Vidrios Los Andes, C.A. and Owens-Illinois de Venezuela, C.A. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; Case No. ARB/12/22, Venoklim Holding B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; Case No. ARB/12/23, Tenaris S.A. and Talta - Trading e Marketing Sociedade Unipessoal Lda. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and Case No. ARB/12/24, Transban Investments Corp. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; Case No. ARB/12/13, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Europe v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; Case No. ARB/10/8, Pan American Energy LLC v. Plurinational State of Bolivia (these cases are mentioned in footnotes 89, 90, and 94).

  118. 118.

    UNCTAD, Best Practices in Investment for Development, How to prevent and manage investor-State disputes: Lessons from Peru, Investment Advisory Series, Series B, N. 10, pp. 21–33, available at http://unctad.org/en/Docs/webdiaepcb2011d9_en.pdf.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Haagstraße 17, Zi. E06, 91054, Erlangen, Germany

    María José Luque Macías

Authors
  1. María José Luque Macías
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to María José Luque Macías .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. European Law, European and International Economic Law, University of Passau Chair for Constitutional and Administrat, Passau, Germany

    Christoph Herrmann

  2. Chair for Public Law and International Law, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany

    Markus Krajewski

  3. Chair for Public Law, European and International Law, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany

    Jörg Philipp Terhechte

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Macías, M.J.L. (2013). Current Approaches to the International Investment Regime in South America. In: Herrmann, C., Krajewski, M., Terhechte, J. (eds) European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2014. European Yearbook of International Economic Law, vol 5. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40913-4_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation