Multinational Enterprises and Treaty-Making — A Contribution to the Discussion on Non-State Actors and the “Subjects” of International Law

Part of the Nijhoff Law Specials book series (Nijhoff Law Specials)


At the outset I would like to record that I was very pleased to be invited to speak on a topic relating to multinational companies.1 This is so because one of the major research projects of the new Institute of Globalization, International Economic Law and Dispute Settlement (GLODIS) at the Erasmus University Rotterdam concerns the status of multinational companies under international law.2 A closer look, however, revealed that the particular theme “multinational enterprises and treaty-making” appears to be almost a non-topic. It seems that multinational enterprises, at least de lege lata,hardly have a formal role to play in international law, apart from the largely unsuccessful attempts of States to treat them as objects of international regulation. They are actors that barely exist on the formal level of international law. Nevertheless, recently a vivid discussion has emerged on the decline of the State in international relations and international law and on the emergence (or enhanced role) of so-called non-State actors, including such diverse entities as international organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), minorities, indigenous peoples, and last not least, multinational enterprises. The discussion often centres on the issue of whether and to what extent they may be regarded as “subjects” of international law.3


Foreign Direct Investment Dispute Settlement Multinational Company Multinational Enterprise Legal Personality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Generally on the international legal aspects of multinational companies see, for example, D. Kokkini-Iatridou and P.J.I.M. de Waart, “Foreign Investments in Developing Countries — Legal Personality of Multinationals in International Law” (1983) 14 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law,pp. 87–131Google Scholar
  2. P. Fisher, “Transnational Enterprises”, in R. Bernhardt (ed.), Vol. 8 (1985), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, pp. 515–19Google Scholar
  3. A.A. Fatouros, “National Legal Persons in International Law”, ibid., Vol. 10 (1987), pp. 299–306Google Scholar
  4. I. Seidl-Hohenveldern, Corporations in and under International Law, 1987; United Nations Centre on Transnational Corporations, Transnational Corporations in World Development: Trends and Prospects, 1988Google Scholar
  5. P. Merciai, Les Entreprises multinationales en droit international, 1993Google Scholar
  6. R. Higgins, “International Law and Foreign Corporations”, in New Diplomacy in the Post Cold War World: Essays for Susan Strange, 1993Google Scholar
  7. A.A. Fatouros (ed.), Transnational Corporations: The International Legal Framework, 1994Google Scholar
  8. D.W. Bachmann, “Transnational Corporations”, in R. Wolfrum (ed.), United Nations: Law, Policies and Practice, Vol. 2, 1995, pp. 1239–47Google Scholar
  9. P.T. Muchlinski, Multinational Enterprises and the Law, 1995Google Scholar
  10. Surya P. Subedi, “Foreign Investment and Sustainable Development”, in Weiss, Denters and Waart (eds.), International Economic Law with a Human Face, 1998, pp. 413–428Google Scholar
  11. Thomas L. Brewer and Stephen Young, The Multilateral Investment System and Multinational Enterprises,1998, with further references.Google Scholar
  12. 2.
    The Institute was established in September 1998. For information see the GLODIS Constitutive Document, which may be obtained from the Secretariat, GLODIS, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Faculty of Law, Burg. Oudlaan 50, NL-3062 PA Rotterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  13. Dr. Menno Kamminga. For the results of a GLODIS conference see M. Kamminga and S. Zia-Zarifi (eds.), Corporate Liability under International Law ( Kluwer Law International, Dordrecht, 2000 ).Google Scholar
  14. 3.
    See P. Malanczuk, “Minorities and Self-Determination: Reflections on Interna-tional Law in General, Including Some Recent Developments in Ethiopia”, in Neri Sybesma-Knol/Jef Van Bellingen (eds.), Naar een nieuwe interpretatie van het Recht op Zelfbeschikking, 1995, pp. 169–193Google Scholar
  15. Malanczuk, Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law,7th rev. ed., 1997, pp. 71–90, 91–108Google Scholar
  16. Malanczuk, “Actors: States, International Organizations, Private Entities”, in G. Lafferanderie/Daphné Crowther (eds.), Outlook on Outer Space Law over the Next 30 Years. Essays published for the 30th Anniversary of the Outer Space Treaty, 1997, pp. 23–36Google Scholar
  17. Malanczuk, “From the Traditional Interstate Order Towards the Law of the Global Community” [Conference Note: Walther-SchückingInstitute of International Law, University of Kiel, Germany, International Conference on New Non-State Actors as Subjects of International Law,25 —28 March 1998] (Zero Issue) (1998) ILA International Law Forum,pp. 23–24Google Scholar
  18. Andrea Bianchi, “Globalization of Human Rights: The Role of Non-State Actors”, in Gunther Teubner (cd.), Global Law Without a State,1997, pp. 179–212Google Scholar
  19. Lisa Wilder, “Local Futures’? From Denunciation to Revalorization of the Indigenous Other”, in Teubner (ed.), ibid.,pp. 215–256.Google Scholar
  20. 4.
    See the contributions in Gunther Teubner (ed.), Global Law Without a State,1997, by Jean Philippe Robe, “Multinational Enterprises: The Constitution of a Pluralistic Legal Order”, pp. 45–77Google Scholar
  21. Peter T. Muchlinski, “`Global Bukowina’ Examined: Viewing the Multinational Enterprise as a Transnational Law-making Community”, pp. 79–108.Google Scholar
  22. 5.
    See Muchlinski, Multinational Enterprises, op. cit.,pp. 12–15;Google Scholar
  23. Brewer and Young, The Multilateral Investment System, op. cit.,p. 11 et seq.Google Scholar
  24. 6.
    OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, 21 June 1976, introduction, para. 8; Draft UN Code of Conduct for TNCs, UN Doc. E/1990/94, 12 June 1990, para. 1, at 5.Google Scholar
  25. See P. Malanczuk, “Globalization and the Future Role of Sovereign States”, in Friedl Weiss, Eric Denters and Paul de Waart (eds.), International Economic Law with a Human Face,1998, pp. 45–65. The following section is based on a revised part of this article.Google Scholar
  26. 8.
    T. Bernauer, “Weltpolitik im 21. Jahrhundert: kein `Vorwärts’ in die Vergangen-heit — Von den Grenzen der Globalisierung” (1997) 45 Vereinte Nationen,p. 50.Google Scholar
  27. 9.
    UNCTAD, World Investment Report,1997.Google Scholar
  28. See John H. Dunning, Roger van Hoesel and Rajneesh Narula, “Third World Multinationals Revisited: New Developments and Theoretical Implications”, in John H. Dunning (ed.), Globalization, Trade and Foreign Direct Investment, 1998, pp. 255–286Google Scholar
  29. C. Souza, “Latin America’s Emerging Multinationals”, Financial Times, Part 10 of “Mastering Global Business”, 3 April 1998, p. 8.Google Scholar
  30. 11.
    See Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of 22 September 1997, p. 15.Google Scholar
  31. 12.
    H.-O. Henkel, “Globalisierung der Wirtschaft: eine Herausforderung für die internationale Gemeinschaft” (1995) 43 Vereinte Nationen,p. 194.Google Scholar
  32. 13.
    UNCTAD, World Investment Report,1997.Google Scholar
  33. 14.
    See, for example, Vivien A. Schmidt, “The New World Order, Incorporated: The Rise of Business and the Decline of the Nation-State” (1995) 124 Daedalus (Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences),pp. 75–106.Google Scholar
  34. 16.
    See Financial Times of 27 October 1997, p. 12.Google Scholar
  35. Karl M. Meessen, “Sovereignty”, in R. Wolfrum (ed.), United Nations: Law, Policies and Practice,Vol. 2, 1995, p. i. 199.Google Scholar
  36. 19.
    See The Economist of 9 January 1999, pp. 19–21.Google Scholar
  37. 21.
    See Edward M. Graham, Global Corporations and National Governments,996.Google Scholar
  38. 22.
    See Bernauer, op. cit.,pp. 50–51 with further considerations.Google Scholar
  39. 23.
    For details see Malanczuk, Akehurst’s, op. cit.,ch. 15: (Economy), pp. 222–240 with references to the literature.Google Scholar
  40. 24.
    See Muchlinski, Multinational Enterprises, op. cit.,p. 617 et seq.Google Scholar
  41. R. Dolzer and M. Stevens, Bilateral Investment Treaties, 1995Google Scholar
  42. Paul Peters, “Some Serendipitous Findings in BITs: the Barcelona Traction Case and the Reach of Bilateral Investment Treaties”, in Erik Denters and Nico Schrijver (eds.), Reflections on International Law from the Low Countries in Honour of Paul de Waart, 1998, pp. 27–47.Google Scholar
  43. 25.
    See Philip G. Cerny, “International Finance and the Erosion of State Policy Capacity”, in Philip Gummett (ed.), Globalization and Public Policy, 1996, pp. 83–104.Google Scholar
  44. 26.
    In the recent case of Indonesia, the loans granted by the IMF, World Bank and the Asian Development Bank in the amount of $23 billion were supported by additional offers from the United States, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia with more expected from Australia, Hong Kong and perhaps China, see Financial Times of 3 November 1997, p. 18. It is inter-Google Scholar
  45. 28.
    Report of a High-level Expert Group on Opportunities and Risks of Globalization, chaired by Lord Callaghan of Cardiff 18th-20th March 1997, Washington, D.C.,Communiqué of the InterAction Council, 15th Session, 1–4 June 1997, Noordwijk, Netherlands, 2.Google Scholar
  46. 29.
    David C. Korten, When Corporations Rule the World, 1995.Google Scholar
  47. 30.
    See the illuminating analysis in the special supplement: The future of the State. A survey of the world economy, The Economist of 20 September 1997.Google Scholar
  48. 31.
    See Financial Times of 31 October 1997, 15. On the historical background see the summary given by Menno Kamminga, “Aansprakclijkheid van (multinationale) ondernemingen voor schendingen van internationaal recht” (1997) 22 NJCM-Bulletin, p. 785.Google Scholar
  49. 32.
    See, for example, from a trade union point of view, Detlef Hensche, “Armut, Vertreibung, Umweltzerstörung anderswo — was geht uns das an? — Von der Notwendigkeit solidarischen Ausgleichs in einer kleiner werdenden Welt” (1995) 43 Vereinte Nationen,pp. 196–200.Google Scholar
  50. 33.
    See Malanczuk, Akehurst’s, op. cit.,p. 233 et seq. with references; Thomas W. Waelde, “A Requiem for the `New International Economic Order’ — The Rise and Fall of Paradigms in International Economic Law and a Post-Mortem with Timeless Significance”, in G. Hafner, G. Loibl, A. Rest, L. Sucharipa-Behrmann and K. Zemanek (eds.), Liber Amicorum Professor Ignaz Seidl-Hohenveldern — in Honour of his 80th birthday,1998, pp. 771–804.Google Scholar
  51. 34.
    See, for example, the 1976 OECD Declaration on International Investment and Multinational Enterprises, Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (1976) 15 International Legal Materials, p. 15 et seq., and the 1977Google Scholar
  52. ILO Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multilateral Enterprises and Social Policy (1978) 17 International Legal Materials,p. 422 et seq. See further E.-U. Petersmann, “Codes of Conduct”, in R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law,Vol. I (1992), pp. 627–32.Google Scholar
  53. Seymour J. Rubin, “Transnational Corporations and International Codes of Conduct: A Study of the Relationship between International Legal Cooperation and Economic Development” (1995) 10 American University Journal of International Law and Policy,pp. 1275–1289.Google Scholar
  54. 35.
    On the drafts see (1984) 23 International Legal Materials,p. 626; (1989) 4 ICSID Review, p. 135. See W. Spröte, “Negotiations on a United Nations Code of Conduct on Transnational Corporations” (1990) 33 German Yearbook of International Law,p. 331.Google Scholar
  55. 36.
    ) 4 Yearbook of International Environmental Law,p. 103.Google Scholar
  56. 37.
    ) 5 Yearbook of International Environmental Law,p. 136.Google Scholar
  57. 38.
    This section is based on a revised version of the relevant text in Malanczu.k, Akehurst’s, op. cit.,pp. 92–93.Google Scholar
  58. 39.
    The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States,Vol. 1, part 11, 1987, p. 70, dealing with “persons in international law”, however, rejects the term “subjects” because it may have more limited implications meaning that such entities have only rights and duties, and not also, to varying extents, legal status and personality under international law. See further H. Mosier, “Subjects of International Law”, in R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law,Vol. 7 (1984), pp. 442–59Google Scholar
  59. J.A. Barberis, Los sujetos del derecho internacional actual, 1984Google Scholar
  60. P.K. Menon, “The Subjects of Modern International Law” (1990) 3 Hague Yearbook of International Law,pp. 30–86Google Scholar
  61. I. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law,4th edn 1990, p. 58 et seq.; Conference on Changing Notions of Sovereignty and the Role of Private Actors in International Law, (1993–4) 9 American University Journal of International Politics and Law,pp. 1–213.Google Scholar
  62. 40.
    L. Oppenheim, International Law. A Treatise,2nd ed. 1912, Vol. I (Peace), p. 19.Google Scholar
  63. 41.
    Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, op. cit.,p. 58.Google Scholar
  64. 42.
    Reparations for Injuries’ Case, (1 949) ICJ Rep., p. 178.Google Scholar
  65. 43.
    See F. Morgenstern, “Legality in International Organizations” (1976–7) 48 British Yearbook of International Law,pp. 241–258; E. Osieke, “Ultra Vires Acts in International Organizations — The Experience of the International Labour Organization”, ibid.,pp. 259280.Google Scholar
  66. 44.
    C.A. Norgaard, The Position of the Individual in International Law, 1962Google Scholar
  67. R.A. Mullerson, “Human Rights and the Individual as a Subject of International Law” (1990) I European Journal of International Law,pp. 33–43Google Scholar
  68. K.J. Partsch, “Individuals in International Law”, in R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. II (1995), pp. 957–962Google Scholar
  69. P.K. Menon, “The Legal Personality of Individuals” (1994) 6 Sri Lanka Journal of International Law,pp. 127–156;.Google Scholar
  70. 45.
    See Malanczuk, Akehurst’s,p. 353 et seq. with references.Google Scholar
  71. 46.
    Hans W. Baade, “The Legal Effects of Codes of Conduct”, in Norbert Horn. (ed.), Legal Problems of Codes of Conduct for Multinational Enterprises, 1980, p. 8.Google Scholar
  72. 47.
    Baade, ibid.,reprinted in Fatouros (ed.), Transnational Corporations, op. ct.,pp. 212–250, at 215.Google Scholar
  73. 48.
    Vol. 1, 1987, p. 126, see also 130 (Reporter’s Notes). Malcom N. Shaw, lntc,.na-tional Law, 4`h ed., 1997, pp. 176–177, notes that if an international code of conduct for multinational corporations would come into effect, imposing direct duties on companies as well as ascribing rights to them against the host State, “it would be possible to regard them as international persons”. He states that this, however, has not yet happened. A discussion ofGoogle Scholar
  74. 49.
    K.P. Sauvant and V. Aranda, “The International Legal Framework for Transnational Corporations”, in Fatouros (ed.), Transnational Corporations, op. cit.,pp. 83–115, at 84.Google Scholar
  75. 50.
    See Kennedy, Preparing for the Twenty-First Century, op. cit.,ch. 3.Google Scholar
  76. 51.
    A. Cassese, International Law in a Divided World, 1986, p. 103.Google Scholar
  77. 52.
    R. Jennings, “State Contracts in International Law” (1961) 32 British Yearbook of International Law,p. 156 et seq.Google Scholar
  78. K.-H. Böckstiegel, Der Staat als Vertragspartner ausländischer Privatunternehmen, 1971Google Scholar
  79. D.W. Bowett, “State Contracts with Aliens: Contemporary Developments on Compensation for Termination or Breach” (1988) 59 British Yearbook of International Law,p. 49 et seq Google Scholar
  80. E. Paasivirta, “Internationalization and Stabilization of Contracts versus State Sovereignty”, ibid., (1989) 60, p. 315 et seq.; M. Sornarajah, International Commercial Arbitration: The Protection of State Contracts, 1990;Google Scholar
  81. G.v. Hecke, “Contracts between States and Foreign Private Law Persons”, in R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. 1 (1992), pp. 814–19Google Scholar
  82. V. Hecke, “Contracts between International Organizations and Private Law Persons”, ibid.,pp. 812–14Google Scholar
  83. A.F.M. Maniruzzaman, “State Contracts with Aliens. The Question of Unilateral Change by the State in Contemporary International Law” (1992) 9 Journal of International Arbitration,pp. 141–71Google Scholar
  84. G.R. Delaume, Transnational Contracts — Applicable Law and Settlement of Disputes, 1992.Google Scholar
  85. P. Fisher, Concessions, in R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law,Vol. I (1992), pp. 715–21Google Scholar
  86. A.Z.E. Chiali, “Protection of Investment in the Context of Petroleum Agreements” 204 Recueil des cours (1987-IV), pp. 13–169.Google Scholar
  87. 54.
    The most important arbitration cases since 1929 are listed in v. Hecke, op. ci.Google Scholar
  88. 55.
    See Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States,Vol. 2, 1987, p. 214Google Scholar
  89. 56.
    See, for example, Waldemar Hummer, “Internationale und transnationale Akteure an oder unter der Schwelle der Völkerrechtssubjektivität”, in Hanspeter Neuhold, Waldemar Hummer and Christoph Schreuer (eds.), Österreichisches Handbuch des Völkerrechts,Band 1, 3rd ed., 1997, p. 224; Peter Fischer, “Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht und Internationale Wirtschaftsorganisationen”, ibid.,p. 440. See also Wildhaber, “International-rechtliche Probleme multilateraler Kooperation” (1978) 18 Berichte der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht,p. 7 at 300.Google Scholar
  90. 57.
    Friedmann, The Changing Structure of International Law,1964, pp. 221–231.Google Scholar
  91. 58.
    See the extensive references in Brownlie, Principles, op. cit.,pp. 547–552.Google Scholar
  92. 59.
    Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, Der Staat als Vertragspartner ausländischer Privatunternehmen,1971.Google Scholar
  93. 60.
    Texas Overseas Petroleum Co. and California Asiatic Oil Co. v. Libyan Arab Republic (1978) 17 International Legal Materials,p. 1. Prof. Dupuy’s approach did not find uniform support in later arbitral awards, see Muchlinksi, Multinational Enterprises, op. cit.,p. 494 et seq.Google Scholar
  94. 61.
    Matthias Herdegen, Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht,2nd ed., 1995, pp. 205–208; at 58 the author describes this view as an advancing one.Google Scholar
  95. 62.
    I. Seidl-Hohenveldern, International Economic Law,2nd ed., 1992, pp. 10–20.Google Scholar
  96. 63.
    Wolfgang Graf Vitzthum, Begriff, “Geschichte und Quellen des Völkerrechts”, in Vitzthum (ed.), Völkerrecht, 1997, p. 17.Google Scholar
  97. 64.
    Vitzthum, ibid.; see also pp. 96–97 for further considerations.Google Scholar
  98. 65.
    Heintschel von Heinegg, in Knut Ipsen (ed.), Völkerrecht, 3rd ed. 1990, pp. 102–103.Google Scholar
  99. 66.
    See V. Epping, Völkerrechtssubjekte, in Knut Ipsen (ed.), Völkerrecht, Epping,., also with reference to Lenten, E’rdril-ProduMion.cvertrdgc des Iran, 1981,p. 150.Google Scholar
  100. 68.
    Heintschel von Heinegg, op. cit.,p. 103.Google Scholar
  101. 69.
    Wolfgang Graf Vitzthum, “Raum Umwelt und Wirtschaft im Völkerrecht”, in Vitzthum (ed.), Völkerrecht, op. cit.,pp. 503–504, arguing that bilateral investment protection treaties between the home Skate and the host State therefore offer more effective solutions.Google Scholar
  102. 70.
    For example, Kay Hailbronner, “Der Staat und der Einzelne as Völkerechtssubjekte”, in Vitzthum (ed.), Völkerrecht, op. cit.,pp. 197–198.Google Scholar
  103. 71.
    Vol. 2, 1987, p. 214. A distinction is made between the internationalization of concession or development agreements and State contracts other than development agreements, pp. 213–216.Google Scholar
  104. 72.
    Ian Brownlie, The Rule of Law in International Affairs,1998, ch. III., p. 35 et seq. Internationalized contracts are only very briefly mentioned at 149.Google Scholar
  105. 73.
    Brownlie, Principles, op. cit.,pp. 67–68.Google Scholar
  106. 75.
    P. Malanczuk, Akehurst’s, op. cit.,p. 102.Google Scholar
  107. 76.
    P. Malanczuk, p. 267 with further references.Google Scholar
  108. 77.
    See generally Yoram Dinstein, “Diplomatic Protection of Companies under International Law”, in Karel Wellens (ed.), International Law: Theory and Practice: Essays in Honour of Eric Suy, 1998, pp. 505–517, with further references.Google Scholar
  109. 78.
    See Muchlinski, Multinational Enterprises, op. cit.,p. 497, noting that a shift in bargaining power to the foreign investor may result in the provision of guarantees similar in their effect to stabilization clauses under the law of the host State.Google Scholar
  110. 79.
    Fleur Johns, “The Invisibility of the Transnational Corporation: An Analysis of International Law and Legal Theory” (1994) 19 Melbourne University Law Review,p. 902.Google Scholar
  111. 80.
    As to the role of American companies, which have been quite active in this respect, see Graham K. Wilson, “Corporate Political Strategies” (1990) 20 British Journal of Political Science,pp. 281–288.Google Scholar
  112. For an analysis of the influence of multinational enterprises on national public policy choices see Razeen Sally, “Public Policy and the Janus Face of the Multinational Enterprise: National Embeddedness and International Production”, in Philip Gummett (ed.), Globalization and Public Policy, 1996, pp. 64–82.Google Scholar
  113. 82.
    See Richard Higgott, “Beyond Embedded Liberalism: Governing the International Trade Regime in an Era of Economic Nationalism”, in Philip Gummmett (ed.), Globalization, op. cit.,pp. 18–45, at 35Google Scholar
  114. Susan Strange, “States, Firms and Diplomacy” (1992) 68 International Affairs,pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
  115. 83.
    See Jonathan Charney, “Transnational Corporations and Developing Public International Law” (1983) Duke Law Journal of International Law,p. 748 et seq.Google Scholar
  116. Peter T. Muchlinski, “`Global Bukowna’ Examined: Viewing the Multinational Enterprise as a Transnational Law-making Community”, in op. cit., Teubner (ed.), Global Law Without a State, 1997, pp. 95–101.Google Scholar
  117. 84.
    See for details Johns, op. cit.,pp. 902–903, with particular reference to an initiative of Australia.Google Scholar
  118. 85.
    UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. III), 14 August 1992, ch. 30.Google Scholar
  119. 86.
    Ibid., para. 30.1. On the results of the Rio Conference see P. Malanczuk, “`Sustainable Development’ — Some Critical Thoughts in the Light of the Rio Conference”, in K. Ginther, E. Denters and P. de Waart (eds.), Sustainable Development and Good Governance, 1995, pp. 23–53Google Scholar
  120. Malanczuk, “Die Konferenz der Vereinten Nationen über Umwelt und Entwicklung (UNCED) und das internationale Umweltrecht” [The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development and International Environmental Law], in U.Beyerlin, M. Bothe, R. Hofmann and E.-U. Petersmann (eds.), Recht zwischen Umbruch und Bewahrung, Völkerrecht — Staatsrecht — Europarecht, Festschrift far Rudolf Bernhardt,1995, pp. 985–1002.Google Scholar
  121. 87.
    See Andrew M. McLaughlin, Grant Jordan and William A. Maloney, y, “Corporate Lobbying in the European Community” (1993) 31 Journal of Common Market Studies,pp. 191–212Google Scholar
  122. Wyn Grant, Alberto Martinelli and William Paterson, “Large Firms as Political Actors: A Comparative Analysis of the Chemical Industry in Britain, Italy and West Germany” (1989) 12 West European Politics,pp. 72–90Google Scholar
  123. Sonia Mazey and Jeremy Richardson (eds.), Lobbying in the European Community,1993Google Scholar
  124. M.P.C.M. Van Schendelen (ed,), National and Private EC Lobbying, 1993; Jacqueline Nonon and Michel Clamen, L’Europe et ses Couloirs. Lobbying et lobbyistes, 1991Google Scholar
  125. Andrew M. McLaughlin and Justin Greenwood, “The Management of Interest Representation in the European Union” (1995) 33 Journal of Common Market Studies,pp. 143–156.Google Scholar
  126. 88.
    See, for example, Lorraine Eden and Maureen Appel Molot, “Insiders and Outsiders: Auto Industry Policy Choices in the NAFTA Debate”, in Robert G. Cushing et al. (eds.), The Challenge of NAFTA, 1993, pp. 175–190.Google Scholar
  127. 89.
    On the draft MAI, see, for example, Biswajit Dhar and Sachin Chaturvedi, “Multilateral Agreement on Investment — An Analysis” (1998) 33 Economic and Political Weekly,pp. 837–848Google Scholar
  128. Peter Muchlinski, “Towards a Multilateral Investment Agreement (MAI): The OECD and WTO Models and Sustainable Development”, in Friedl Weiss, Erik Denters and Paul de Waart (eds.), International Economic Law with a Human Face, 1998, pp. 429–451.Google Scholar
  129. 90.
    See Peter T. Muchlinski, “Global Bukowina”, op. cit.,pp. 93–95.Google Scholar
  130. 92.
    In 1999 Royal Dutch Shell, as British Petroleum one year earlier, decided to pull out of the Global Climate Coalition, Financial Times of 22 April 1999, p. 5.Google Scholar
  131. 93.
    David de Pury, “Wer regiert die Weltwirtschaft? — Das Spannungsverhältnis von Wirtschaft und Politik” (1998) 53 No. 11 Internationale Politik,pp. 25–30.Google Scholar
  132. 97.
    Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung,12 February 1997, p. 15.Google Scholar
  133. 98.
    See the information provided by the WTO, 3 March 1998, goods/trade_release.htm.Google Scholar
  134. 99.
    See Financial Times,28 April 1998, p. 9; NRC Handelsblad of 26 May 1998, p. 16.Google Scholar
  135. 100.
    Financial Times, 17 March 1998, p. 5.Google Scholar
  136. 101.
    For criticism of this limitation see E. Lauterpacht, Aspects of the Administration of International Justice, 1991.Google Scholar
  137. 102.
    See Malanczuk, Akehurst’s, op. cit.,pp. 295–296Google Scholar
  138. Muchlinski, Multinational Enterprises, op. cit.,p. 540 et seq.; Christoph Schreuer, “Access to ICSID Dispute Settlement for Locally Incorporated Companies”, in Weiss, Denters and Waart (eds.), International Economic Law, op. cit.,pp. 497–512Google Scholar
  139. Schreuer, “The Interpretation of ICSID Arbitration Agreements”, in Karel Wellens (ed.), International Law, op. cit,,pp. 719–735.Google Scholar
  140. 103.
    See Malanczuk, Akehurst ‘s,pp. 296–8; Malanczuk, “The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal in The Hague — Some Reflections on a Unique Institution of International Dispute Settlement Moving towards the End of its Work”, in V. Götz, P. Selmer and R. Wolfrum (eds.), Liber Amicorum Günther Jaenicke — zum 85 Geburtstag,1998, pp. 221–238.Google Scholar
  141. 104.
    See P. Malanczuk, `International Business and New Rules of State Responsibility? — The Law Applied by the United Nations (Security Council) Compensation Commission for Claims against Iraq“, in K.-H. Böckstiegel (ed.), Perspectives of Air Law, Space Law and International Business Law for the Next Century, Proceedings of an International Colloquium, Cologne, June 7–9, 1995 to Celebrate 70 Years Institute of Air and Space Law and 20 Years Chair for International Business Law of the University of Cologne,1996, pp. l 1745; Malanczuk, Akehurst’s,pp. 398–399 with further references.Google Scholar
  142. 105.
    See Malanczuk, Akehurst’s,p. 294.Google Scholar
  143. 106.
    See Malanczuk, Akehurst’s,pp. 225 and 300.Google Scholar
  144. 107.
    For example, in disputes concerning investment, anti-dumping and countervailing measures (Article 1904 FTA). See J.-G. Castel, “The Settlement of Disputes under the 1988 Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement” (1989) 83 American Journal of International Law, pp. 118–128.Google Scholar
  145. 108.
    See Malanczuk, Akehurst’s,pp. 225 and 300.Google Scholar
  146. 109.
    See Malanczuk, Akehurst’s,pp. 233 and 300; Marcel Brus, Third Party Dispute Settlement in an Interdependent World,1995, pp. 207–208 with references. DebraGoogle Scholar
  147. P. Steger, “WTO Dispute Settlement: Revitalization of Multilateralism After the Uruguay Round” (1996) 9 Leiden Journal of International Law,pp. 319–335Google Scholar
  148. Friedl Weiss, “Third Parties in GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement Proceedings”, in Denters and Schrijver (eds.), Reflections, op. cit.,pp. 458–472.Google Scholar
  149. 110.
    For a brief survey see Brus, op. cit.,pp. 28–37. For a recent reconsideration of the matter see Panel discussion, “Is the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism Responsive to the Needs of the Traders? Would a System of Direct Action by Private Parties Yield Better Results?” (1998) 32 Journal of World Trade Law,pp. 147–165.Google Scholar
  150. See Berned-Roland Killmann, “The Access of Individuals to International Trade Dispute Settlement” (1996) 13 Journal of International Arbitration,pp. 143–169.Google Scholar
  151. Michael A. Geist, “Toward a General Agreement on the Regulation of Foreign Direct Investment” (1995) 26 Law and Policy in International Business,pp. 673–669.Google Scholar
  152. 112.
    D. Kokkini-Iatridou and P.J.I.M. de Waart, Legal Personality, op. cit.,at 117–124; 129–131Google Scholar
  153. D. Kokkini-Iatridou and P.J.I.M de Waart, “Economic Disputes Between States and Private Parties: Some Legal Thoughts on the Institutionalization of Their Settlement” (1986) 33 Netherlands International Law Review,pp. 289–333, at 323–325Google Scholar
  154. Nico Schrijver, Sovereignty over Natural Resources. Balancing Rights and Duties,1997, pp. 7–8.Google Scholar
  155. 114.
    See Thomas W. Waelde, “Investment Arbitration Under the Energy Charter Treaty — From Dispute Settlement to Treaty Implementation” (1996) 12 Arbitration International,p. 429 et seq.,at 434–436.Google Scholar
  156. 117.
    See further Thomas W. Waelde, “Sustainable Development and the 1994 Energy Charter Treaty: Between Pseudo-Action and the Management of Environmental Investment Risk”, in Weiss, Denters and Waart (eds.), International Economic Law, op. cit.,pp. 223–270.Google Scholar
  157. 118.
    See Ambassador Marino Baldi, “Dispute Settlement”, Symposium on the MAI, 20 October 1997Google Scholar
  158. Cairo, Egypt See, for example, B.B. Ramaiah, “Towards a multilateral framework on investment?” (1997) 6 Transnational Corporations,pp. 117–121Google Scholar
  159. P. Malanczuk, “State-State and Investor-State Dispute Settlement in the OECD Draft Multilateral Agreement on Investment” [forthcoming] (2000) 3 Journal of International Economic Law.Google Scholar
  160. 120.
    Financial Times,22 January 1999, p. 15.Google Scholar
  161. 121.
    Brewer and Young, The Multilateral Investment System, op. cit.,p. 273.Google Scholar
  162. 122.
    See M. Kamminga and S. Zia-Zarifi (eds.), Corporate Liability, op. cit. n. 2.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2000

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations