Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Different Constructions of the FET Standard in Investment Treaties

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) Standard in International Investment Arbitration

Part of the book series: International Law and the Global South ((ILGS))

  • 1116 Accesses

Abstract

The different constructions of FET in different investment treaties are diverse which have generated complexity and debate over the scope of the standard. A close study of different wording of the standard in different investment treaties at bilateral, multilateral and regional levels reveal the fact that the tribunals have varied their interpretation in accordance with the construction of the treaty language impacting the outcome of particular disputes. Connecting the standard with other investment protection standards within the text of each treaty can productively limit the ambit of the FET standard. However, the most common form of limitation, by connecting FET to key principles of international law , does not clearly limit the scope of the FET standard; since these principles of international law are not well defined, nor is their applicability in the context of international investment law well understood. Broadly, the various constructions of the FET standard can be divided into three categories, (a) FET minus —which refers to those treaties where treaty framers have connected the definition of the standard to other concepts that define and appear to limit its scope. (b) Simple FET where the FET clause is formulated without any reference to international law , customary international law , or any other limitation, and (c) FET plus —which refers to treaties which combine the FET standard with an additional substantive obligation. However despite differences in construction, there remains sufficient similarity across different treaties to support the claim that there is an overarching and singular concept of FET that demands to be the subject of detailed analysis.

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 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
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.

    Subedi (2012, p. 168).

  2. 2.

    Kläger (2011, pp. 3–4).

  3. 3.

    See e.g. Salacuse ( 2010, pp. 222–227).

  4. 4.

    See e.g. Laird (2004, pp. 51–54).

  5. 5.

    Ibid.

  6. 6.

    See e.g. Bilateral Investment Treaties  1995–2006: Trends in Investment  Rulemaking, UNCTAD  (2007), pp. 30–33 webpage http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/iteiia20065_en.pdf last accessed 22 May 2018.

  7. 7.

    See e.g. Marshall F, ‘ Fair and Equitable Treatment in International Investment Agreements’ Issues in International Investment Law , Background Papers for the Developing Country Investment Negotiators’ Forum Singapore, 1–2 October 2007, International Institute for Sustainable Development , pp. 4–5 webpage http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2007/inv_fair_treatment.pdf last accessed 1 June, 2018.

  8. 8.

    See e.g. Gann (1985), Muchlinski (2007, pp. 636–639).

  9. 9.

    For general discussion on the minimum standard as developed under international law as a response to protect property of the investors from a post-colonial perspective, see generally Pahuja (2011, pp. 95–171). Also see e.g. Sornarajha (2010, pp. 8–20, 27–37).

  10. 10.

    The ‘general and consistent practice of states’ that they follow out a sense of legal obligation (opinion juris) forms customary international law . See e.g. Continental Shelf Case (Libya vs. Malta) ICJ, Judgement dated 3 June 1985, Para 27.

  11. 11.

    See e.g. Root (1910), Borchar (1915, p. 177); The American Law Institute’s Restatement (Second) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States (1965) American Law Institute Publishers, St. Paul, Minnesota, Para 165.2; Also see e.g. Wilkes (1966).

  12. 12.

    See Roth (1949, p. 127).

  13. 13.

    See e.g. Neer Claim (USA vs. Mexico Opinion) US–Mexico General Claims Commission, 15 October 1926, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. 4, pp. 60–66.

  14. 14.

    Ibid., pp. 61–62.

  15. 15.

    See e.g. Orellana (2004).

  16. 16.

    Shaw (2008, p. 824).

  17. 17.

    Over time, treaties began to tie the minimum standard to the doctrine of state responsibility in international law for injuries to aliens. See generally, e.g. Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions Case (Greece vs. UK) (1924) PCIJ, Judgement dated 30 August 1924; Panevexys-Saldututiskis Railway Case (Estonia vs. Lithuania) (1938) PCIJ, Judgement dated 28 February 1938; Charzow Factory Case (Germany vs. Poland) (1928) PCIJ, Judgement dated 17 September 1928.

  18. 18.

    Brownlie (2003, p. 502).

  19. 19.

    See generally, Roy (1961).

  20. 20.

    Roth (1949, p. 61 and 87).

  21. 21.

    Sornarajha (2010, pp. 140–141 and 328), Adede (1983), Porterfield (2006, pp. 81–84).

  22. 22.

    Yalkin (2009). The International Minimum Standard and Investment Law: The Proof is in the Pudding’ EJIL: Talk! (Blog of European Journal of International Law ) webpage https://www.ejiltalk.org/international-minimum-standard/ last accessed 12 June 2018.

  23. 23.

    See Chap. 2 for discussion of the Calvo doctrine in 2.2.9 World Politics in the 1970s and its Influence on Investment Treaties and the FET Standard.

  24. 24.

    Laird (2004, p. 52).

  25. 25.

    Article 10(1) of the ECT ; Chapter IV, Article 1.1 of the 1998 OECD Draft MAI also falls into this category.

  26. 26.

    Croatia–Oman BIT (2004) webpage http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/880 last accessed 12 June 2018.

  27. 27.

    France–Mexico BIT (1998) webpage http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/1253 last accessed 12 June 2018.

  28. 28.

    The sources of international law derive from Article 38 of the Statute of International Court of Justice . For text of State of ICJ see webpage http://www.icj-cij.org/en/statute.

  29. 29.

    UNCTAD (2012), Fair and Equitable Treatment : UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II (UN, Geneva, New York), p. 23 webpage http://unctad.org/en/Docs/unctaddiaeia2011d5_en.pdf last accessed 20 May 2018.

  30. 30.

    Croatia–Oman BIT (2004) supra note 26.

  31. 31.

    Bahrain–United States BIT (1999) webpage http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/261 last accessed 12 June 2018.

  32. 32.

    UNCTAD 2012 supra note 29, p. 23.

  33. 33.

    Ibid. 22.

  34. 34.

    Kläger (2011, pp. 271–280).

  35. 35.

    Laird (2004, p. 53).

  36. 36.

    See e.g. UNCTAD (1999) Fair and Equitable Treatment , UNCTAD Series on the Issues in International Investment Agreements UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/11 (Vol. III) ( UN, New York and Geneva) pp. 37–42, webpage http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/psiteiitd11v3.en.pdf last accessed 12 June 2018.

  37. 37.

    See Chap. 2, Sect. 2.2.15 discussion on NAFTA 1992.

  38. 38.

    See e.g. Article 5 of US model BIT 2012, for text of the treaty see webpage https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/188371.pdf last accessed 12 June 2018.

  39. 39.

    See e.g. Article 5 of Canada Model BIT 2004, for text see webpage https://www.italaw.com/documents/Canadian2004-FIPA-model-en.pdf last accessed 12 June 2018.

  40. 40.

    Kläger (2011, p. 20).

  41. 41.

    See e.g. Article 10.5 of the Central America-Dominican Republic–United States Free Trade Agreements (DR–CAFTA) (2004) for text see webpage https://ustr.gov/archive/Trade_Agreements/Regional/CAFTA/CAFTA-DR_Final_Texts/Section_Index.html last accessed 12 June 2018.

  42. 42.

    See e.g. Dumberry (2002), Foy and Deane (2001), Thomas (2002).

  43. 43.

    See e.g. Fourth Opinion of Sir Robert Jennings, ‘The Meaning of Article 1105(1) of the NAFTA Agreement’, 6 September 2001, pp. 4–5 in Methanex Corporation vs. United States of America, Preliminary Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 7 August 2002, cited in Laird (2004, pp. 49–50).

  44. 44.

    Schreur (2005, p. 362).

  45. 45.

    Ibid.

  46. 46.

    See e.g. Laird (2004, p. 57).

  47. 47.

    S. D. Myers vs. Government of Canada, Partial Awards, 12 November 2000, (2001) 40 International Legal Materials 1408.

  48. 48.

    Ibid., Para 264.

  49. 49.

    Pope & Talbot vs. Canada, Award 10 April 2001, 7 ICSID Reports 102, Paras 105–118.

  50. 50.

    Ibid. Para 113.

  51. 51.

    Ibid. Para 111.

  52. 52.

    Kläger (2011, p. 68).

  53. 53.

    Pope & Talbot, supra note 49, Para 110.

  54. 54.

    Ibid. Para 115.

  55. 55.

    Ibid. Para 117.

  56. 56.

    See e.g. Laird (2004, pp. 64–65).

  57. 57.

    See e.g. Thomas (2002, p. 80), Gantz (2003, p. 944), Kläger (2011, pp. 69–70).

  58. 58.

    Kläger (2011, p. 70).

  59. 59.

    Ibid.

  60. 60.

    A body composed of representatives of the three state parties with the power to adopt binding interpretations under Article 1131(2).

  61. 61.

    The NAFTA Free Trade Commission (FTC) issued its Note of Interpretation dated 31 July 2001, see webpage http://www.sice.oas.org/tpd/nafta/Commission/CH11understanding_e.asp last accessed 12 June 2018.

  62. 62.

    See Laird (2004, pp. 55–57).

  63. 63.

    See Ibid.

  64. 64.

    Kläger (2011, p. 71).

  65. 65.

    Ibid., pp. 71–72; Sornarajah (2010, pp. 329–330).

  66. 66.

    Pope & Talbot vs. Canada, Award in Respect of Damages, 31 May 2002, (2002) 41 International Legal Materials 1347.

  67. 67.

    The tribunal providing obiter dicta in its decision that the FTC Note of Interpretation was in form and substance an amendment of Article 1105, rather than a proper interpretation. Ibid., Paras 17–24.

  68. 68.

    Ibid., Paras 25–47.

  69. 69.

    Ibid., Paras 48–69.

  70. 70.

    See Laird (2004, p. 55).

  71. 71.

    None of the subsequent tribunals have followed the lead of the Pope & Talbot tribunal in questioning the legitimacy of the FTC Note of Interpretation. Since the announcement of the FTC Note of Interpretation, NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunals have adjusted to the shifting of NAFTA Article 1105 from an inclusive provision to one explicitly based on the customary international minimum standard of treatment . See e.g. Mondev International Ltd vs. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/99/2, Award 11 October 2002, 6 ICSID Reports 192, Para 100; ADF Group, Inc vs. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/1, Award, 9 January 2003, 18 ICSID Review—Foreign Investment Law Journal (2003) 195 Paras 175–178; Lowen Group Inc, and Raymond L. Lowen vs. United States of America, Award, 26 June 2003, 7 ICSID Reports 442 Paras 124–128; Waste Management Inc. vs. United Mexican States (No. 2) ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/3, Award April 30, 2004, 43 International Legal Materials (2004) 967 Paras 90–91.

  72. 72.

    Kläger (2011, pp. 72–74).

  73. 73.

    Laird (2004, p. 56).

  74. 74.

    See e.g., Schreur ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment in Arbitral Practice’ (n 37) 364; Laird (n 230) 49–75.

  75. 75.

    See e.g. Tecmed (n 118) Paras 155 and 156; MTD Equity (n 119) Paras 110–112; Occidental (n 116) Paras 188–190. Also see e.g., Schreur (2005, pp. 368–385).

  76. 76.

    UNCTAD 2012 supra note 29, p. 28.

  77. 77.

    Ibid. 29.

  78. 78.

    Porterfield (2006, p. 88).

  79. 79.

    Also see e.g. Kläger (2011, pp. 74–76).

  80. 80.

    See e.g. Yalkin, supra note 22.

  81. 81.

    Vasciannie (1999, p. 144).

  82. 82.

    ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (2009) webpage http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/3095 last accessed 23 May 2018.

  83. 83.

    UNCTAD 2012 supra note 29, p. 30.

  84. 84.

    Malaysia-New Zealand FTA (2009) webpage http://fta.miti.gov.my/index.php/pages/view/111?mid=46 last accessed 12 June 2018.

  85. 85.

    For full text of CETA see webpage http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/february/tradoc_154329.pdf last accessed 25 June 2018.

  86. 86.

    Jadeau and Gélinas (2016, p. 7).

  87. 87.

    Jacob and Schill (2015).

  88. 88.

    Belgium–Luxembourg Economic Union–Tajikistan BIT, 2009 webpage http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/418 last accessed 22 May 2018.

  89. 89.

    See e.g. Notes and Comments to Article 1(a) of Draft OECD Convention, 1967, by the Drafting Committee, OECD , Draft Convention on the Protection of Foreign Property 1967, (1968) 7 International Legal Materials 117, 120. Also a comment by the Swiss Foreign Office of 1979 in the context of discussion of FET supports this view, which states, ‘Thus, it refers to the classical principle of international public law according to which States must give foreigners found within their territories, and their properties, the benefit of the international ‘minimum standard’, that is to say to accord them a minimum of personal, procedural and economic rights’ translated and cited in Schreur (2005, p. 361).

  90. 90.

    Intergovernmental Agreements Relating to Investment in Developing Countries , Report of the Committee on International Investment and Multinational Enterprises (OECD 1984).

  91. 91.

    Yannaca-Small (2005) ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard’ in International Investment Law in International Investment Law : A Changing Landscape A Companion Volume to International Investment Perspectives (OECD ), pp. 97–98 webpage https://www.oecd.org/investment/internationalinvestmentagreements/40077877.pdf last accessed 12 June 2018 (footnotes in the original text omitted).

  92. 92.

    See discussion on Draft OECD Convention in Chap. 2: 2.2.8 OECD Draft Convention of the Protection of Foreign Property , 1963 and 1967 and its influence.

  93. 93.

    UNCTAD 2012 supra note 29, p. 22.

  94. 94.

    UNCTAD (1999) Fair and Equitable Treatment , Series on the Issues in International Investment Agreements UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/11 (Vol. III). UNCTAD , Geneva and New York, pp. 37–42. Webpage http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/psiteiitd11v3.en.pdf last accessed 12 June 2018.

  95. 95.

    Ibid., p. 13.

  96. 96.

    Ibid., pp. 17, 23, 37–40, 53 and 61.

  97. 97.

    Ibid., p. 40. Also see e.g. Muchlinski (2007, pp. 637–638).

  98. 98.

    Vasciannie (1999, pp. 104–105 and 139–144).

  99. 99.

    Ibid., p. 144.

  100. 100.

    Mann (1982, p. 244). Repeated in Mann 1990 (Further Studies in International Law ), p. 238; similar but more restrictive is Mann (1992, p. 427 and 526). British BITs do not usually contain references to international law . For a detailed discussion of Mann’s statement, especially in the context of Article 1105 of NAFTA , see Thomas (2002, pp. 51–58), submitting that the statement was deeply influenced by Belgium’s loss in the Barcelona Traction Case and the statement was later somewhat blindly introduced as an argument into the NAFTA debate. See e.g., Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co. Ltd. (Belgium vs. Spain) ICJ Judgment of 5 February 1970.

  101. 101.

    Dolzer and Stevens (1995, p. 60).

  102. 102.

    See discussion on the Calvo doctrine and NIEO , 1970 in Chap. 2: 2.2.9 World Politics in the 1970s and its Influence on Investment Treaties and the FET Standard; Also see e.g. Article 2(2)(c) of the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, 1974.

  103. 103.

    Vasciannie (1999, p. 162).

  104. 104.

    See e.g. Azurix vs. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12, Award 14 July 2006; Rumeli Telekom AS vs. Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/16, Award, 29 July 2008.

  105. 105.

    Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmedthe tribunal interpreted the , S.A vs. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/02, Award 29 May 2000, 43 International Legal Materials (2004) 133.

  106. 106.

    Ibid. Paras 155 and 156.

  107. 107.

    MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. And MTD Chile S.A vs. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7, Award 25 May 2004, 12 ICSID Reports 6.

  108. 108.

    Ibid. Paras 112 and 113.

  109. 109.

    Ibid. Para 113. The ad hoc Annulment Committee which dismissed Chile’s request for annulment held that, ‘the extent to which a State is obliged under the fair and equitable treatment standard to be proactive is open to debate, but that is more a question of application of the standard than it is of formulation’. MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. And MTD Chile S. A vs. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7, Decision on Annulment of 21 March 2007, Para 71. Also see Saluka (Saluka vs. Czech Republic, Partial Award, 17 March 2006, Paras 292–293.

  110. 110.

    Enron Corp. vs. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/03, Award, 22 May 2007.

  111. 111.

    Ibid., Para 258.

  112. 112.

    Haeri (2011, p. 36).

  113. 113.

    PSEG Global vs. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/5, Award 19 January 2007.

  114. 114.

    Ibid., Para 239. Recent jurisprudence supports the findings of these tribunals that the FET standard can be broader than the international minimum standard. The tribunal in Glamis Gold vs. United States observed correctly with regard to the FET standard, ‘there are…numerous BITs that have been interpreted as going beyond customary international law .’ See e.g. Glamis Gold vs. United States, UNCITRAL (NAFTA) Award, 8 June 2009 Para 609. Similarly, the tribunal in Cargill vs. Mexico held that the international minimum standard is significantly narrower than the [autonomous fair and equitable treatment standard] present in the Tecmed award where the same requirement of severity is not present. See e.g. Cargill vs. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/05/02 (NAFTA) , Award, 18 September 2009, Para 285.

  115. 115.

    Haeri (2011, p. 41).

  116. 116.

    Ibid., 38.

  117. 117.

    Ibid. 28; Schreur (2005, p. 364).

  118. 118.

    Cambodia–Cuba BIT, 2001.

    Webpage http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/573 last accessed 12 June 2018.

  119. 119.

    Netherlands–Philippines BIT, 1985 webpage http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/2073 last accessed 12 June 2018.

  120. 120.

    Switzerland Model BIT, 1986. Also see Article 4(2) of Switzerland–Chile BIT, 1999, webpage http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/4810 last accessed 12 June, 2018. A similar kind of reference with MFN has been made in Article 4 of the Bangladesh–Iran BIT, 2001 which states,

    ‘Investments of natural and legal persons of either Contracting Party effected within the territory of the other Contracting Party, shall receive the host Contracting Party’s full legal protection and fair treatment not less favourable than that accorded to its own investors or investors of any third state, whichever is more favourable’. See e.g. Bangladesh–Iran BIT, 2001 webpage http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/267 last accessed 12 June, 2018.

  121. 121.

    Lebanon–Hungary BIT, 2001 webpage http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/1531 last accessed 12 June, 2018. In the like manner Article 2(2) of The Netherlands–Oman BIT, 2009 states,

    ‘Each Contracting Party shall ensure fair and equitable treatment to the investments or nationals or persons of the other Contracting Party and shall not impair, by unjustified or discriminatory measures, the operation, management, maintenance, use, enjoyment or disposal thereof by those nationals or persons’. See e.g. The Netherlands–Oman BIT, 2009, webpage http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/2068 last accessed 12 June, 2018. Also see Article II (2) of Romania–US BIT, 1994 webpage http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/2221 last accessed 12 June, 2018.

  122. 122.

    UNCTAD 2012, supra note 29, p. 31.

  123. 123.

    Ibid. 31.

  124. 124.

    LG & E Energy Corp, LG & E Capital Corp and LG &E International Inc. vs. Argentina Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, Decision on Liability Award 3 October 2006, 46 International Legal Materials (2007) 36, Para 162; Also see e.g. Sempara Energy vs. Argentina , ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Award 28 September 2007, Paras 281–283; PSEG supra note 110, Para 262; Duke Energy Electroquil Partners and Electroquil SA vs. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/19, Award 18 August 2008, Paras 380–383.

  125. 125.

    Treaty between Government of United States of America and Government of ------ concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment , reprinted in UNCTAD , International Investment Instruments, vol. III, 195–205. Also can be found at webpage https://www.bilaterals.org/?us-draft-model-bit last accessed 12 June 2018.

  126. 126.

    In the US Draft Model BIT, 1994, Article II(1) and (2) calls for national and MFN treatment with respect to ‘the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation and sale or other disposition’ of investments and provides certain exceptions. Thus, while Article II guarantees the provision for FET and full protection and security , Article III reiterates that the FET/full protection and security standard shall apply along with other rules, to matters concerning expropriation . Therefore, the US Draft Model BIT, 1994, stipulates the FET standard is one of a number of general standards applicable to investments and implies that the standards apply concurrently.

  127. 127.

    Treaty between the Federal Republic of Germany and ----- concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, reprinted in International Investment Instruments: A Compendium, Vol. I (UNCTAD 1996), pp. 167–176, webpage http://unctad.org/en/Docs/dtci30vol1_en.pdf last accessed 22 May 2018.

  128. 128.

    Article 2(2) of German Model BIT 2008, for text of the treaty see webpage http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/2865 last accessed 12 June 2018.

  129. 129.

    Agreement between Government of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of ------ for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, 2005 reprinted International Investment Instruments: A Compendium, Vol. I (UNCTAD 1996), pp. 185–194, webpage http://unctad.org/en/Docs/dtci30vol1_en.pdf last accessed 22 May 2018.

  130. 130.

    Project d’Accord entre le Gouvernment de la Republique Francaise et le Gouvernment ---- sur l’ Encouragement et la Protection Reciproques des Investissements, 2006 reprinted in International Investment Instruments: A Compendium, Vol. I (UNCTAD 1996), pp. 159–166, webpage http://unctad.org/en/Docs/dtci30vol1_en.pdf last accessed 22 May 2018.

  131. 131.

    Vasciannie (1999, p. 129).

  132. 132.

    China–Switzerland BIT, 2009, webpage http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/4811 last accessed 12 June, 2018.

  133. 133.

    UNCTAD 2012 supra note 29, p. 21.

  134. 134.

    Kläger (2011, p. 17).

  135. 135.

    UNCTAD 2012 supra note 29, p. 29.

  136. 136.

    Kläger (2011, p. 17).

References

  • Adede AO (1983) The minimum standards in a world of disparities. In: Macdonald RSJ and Johnston DM (eds) The structure and process of international law: essays in legal philosophy doctrine and theory. Kluwer, The Hague, pp 1001–1026

    Google Scholar 

  • Borchar EM (1915) The diplomatic protection of the citizens abroad. The Banks Law Publishing Co, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlie I (2003) Principles of public international law, 6th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolzer R, Stevens M (1995) Bilateral investment treaties. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumberry P (2002) The quest to define “Fair And Equitable Treatment” for investors under international law-the case of the Nafta Chapter 11 Pope And Talbot awards. J World Investment 3:657

    Google Scholar 

  • Foy PG, Deane RJC (2001) Foreign investment protection under investment treaties: recent developments under chapter 11 of North American free trade agreement. ICSID Review-FILJ 16:299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gann PB (1985) The US bilateral investment treaty program. Stanford J Int law 21:373

    Google Scholar 

  • Gantz DA (2003) Pope & Talbot, Inc vs. government of Canada—case report. Am J Int Law 97:937

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haeri H (2011) A tale of two standards: ‘Fair And Equitable Treatment’ and the minimum standard in international law. Arbitr Int 27(1):27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacob M, Schill SW (2015) Fair and equitable treatment: content, practice, method. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S (eds) International investment law. Hart, Oxford pp. 700–763

    Google Scholar 

  • Jadeau F, Gélinas F (2016) CETA’s definition of the fair and equitable treatment standard’ toward a guided and constrained interpretation. Transnational Dispute Manage 13(1):1

    Google Scholar 

  • Kläger R (2011) Fair and equitable treatment in international investment law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Laird IA (2004) Betrayal, shock and outrage—recent developments in NAFTA article 1105. In: Weiler T (ed) NAFTA investment law and arbitration: past issues, current practice, future prospects. Transnational Publisher Inc, New York, pp. 49–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann FA (1982) British treaties for the promotion and protection of investments. Br Year Book Int Law 52:242

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann FA (1990) Further studies in international law. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann FA (1992) The legal aspect of money, 5th edn. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall F (2007) ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment in International Investment Agreements’ issues in international investment law, background papers for the developing country investment negotiators’ forum Singapore, 1–2 October 2007, international institute for sustainable development, webpage. http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2007/inv_fair_treatment.pdf

  • Muchlinski PT (2007) Multinational enterprises and the law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Orellana M (2004) International law on investment: the minimum standard of treatment. Transnational Dispute Management 1(3):1

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahuja S (2011) Decolonising international law: development, economic growth and the politics of universality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Porterfield MC (2006) An international common law of investor rights? Univ Pennsylvania Int J Econ Law 27:79

    Google Scholar 

  • Root E (1910) The basis of protection to citizens residing abroad. Am J Int Law Proc 4(3):517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth AH (1949) The minimum standard of international law applied to aliens. A. W. Sijthoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy SNG (1961) Is the law of responsibility of states for injuries to aliens a part of universal international law? Am J Int Law 55:863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salacuse JW (2010) The law of investment treaties. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schreur CH (2005) Fair and equitable treatment in arbitral practice. J World Investment Trade 6:357

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw MN (2008) International law, 6th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sornarajha M (2010) International law on foreign investment, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Subedi SP (2012) International investment law: reconciling policy and principle, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas JC (2002) Reflections on article 1105 of NAFTA: history, state practice and the influence of commentators. ICSID Review-FILJ 17(1):21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasciannie S (1999) The fair and equitable treatment standard in international investment law and practice. British Yearb Int Law 70:99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkes D (1966) Restatement (second), foreign relations law of the United States. Case W Res Law Rev 18:355

    Google Scholar 

  • Yalkin T (2009) The international minimum standard and investment law: the proof is in the pudding EJIL: talk! (Blog of European Journal of International Law) webpage. https://www.ejiltalk.org/international-minimum-standard/

  • Yannaca-Small C (2005) ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard’ in international investment law in international investment law: a changing landscape a companion volume to international investment perspectives (OECD), pp. 97–98 webpage. https://www.oecd.org/investment/internationalinvestmentagreements/40077877.pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh

    Rumana Islam

Authors
  1. Rumana Islam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Islam, R. (2018). Different Constructions of the FET Standard in Investment Treaties. In: The Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) Standard in International Investment Arbitration. International Law and the Global South. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2125-2_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2125-2_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-2124-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-2125-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation