Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Recent Trends in International Investment Arbitration and the Protection of Human Rights in the Public Services Sector

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
International Courts and the Development of International Law

Abstract

This paper addresses the relationship between the protection of foreign investment and the protection of human rights in the public services sector when this is privately operated by foreign investors. It focouses on the gradual developments emerging from a selective analysis of international investment arbitration case law. On the basis of this analysis, the paper highlights the gradual, though slow, trend towards harmonization between the two relevant international normative regimes, i.e. investment protection law and human rights law. It also elaborates on the possible furtherance of the bridge between the two under the general principles of proportionality and equity .

The author is grateful to Dr Federica Cristani for her useful assistance in researching the bibliographic materials and case law which were essential for the present paper.

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 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Peterson and Grey 2003, Reisman and Arsanjani 2004, pp. 328–343, Schreuer 2004, pp. 231–256, Franck 2004–2005, pp. 1521–1625, Solanes and Jouravlev 2007, van Harten 2007, pp. 371–394, Choudhury 2008, pp. 775–832, Kaushal 2009, 491–534, Simma and Kill 2009, pp. 678–707, Peterson 2009, Sattar 2010, pp. 51–73, Schill 2010, pp. 3–37, Dupuy et al. 2009 and recently Simma 2011, pp. 573–596.

  2. 2.

    With reference to access to water, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly Resolution on the Human Right to Water and Sanitation, UN Doc. A/RES/64/292 (28 July 2010).

  3. 3.

    Entered into force on 27 January 1980.

  4. 4.

    Report of the Study Group of the ILC on Fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.702 (18 July 2006), para 11 (hereinafter ILC Report on Fragmentation).

  5. 5.

    See infra nn. 10–12 and 60.

  6. 6.

    Entered into force on 1 January 1994.

  7. 7.

    As already included in some BITs (see the 2004 US Model BIT, infra footnote 49, as well as Article 1114.1 of the NAFTA). See Mann et al. 2006; Jacob 2010, pp. 9 and 38.

  8. 8.

    Entered into force on 3 January 1976.

  9. 9.

    Entered into force on 16 November 1999.

  10. 10.

    Announced by the then Secretary-General Kofi Annan at the Economic Global Forum of Davos on 31 January 1999 and officially launched in New York on 26 July 2000, www.un.org.

  11. 11.

    UN Doc. ONU E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/25 (11 July 2005).

  12. 12.

    OECD (2007) Principles for Private Sector Participation in Infrastructure, www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/33/38309896.pdf. Accessed on 11 October 2011.

  13. 13.

    UN Doc. A/HRC/17/31 (21 March 2011).

  14. 14.

    See generally on due diligence, Barnidge 2006, pp. 81–121.

  15. 15.

    ICSID: Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Limited v. Tanzania, ARB/05/22, Award (24 July 2008). See Peterson 2009, p. 31.

  16. 16.

    Ibidem, para 434.

  17. 17.

    Thielbörger 2009, p. 498.

  18. 18.

    ICSID: Azurix Corp. v. Argentina, ARB/01/12, Award (14 July 2006). The Tribunal concluded that the measures adopted by the Government did not constitute an illicit expropriation, referring also to the ECHR (ECtHR: James and others v. United Kingdom, 8793/79, Judgment (21 February 1986). See also ICSID: LG&E Capital Corp. and LG&E International Corp. v. Argentina Republic, ARB/02/1, Decision on Liability (3 October 2006).

  19. 19.

    ICSID: Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. (formerly Compagnie Générale des Eaux) and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentina, ARB/97/3, Decision on Annulment (20 August 2007).

  20. 20.

    NAFTA/UNCITRAL: Glamis Gold Ltd v. United States of America, Award (8 June 2009).

  21. 21.

    See, especially, ibidem, pp. 4 and 329–353.

  22. 22.

    ICSID: Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v. Egypt, ARB/84/3, Award (20 May 1992).

  23. 23.

    Entered into force on 17 December 1975.

  24. 24.

    ILC Report on Fragmentation, n. 4 supra p. 8.

  25. 25.

    ICSID: Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentina, ARB/03/19, Decision on Liability (30 July 2010).

  26. 26.

    Recently, Levine 2011, pp. 220–224.

  27. 27.

    Suez, supra n. 25, paras 264 ff.

  28. 28.

    Ibidem, para 262.

  29. 29.

    Ibidem.

  30. 30.

    Ibidem, para 218.

  31. 31.

    Ibidem, para 236.

  32. 32.

    Ibidem, para 262.

  33. 33.

    Ibidem, para 238.

  34. 34.

    Ibidem, para 235.

  35. 35.

    Ibidem, para 43.

  36. 36.

    Ibidem.

  37. 37.

    Ibidem.

  38. 38.

    UNCITRAL: CME Czech Republic B.V. (The Netherlands) v. Czech Republic, Partial Award (13 September 2001).

  39. 39.

    ICSID: CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentina, ARB/01/08, Award (12 May 2005).

  40. 40.

    LG&E, supra n. 18.

  41. 41.

    ICSID: Siemens A.G. v. Argentina, ARB/02/8, Award (6 February 2007).

  42. 42.

    ICSID: Suez, supra n. 25, para 153.

  43. 43.

    Ibidem.

  44. 44.

    Ibidem, para 202.

  45. 45.

    Ibidem, para 245.

  46. 46.

    Ibidem.

  47. 47.

    Ibidem.

  48. 48.

    Ibidem.

  49. 49.

    See Article 8.3 of the 2004 US Model BIT (Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of [Country] Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment, www.state.gov/documents/organization/117601.pdf. Accessed 12 October 2011). See Vandevelde 2008–2009, pp. 283–316.

  50. 50.

    Glamis Gold, supra n. 20.

  51. 51.

    Azurix, supra n. 18.

  52. 52.

    LG&E, supra n. 18.

  53. 53.

    ICSID: Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. v. Mexico, ARB(AF)/00/2, Award (29 May 2003).

  54. 54.

    Iran-US Claims Tribunal: Sea Land Services Inc. v. Iran, 135-33-1, Award (22 June 1984). See also ECtHR: Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 7151/75 and 7152/75, Judgment (23 September 1982); James et al., supra n. 18.

  55. 55.

    Thielbörger 2009, p. 491.

  56. 56.

    Supra n. 2.

  57. 57.

    Entered into force on 14 October 1966.

  58. 58.

    First Preambular paragraph.

  59. 59.

    In the Suez case the Tribunal affirmed Argentina’s responsibility to guarantee public services to its population (Suez, supra n. 25, para 245). This is confirmed also by the IACtHR: Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, Judgment (29 March 2006) and by the ECtHR: Bosphorus Airways v. Ireland [GC], 45036/98, Judgment (30 June 2005) and Al-Saadoon y Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom, 61498/08, Judgment (2 March 2010).

  60. 60.

    Krommendijk and Morijn 2009, pp. 422–450.

  61. 61.

    ILC Report on Fragmentation, supra n. 4, p. 8.

References

  • Barnidge RP (2006) The due diligence principle under international Law. Int Community Law Rev 8:81–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choudhury B (2008) Recapturing public power: is investment Arbitration’s engagement of the public interest contributing to the democratic deficit? Vanderbilt J Transnatl Law 41:775–832

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupuy P-M, Petersmann E-U, Francioni F (eds) (2009) Human rights in international investment law and Arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Franck SD (2004-2005) The legitimacy crisis in investment treaty Arbitration: privatizing public international law through inconsistent decisions. Fordham Law Rev 73:1521–1625

    Google Scholar 

  • van Harten G (2007) Public-private distinction in the international arbitration of individual claims against the state. Int Comp Law Q 56:371–394

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob M (2010) International investment agreements and human rights. INEF research paper series. Human rights, corporate responsibility and sustainable development 03. http://www.humanrights-business.org

  • Kaushal A (2009) Revisiting history: how the past matters for the present backlash against the foreign investment regime. Harv Int Law J 50:491–534

    Google Scholar 

  • Krommendijk J, Morijn J (2009) ‘Proportional’ by what measure(s)? Balancing investor interests and human rights by way of applying the proportionality principle in investor-state Arbitration. In: Dupuy P-M, Petersmann E-U, Francioni F (eds) Human rights in international investment law and Arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 422–450

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Levine E (2011) Amicus Curiae in international investment arbitration. The implications of an increase in third-party participation. Berkeley J Int Law 29:200–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann H, von Moltke K, Cosbey A, Peterson LE (eds) (2006) IISD model international agreement on investment for sustainabler development—negotiators’ handbook. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson LE (2009) Human rights and bilateral investment treaties. Rights and Democracy, Montreal

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson LE, Grey KR (2003) International human rights in bilateral investment treaties and in investment treaty arbitration. International Institute for Sustainable Development

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisman WM, Arsanjani MH (2004) The question of unilateral governmental statements as applicable law in investment disputes. ICSID Review 19:328–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sattar S (2010) National courts and international arbitration: a double-edge sword? J Int Arbitr 27:51–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Schill S (2010) International investment law and comparative public law—an introduction. In: Schill S (ed) International Investment law and comparative public law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–37

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schreuer C (2004) Travelling the BIT route of waiting periods, umbrella clauses and forks in the road. J World Invest Trade 2:231–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Simma B (2011) Foreign investment arbitration. A place for human rights? Int Comp Law Q 60:573–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simma B, Kill T (2009) Harmonizing investment protection and international human rights. First step towards a methodology. In: Binder C, Kriebaum U, Reinisch A, Wittich S (eds) International investment law for the 21st century. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 678–707

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Solanes M, Jouravlev A (2007) Revisiting privatization, foreign Investment, international Arbitration, and water. CEPAL-serie recursos naturales e infraestructura 129

    Google Scholar 

  • Thielbörger P (2009) The human right to water versus investor rights: double-dilemma or pseudo conflict? In: Dupuy P-M, Petersmann E-U, Francioni F (eds) Human rights in international investment law and arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 487–510

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vandevelde K (2008–2009) A comparison of the 2004 and 1994 U.S. Model BITs: rebalancing investor and host country interests. Yearb Int Invest Law:283–316

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Professor of Public International Law, Alma Mater Studiorum-University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Attila Tanzi

Authors
  1. Attila Tanzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Attila Tanzi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Dipartimento di diritto pubblico, University of Milan - Statale University, Via Festa del Perdono 7, Milan, 20122, Italy

    Nerina Boschiero

  2. Bicocca University, Dipartimento giuridico, University of Milan, Piazza dell’Ateneo Nuovo 1, Milan, 20126, Italy

    Tullio Scovazzi

  3. , Dipartimento di Diritto,, University of Parma, Via Università 12, Parma, 43121, Italy

    Cesare Pitea

  4. , Dipartimento di diritto pubblico, University of Milan - Statale University, Via Festa del Perdono 7, Milan, 20122, Italy

    Chiara Ragni

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Tanzi, A. (2013). Recent Trends in International Investment Arbitration and the Protection of Human Rights in the Public Services Sector. In: Boschiero, N., Scovazzi, T., Pitea, C., Ragni, C. (eds) International Courts and the Development of International Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-894-1_43

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation