Abstract
Following recent events in Egypt, Libya, Myanmar (Burma) and Tunisia, foreign investors have lodged international claims under investment treaties. Several of these cases follow a common fact pattern. They concern foreign investments acquired from authoritarian governments substantially below market value through transactions that were not arms’ length. Subsequently, new governments sought to renegotiate these contracts and concessions, or to change the regulatory arrangements that govern them. The investors then invoked the protections of an investment treaty. This article draws on political science scholarship on transition. It argues that investment treaties risk constraining the ability of incoming democratic regimes to consolidate their position, and questions the normative justifications for applying the principle of full market value compensation to situations in which investments were not acquired on a full market value basis. These conclusions are relevant to wider debates about the tension between legal stability and political change in international law.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.