Abstract
A few states in Asia and Latin America have recently embarked on an overhaul of their investment treaty program by terminating and renegotiating the states’ bilateral investment treaties (BITs). While that is commonly viewed as part of a backlash against the global investment treaty regime and particularly its investor-state dispute settlement mechanism (ISDS), this paper suggests that narrowing the scope of the host state’s substantive obligations, preserving regulatory autonomy and limiting the state’s exposure to investment treaty claims are not the only virtues which may arise from a state’s investment treaty renegotiation program. The program, and the resulting new treaties, can also be valuable in enhancing the internalization of investment treaties in the respective state as well as providing a better framework for the treaties’ implementation on a domestic level. The paper will thus elaborates on the notion, process and complexities of ‘internalization’ of investment treaties at a domestic level as one of the keys to understand how such treaties are implemented and observed as well as linking investment treaty renegotiation programs to internalization efforts.
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.