International Investment Framework Research Articles

CJEU Judgment in Case C-284/16 Achmea: Single Decision and Its Multi-Faceted Fallout

Abstract Recent decisions of European and national courts, as well as those of arbitral tribunals, concerning the Achmea saga seem to be plentiful enough to draw preliminary conclusions as to the relationship between EU law, intra-EU international investment agreements (IIAs) and the national laws of EU-Member States. In order to get the proper picture of the situation, however, it is necessary not only to analyse the recent decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and their consequences from these three perspectives, but, equally, to understand how they interact with each other. Such an analysis indicates the real possibility of the emergence of a rift between the practice of the EU and national courts rejecting the validity of investment arbitration agreements, on the one hand, and investment tribunals, on the other. In any case, such a divergence would put into question the IIAs’ claim to provide a stable regulatory framework for international investments in the EU, which, in turn, would strengthen the argument for termination of intra-EU IIAs.

Balancing The State’s Right To Regulate with Foreign Investment Protection: A Perspective Considering Investment Disputes in the South American Region

Some of the challenges in reforming the international investment framework have derived from investor-state disputes, where host states have been sued for environmental or health regulations. Clauses regarding investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms have been therefore improved in modern investment treaties. However, most developing countries, which tend to be most of the host countries to investments, still have Bilateral Investment Treaties from the 1990s where investor-state dispute settlement clauses remain unchanged. This paper analyses different strategies that host countries are taking in light of these challenges. These are particularly noteworthy in the South American region, where one can identify three different approaches concerning the international investment framework. Reflecting on these approaches, the paper addresses the relevance of the multilateral efforts to reform the framework as a way forward, and a more promising strategy, towards the aim of balancing the states and foreign investors’ interests.

Sovereign wealth funds: the new intersection of money and politics

Sovereign wealth funds are a growing and dynamic force in international finance. The shifting international economic relations from capital rich states gives them new power in influencing the global agenda. Despite controlling trillions of dollars in the biggest companies in the world, little is known about the opaque funds of oil rich and non-democratic governments. This is the first book to compile a history of sovereign wealth funds recounting the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority's involvement with the scandal-plagued BCCI bank and Chinese arms exports to Iran. By constructing a history within the proper context of oil driven surpluses and large inflationary pressures with no international investment framework, this book explains the development and growth of sovereign wealth funds. The economics of capital surplus countries and investment strategies are examined in order to better understand sovereign wealth fund creation and growth. In a straightforward and accessible style, the author examines the complex and amazing growth of an unknown group of investors controlling trillions of dollars worldwide. Available in OSO: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/economicsfinance/9780199842902/toc.html

The Multilateralization of International Investment Law: The Emergence of a Multilateral System of Investment Protection on the Basis of Bilateral Treaties

The paper advances the paradoxical thesis that international investment law is developing towards a multilateral system of investment protection on the basis of bilateral treaties. Despite the infinite fragmentation of substantive investment law, coupled with arbitration as a decentralized dispute and compliance mechanism, one can observe convergence rather than divergence in this field of international law. Unlike genuinely bilateral treaties, BITs do not stand isolated in governing the relation between two States; they rather develop multiple overlaps and structural interconnections that create a relatively uniform and treaty-overarching legal framework for international investments based on uniform principles with little room for insular deviation. The paper therefore argues that BITs in their entirety function largely and increasingly analogously to a truly multilateral system. Elements of this thesis are the inclusion of most-favored-nation clauses, the possibilities of treaty-shopping through corporate structuring and the contribution of investor-State dispute settlement through the intensive use of precedent and other genuinely multilateral approaches to treaty interpretation.