Search

This thesis sheds light on the evolution of the procedure of investor-State dispute resolution over time and analyses its compliance with the international rule of law. To this end, the term investor-State dispute resolution is intentionally understood very broadly. It includes any forum in which a dispute be-tween a foreign corporate entity or individual and the host State relating to any type of investment can be heard by a body that renders a binding decision. This includes dispute resolution before standing bodies, commercial arbitration, investment arbitration, and the newly established investment court system. To understand whether the procedural evolution of ISDR is in compliance with the international rule of law, the main corpus of this thesis identifies different approaches to the formalistic international rule of law. Instead of attempting to define the term, it uses the right to a fair trial as contained in Article 6(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights as an example for the international rule of law. By ad-dressing six major procedural and institutional features (standing in front of the dispute resolution bodies, appointment of members; their qualifications; conduct of the proceedings; appeal; recognition and enforcement) and comparing the differences between them, this thesis identifies procedural particularities of each of the dispute resolution concepts. Having laid out the requirements of the international rule of law, each individual section addresses examples of provisions included in major international agreements or arbitral rules and analyses their compliance with procedural minimum standards. The result of the exercise is twofold. First, it sets out a framework that must be complied with under Article 6(1) ECHR. Second, it proposes adequate provisions to attempt a first suggestion of norms that can be included in any possible reform.

The present system of investor state arbitration is under criticism. This stems mostly from the impact of the awards of the tribunals, which are often considered excessive and or obstructive of the state's regulatory powers. This research advances the thesis that a shift in the focus of arbitral awards would help restore faith in the system and thereby its legitimacy. The need for this is based on the indisputable fact that a neutral forum for the resolution of disputes between governments and foreign investors would encourage the flow of cross-border investments, which is critical for the economic development of states. The proposal here is two-fold. First is for greater focus on the granting of tailor-remedies that address the particular circumstances of the parties, the dispute and the investment. The second is the introduction of a mechanism to follow up on awards to ensure the implementation of the remedies awarded. The tailor-made remedy could be financial or non-pecuniary. For pecuniary awards, they could be outright compensation or a financial award with directions on the utilization of the funds awarded. In determining the nature of the remedy, the tribunal would have to apply public interest considerations. It is argued that the remedy could only be considered just if it serves the interest of not only the disputing parties, but also the interest of the public, especially, in the host state of the investment. The follow-up mechanism, which would ideally be institutional, would go a long way in obviating the need for enforcement and related proceedings. Effective implementation of this proposal would require the agreement and participation of the parties. The best way to achieve this is by incorporating relevant provisions in the typical instruments of consent to arbitration, namely, investment contracts, laws and treaties.

The investment law regime is a sub-system of the international law family, which comprises about 3,000 similar, but not identical, agreements for the promotion and protection of investment. Investment law has often been depicted as a rather peculiar system, where elements of international law coexist with a dispute settlement form of private law, namely investment arbitration, which is also known as Investor-State Dispute Settlement. Despite these peculiarities, the system has worked relatively undisturbed for many years. It is only at the end the XX century, when the number of claims brought before international arbitration rocketed, that states came to fully realise the implications of their investment agreements, and to question the legitimacy of decisions rendered by arbitral tribunals. Three problems in particular turn out to be matters of concern. First, the lack of transparency; second, the lack of legal certainty; and third, the lack of a balance between the public and private interests of states and investors. Obviously, these three aspects do not cover all existing challenges, but they capture the most legally relevant problems affecting the investment regime today, and those most urgently in need of being addressed. Against this background, this thesis attempts to answer the following research question: What are the contributions of the recently negotiated EU investment agreements (IIAs) to these three problems? Idealistic pursuits of a multilateral treaty on investments have so far proven to be a failure, and even the idea that states might eventually come together with a universal agreement does not hold promise. Nevertheless, the ideas advanced by the EU IIAs offer an opportunity to reflect on whether the EU approach might pave the way for an investment system more acceptable to a larger number of countries, or at least to offer a workable compromise to achieve a substantially higher degree of homogeneity, transparency and recognition of legitimate development concerns.

This research focuses on the relationship between international investment and cultural rights, ultimately seeking to determine how to reconcile investor protection with the need to protect and promote the cultural rights of vulnerable stakeholders, such as indigenous peoples. Cultural rights, which are closely connected to the principles of human dignity and sustainable development, have attracted the attention of academics and policy-makers in recent decades, but are still far from receiving the attention and recognition that they deserve. Conversely, international investment law is much more developed and has been construed in a way that can compromise a host State's ability to regulate in order to promote and protect human rights in general, and cultural rights in particular. This research will contain two parts: the first one will be composed of three chapters, the first analysing the concept and scope of cultural rights; the second providing an overview of international investment law; and the third assessing its relationship with cultural rights. The second part of the study will deal with the hard and soft law mechanisms that can be used to influence the balance between investment and the respect for cultural rights, at the international level. This will include the analysis of voluntary corporate conduct codes (chapter 4), compliance requirements in the context of investment loans (chapter 5), as well as investor-State dispute settlement (chapter 6). Finally, conclusions will be drawn, so as to provide a deeper understanding of the most effective ways to protect and promote cultural rights in the context of foreign investment.

This thesis traces the development of the ‘fair and equitable treatment’ concept in international trade law, first, following its appearance after World War I as a principle for inter-State trade relations, and then, after World War II, its fertilization into international investment law and policy. The thesis is based on extensive research into archived primary materials from 1918 to 1961. It focuses on three ‘moments’ in time: i) the League of Nations’ reliance on equitable treatment to address indirect forms of trade protectionism in the 1930s; ii) the use of the equitable treatment concept in the negotiation of the international investment provisions for the Charter for the post-war International Trade Organization; and iii) the United States Government’s use of the fair and equitable treatment concept to protect US investments in its post-war Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation (FCN) treaties. The thesis argues that certain roles of equitable treatment in the trade context were carried over into subsequent bilateral and multilateral trade treaty practice. These roles in turn influenced the creation of the post-war international investment commitments. The thesis advances five overall findings to clarify what those roles were, and explains how these roles contributed to the formation of the ‘hard’ fair and equitable treatment investment treaty commitment, as contained in the majority of contemporary international investment agreements. In addition, each chapter presents several findings applicable to the ‘moment’ researched, offering explanation as to how each ‘moment’ contributed to the development of fair and equitable treatment or equitable treatment at the time.

The rapid development of investment arbitration, especially during the last two decades, has been followed by extensive academic research and scholarly writings in this field. However, these have focused mainly on the legal documents that allow investment arbitration, grounds for the claims brought before investment tribunals, jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals, remedies available to foreign investors, and other similar topics. The calculation of the applicable monetary compensation payable to investors and the assessment of the value of investments have not received extensive attention in such writings even though the main point of interest for the parties involved in investment arbitration usually consists in how much they can gain (in the case of investors) or how much they can lose (in the case of host states) as a result of the arbitration. As the monetary compensation payable to investors as an outcome of investment arbitrations is directly linked to the value of the investments that are negatively affected by host states, the assessment of the value of investments at the centre of arbitral disputes is important for both investors and host states. Given its importance, the present research examines the valuation approaches and methods which may be employed in investment arbitration in order to assess the value of investments. The thesis focuses on the main approaches for the valuation of investments at the centre of disputes (namely the market based, the income based and the asset based valuation approaches); the corresponding valuation methods through which such approaches are implemented; and the basis for their application. The research includes a comparative analysis of the existing valuation instruments. This shows why certain approaches may be used to assess the value of investments in particular arbitration circumstances while others may not. Also, the research points out the importance of correctly correlating the application of the valuation instruments to the context of each investment dispute by reference to at least the type of investment involved, the category of available evidence, and the type of damage incurred by investors. The research uncovers the main advantages and disadvantages of the valuation instruments used in investment disputes. This indicates that the valuation instruments demonstrate a mutual superiority, and also that no complete valuation instrument currently exists. The thesis concludes that the current practice of arbitration tribunals in relation to valuation matters can be improved from several perspectives (i.e. from regulatory, administrative, judicial and theoretical perspectives), and formulates suggestions in this respect.