Academic literature on the topic 'Bilateral investment treaties with non-European countries'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the lists of relevant articles, books, theses, conference reports, and other scholarly sources on the topic 'Bilateral investment treaties with non-European countries.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Journal articles on the topic "Bilateral investment treaties with non-European countries"
1
Nino Bendianishvili, Nino Bendianishvili. ""BILATERAL INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS AS A MEAN OF INTEGRATION INTO THE WORLD SOCIETY AND ITS SWOT ANALYSIS." Economics 105, no. 5-7 (August 7, 2023): 156–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.36962/ecs105/5-7/2023-156.
Full textAbstract:
Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) are a key prerequisite for effective investment. It ensures efficient use of resources and free movement of capital. When both parties from the signatories agree on the rules of the game, then a favorable and optimal environment for settlement of investment disputes is created. By simple definition, a bilateral investment treaty is an international agreement concluded between two countries. It contains bilateral obligations for the promotion and protection of private investments made by investors of one of these states in the territory of the other state. A bilateral investment treaty aims to promote and protect "investments" as defined in the relevant agreement. It is appropriate to consider specific cases separately, as a number of investments have the necessary qualifying characteristics. In most agreements, the parties specify which investors and what types of investments are included in the agreement. More recent bilateral investment treaties also contain articles that emphasize the right of a state to take appropriate and proportionate regulatory action in the public interest, for example to protect health and the environment. It should be noted that the European Commission is working on improving the legal protection of intra-European investments. Such a mechanism should be effective, economical, adapted to the activities of small and medium-sized businesses, benevolent and mandatory. Keywords: Bilateral Investment Treaties, Effective Investment Initiatives, SWOT Analysis of Bilateral Investment Treaties, Global Integration.
2
Rizzo, Alfredo. "LEGAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE COMPETENCE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ON FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENTS." Italian Yearbook of International Law Online 23, no. 1 (November 17, 2014): 131–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/22116133-90230041.
Full textAbstract:
This article provides a summary of the main legal questions pertaining to the current wording of Articles 206 and 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which deal with the inclusion of Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) within the scope of the EU Common Commercial policy (CCP). It firstly investigates the concept of capital movement as enshrined in the treaties and relevant EU legislation. Next, the article examines how the new reference to FDI within the scopes of the CCP affects the competence of the EU to conclude new Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) with third countries. Finally, the article briefly illustrates a recent proposal for a model EU BIT which would make certain areas of investment protection dependent on sustainable development, social and environmental protection and standards of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).
3
SINHA, Amit Kumar. "Non-Precluded Measures Provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties of South Asian Countries." Asian Journal of International Law 7, no. 2 (April 28, 2016): 227–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s2044251316000023.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis paper provides a first-ever detailed study of NPM provisions in all stand-alone BITs which are in force in South Asian countries. It studies 147 BITs of South Asian countries in order to map the NPM provisions in them. It makes an in-depth analysis of the NPM provisions found in these BITs, and then makes an analysis of the consequences of not having NPM provisions in BITs. This follows the dissection of the NPM provisions found, so as to study each and every permissible objective and nexus requirement link in these provisions. This is followed by suggestions and conclusions, where the paper holds that NPM provisions are not sufficiently used in the BITs of these countries and these countries should incorporate this provision more frequently in order to ensure some much-needed regulatory latitude to these countries.
4
Bianco, Giuseppe. "European Unions Investment Agreements and Public Debt." European Business Law Review 28, Issue 2 (April 1, 2017): 119–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/eulr2017010.
Full textAbstract:
The on-going global financial crisis has hit Europe in an especially significant manner. With the legal vacuum surrounding sovereign debt restructurings, Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) signed by European countries can provide grounds for litigation in future debt crises. The sovereign debt crisis in the heart of the Eurozone has materialized such dangers, and has had an impact on the European Union’s strategy as an actor in international investment. The problems experienced by Argentina before the ICSID have made European countries more aware of the potential hidden in their BITs. This has in turn led to a careful drafting of the CETA and the TTIP, and potentially of all the other major FTAs to follow.
5
El-Kady, Hamed, and Mustaqeem De Gama. "The Reform of the International Investment Regime: An African Perspective." ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal 34, no. 2 (2019): 482–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siz025.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract The international legal framework for investment in Africa is complex, consisting of a large number of bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and regional investment agreements. This is in addition to a number of non-binding regional investment instruments and models that influence African countries' investment policy directions. Looking at the numbers, African countries have concluded over 860 BITs of which 160 are intra-African treaties. This represents around 28 percent of the BIT universe. For over 50 years African countries have been signing BITs that have core elements developed by third countries. Little attention has been given to the implications of these treaties on African countries’ right and duty to regulate investment in their territories. The result is a web of legally binding and broadly formulated commitments on investment protection. Today, African countries are taking a more active approach in the formulation of their international investment commitments at the national, bilateral and regional levels. Africa is becoming a laboratory for innovative and sustainable development-oriented investment policymaking. While these reform efforts occur in parallel and sometimes overlap with one another, they all converge in their attempt to formulate a new approach to investment policies that aims at safeguarding the right and duty of African countries to regulate and to reflect emerging sustainable development imperatives. The challenge remains in the existing stock of outdated African BITs and in the investor–State dispute system. Tribunals have broadly interpreted BIT commitments in ways that were not foreseen by African countries. The system that was originally developed to foster legal predictability in investment relations between countries has today become a source of legal uncertainty, debate and controversy. So far, African countries have been observing proposals and discussions for the reform of the ISDS system, including through the establishment of a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) from a distance. They have been allowed to raise concerns, propose ideas and suggestions, but were not included in the original construction of the concepts and structures of any of the proposed solutions.
6
Hossain, Mohammad Belayet, Asmah Laili Yeon, and Ahmad Shamsul Abdul Aziz. "SOVEREIGNTY, NATIONAL INTEREST AND SECURITY IN BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATIES OF MALAYSIA." Journal International Studies 16 (December 30, 2020): 39–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.32890/jis2020.16.3.
Full textAbstract:
At present, the BITs are playing a significant part in regulating foreign direct investment (FDI) in the host countries and like other members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Malaysia have also signed BITs to facilitate trade. Malaysia’s FDI laws and BITs mainly protect foreign investors, however, neither of them has any specific provision on the protection of sovereignty, national interest and security. This paper addresses the question, to what extent are sovereignty, national interest and security protected through BITs during entry of FDI into Malaysia? Using non-doctrinal socio-legal research method, the authors critically analyzed 15 BITs to explore whether they protect the sovereignty, national interest and security of Malaysia. The findings show that the existing Malaysian BITs contain provisions to promote and protect foreign investments but lack specific references to protect sovereignty, national interest and security, therefore, the government should consider these important factors when signing future BITs.
7
Potestà, Michele. "Bilateral Investment Treaties and the European Union. Recent Developments in Arbitration and Before the ECJ." Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 8, no. 2 (2009): 225–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157180309x451097.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe issue of the relationship between Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and the EU legal order has recently attracted attention amongst scholars and practitioners in the field of international investment arbitration. Under a first perspective of the problem, the Arbitral Tribunal in Eastern Sugar B.V. v. The Czech Republic was confronted with the question of whether there was any room left for BITs between EU Member States. The Tribunal discussed the legal arguments advanced for and against the applicability of such "intra-EU BITs" between Member States. The issue, which is particularly relevant considering that there are currently more than 190 BITs concluded between EU Member States, will be analysed in the first part of this article. Under a second point of view of the problem, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) handed down two judgments on 3 March 2009 addressing incompatibilities with EC Law resulting from certain BITs entered into by Sweden and Austria with third countries. The second part of this article will deal with the consequences arising out of the Court's rulings with regard to existing and future BITs entered into by Member States with third countries.
8
Carter, Justin. "The Protracted Bargain: Negotiating the Canada–China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement." Canadian Yearbook of international Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international 47 (2010): 197–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0069005800009875.
Full textAbstract:
SummaryIn 1994, Canada and China began negotiating a bilateral foreign investment promotion and protection agreement (FIPA). After sixteen years and multiple rounds of negotiations, the two states have not been able to solidify a workable treaty. By examining each country’s substantive and procedural preferences in their respective bilateral investment treaty models and in past treaties, this article outlines some of the likely “on-the-table” obstacles in the negotiating process. The analysis indicates that there are areas of considerable convergence between each country’s preferences, although significant areas of divergence exist on some key issues. Further confounding the disagreement that exists between the two countries are “off-the-table” factors such as general bilateral relations. One further aspect that is considered is the idea of coordinating compliance between international trade and human rights norms in the context of the Canada–China FIPA. While bilateral investment treaties are economic agreements, pronounced non-economic elements shape the practical and legal effect that these treaties have on various affected actors. Despite the important implications the Canada–China FIPA has for human rights and environmental policy concerns, it can be inferred that these factors will have little bearing on the actual negotiated outcome of the agreement.
9
Zhang, Sheng. "Human Rights and International Investment Agreements: How to Bridge the Gap?" Chinese Journal of Comparative Law 7, no. 3 (December 1, 2019): 457–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cjcl/cxz019.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Although an increasing number of bilateral investment treaties (BITs) now incorporate the concept of sustainable development, direct reference to human rights is still rare and remains embryonic. A close look at the positions held by some representative groups and countries, including the European Union (EU), the USA, China, India, South Africa, and Mercosur, reveals that the reference to human rights features divergence. The divided positions held by these groups or countries reveal the difficulties of operationalizing human rights obligations into international investment rule making. Even among developed countries or economies, a consistent approach to human rights is yet to be found. Based on these observations, this article proposes a number of pragmatic solutions to bridge the gap between these divided positions. In order to synergize international investment treaty regimes on human rights, internal engagement, including the reform of BIT dispute settlement regimes, and external engagement, including dialogues among stakeholders, should be made.
10
Bischoff, Jan Asmus. "Just a little bit of mixity? The EUs role in the field of international investment protection law." Common Market Law Review 48, Issue 5 (October 1, 2011): 1527–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/cola2011060.
Full textAbstract:
With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the Common Commercial Policy (CCP) has been extended to foreign direct investment (FDI). However, the scope of these (exclusive) competences under the CCP is limited and thus does not pertain to all issues governed by contemporary bilateral investment treaties (BITs). Rather, the competences for such BITs are mixed. Therefore, future agreements will have to be concluded by the EU and the its Member States together unless the EU is prepared to exclude the protection of certain investments from its agenda. But mixed agreements on investment protection cause complications concerning their conclusion and implementation. Until a satisfying EU investment regime is set up, investments by nationals of the EU Member States will have to be protected by the Member States' BITs. The Member States of the EU have concluded a large number of bilateral and also multilateral investment agreements governing the protection of investments made. Nevertheless, the existing Member States' BITs are affected by the transfer of exclusive competences for FDI to the EU. Generally, the Member States will have to terminate these agreements. To avoid such severe consequences, the European Commission proposed a Regulation establishing a transitional regime that allows the Member States to maintain their existing BITs concluded with third countries or even to conclude new BITs. Such a transitional regime is essential for the protection of investments by EU nationals. However, the Regulation Proposal adopted by the Commission is badly drafted and can only be considered a first step towards such an instrument.
Dissertations / Theses on the topic "Bilateral investment treaties with non-European countries"
1
Sabalbal, Hélène. "Le choix du droit applicable dans l’arbitrage d’investissement : expérience euro-arabe." Electronic Thesis or Diss., Paris 2, 2021. http://www.theses.fr/2021PA020029.
Full textAbstract:
Le règlement d’un litige d’investissement dépend souvent du choix du droit applicable au fond. L’arbitre a l’obligation de respecter la volonté des parties. Les litiges d’investissement impliquent une partie privée et une partie étatique qui peut donner son consentement à l’arbitrage à l’avance dans une offre générale d’arbitrage. L’arbitre ne déterminera le droit applicable au litige qu’en cas du silence des parties. Sous l’égide d’une institution d’arbitrage ou dans le cadre d’un arbitrage ad hoc, l’arbitre peut appliquer un droit national, le droit régional (communautaire, musulman), le droit international ou des règles anationales, ou encore une combinaison de ces règles et droits. La partie I s’intéresse aux interactions entre ces droits et règles de droit et leur hiérarchisation éventuelle, pour pouvoir régler un litige d’investissement euro-arabe. Depuis l’entrée en vigueur du traité de Lisbonne en 2009, l'UE a une compétence exclusive pour négocier les accords relatifs aux investissements étrangers directs. La Partie II s’intéresse aux effets de la nouvelle compétence de l'Union sur les TBI antérieurs à Lisbonne et ceux postérieurs que les Etats membres voudraient conclure, et notamment les conséquences sur le droit applicable pour le règlement des litiges d’investissement. La partie III traite des limites au choix du droit applicable. L'arbitre doit rendre une sentence efficace et exécutoire. Le non-respect du droit applicable peut constituer un motif de recours contre la sentence. La révision de la sentence au fond dans certains pays arabes constitue indirectement une deuxième limite. Finalement, il est nécessaire de respecter l’ordre publicThe settlement of an investment dispute often depends on the choice of applicable law to the merits. The arbitrator has the obligation to respect the will of the parties. In investment arbitration, the parties are a private party and a state party who may give its consent to arbitration in advance in a general offer of arbitration. The arbitrator will determine the applicable law only if the parties did not do so. Under the aegis of an arbitration institution or within the framework of an ad hoc arbitration, the arbitrator may apply national law, regional law (European, Islamic law), international law or non-national rules, or even a combination of formulas. Part I examines the interactions between these laws and rules of law, their potential hierarchy, in order to be able to settle an Euro-Arab investment dispute. Since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, the EU has had exclusive competence to negotiate agreements relating to foreign direct investment. Part II studies the effects of the new competence of the EU on BITs prior to Lisbon and those that the Member States would like to conclude in the future, and in particular the consequences on the applicable law for the settlement of investment dispute. Part III tackles the limits to the choice of applicable law. The arbitrator must render an effective and enforceable award. Failure to apply the applicable law may be challenged. In some Arab countries, the award is reviewed at the merits, which is a second limitation. In addition, it is necessary to respect public policy
Books on the topic "Bilateral investment treaties with non-European countries"
1
Keller, Moritz, ed. EU Investment Protection Law. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781509968374.
Full textAbstract:
In the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), the EU has sought to implement a number of policy goals, including a new tribunal mechanism for resolving investment disputes, more precision in the wording of legal standards of protection in order to achieve better consistency in decision-making, and the inclusion of requirements on conflicts of interest of arbitrators and transparency of proceedings. This book provides a comprehensive article-by-article commentary on these ground-breaking agreements and Regulations, deconstructing the legal issues and providing practical insights. With a broader legal framework also in place in the form of three EU Regulations which underpin the investment protection law framework, the work also provides commentary on (i) Regulation (EU) No 912/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for managing financial responsibility linked to investor-to-state dispute settlement tribunals established by international agreements to which the European Union is party, (ii) Regulation (EU) 1219/2012 establishing transitional arrangements for bilateral investment agreements between EU countries and non-EU countries and (iii) Regulation (EU) 2019/452 establishing a framework for screening of foreign direct investments into the European Union.
2
Trunk, Alexander, and Nikitas Hatzimihail, eds. EU Civil Procedure Law and Third Countries. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.5771/9783748923404.
Full textAbstract:
Since the 1968 Brussels Convention EU civil procedure law has grown largely both in numbers of legal instruments and in intensity. However, the existing EU Regulations have an EU-internal focus. Relations with third countries are dealt with in a disparate manner. This is suboptimal for cooperation with non-EU countries. Therefore, the EU has concluded the Lugano Convention with some European countries, but this is not a globally suitable approach. Based on comparative analyses and country-specific reports (EU member countries as well as non-EU countries), the book develops a structured approach for future action, be it by modification of existing EU regulations, passing new regulations, negotiating new multilateral or bilateral treaties (e.g. in the framework of the Hague Conference on Private International Law), developing soft law or passing national legislation, preferably on a uniform or coordinated basis together with third countries. The book deals also with Brexit issues.
Book chapters on the topic "Bilateral investment treaties with non-European countries"
1
Cristani, Federica. "The Role of Sub-Regional Systems in Shaping International Investment Law-Making: The Case of the Visegrád Group." In Public Actors in International Investment Law, 135–53. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58916-5_8.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe present chapter focuses on the role of the Visegrád group (or V4, comprising Slovakia, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic) in international investment law-making. The chapter starts with a brief overview of the V4 group as a sub-regional system in Europe, including its modus operandi and main achievements in the field of economic cooperation. Subsequently, it turns to the regulation of foreign direct investment (FDI), both at the level of each V4 state and at EU level—with particular regard to the implication of the EU’s exclusive competence on FDI. Special attention is paid to the approach of the V4 countries towards the question of termination of intra-EU bilateral investment treaties (BITs)—including an overview of the related objections to jurisdiction that the four countries have raised over the years in investor-state arbitrations based on intra-EU BITs—and to the relationship of the V4 group with non-EU countries—especially with (selected) East Asian countries. The main question is whether—and to what extent—the V4 group as a sub-regional system has a role to play in international investment law-making. The chapter highlights the proactive and advocacy role that the V4 group has traditionally played in manifold subject-matters, including the promotion and protection of FDI, and supports the positive “soft power” the V4 may exercise in this respect.
2
Sadowski, Wojciech. "The Rule of Law and the Roll of the Dice. The Uncertain Future of Investor-State Arbitration in the EU." In Defending Checks and Balances in EU Member States, 333–59. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-62317-6_13.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractInvestment treaty law and EU law began to develop in the same era and share some important philosophical and axiological foundations. The pressure on the CEE countries to enter into numerous bilateral investment treaties in late 80s and early 90s, in the context of the EU accession aspirations of the former communist countries, was likely to result, eventually, in a conflict between EU law and investment treaty law. The conflict could have been managed in three different ways, yet the CJEU decided in Achmea to declare an undefined volume of intra-EU arbitrations to be incompatible with EU law. This important judgment, which delivered an outcome desired by the European Commission and a number of Member States, is based on questionable legal reasoning that creates high uncertainty in this area of law. The doubts include the scope of application of Achmea, which is now a highly debatable issue. The CJEU itself saw it necessary to limit the scope of Achmea by declaring in Opinion 1/17 (CETA) that the legal reasoning of Achmea did not apply to investment protection treaties with third countries. The Member States of the EU remain politically divided in their views as to whether Achmea applies to the Energy Charter Treaty. And while the problems with the rule of law and independence of the judiciary in certain Member States continue to grow, Achmea has left an important gap for which there is no substitute in the current architecture of the EU legal system.
3
Ziegler, Andreas R. "Water-Related Investment: A European Perspective." In Fresh Water and International Economic Law, 235–62. Oxford University PressOxford, 2005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199274673.003.0011.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract After the failure of the WfO Ministerial Conference in Cancun in late 2003, there is a continuous and increasing tendency for (newly) industrialized countries to conclude bilateral free trade agreements. They normally include bilateral concessions and rules on the liberalization of trade in services similar or com parable to the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Furthermore, they most often include important chapters on the liberalization and protection of foreign direct investment (FDI). Both areas can have important repercussions on national policies regarding water distribution and supply. This chapter examines the motives and basic structures regarding water-related services of the existing bilateral free trade agreements, taking as examples the agreements of the European Economic Community and its Member States, as well as of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA),1 with numerous States since 1991. The objective is to identify similarities and differences to the current WfO negotiations on the one hand, and to bilateral investment treaties (BITs) on the other hand.
4
Polanco, Rodrigo. "EU Investment Policy." In Standardizing the World, 103—C4P118. Oxford University PressNew York, 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197681886.003.0005.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Investment treaties were born in Europe, and a “European imprint” is easily recognizable in the investment policy world. European countries have concluded the largest number of bilateral investment treaties (BITs) compared to other regions. At the same time, the majority of claimants and arbitrators in investor-state dispute settlement come from Europe. Yet, the regulation of foreign investments at the European level has been characterized by fragmentation. Although similar, European BITs have several differences, and a complex division of investment competences exists between the member states and the European Union (EU). After the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the transfer of exclusive competence for foreign direct investment to the EU changed the investment treaty practice of the Union and its member states. This chapter traces the evolution of the most relevant investment provisions included in the trade and investment agreements concluded by the EU. It examines whether this new investment policy has created convergence for the EU and its member states and whether EU international investment agreements have influenced investment treaty-making in other regions of the world.
5
Joubin-Bret, Anna. "The Growing Diversity and Inconsistency in the IIA System." In Appeals Mechanism in International Investment Disputes, 137–39. Oxford University PressNew York, NY, 2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195341560.003.0008.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract My comments concern the substantive provisions of international investment agreements and the increased recourse to treaty-based investment dispute settlement. Patrick Juillard highlights the issue of lack of coherence between awards rendered by international arbitral tribunals and explained it with the lack of coherence among the investment treaties that are at the basis of interpretation and application in investor-State dispute settlement cases. He specifically mentions the different approaches taken by the United States and Canada on the one hand and European countries on the other hand. Illustrations of this explanation can be found in the study on Bilateral Investment Treaties 1995–2006: Trends in International Rule-making.
6
Lewinski, Silke von. "Overall Assessment of the Development of International Copyright and Neighbouring Rights Protection." In International Copyright Law and Policy, 581–96. Oxford University PressOxford, 2008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199207206.003.0034.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract In the beginning, there were thirty-two intra-German bilateral treaties. Then came the creation of the Berne Convention by ten, mostly European countries. Today, about 120 years later, there are four major multilateral treaties that cover copyright protection, five major multilateral treaties that cover different neighbouring rights, and a multitude of bilateral and regional trade or investment treaties that cover both areas, as well as several treaties on general issues, such as human rights or enforcement aspects, which have an impact on copyright and neighbouring rights. International protection of copyright and neighbouring rights today has a largely worldwide coverage. International law up to the latest treaties has largely succeeded in adapting the protection to the requirements of technical and other developments. This chapter focuses on some of the notable aspects of mainly more recent developments.
7
Kawharu, Amokura, and Luke Nottage. "Towards an Asia-Pacific Regional Investment Regime." In China's International Investment Strategy, 258–89. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198827450.003.0015.
Full textAbstract:
Many similarities and occasional differences are evident concerning the current approaches of Australia and New Zealand towards investment treaties, including the now politically sensitive issue of investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS). This chapter considers the potential of these two closely integrated countries to influence the future design of investment treaties in the Asia Pacific region, including for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP or ‘ASEAN+6’ agreement) – the negotiations for which include China. The chapter compares key areas of existing treaties already signed by Australia and New Zealand, as well as apparent positions set out by them in a leaked draft RCEP investment chapter. Given the concerns about US–style treaty drafting displayed recently by Indonesia and India, major economies still negotiating RCEP with Australia and New Zealand (as well as bilateral agreements with the former), the chapter also considers the scope for Australia and New Zealand to promote more pro-state provisions regarding both substantive commitments and procedures such as ISDS, which characterize contemporary preferences of the European Union. The chapter concludes that a transition to a new generation of treaties is likely not only given the evolving preferences of counterparties and local politics, but also because of various policy arguments for dialing back treaty commitments to foreign investors—albeit without eschewing them altogether.
8
Rudolf, Dolzer. "XI Political Risk Insurance." In Principles of International Investment Law. Oxford University Press, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/law/9780192857804.003.0011.
Full textAbstract:
This chapter illustrates the evolution of a market for investment insurance. The first phase of insurance programmes commenced in the 1950s and was entirely dominated by insurers run by national governments, which sought to promote the outgoing investments of their nationals. Indeed, the purpose of national insurance programmes is tied to the promotion of the national economy. Covered risks are usually expropriation, non-convertibility of currency, and political violence. It is the general practice of government insurers to conclude agreements with host countries that provide for subrogation. Meanwhile, private companies entered the investment insurance market on the assumption of higher efficiency and an acceptable margin of profit. The chapter then looks at the risks covered by political risk insurance, which are similar but not identical with those addressed in bilateral investment treaties (BITs). It also considers how disputes have arisen between insured investors and the insurer when the two sides have disagreed on the interpretation or application of the insurance contract.
9
"Dutch Bilateral Investment Treaties and Investment Protection in the European Union: Some Observations on Non-Discrimination and Investment Restructuring." In Hague Yearbook of International Law / Annuaire de La Haye de Droit International, Vol. 23 (2010), 199–219. Brill | Nijhoff, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/9789004244689_009.
Full text
10
Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich. "Conclusions: Multilevel Governance of Sustainable Development Requires Multilevel Twenty-First Century Constitutionalism." In Transforming World Trade and Investment Law for Sustainable Development, 296—C9.N55. Oxford University PressOxford, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192858023.003.0010.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Chapter 9 concludes that authoritarian power politics in United Nations (UN) and World Trade Organization (WTO) institutions and inside many UN member states remains the biggest impediment to realizing citizen-oriented sustainable development goals (SDGs). Rendering WTO law consistent with climate change mitigation and with other SDGs requires interpreting the WTO’s embedded liberalism in conformity with modern human rights and environmental law. Recent environmental, constitutional, and human rights litigation in Europe illustrates the potential synergies between human and constitutional rights, economic and environmental law, and adjudication. Yet, Europe’s multilevel constitutionalism empowering citizens to challenge governmental disregard for sustainable development goals in national and European courts is resisted in multilevel governance outside Europe. The goal of a global partnership for sustainable development with the participation of all countries, all stakeholders, and all people requires innovative, legal practices of UN/WTO institutions and member states, for instance by strengthening of private–public partnerships (like COVAX), network governance (e.g. among independent competition, health and environmental agencies similar to the institutionalized cooperation among central banks), multilevel judicial remedies (including WTO appellate review and multilateral investment courts), individual rights, and transnational rule of law. The human rights, constitutional and environmental litigation discussed in Chapter 9 confirms that, the more civil societies and non-governmental organizations are directly involved in health and environmental protection treaties, the better they can monitor and resist abuses of public and private power. The global governance failures in responding to environmental, health, migration, and other human disasters illustrate the need for multilevel constitutional restraints protecting the SDGs.
Reports on the topic "Bilateral investment treaties with non-European countries"
1
Russo, Margherita, Fabrizio Alboni, Jorge Carreto Sanginés, Manlio De Domenico, Giuseppe Mangioni, Simone Righi, and Annamaria Simonazzi. The Changing Shape of the World Automobile Industry: A Multilayer Network Analysis of International Trade in Components and Parts. Institute for New Economic Thinking Working Paper Series, January 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.36687/inetwp173.
Full textAbstract:
In 2018, after 25 years of the North America Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the United States requested new rules which, among other requirements, increased the regional con-tent in the production of automotive components and parts traded between the three part-ner countries, United States, Canada and Mexico. Signed by all three countries, the new trade agreement, USMCA, is to go into force in 2022. Nonetheless, after the 2020 Presi-dential election, the new treaty's future is under discussion, and its impact on the automo-tive industry is not entirely defined. Another significant shift in this industry – the acceler-ated rise of electric vehicles – also occurred in 2020: while the COVID-19 pandemic largely halted most plants in the automotive value chain all over the world, at the reopen-ing, the tide is now running against internal combustion engine vehicles, at least in the an-nouncements and in some large investments planned in Europe, Asia and the US. The definition of the pre-pandemic situation is a very helpful starting point for the analysis of the possible repercussions of the technological and geo-political transition, which has been accelerated by the epidemic, on geographical clusters and sectorial special-isations of the main regions and countries. This paper analyses the trade networks emerg-ing in the past 25 years in a new analytical framework. In the economic literature on inter-national trade, the study of the automotive global value chains has been addressed by us-ing network analysis, focusing on the centrality of geographical regions and countries while largely overlooking the contribution of countries' bilateral trading in components and parts as structuring forces of the subnetwork of countries and their specific position in the overall trade network. The paper focuses on such subnetworks as meso-level structures emerging in trade network over the last 25 years. Using the Infomap multilayer clustering algorithm, we are able to identify clusters of countries and their specific trades in the automotive internation-al trade network and to highlight the relative importance of each cluster, the interconnec-tions between them, and the contribution of countries and of components and parts in the clusters. We draw the data from the UN Comtrade database of directed export and import flows of 30 automotive components and parts among 42 countries (accounting for 98% of world trade flows of those items). The paper highlights the changes that occurred over 25 years in the geography of the trade relations, with particular with regard to denser and more hierarchical network gener-ated by Germany’s trade relations within EU countries and by the US preferential trade agreements with Canada and Mexico, and the upsurge of China. With a similar overall va-riety of traded components and parts within the main clusters (dominated respectively by Germany, US and Japan-China), the Infomap multilayer analysis singles out which com-ponents and parts determined the relative positions of countries in the various clusters and the changes over time in the relative positions of countries and their specialisations in mul-tilateral trades. Connections between clusters increase over time, while the relative im-portance of the main clusters and of some individual countries change significantly. The focus on US and Mexico and on Germany and Central Eastern European countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia) will drive the comparative analysis.