International Investment Law And Comparative Public Law

International investment law is one of fastest-growing areas of international law, but it is plagued by the vagueness of many investors' rights and unpredictable investment tribunal decisions. This books analyses international investment law through the lens of comparative public law to clarify investment treaty obligations and arbitral procedure.

Outlines a general theory of whether and how to include public interest concerns in the realm of international investment law.

International investment law is one of the most dynamic fields of international law, and yet it has been criticised for failing to strike a fair balance between private and public interests. In this valuable contribution to the current debate, Valentina Vadi examines the merits and pitfalls of arbitral tribunals’ use of the concepts of proportionality and reasonableness to review the compatibility of a state’s regulatory actions with its obligations under international investment law.

Today there are more than 2,500 bilateral investment treaties (BITs) around the world. Most of these investment protection treaties offer foreign investors a direct cause of action to claim damages against host-states before international arbitral tribunals. This procedure, together with the requirement of compensation in indirect expropriations and the fair and equitable treatment standard, have transformed the way we think about state liability in international law. We live in the BIT generation, a world where BITs define the scope and conditions according to which states are economically accountable for the consequences of regulatory change and administrative action. Investment arbitration in the BIT generation carries new functions which pose unprecedented normative challenges, such as the arbitral bodies established to resolve investor/state disputes defining the relationship between property rights and the public interest. They also review state action for arbitrariness, and define the proper tests under which that review should proceed. State Liability in Investment Treaty Arbitration is an interdisciplinary work, aimed at academics and practitioners, which focuses on five key dimensions of BIT arbitration. First, it analyses the past practice of state responsibility for injuries to aliens, placing the BIT generation in historical perspective. Second, it develops a descriptive law-and-economics model that explains the proliferation of BITs, and why they are all worded so similarly. Third, it addresses the legitimacy deficits of this new form of dispute settlement, weighing its potential advantages and democratic shortfalls. Fourth, it gives a comparative overview of the universal tension between property rights and the public interest, and the problems and challenges associated with liability grounded in illegal and arbitrary state action. Finally, it presents a detailed legal study of the current state of BIT jurisprudence regarding indirect expropriations and the fair and equitable treatment clause.

Jürgen Kurtz provides a theoretically grounded and doctrinally tractable framework to understand the relationship between international trade and investment law.

The Investment Treaty Forum of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law brings together eminent practitioners, arbitrators, and academics in the dynamic area of international investment law. Members of the Forum, under the British Institute's auspices, examine and debate the legal and policy issues presented by the increasingly complex web of investment treaties and the disputes that arise under them. The Forum held two conferences in 2007. This present volume compiles the papers presented at the conferences, as well as a transcript of the round-table discussion on the subject of 'precedent' in international investment. Part I of the book is devoted to remedies, compensation, and valuation in international investment disputes. This under-theorized area of law is ripe for further exploration by lawyers and economists, and the papers in this volume present a framework for further inquiry. Part II addresses the jurisprudence emerging from investment arbitration tribunals on issues such as fair and equitable treatment, 'umbrella' clauses, and nationality of claimants. The overarching question addressed by the papers, and by the concluding roundtable, is the relationship of those decisions with general international law and whether or not there is, or should be, a doctrine of precedent in investment treaty arbitration.

This open access book focuses on public actors with a role in the settlement of investment disputes. Traditional studies on actors in international investment law have tended to concentrate on arbitrators, claimant investors and respondent states. Yet this focus on the "principal" players in investment dispute settlement has allowed a number of other seminal actors to be neglected. This book seeks to redress this imbalance by turning the spotlight on the latter. From the investor's home state to domestic courts, from sub-national governments to international organisations, and from political risk insurance agencies to legal defence teams in national ministries, the book critically reviews these overlooked public actors in international investment law.

This monograph considers the ramifications of the legal regime that governs transborder capital flows. This regime consists principally of a network of some 3,000 investment treaties, as well as a growing body of arbitral decisions. Professor Alvarez contends that the contemporary international investment regime should no longer be described as a species of territorial “empire” imposed by rich capital exporters on capital importers. He examines the evolution of investment treaties and investor-State jurisprudence constante and identifies the connections between these and general trends within public international law, including the increased resort to treaties (“treatification”), growing risks to the law’s consistency (“fragmentation”), and the proliferation of forms of international adjudication (“judicialization”). Professor Alvarez also considers whether the regime’s efforts to “balance” the needs of non-State investors and sovereigns ought to be characterized as “global administrative law”, as a form of “constitutionalization”, or as an increasingly human-rights-centred enterprise.