This chapter considers whether the substantive standards of investment protection contained in investment treaties can be understood as an emerging form of global constitutional law. It argues that investment treaty law is an example of what the global constitutionalism literature refers to as 'supplementary constitutionalization', being a type of international law that addresses issues that have traditionally been mainly regulated by domestic constitutional and administrative law. The upshot is that on issues such as the balance between private property protection and the state's right to regulate, or due process guarantees owed by the state in dealings with private parties, domestic constitutional orders are supplemented by a parallel, and not identical, international regime that applies to foreign investors. This chapter adds conceptual clarity to the existing debate concerning the ways in which investment treaty law may exhibit 'constitution-like' qualities (a suggestion that has been made both by staunch critics of the regime and more reform-minded commentators). In light of the conceptual framework developed, the chapter undertakes a detailed analysis of the three standards of investment treaty protection that have been the basis for prior claims that this regime displays constitutional qualities: fair and equitable treatment, the protection against expropriation, and the guarantee of national treatment. These standards, and in particular the first two, are shown to address issues that are also frequently dealt with by domestic constitutional and administrative law. The supplementary constitutionalization perspective helps us better understand the two-way national-international interaction that is central to the investment treaty regime. The perspective also foregrounds some key normative questions regarding the way in which investment treaty law can reshape domestic constitutional balances.

This book develops a conceptual framework that captures not only the tensions between constitutional values that are common to liberal democracies – human rights, democracy, and the rule of law – and the investment treaty regime, but also the potential for co-existence and complementarity.

This thoughtfully edited volume brings together leading scholars in the field to explore the relationship between the substantive standards of treatment contained in international investment agreements and the rule of law, which is developing into one of the key principles which both supporters and critics use to evaluate the investment treaty regime. Investment Protection Standards and the Rule of Law explores two perspectives. Firstly, it examines to what extent the substantive standards of treatment can be understood as expressions of the rule of law. Secondly, it addresses the rule-of-law problems, or rule-of-law lacunae, that exist in, or are created by, the application of these standards. The subject matter is advanced by combining doctrinal analysis of the core substantive treatment standards, as well as normative assessment of those standards from the perspective of the rule of law. This book also offers a critical discussion of the potential the rule of law has as a guidepost for structuring international investment relations, as well as its blind spots.

Dieses Werk beschäftigt sich mit den sogenannten "absoluten" Schutzstandards im internationalen Investitionsschutzrecht: dem Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) und dem Full Protection and Security (FPS) Standard. Es bearbeitet die Frage, ob außergewöhnliche Umstände im Gaststaat einen Einfluss auf die Auslegung dieser Standards haben. Zu diesem Zweck untersucht die Autorin die normativen Grundlagen beider Standards, einschließlich des jeweiligen Wortlauts, Systematik und Zweck, bevor die bestehende Schiedsgerichtspraxis analysiert wird. .

The book considers the ways in which the international investment law regime intersects with the human rights regime, and the potential for clashes between the two legal orders. Within the human rights regime states may be obligated to regulate, including a duty to adopt regulation aiming at improving social standards and conditions of living for their population. Yet, states are increasingly confronted with the consequences of such regulation in investment disputes, where investors seek to challenge regulatory interferences for example in expropriation claims. Regulatory measures may for instance interfere with the investment by imposing conditions on investors or negatively affecting the value of the investment. As a consequence, investors increasingly seek to challenge regulatory measures in international investment arbitration on the basis of a bilateral investment treaty. This book sets out the nature and the scope of the right to regulate in current international investment law. The book examines bilateral investment treaties and ICSID arbitrations looking at the indicative parameters that are granted weight in practice in expropriation claims delimiting compensable from non-compensable regulation. The book places the potential clash between the right to regulate and international investment law within a theoretical framework which describes the stability-flexibility dilemma currently inherent within international law. Lone Wandahl Mouyal goes on to set out methods which could be employed by both BIT-negotiators and adjudicators of investment disputes, allowing states to exercise their right to regulate while at the same time providing investors with legal certainty. The book serves as a valuable tool, an added perspective, for academics as well as for practitioners dealing with aspects of international investment law.

This volume examines the standards of treatment, demanded from host states, that form the basis of contemporary international investment protection. Practitioners and academics analyse the interpretation of core standards in arbitration proceedings, and present the emerging judicial consensus shaping their practical application.

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. This title is included in Bloomsbury Professional's International Arbitration online service.