Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Full Protection and Security and Its Overlap with Fair and Equitable Treatment

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy

Abstract

The full protection and security (FPS) standard is one of the most common substantive provisions contained in investment treaties. Complexity arises in this area of investment law because the language expressing the FPS standard varies from treaty to treaty and the separation point between the fair and equitable treatment standard (FET) and FPS is difficult to identify. Consequently, a divergent body of arbitral decisions has grown around the FPS standard. The aim of this Chapter is to examine the overlap between FET and FPS. It seeks to determine – through a survey of the different formulations of FET provisions and the wide-ranging interpretations given to them by investment tribunals – whether and to what extent FPS may be equated with FET. It concludes that (i) FET and FPS are distinguishable (despite the close interrelationship between the two standards), and (ii) under well-established treaty interpretation principles, an FET provision should not be applied in a way that renders an FPS provision superfluous.

The views expressed in this Chapter are those of the author’s alone. The author is grateful for comments on earlier drafts of this Chapter by Audley Sheppard QC and for the assistance of Promit Chatterjee and Joel Sherard-Chow.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 649.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Significant analyses of FPS provisions and case law are found in Cordero-Moss G (2008) Full protection and security. In: Reinisch A (ed) Standards of investment protection. Oxford University Press, pp 131–150; Schreuer C (2010) Full protection and security. J Int Dispute Settl 1–17; Miljenić O (2019) Full protection and security standard in international investment law. Pravni Vjesnik 35(3–4):35–62; and Reinisch A & Schreuer C (2020) International protection of investments: the substantive standards. Cambridge University Press, pp. 358–362, 536–586.

  2. 2.

    Treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation between the United States of America and the Italian Republic, 2 February 1948, 63 Stat. 2255, T.I.A.S. No. 1965, 79 U.N.T.S. 171 (entered into force 26 July 1949). Article I, Abs-Shawcross Convention, and Article 1, 1967 Draft OECD Convention, also provide that property is to receive the “the most constant protection and security.”

  3. 3.

    United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1980, p. 3.

  4. 4.

    Elettronica Sicula S.P.A. (ELSI), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1989, p. 15.

  5. 5.

    See also Art 2(2)(i) Czech Republic-Slovak Republic BIT, Art 2(2) UK-Egypt BIT, Art II(2)(a) UK-Sri Lanka BIT.

  6. 6.

    In the Bangladesh-Denmark BIT, for example, the FPS and FET provisions are located, respectively, in Arts 2 and 3.

  7. 7.

    Art 5(1) France-Argentina BIT.

  8. 8.

    Art 3(1) and 3(2) Netherlands/Czech and Slovak Republic BIT, and Art 3(1) and 3(2) Netherlands-Poland BIT.

  9. 9.

    Art 6(1) Canada-Hong Kong BIT.

  10. 10.

    Art II(3)(a) Lithuania-United States BIT.

  11. 11.

    Chapter 9, Art 9.6(2) Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

  12. 12.

    See, for example, Art 2(2) Argentina-United Kingdom BIT and Art II Zaire-United States BIT.

  13. 13.

    Biwater Gauff Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, para 729. See also Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. and Vivendi Universal, S.A. v. Argentina, Award, 30 July 2010, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, para 175.

  14. 14.

    Parkerings-Compagniet AS v. Republic of Lithuania, Award, 11 September 2007, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8, para 354. See also Al Warraq v. Republic of Indonesia, UNCITRAL, Final Award, 15 December 2014, para 630 (‘full protection and security is not a higher standard than adequate protection and security’). 

  15. 15.

    Art 3(2) Singapore-Bangladesh BIT (emphasis added).

  16. 16.

    Art 5(1) France-Argentina BIT (emphasis added).

  17. 17.

    See also Newcombe A, Paradell L (2009) Law and practice of investment treaties: standards of treatment. Kluwer, p 309.

  18. 18.

    Emphasis added. Similarly see Article 3.2 of the new Indian Model BIT: “For greater certainty, ‘full protection and security’ only refers to a Party’s obligations relating to physical security of investors and to investments made by the investors of the other Party and not to any other obligation whatsoever” (emphasis added). Contrast this to Article 7 of the ASEAN-China Investment Agreement, which provides that FPS relates to “full protection and security requires each Party to take such measures as may be reasonably necessary to ensure the protection and security of the investment of investors of another Party.” This provision arguably does not limit the protection mandated to physical security and may apply to legal security as well. The extension of FPS to legal security is discussed below.

  19. 19.

    Saluka Investments B.V. v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award, 17 March 2006, para 484. See also Spyridon Roussalis v. Romania, Award, 7 December 2011, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1 and Rumeli v. Kazakhstan, Award, 29 July 2008, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/16, para 668.

  20. 20.

    Eastern Sugar v. Czech Republic, Partial Award, March 27, 2007, SCC Case No. 088/2004, para 203.

  21. 21.

    Biwater Gauff Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award, 23 July 2008, para 730.

  22. 22.

    Asian Agricultural Products Ltd. v. Sri Lanka, Award, 21 June 1990, ICSID Case No. ARB/87/3, paras 46–53; and Cordero-Moss G (2008) Full protection and security. In: Reinisch A (ed) Standards of investment protection. Oxford University Press, p 139.

  23. 23.

    El Paso Energy International Company v. The Argentine Republic, Award, 31 October 2011, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15, paras 522–523.

  24. 24.

    Award, 6 February 2007, para 303.

  25. 25.

    Siemens A.G. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8, Award, 17 January 2007, para 303.

  26. 26.

    ELSI case, para 111.

  27. 27.

    Ronald S. Lauder v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award, 3 September 2001, para 314.

  28. 28.

    Saluka Investments B.V. v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award, 17 March 2006, paras 493, 496.

  29. 29.

    Art 3(1) Canada-Czech Republic BIT (1990).

  30. 30.

    Frontier Petroleum Services Ltd v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award, 12 November 2010, para 263.

  31. 31.

    See also Wena Hotels Ltd. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Award, 8 December 2000, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4, paras 82, 84, 94, 95 (holding that Egypt's failure to impose sanctions on reponsible third parties who had seized an investment constituted a breach of an FPS obligation).

  32. 32.

    Cordero-Moss G (2008) Full protection and security. In: Reinisch A (ed) Standards of investment protection. Oxford University Press, p 145.

  33. 33.

    Azurix Corp. v. The Argentine Republic, Award, 14 July 2006, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12, para 408.

  34. 34.

    Biwater Gauff Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Award, 23 July 2008, para 729.

  35. 35.

    Eureko B.V. v. Republic of Poland, Partial Award, 19 August 2005, paras 240, 248, 250, 251, 253.

  36. 36.

    Newcombe A, Paradell L (2009) Law and practice of investment treaties: standards of treatment. Kluwer, p 286.

  37. 37.

    Asian Agricultural Products Ltd. v. Sri Lanka, Award, 21 June 1990, ICSID Case No. ARB/87/3.

  38. 38.

    American Manufacturing & Trading, Inc. v. Zaire, Award, 21 February 1997, ICSID Case No. ARB/93/1.

  39. 39.

    Schreuer C (2010) Full protection and security. J Int Dispute Settl 13.

  40. 40.

    Wena Hotels Ltd. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Award, 8 December 2000, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4, para 92.

  41. 41.

    See Cordero-Moss G (2008) Full protection and security. In: Reinisch A (ed) Standards of investment protection. Oxford University Press, p 147.

  42. 42.

    Franck Charles Arif v. Moldova, Award, 8 April 2013.

  43. 43.

    Franck Charles Arif v. Moldova, Award, 8 April 2013, para 505. Likewise, in Jan de Nul N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Award, 6 November 2008, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13, para 269 the tribunal held that “The notion of continuous protection and security is to be distinguished here from the fair and equitable standard since they are placed in two different provisions of the BIT, even if the two guarantees can overlap.”

  44. 44.

    Mamidoil Jetoil Greek Petroleum Products Societe S.A. v. Republic of Albania, Award, 30 March 2015, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/24, para 819–820.

  45. 45.

    Electrabel S.A. v. Republic of Hungary, Award, 25 November 2015, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, para 7.83.

  46. 46.

    Oxus Gold v. Uzbekistan, UNCITRAL, Award, 17 December 2015, para 353.

  47. 47.

    Frontier Petroleum Services Ltd v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award, 12 November 2010, para 296 (emphasis added).

  48. 48.

    Newcombe A, Paradell L (2009) Law and practice of investment treaties: standards of treatment. Kluwer, p 314.

  49. 49.

    Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Ecuador, Final Award, LCIA Case No. UN3467, 1 July 2004.

  50. 50.

    para 187.

  51. 51.

    para 183.

  52. 52.

    Achmea B.V. v. Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL Final Award, 7 December 2012, para 284.

  53. 53.

    Impregilo S.p.A. v. Argentina, Award, 21 June 2011, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/17, para 334. See also Azurix Corp. v. Argentina, Award, 14 July 2006, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/12, para 408; and Spyridon Roussalis v. Romania, Award, 7 December 2011, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1, para 321.

  54. 54.

    PSEG Global, Inc., The North American Coal Corporation, and Konya Ingin Electrik Üretim ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Republic of Turkey, Award, 19 January 2007, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/5, para 258.

  55. 55.

    This UNCTAD study examined approximately 550 investment treaty arbitrations and found that FET, indirect expropriation and FPS were alleged in 401, 359, and 206 cases, respectively. IIA Issues Note, Issue 3, November 2017, Special Update on Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Facts and Figures, p. 6.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clifford Chance, Singapore, Singapore

    Romesh Weeramantry

Authors
  1. Romesh Weeramantry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Romesh Weeramantry .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong

    Julien Chaisse

  2. School of Business and Law, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK

    Leïla Choukroune

  3. Institute of Malaysian and International Studies, National University of Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

    Sufian Jusoh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Weeramantry, R. (2021). Full Protection and Security and Its Overlap with Fair and Equitable Treatment. In: Chaisse, J., Choukroune, L., Jusoh, S. (eds) Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3615-7_53

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation