Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The myth of a multilateral framework in international investment law

  • Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of International Law

Abstract

In past, various attempts at creating a multilateral treaty for the protection of foreign investment have failed. Yet, scholars have tried to fill in the void through theoretical arguments to the effect that even in the absence of a multilateral treaty, the bilateral investment treaties create a multilateral normative framework. This framework imposes external disciplines on States. These theoretical arguments do not find any basis in the treaty text and result into expanding the scope of standards of treatment provided in the bilateral investment treaties (BITs). The first part establishes that States are not ready for a multilateral treaty on investor protection and the reasons for this position based on past experiences. The theoretical arguments used as a substitute for a multilateral treaty have various aspects. It is claimed that the BITs have created a framework which is uniform due to a large number of BITs and consistency in their language. BITs allow corporate restructuring and contain Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause, which allows any foreign investors to choose the most beneficial BIT to file a claim and most beneficial provision from the all the BITs entered into by the host state. This process is said to have resulted into multilateralization – another form of a multilateral framework. These arguments do violence to the treaty language and stretch the treaty text beyond its purview. The extravagant interpretations proposed by scholars and adopted by tribunals have forced the regime of investment arbitration into an uncertain future.

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

Access this article

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

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), World Investment Report 2015 - Reforming International Investment Governance (UN Publication, Geneva, 2015) 106.

  2. See generally, Stephan W Schill, Multilateralization of International Investment Law (CUP, Cambridge, 2009).

  3. W Michael Reisman and Robert D Sloane, Indirect Expropriation and its Valuation in the BIT Generation, 74 British Yrbk Intl L (2003) 115.

  4. Christoph Schreuer and Ursula Kriebaum, From Individual to Community Interest in International Investment Law, in, Ulrich Fastenrath & others, From Bilateralism to Community Interest: Essays in Honour of Bruno Simma (OUP, Oxford, 2011) 14.

  5. Efraim Chalamish, The Future of Bilateral Investment Treaties: A De Facto Multilateral Agreement?, 34 Brooklyn J Intl L (2008–09) 303; Rafael Leal-Arcas, The Multilateralization of International Investment Law, 35 North Carolina J Intl & Comp Regulation (2009–10) 33; See, Rafael Leal-Arcas, International Trade and Investment Law: Multilateral, Regional and Bilateral Governance (Edward Elgar, 2010); Andreas Kulick, Global Public Interest in International Investment Law (CUP, Cambridge, 2012).

  6. The United States Trade Department describes the Trans Pacific Partnership as: ‘TPP’s chapter on Investment strengthens the rule of law in the Asia-Pacific region, deters foreign governments from imposing discriminatory or abusive requirements on American investors, and protects the right to regulate in the public interest. To this end, it ensures that American investors have effective remedies in the event of a breach of their rights, while reforming the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system by providing for tools to dismiss frivolous claims and instituting a range of other procedural and substantive safeguards.’ The details of the TPP are available at <https://medium.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership/investment-c76dbd892f3a#.i10tnlcie> (last visited 18 April 2016).

  7. C Brower & S Blanchard, What's in a Meme? The Truth about Investor- State Arbitration: Why It Need Not, and Must Not, Be Repossessed by States, 52 Columbia J Transnatl L (2014) 689, 696–7. According to Brower and Blanchard: ‘The investment protections and investor-State dispute settlement provisions in those treaties-the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership-therefore have the potential to immediately impact global governance of relations between foreign investors and host States as well as to influence future treaty negotiators.’ The political at the moment does not show bright prospects for the TPP.

  8. See, AK Kuhn, The International Conference on the Treatment of Foreigners, 24 American J Intl L (1930) 570.

  9. Ibid, 571.

  10. Gus Van Harten, Investment Treaty Arbitration and Public Law (OUP, Oxford, 2007) 19.

  11. EM Borchard, ‘Responsibility of States’, at the Hague Codification Conference, 24 American J Intl L (1930) 517, 530.

  12. The Havana Charter for the International Trade Organization, 1947, (‘Havana Charter’) Article 12 (1) (c), <http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/havana_e.pdf>.

  13. Schill, supra note 2, 33.

  14. Havana Charter, supra note 12, Article 12 (2).

  15. Ivan Trofimov, The Failure of the International Trade Organization (ITO): A Policy Entrepreneurship Perspective, 1 J L & Pol (2012) 56, 63–65; Van Harten, supra note 10, 19–20.

  16. Richard Toye, Developing Multilateralism: The Havana Charter and the Fight for the International Trade Organization, 1947–1948, 25 Intl History Rev (2003) 282, 301.

  17. Ibid, 287–88.

  18. See, Dattu, A Journey from Havana to Paris, 24 Fordham Intl L J (2000) 275, 288.

  19. United States Model Bilateral Investment Treaty, 2012 <https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/BIT%20text%20for%20ACIEP%20Meeting.pdf>.

  20. George Schwarzenberger, The Abs-Shawcross Draft Convention on Investments Abroad: A Critical Commentary, 9 J Public L (1960) 147.

  21. See, G Schwarzenberger, Foreign Investments and International Law (Stevens, London, 1969) 109–34.

  22. Van Harten, supra note 10, at 21.

  23. Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources, Adopted by the UNGA on 14 December 1962 at its Seventeenth session, UN Doc A/5217, [1], [6].

  24. Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, Adopted by the UNGA on 12 December 1974 at its Twenty-ninth session, UN Doc A/RES/29/3281, Article 2(2)(c).

  25. Schill, supra note 2, at 38–39.

  26. Rudolph Dolzer and Margarete Stevens, Bilateral Investment Treaties (M Nijhoff, Leiden, 1995) 2.

  27. Van Harten, supra note 10, at 21.

  28. W Michael Reisman, The Future of International Investment Law and Arbitration, in, Antonio Cassese (ed) Realizing Utopia: The Future of International Law (OUP, Oxford, 2012) 285.

  29. Canner, The Multilateral Agreement on Investment, 31 Cornell Intl L J (1998) 657, 666; Jürgen Kurtz, A General Investment Agreement in the WTO? 23 Univ Pennsylvania J Intl Econ L (2002) 713, 714.

  30. Peter Muchlinski, The Rise and Fall of Multilateral Agreement on Investment: Where Now?, 34 Intl Lawyer (1999–2000) 1033, 1046–8.

  31. Kurtz, supra note 29, at 758.

  32. Muchlinski, supra note 30, at 1041–3.

  33. Jürgen Kurtz, NGOs, the Internet and International Economic Policy Making: The Failure of the OECD Multilateral Agreement on Investment, 3 Melbourne J Intl L (2002) 213, 231–7.

  34. Vattenfall sues Germany over Phase-out Policy, World Nuclear News (16 October 2014) <http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Vattenfall-sues-Germany-over-phase-out-policy-16101401.html>.

  35. Office of the United States Trade Representative, Engagement with The Trans-Pacific Partnership To Increase Exports, Support Jobs (2011) <https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/fact-sheets/2011/february/engagement-trans-pacific-partnership-increase-export>.

  36. Reisman and Sloane, supra note 3, at 116–8.

  37. Ibid, 115.

  38. K Vandevelde, Bilateral Investment Treaties: History, Policy, and Interpretation (OUP, New York, 2010) 108–12.

  39. Ibid, 115, 144.

  40. For example, Preamble, Agreement Between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Panama for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, 7 October 1983, 1461 UNTS 141 (Registered by United Kingdom on 28 April 1987); UNCTAD, Scope and Definition: UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II (UN Publication, Geneva, 2011) 120.

  41. Reisman and Sloane, supra note 3, 115, 117.

  42. Ibid, 117–8.

  43. Ibid, 118.

  44. Thomas Waelde & Abba Kolo, Environmental Regulation, Investment Protection and ‘Regulatory Taking’ in International Law, 50 Intl &Comp L Q (2001) 811, 822–3.

  45. M Sornarajah, India, China and Foreign Investment, in, M Sornarajah & Jiangyu Wang China, India and the International Economic Order (CUP, Cambridge, 2010) 136–9.

  46. Atlantic Charter, 14 August 1941 <http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/atlantic.asp>; Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, Adopted by the UNGA on 24 October 1970 at its Twenty-fifth session, UN Doc A/RES/25/2625; Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Domestic Affairs of States, Adopted by the on 9 December 1981 at its Thirty-sixth session, UN Doc A/RES/36/103.

  47. See, M Sornarajah, Sovereign Wealth Funds and International Investment Law, 1 Asian J Intl L (2011) 267; See generally, Albert Badia, Piercing the Veil of State Enterprises in International Arbitration (Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2014).

  48. Dolzer & Stevens, supra note 26, at 10–3; Kenneth Vandevelde, A Brief History of International Investment Agreements, 12 UC–Davis J Intl L & Pol’y (2005) 157, 162–6; Wolfgang Alschner, Americanization of the BIT Universe: The Influence of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation (FCN) Treaties on Modern Investment Treaty Law, 5 Goetting J Intl L (2013) 455, 463–8.

  49. Treaty for Peace, Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between Bolivia and the USA, 13 May 1858, Article XIII, <http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/bolivia01.asp>.

  50. Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between Paraguay and the USA (1959), Article IX, para 3.

  51. Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 7th edn (OUP, Oxford, 2008) 731–32.

  52. Michael Waibel, Sovereign Defaults Before International Courts and Tribunals (CUP, Cambridge, 2011) 29–38.

  53. Brownlie, supra note 51, at 732–3.

  54. Waelde and Kolo, supra note 44, at 811–2.

  55. Ibid, 819, 820.

  56. Reisman and Sloane, supra note 3, at 116; Waelde and Kolo, supra note 44, at 811, 822.

  57. Reisman & Sloane, supra note 3, at 118–9, 128–30.

  58. Pope & Talbot Inc v The Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Interim Award (26 June 2000) [92]; Medioambientales Tecmed SA v The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/00/2, Award, (29 May 2003) [114]; SD Myers, Inc v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Partial Award (13 November 2000) [286].

  59. Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania (Second Phase), Advisory Opinion of 18 July 1950, [1950] ICJ Rep 221, 229.

  60. United Mexican States v Metalclad Corporation, 2001 BCSC 664 (Canada) 16–18 [66–80].

  61. Marvin Feldman v Mexico, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/99/1, Award, (16 December 2002) [113, 133].

  62. Glaims Gold Ltd v United States of America, NAFTA Chapter 11 Tribunal (UNCITRAL), Award, (8 June 2009) [3].

  63. WM Reisman, “Case Specific Mandates” versus “Systematic Implications”: How Should Investment Tribunals Decide?: The Freshfields Arbitration Lecture, 29 Arb Intl (2013) 131, 142.

  64. Ibid, 150.

  65. Oscar Schachter, International Law in Theory and Practice: General Course in Public International Law, 178 Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law (1982) 21, 50.

  66. Ibid, 49. Schachter gives a fitting example from the law of the law. The freedom of seas is a major “community policy”, but that cannot override rules of navigation or unlawful conduct on the high seas.

  67. Schill, supra note 2.

  68. SW Schill, The Multilateralization of International Investment Law: Emergence of a Multilateral System of Investment Protection on Bilateral Grounds, 2 Trade L & Dev (2010) 59.

  69. SW Schill, Multilateralizing Investment Treaties through Most-Favored-Nation Clauses, 27 Berkeley J Intl L (2009) 496–569.

  70. Schill, supra note 2, at 24.

  71. Ibid, 15.

  72. Ibid, 16–17.

  73. Ibid, 15–16.

  74. Ibid, 89.

  75. Schill, supra note 69, at 67.

  76. Kurtz, supra note 29, at 755–6.

  77. Schill, supra note 2, at 89–90.

  78. Ibid, 68–69.

  79. Ibid, 17.

  80. M Sornarajah, Mutations of Neo-Liberalism in International Investment Law, 3 Trade, L & Dev (2011) 203; M Sornarajah, The Fair and Equitable Standard of Treatment: Whose Fairness? Whose Equity? In, Frederico Ortino, Lahra Liberti, Audley Sheppard and Hugo Warner (ed) Investment Treaty Law: Current Issues, vol 2 (BIICL, London, 2007).

  81. Schill, supra note 2, at 107–108.

  82. See the Indian Model BIT. For an analysis, see, Aniruddha Rajput, Shifting Treaty Practice of India: From 2003 Model BIT to 2015 Model BIT, 7 (2) Jindal Global L Rev (2016) 201.

  83. For a discussion on balancing treaties, see Sornarajah (Mutations of Neo-Liberalism), supra note 80, at 228; J Alvarez, Return of the State, 20 Minnesota J Intl L (2011) 223; K Vandevelde, A Comparison of the 2004 and 1994 US Model BITs: Rebalancing Investor and Host Country Interests, 1 Yrbk Intl Investment L & Pol’y (2008–09) 283; G Gagne & J-F Morin, The Evolving American Policy on Investment Protection: Evidence from Recent FTAs and the 2004 Model BIT, 9 J Intl Econ. L (2006) 357, 363; M Kantor, The New Draft Model US BIT: Noteworthy Developments, 21 J Intl Arb (2004) 383, 385; S Schwebel, The United States 2004 Model Bilateral Investment Treaty: An Exercise in the Regressive Development of International Law, 3(2) Transnatl Disp Management (2006).

  84. Schill, supra note 68, at 65.

  85. In Pac Rim v El Salvador the Tribunal was posed with the interpretation of denial of benefits clause (discussed in detail below) under Article 10.12.2 of Dominican Republic – Central America – United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). It declined to rely on interpretation of denial of benefits clause in Article 17 (1) of the Energy Charter, advanced by other Tribunals. Although the nature and purport of the clause was same, its contents were different and thus interpreted independently. Pac Rim Cayman LLC v The Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No ARB/09/12, Decision on the Respondent's Jurisdictional Objections, (1 June 2012) [4.1–4.5].

  86. M Sornarajah, Pursuit of Nationalized Property M Nijhoff, Leiden, 1986 36–7.

  87. Phoenix Action, Ltd v The Czech Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/06/5, Award, (15 April 2009) [54].

  88. Sornarajah, supra note 88, 324; R Dolzer & C Scheruer, Principles of International Investment Law (OUP, Oxford, 2008) 45–46.

  89. Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Limited (Belgium v Spain), Second Phase, Judgment of 5 February 1970, [1970] ICJ Rep 42 [70]; Sornarajah, supra note 88, 324.

  90. Barcelona Traction case, ibid, [38].

  91. Ibid, [41], [43].

  92. Ibid, [44]. The requirement of direct injury to shareholders, independent of the corporation is codified in the Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection, 2006. Article 12 specifies: ‘To the extent that an internationally wrongful act of a State causes direct injury to the rights of shareholders as such, as distinct from those of the corporation itself, the State of nationality of any such shareholders is entitled to exercise diplomatic protection in respect of its nationals.’<http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft%20articles/9_8_2006.pdf>.

  93. Dolzer and Schreuer, supra note 88, 56–59.

  94. Schill, supra note 2, 202–203.

  95. Ibid, 196–200.

  96. Ibid, 217–218.

  97. There is reference to the effect of Barcelona Traction in arbitral jurisprudence, but that is limited mostly to the standing of minority shareholders. See GAMI Investments Inc v The Government of the United Mexican States, UNCITRAL, Final Award, (15 November 2004) [29–38]. Interestingly, Schill acknowledges this problem of obscurity of substantive protection of shareholders’ rights. Schill, supra note 2, 209.

  98. Schill, supra note 2, 207–208.

  99. Ibid, 221.

  100. Ibid, 221.

  101. Ibid, 59, 68, 74.

  102. Barcelona Traction, supra note 89, [56].

  103. Tokios Tokelès v Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/02/18, Decision on Jurisdiction, (29 April 2004) [56].

  104. See, A Alexeyev & S Vitocich, Tokios Tokele`s Vector: Jurisdictional Issues in ICSID Case Tokios Tokelés v Ukraine, 9 J World Investment & Trade (2008) 519.

  105. Tokios Tokelès, supra note 103, at [21].

  106. Ibid, [22]; Also, see, Report of the Executive Directors on the Convention on the Settlement of Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, ICSID, April 2006, [28–30].

  107. Ibid, [30].

  108. Ibid, [31].

  109. Ibid, [56].

  110. Tokios Tokelès v Ukraine, ICSID Case No ARB/02/18, Dissenting Opinion (Chairman Prosper Weil, President), (29 April 2004), [1].

  111. Ibid, [6], [11].

  112. Ibid, [25].

  113. Christoph Schreuer and others, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary, 2nd edn (CUP, Cambridge, 2009) 137.

  114. Schill, supra note 2, at 228.

  115. Phoenix Action, Ltd v The Czech Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/06/5, Award, (15 April 2009), [106–113].

  116. Standard Chartered Bank v The United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No ARB/10/12, Award, (2 November 2012) [196–201].

  117. Auguas del Tunari, SA v Republic of Bolivia, ICSID Case No ARB/02/3, Decision on Respondent’s Objections to Jurisdiction, (21 October 2005) [19].

  118. ADC Affiliate Limited and ADC & ADMC Management Limited v The Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No ARB/03/16, Award of the Tribunal, (2 October 2006) [358]; Saluka v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award, (17 March 2006) [222–42].

  119. See Agreement between the Republic of Austria and the Republic of Uzbekistan for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, 2000, Article 10 <http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/226>; Agreement between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Republic of Austria for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, 2001, Article 10 <http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/194>; Agreement between the Lebanese Republic and the Republic of Austria on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments, 2001, Article 10 <http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/198>; Agreement between the Republic of Austria and the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for the Promotion and Protection of Investments 2002, Article 9 <http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/199>; Agreement between Japan and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam for the Liberalization, Promotion and Protection of Investment, 2003, Article 22 <http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Download/TreatyFile/1738>.

  120. Rachel Thorn and Jennifer Doucleff, Disregarding the Corporate Veil and Denial of Benefits Clauses: Testing Treaty Language and the Concept of “Investor” in Michael Waibel, Asha Kaushal, Kyo-Hwa Liz Chung and Claire Balchin (eds) The Backlash Against Investment Arbitration: Perceptions and Reality (Wolters Kluwer, 2010), 10.

  121. Amco Asia Corporation and others v Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Decision on Jurisdiction, (25 September 1983) [105–8]; Autopista Concessionada de Venezuela, CA v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No ARB/00/5, Decision on Jurisdiction, (27 September 2001), [51, 52, 63–6, 110–6].

  122. Société Ouest Africaine des Bétons Industriels (SOABI) v Senegal, ICSID Case No ARB/82/1 Decision on Jurisdiction, (1 August 1984) [41–6].

  123. Tokios Tokelès case, supra note 103, [36].

  124. Ibid, [35].

  125. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331, Article 31.1.

  126. Ibid, Article 31.2 (a).

  127. Ibid, Article 31.2 (b).

  128. United Nations, Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with Commentaries, 2 ILC Yrbk (1966) 187, 221.

  129. UNCTAD (Scope and Definition), supra note 40, at 38, 39; See Articles 1.3–1.5, Indian Model BIT 2015.

  130. See Canada – Autos, WTO-AB, 31 May 2000 [69]; EC- Tariff Prefrences, WTO-AB, (7 April, 2004) [104]; US – Section 211 Appropriations Act, WTO-AB, (2 January 2002) [297]; See, J Jackson, W Davies and A Sykes, Legal Problems of International Economic Relations: Cases, Materials, and Text on the National and International Regulation of Transnational Economic Relations, 4th edn (West Group, 2002) 415.

  131. UNCTAD, Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment: UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II (United Nations Publication, 2010) 13–14.

  132. United Nations, Draft Articles on most-favoured-nation clauses with commentaries, 2 ILC Yrbk (1978) 16, Article 5. The Draft Articles were never adopted by the General Assembly and they remain of persuasive value.

  133. Schill, supra note 68, at 70.

  134. UNCTAD (Scope and Definition), supra note 40, at 3, 6.

  135. John Jackson, The World Trading System: Law and Policy of International Economic Relations, 2nd edn (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1997) 157–160.

  136. Supra note 132, Article 7; Ibid, 2.

  137. Supra note 132, Article 4.

  138. UNCTAD (Scope and Definition), supra note 40, at 23.

  139. Ibid, 26, 53–54; Parkerings-Compagniet AS v Republic of Lithuania, ICSID Case No ARB/05/8, Award, (11 September 2007) [368], [369].

  140. UNCTAD (Scope and Definition), supra note 40, at 26, 54.

  141. See, SD Myers, Inc v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Final Award, (30 December 2002).

  142. See, Marvin Roy Feldman Karpa v United Mexican States, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/99/1, Award, (16 December 2002). See, Champion Trading Company, Ameritrade International, Inc v Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/02/09, Award, (27 October 2006). See, United Parcel Service of America Inc v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Award on the Merits, (24 May 2007).

  143. See, Archer Daniels Midland Company and Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, Inc v the United Mexican States, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/04/5, Award, (21 November 2007); Corn Products International, Inc v the United Mexican States, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/04/1, Decision on Responsibility, (15 January 2008).

  144. UNCTAD (Scope and Definition), supra note 40, 26.

  145. Ibid, 26.

  146. See Pope & Talbot Inc v The Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Award on the Merits of Phase 2, (10 April 2001).

  147. Parkerings-Compagniet AS v Republic of Lithuania, ICSID Case No ARB/05/8, Award, (11 September 2007), paras 428–30.

  148. UNCTAD (Scope and Definition), supra note 40, 29.

  149. UNCTAD, (Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment), supra note 131, 45–53.

  150. Annex IIII, Article 2 (2), Canada Model BIT, 2004.

  151. Annex IIII, Article 2 (2), Canada Model BIT, 2004.

  152. Article 3 (3), Germany Model BIT, 2008.

  153. Article 3 (4), Germany Model BIT, 2008.

  154. Article 3 (2), Germany Model BIT, 2008.

  155. Foot note 2 to Article 4, Norway Model BIT, 2007.

  156. Annexure B, Norway Model BIT, 2007.

  157. Article 14 (1) (c), United States Model BIT, 2012.

  158. Article 14 (2), United States Model BIT, 2012.

  159. Article 14 (3), United States Model BIT, 2012.

  160. Article 14 (5) (a), United States Model BIT, 2012.

  161. Article 14 (5) (b), United States Model BIT, 2012.

  162. Técnicas Mediombientales Tecmed, SA v The United Mexican States, ICSID Case no ARB (AF)/00/02, Award, (29 May 2003) [69]; MCI Power Group LC and New Turbine, Inc v Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No ARB/03/6, Award, (31 July 2007).

  163. UNCTAD (Scope and Definition), supra note 40, at 24.

  164. Hochtief AG v The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/07/31, Decision on Jurisdiction, (24 October 2011) [81]; European American Investment Bank AG (EURAM) v Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, Award on Jurisdiction, (22 October 2012) [446–56]; Les Laboratoires Servier, SAA, Biofarma, SAS, Arts et Techniques du Progres SAS v Republic of Poland, UNCITRAL, Award (redacted), (14 February 2012) [511]; Vannessa Ventures Ltd v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/04/6, Award, (16 January 2013) [133]; Rafat Ali Rizvi v Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No ARB/11/13, Award on Jurisdiction, (16 July 2013) [220]; ST-AD GmbH v Republic of Bulgaria, UNCITRAL PCA Case No 2011–06 (ST-BG), Award on Jurisdiction, (18 July 2013) [396]; Metal-Tech Ltd v Republic of Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No ARB/10/3, Award, (4 October 2013) [145–163].

  165. UNCTAD (Scope and Definition), supra note 40, iv.

  166. Salini Costruttori SpA and Italstrade SpA v The Hasemite Kingdom of Jordan, ICSID Case No ARB/02/13, Decision on Jurisdiction, (9 November 2004) [115–8]; Plama Consortium Limited v Republic of Bulgaria, ICSID Case No ARB/03/04, Decision on Jurisdiction, (8 February 2005) [208–09, 212, 219]; Telenor Mobile Communications AS v The Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No ARB/04/15, Award, (13 September 2006) [92–5]; Vladimir Berschader and Moïse Berschader v The Russion Federation, Arbitration Institution of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce Case No 080/2004, Award, (21 April 2006) [178], [181].

  167. Wintershall Aktiengesellschaft v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/04/14, Award, (8 December 2008) [160 (3)].

  168. UNCTAD (Scope and Definition), supra note 40, 4.

  169. Société Générale In respect of DR Energy Holdings Limited and Empresa Distribuidora de Electricidad del Este, SA v The Dominican Republic, UNCITRAL LCAI Case No UN 7927, Award on Preliminary Objections to Jurisdiction, (19 September 2008) [41].

  170. supra note 49, 62.

  171. Daimler Financial Services v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/05/1, Award, (22 August 2012), paras 232–3. The adhoc Annulment Committee declined to interfere with these observations Daimler Financial Services v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/05/1, Decision on Annulment, (7 January 2015) [141–6].

  172. Hochtief AG v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/31, 24 October 2011, Decision on Jurisdiction, para 81; International Law Commission, Final Reprot: Study Group on the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause <http://legal.un.org/ilc/reports/2015/english/annex.pdf> [106].

  173. JA Maupin, MFN-Based Jurisdiction in Investor-State Arbitration: Is there any Hope for a Consistent Approach?, 14(1) J Intl Econ L (2011) 157.

  174. Ibid, 176–77; Also, see, Wintershall Aktiengesellschaft v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/04/14, Award, (8 December 2008) [88–91].

  175. Telenor Mobile Communications AS v The Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No ARB/04/15, Award, (13 September 2006) [92].

  176. Telenor Mobile Communications case, supra note 175, at [93], citing Plama v Bulgaria.

  177. Telenor Mobile Communications case, supra note 175, at [95–7].

  178. Telenor Mobile Communications case, supra note 175, at [92].

  179. Daimler Financial Services case, supra note 172, at [240–4].

  180. UNCTAD, (Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment), supra note 131, at 84–7, citing examples of various treaties that have included the Maffezini clause.

  181. Ibid; India recently issued a Model BIT and removed the MFN clause from the Model BIT altogether, available at <http://indiainbusiness.nic.in/newdesign/upload/Model_BIT.pdf> last visited 14 August 2016.

  182. International Law Commission, Most-Favoured-Nation clause: Final Report of the Study Group on the Most-Favoured-Nation clause, 2015, Vol II (Part Two) ILC Yrbk (2015) [212–7].

  183. AK Kanungo, India’s Overseas Investment in Africa: An Initiative for South-South Cooperation, 11 J World Investment & Trade (2010) 669, 796–798.

  184. Ibid

  185. Ibid.

  186. See, E Gillman, The End of ISA in Ecuador? An Analysis of Article 422 of the Constitution of 2008, 19 American Rev Intl Arb (2008) 269.

  187. See, Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula, SC European Food SA, SC Starmill SRL and SC Multipack SRL v Romania, ICSID Case No ARB/05/20, Decision on Jurisdiction, (24 September 2008).

  188. Damon Vis-Dunbar, NGOs Claim the Phillipines Japan Free Trade Agreement is Unconstitutional, Investment Treaty News, June 5, 2009 <www.iisd.org/itn/2009/06/05/ngos-claim-the-philippine-japan-free-trade-agreement-is-unconstitutional/>.

  189. LE Trakman, Investor State Arbitration or Local Courts: Will Australia Set a New Trend?, 46 J World Trade (2012) 83, 84.

  190. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australian Government, Gillard Government Trade Policy Statement: Trading Our Way to More Jobs and Prosperity (14 April 2011) <http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/trade/trading-our-way-to-more-jobs-and-prosperity.pdf>.

  191. Article 29.5, Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).

  192. Damon Vis-Dunbar, Norway Shelves its Draft Model Bilateral Investment Treaty, Investment Treaty News, (8 June 2009) <http://www.iisd.org/itn/2009/06/08/norway-shelves-its-proposed-model-bilateral-investment-treaty/>.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Member, United Nations International Law Commission, Geneva, Switzerland

    Aniruddha Rajput

  2. Advocate, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi, India

    Aniruddha Rajput

Authors
  1. Aniruddha Rajput
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aniruddha Rajput.

Additional information

I thank Professor M Sornarajah and members of the Doctoral Reading Group at the Faculty of Law, the National University Singapore, for their comments. I would also like to thank Rouble Sorkkar for her efficient research assistance. The responsibility for the views expressed and errors are entirely mine.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rajput, A. The myth of a multilateral framework in international investment law. Indian Journal of International Law 56, 427–461 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40901-017-0052-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40901-017-0052-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation