Abstract
The proliferation of investment treaty practice and international investment arbitration has led to a boom in the academic literature dissecting various aspects of the evolving rules on investment protection. With the exception of some notable contributions, however, there have been relatively limited efforts to analyse international investment law empirically, and in particular from the perspective of developing countries. This paper aims to fill this gap by offering some insights into the currently under-explored issue of how international investment law influences host state behaviour. More specifically, the aim of this study is to test a number of claims about the transformative impact of international investment law on national governance in developing states. The analysis is carried out through a small-scale empirical case-study which focuses on how responses and reactions investment treaty law has elicited among government officials in host states that have experienced investment arbitration in a respondent capacity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
Schill (2009), p. 377.
- 4.
Echandi (2011), p. 13.
- 5.
See Bonnitcha (2014), p. 43.
- 6.
- 7.
PSEG Global Inc and Konya Ilgin Elektrik Üretim ve Ticaret Ltd Širketi v Turkey, Award and Annex, 19 January 2007 (Case No. ARB/02/5); Libananco Holdings Co. Limited v. Republic of Turkey, Award, 2 September 2011 (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/8).
- 8.
UNCTAD (2011), p. 8.
- 9.
- 10.
See Newmont USA Limited and Newmont (Uzbekistan) Limited v. Republic of Uzbekistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/20) (settlement agreed between the parties on 25 July 2007); Romak S.A (Switzerland) v Republic of Uzbekistan, Decision 26 November 2009 (PCA Case No. AA280).
- 11.
The case-study in Uzbekistan was completed in 2016.
- 12.
Metal-Tech Ltd. v. Republic of Uzbekistan, Award, 4 October 2013 (ICSID Case No. ARB/10/3) para 414.
- 13.
Romak (n10) para 252.
- 14.
Ibid.
- 15.
Guadalupe Gas Products Corporation v Nigeria (ICSID Case No. ARB/78/1) was discontinued on 22 July 1980 with settlement agreed by parties; Shell Nigeria Ultra Deep Limited v Federal Republic of Nigeria (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/18) was discontinued on 1 August 2011; Interocean Oil Development Company and Interocean Oil Exploration Company v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (ICSID Case No. ARB/13/20) is currently pending.
- 16.
- 17.
Unlike Turkey and Uzbekistan, there are no publicly available figures to indicate the financial costs incurred by Nigeria in defending itself before arbitration panels. However, the average cost for legal representation according to statistics from Allen and Overy may total approximately USD 4,559,000.00. See http://www.allenovery.com/publications/en-gb/Pages/Investment-Treaty-Arbitration-How-much-does-it-cost-How-long-does-it-take-.aspx.
- 18.
Coe and Rubins (2005), p. 599.
- 19.
Bonnitcha (2014), p. 122.
- 20.
Poulsen and Aisbett (2013) pp. 281–2.
- 21.
Caddel and Jensen (2014).
- 22.
Poulsen and Aisbett (2013), p. 282.
- 23.
The decision of the Constitutional Court does not specify which foreign investor claims prompted a request for the interpretation of the relevant provisions in national law. The existing data on investment arbitration claims brought against Uzbekistan suggests that the request for interpretation might have been the consequence of arbitral proceedings initiated in PCA Case No. AA280 between Romak S. A. (Switzerland) Claimant and the Republic of Uzbekistan Newmont USA Limited and Newmont (Uzbekistan) Limited v. Republic of Uzbekistan (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/20).
- 24.
Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On interpretation of part 1 of Article 10 of the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Guarantees and Measures of Protection of Foreign Investor Rights”, translated by the author; a version in Russian is available at http://www.lex.uz/pages/getpage.aspx?lact_id=1267669.
- 25.
Ibid.
- 26.
Minaeva (2013).
- 27.
ICSID Case No. ARB/13/20.
- 28.
Ibid, para 147.
- 29.
Anaba and Nnochiri (2012).
- 30.
Law N 719-I On Investment Activity, 24 December 1998, amended 09 December 2014 the Russian and Uzbek language versions are available at http://www.lex.uz/.
- 31.
The recently signed Nigeria-Morocco BIT still features a fairly broad provision on access to investor-state dispute settlement: http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/IIA/treaty/3711.
- 32.
See e.g. Hewko (2012), p. 2.
- 33.
C23 LFN 2004. The section provides inter alia: ‘No treaty between the Federation and any other country shall have the force of law to the extent to which any such treaty has been enacted into law by the National Assembly…’ and any such domesticated treaty ‘…shall not be enacted unless it is ratified by a majority of all the Houses of Assembly in the Federation.’
- 34.
Cohen (1990).
- 35.
Posner and Sykes (2013), p. 115.
- 36.
Cohen (1990), p. 213.
- 37.
UNCTAD (2011), p. 10.
- 38.
UNCTAD (2011), p. 11.
- 39.
UNCTAD (2011), p. 12.
- 40.
UNCTAD (2011), p. 12.
- 41.
UNCTAD (2011), p. 12.
- 42.
UNCTAD (2011), p. 12.
- 43.
UNCTAD (2011), p. 10.
- 44.
The Russian language version of the Decree No. 1095 from 12.01.2002 on the payment of judgments and awards in compensation for damages caused by government bodies and officials is available at http://www.lex.uz/docs/901461.
- 45.
Law No. 659 of 29 September 2011 (the Turkish language version is available at http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/4.5.659.pdf.
- 46.
The outline of the department’s mandate in Russian language is available on the website of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan at http://kapital.kz/details/27535/ne-tolko-zacshicshatsya-no-i-vnimatelnee-chitat-kontrakty.html. See also http://tengrinews.kz/kazakhstan_news/kazahstan-otstoyal-iski-3-milliarda-dollarov-mejdunarodnyih-arbitrajah-2013-godu-250785/.
- 47.
See Article 12-1 of the Law № 373-II On Investments, 8 January 2003, as amended 12 June 2014, available at http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/InvestmentLaws/laws/98.
- 48.
Law № 373-II.
- 49.
See e.g., ‘In 2015 The Investment Ombudsman Helped 20 Companies Working in Kazakhstan’, available at http://invest.mid.gov.kz/en/news/2015-investment-ombudsman-helped-20-companies-working-kazakhstan/.
- 50.
UNCTAD (2011), p. 19.
- 51.
UNCTAD (2011), p. 20.
- 52.
UNCTAD (2011), p. 22.
- 53.
UNCTAD (2011), p. 25.
- 54.
UNCTAD (2011), p. 30.
- 55.
UNCTAD (2011), p. 31.
- 56.
UNCTAD (2011), p. 30.
- 57.
UNCTAD (2011), p. 31.
- 58.
UNCTAD (2011), p. 46.
- 59.
UNCTAD (2011), p. 11.
- 60.
See above Footnote 8–11 and accompanying text.
- 61.
USAID/APEC (2013), p. 13.
- 62.
- 63.
See UNCTAD (2011), pp. 37–8.
References
Anaba I, Nnochiri I (2012) Court voids two arbitration awards worth N840bn against NNPC. Vangaurd Newspapers. Available at: http://www.vanguardngr.com/2012/04/court-voids-two-arbitration-awards-worth-n840bn-against-nnpc/#sthash.84SqQflw.dpuf
Behn D, Berg TL, Langford M (2018) Poor states or poor governance? Explaining outcomes in investment treaty arbitration. Nw J Int’l L Bus 38:333
Bonnitcha J (2014) Substantive protection under investment treaties: a legal and economic analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Caddel J, Jensen NM (2014) Which host country government actors are most involved in disputes with foreign investors? Columbia FDI Perspectives No. 120, available at http://ccsi.columbia.edu/files/2013/10/No-120-Caddel-and-Jensen-FINAL-WEBSITE-version.pdf
Coe J, Rubins N (2005) Regulatory expropriation and the Tecmed case: context and contributions. In: Weiler T (ed) International investment law and arbitration: leading cases from the ICSID, NAFTA, bilateral treaties and customary international law. Cameron May, London
Cohen D (1990) Regulating regulators: the legal environment of the state. U Tor L J 40(1):245
Côté C (2014) A chilling effect? The impact of international investment agreements on national regulatory autonomy in the areas of health, safety and the environment. Ph.D. thesis, The London School of Economics and Political Science
Echandi R (2011) What do developing countries expect from the international investment regime? In: Alvarez J et al (eds) The evolving international investment regime: expectations, realities, options. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 13
Franck S (2009) Development and outcomes of investment treaty arbitration. Harv J Intl L 50:435
Franck S (2005) The legitimacy crisis in investment treaty arbitration: privatising public international law through inconsistent decisions. Fordham L Rev 73(4):1521
Hewko J (2012) Foreign direct investment: does the rule of law matter? Democracy and rule of law project. Working Paper No 26, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington
Idornigie P (2011) Investment treaty arbitration and emerging markets: issues, prospects and challenges. Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, Abuja
Minaeva T (2013, 20 July) Uzbekistan: planned reforms to foreign investment law. Global Arbitration Review. Available at http://www.shlegal.com/Asp/uploadedFiles/File/Newsletters/2013_newsletters/06_13/07_13_Global_Arbitration_Review.pdf
Posner E, Sykes A (2013) Economic foundations of international law. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Poulsen L (2015) Bounded rationality and economic diplomacy: the politics of investment treaties in developing countries. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Poulsen L, Aisbett E (2013) When the claims hit: bilateral investment treaties and bounded rational learning. World Polit 65:273–313
Sattorova M (2018) The impact of investment treaty law on host states: enabling good governance?. Hart Publishing, Oxford
Sauvant KP, Sachs LE (eds) (2009) The effect of treaties on foreign direct investment: bilateral investment treaties, double taxation treaties, and investment flows. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Schill S (2009) The multilateralization of international investment law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Schultz T, Dupont C (2015) Investment arbitration: promoting the rule of law or over-empowering investors? A quantitative empirical study. Eur J Int L 25(4):1147
UNCTAD (2011) Best Practices in Investment for development. How to prevent and manage investor-State disputes: Lessons from Peru. Investment Advisory Series, Series B, No 10
USAID/APEC (2013) Investor-state dispute prevention strategies: selected case studies. Available at http://www.apec.org/Groups/Committee-on-Trade-and-Investment/~/media/Files/Groups/IEG/20130625_IEG-DisputePrevention.pdf
Webb Yackee J (2010–11) Do bilateral investment treaties promote foreign direct investment? Some hints from alternative evidence. Va J Intl L 51:397
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sattorova, M., Erkan, M., Omiunu, O. (2020). How Do Host States Respond to Investment Treaty Law? Some Empirical Observations. In: Haskell, J., Rasulov, A. (eds) New Voices and New Perspectives in International Economic Law. European Yearbook of International Economic Law(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32512-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32512-1_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-32511-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-32512-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)