Jump to Content Jump to Main Navigation

You are looking at 110 of 3,689 results

Clear All

A Comparison of the 2004 and 1994 US Model BITs »

Kenneth Vandevelde
In November 2004 the United States adopted a new model negotiating text for its bilateral investment treaties (BITs). The 2004 model was the first comprehensive revision of the model BIT since 1994 and the most comprehensive revision since the program's inception. This article compares the 2004 model with its 1994 predecessor.

Part III Procedural Issues, Ch.30 A Doctrine of Precedent? »

Christoph Schreuer, Matthew Weiniger
From: The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law
Edited By: Peter T Muchlinski, Federico Ortino, Christoph Schreuer
This chapter begins with a discussion of precedent in international law. It then discusses the practice of investment treaty tribunals, inconsistent decisions, interpretative statements by states, and institutionalized mechanisms.

1 A Global Regime for Investment »

From: The Law of Investment Treaties (2nd Edition)
Jeswald W. Salacuse
This chapter begins with an introduction to investment treaties, often referred to as international investment agreements (IIAs), and the building of a global regime for investment since the end of World War II through the negotiation of such treaties. It sets out the definition and types of IIAs. It then discusses the significance of investment treaties; the application of regime theory to investment treaties; regime challenges and prospects; and factors that will foster the stability and continued growth of the investment regime. The chapter also describes the aim and scope of the book and gives a brief summary of the contents of following chapters.

4 A History of International Investment Treaties »

From: The Law of Investment Treaties (2nd Edition)
Jeswald W. Salacuse
Since the inception of international investment, foreign investors have sought assurances from the sovereigns in whose territory they invest that their interests will be protected from negative actions by the sovereign and local individuals. This chapter begins with a historical background of the treatification process, which came about due to the perceived weaknesses of customary international law applying to foreign investments. It then discusses the objectives of the movement to negotiate investment treaties; the primary and secondary objectives of investment treaties; long-term goals of investment treaties; the treaty negotiation process; and the consequences of investment treaties, including the growth in investor–state arbitration cases to settle investment disputes.

A New Approach to the Law of Foreign Investments : The South African Case »

Christian Vidal-León
This chapter analyzes South Africa's decision to terminate its investment treaties and the underlying objectives of South Africa's new investment regime, namely: (1) reinforcing the ‘sovereign right to regulate in the public interest’; (2) doing away with international investment arbitration; and (3) placing foreign and domestic investments on an equal footing. It examines the standards of investment protection not explicitly laid down in the Promotion and Protection of Investment Bill 2013 and inquires whether these standards are otherwise protected by the constitution or other laws. The chapter concludes that whilst South Africa's policy decision on its investment protection regime is open to debate, the government has followed a comprehensive, transparent, and inclusive process, in which relevant stakeholders have been heard and with which they have engaged.

Appendix 3 A Tabular Comparison of the 1976–2010 UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules »

From: The UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules: A Commentary (2nd Edition)
David D Caron, Lee M Caplan

Part I Transnational Corruption and International Efforts at its Control, 3 A Typology of Corruption in Foreign Investment »

From: Corruption in International Investment Arbitration
Aloysius P Llamzon
This chapter categorizes the many modalities of transnational corruption within two groups — transactional and variance bribery. Transaction bribes are payments routinely and often impersonally made to a public official to secure or accelerate the performance of that official's duties. The payment is not made in order to secure the public official's divergence from a substantive norm. Instead, the payment is made simply to ensure that the public official performs his duty more efficiently, hence the term ‘grease money’ or the euphemism ‘facilitation payment’. Variance bribes involve payments made in order to obtain a favourable result through a deviation from the proper application of a norm. The bribe might be paid in order to suspend the operation of a legal prescription, or in order to have a public official exercise his discretion in a manner favourable to the payer.

A Uniform, Internationally Oriented Legal Framework for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan? »

José Alejandro Carballo Leyda
The growth in commercial transactions with Mainland China, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Taiwan region (Taiwan) as well as the economic integration in the entire area have lead to an increase in disputes. Considering the importance of arbitration as a mechanism for resolving commercial disputes in the area, the paper discusses whether a substantial ‘clash’ between their legal frameworks for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards can be observed. After a critical analysis, the paper concludes that these frameworks are either subject to or modelled on the New York Convention. Yet, each has a distinct approach to the implementation, and dissimilarities arise. Furthermore, the specific legal framework for the recognition and enforcement of Mainland China awards in Hong Kong and Taiwan, and vice versa, still raises some concerns and is not fully reliable.

Abaclat and ors v Argentina, Consent Award, ICSID Case No ARB/07/5, IIC 905 (2016), ICSID Case No ARB/07/05, despatched 29th December 2016, World Bank; International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes [ICSID] »

Original Source PDF

Abaclat and ors v Argentina, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, ICSID Case No ARB/07/5, IIC 504 (2011), despatched 4th August 2011, International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes [ICSID] »

Original Source PDF