Browse

This chapter reviews home state policies on responsible Outbound Foreign Direct Investment (ODI). Mainly, the chapter considers the extent to which ODI policy developments in 2018 facilitate or inhibit responsible investment. As such, this chapter is divided into two parts. The first part focuses on recent responsible ODI policy developments in Canada, Australia, and Europe. Recognizing the increasing involvement of emerging market multinational corporations (MNCs) in ODI, policies and initiatives on responsible investment in select emerging economies are next considered. The chapter closes with some concluding reflections on the ODI trends of emerging economies such as Brazil, Nigeria, and India.

This chapter explores developments in investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) in the period of January–December 2019 in relation to, on the one hand, jurisdiction and admissibility and, on the other, procedure and conduct. It determines the existence of a qualifying investment and looks at the fate of jurisdictional objections relating to the recent Achmea judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The chapter then addresses some important developments that have marked the most recent decisions of arbitral tribunals. Tribunals continue to decide a broad range of jurisdictional and procedural issues. Among them, the impact of the Achmea judgment on the jurisdiction of tribunals called to decide intra-EU, and in particular intra-EU Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), cases has been the object of a number of jurisdictional decisions, all of which rejected the impact of the judgment. Another noteworthy development is an apparent tendency to consistently deny application of the most-favoured nation (MFN) standard to the treaty's dispute settlement clause and to consider that compliance with waiting clauses is mandatory. Other noteworthy decisions concern the meaning of covered ‘investments’ pursuant to new generation investment treaties, increasingly numerous arbitrator challenges, decisions on provisional measures, non-disputing party interventions, third-party funding, and security for costs.

This chapter highlights notable contributions made by investment treaty tribunals during 2019, in the areas of provisional measures, merits, quantum, other remedies, settlements, annulments, and domestic challenges to awards. Starting with provisional measures, two broad themes can be seen in the few decisions that surfaced in 2019, namely with respect to: (i) the relation between parties and their counsel; and (ii) the powers of investment tribunals to interfere in domestic criminal proceedings. On the merits of investment awards, several developments are worth mentioning. Tribunals have dealt in sometimes novel and interesting ways with matters ranging from adverse inferences to attribution, not to mention the ongoing interpretation of classic investment protections such as the fair and equitable treatment (FET) standard or umbrella clauses. On the whole, 2019 was a typical year in the field of investment arbitrations: tribunals have once again found in favour of and against governments or investors (or neither of them), sometimes clarifying the field's emerging jurisprudence, while, at other times, blurring it further.

This chapter looks at movements in foreign direct investment (FDI) flows in 2019 and why one needs to analyse these within a broader context, beginning in 2001. This is when FDI flows fall and broader economic ‘secular stagnation’ in advanced economies begins. From the perspective of FDI, this long-standing stagnation seems to be characterized not simply by low or declining levels, but by FDI no longer responding to its fundamental drivers (proxied here by GDP). The chapter then considers statistical trends in FDI in 2019, and tries to strike a balance between short-term (immediate) explanations and long-running (underlying) factors. It also explores policy trends in FDI in 2019 within the context of increasing global competition and inter-state rivalry. The chapter reviews new regional trade agreements and growing use of national security screening mechanisms on inward FDI, along with developing economy investment liberalization policies to attract more FDI while leveraging it better. Finally, it analyses China–US direct investment dynamics and rivalry within these broader developments.

This chapter surveys current developments in home state measures and regulation of outbound foreign investment for the year 2020. It examines the implications of declining FDI flows on initiatives to encourage socially responsible behaviour by investors abroad.

This chapter surveys current developments in investor-state arbitration concerning substantive standards, awards, and enforcement issues for the year 2020.

This chapter surveys current developments in investor-state arbitration concerning jurisdictional, admissibility, and procedural issues for the year 2020.

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.

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.

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.