Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
1 Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
2 Ph.D Student, International Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
International investment law is facing a legitimacy crisis, in which to tackle, substantial efforts are being made in structural and procedural areas. The first step to overcoming this crisis is identifying the roots of it. The lack of a dynamic balance between public and private interests is one of the main factors creating this legitimacy crisis in this legal system.[1] This paper focuses on the changes in the investment arbitration jurisprudence to create this balance. The findings of this paper can explain one of the convergence points of international trade and investment law. Such a claim is based on the evolution of international trade law in facing a similar legitimacy issue and the structural-procedural approach of this legal system in balancing public and private interests as an ultimate solution to the crisis.[2] From this perspective, one of the major factors in creating a legitimacy crisis in both legal systems is the dominance of the paradigm for preference of private interests; and one of the convergence points of international trade and investment law has been to replace it by accepting the paradigm of creating a dynamic balance between competing goals.[3] This paper examines this convergence in arbitral jurisprudence.
Introduction
In recent years, the legitimacy crisis of the regime of international investment law and, as a result, the investor-state dispute settlement system has been one of the most important and controversial topics in the academic environment and the practice of states consequently, serious efforts in various fields to tackle this crisis have begun. According to this paper, choosing an arbitration mechanism modeled on international commercial arbitration to resolve disputes between host states and foreign investors can be evaluated as a wrong and hasty action that, regardless of its factors and contexts, has changed the nature and function of this system over time.[4] It should be noted that the main factor in such consequences is how this dispute resolution system is used which, contrary to the accepted model, always puts the host states in a "respondent" position in possible future disputes and, as a result, disrupts the balance expected in any international dispute settlement system. On this basis, the confrontation of the host state's sovereign competence in ensuring public interests with the foreign investors’ ability to challenge this competence is brought into the spotlight: currently, within the regime of international investment law, host states have only responsibilities and obligations in contrast to extensive and exclusive rights and privileges recognized for foreign investors, and this can be considered as the most important factor disturbing the said balance. The main issue in this field is to analyze the role of the investment arbitral tribunals in creating such a balance. In this regard, the authors, by focusing on the nature of investment treaties, and the relations between the parties in investment disputes and with emphasis on the general legal regime governing international investment, consider creating a dynamic balance between public and private interests to be the key to solving the crisis. They emphasize that; As long as the rights and obligations of the parties to the dispute are based on imbalanced grounds, the change in nature of the disputes and the function of the system -as the main roots of this legitimacy crisis - will remain. In this remark, it is very important to focus on the two-sided nature (public-private) of the relationships established in the framework of investment treaties. The relationship between the host state and the foreign investor is created within the framework of investment treaties and in light of fundamental differences from purely private relationships in international commercial arbitration.[5] Note that any dispute arising from this relationship is affected by its inherently public nature governed by public international law.[6] Thus, a purely private attitude towards these relations does not seem viable. As Ian Brownlie has stated in the case of SME v. the Czech Republic, it can lead to ignoring some of the basic elements of the relevant investment treaty.[7] In other words, the right and duty of the host state in protecting and promoting public interests is a fundamental part of this relationship, and any indulgence of it leads to a serious disruption of the mentioned balance through which the system's legitimacy will be the first victim.
It is clear that the main task of any dispute resolution system is to create such a balance, and on this basis, and compared to the WTO dispute resolution system, the role of the investment tribunals in this process is discussed. This jurisprudential convergence is in line with the goal of strengthening the legitimacy of the international investment law system as a whole.
Based on the above, the first part of this paper focuses on the process of establishing the ISDS in international investment law and its characteristics, the factors of the crisis of legitimacy are analyzed with an analytical approach, while also explaining the nature of investment treaties and explaining the general legal regime governing international investment. Furthermore, the lack of a dynamic balance between public and private interests is emphasized as the main cause of the crisis. In the second part, while comparing the two legal systems of international trade and investment with a similar crisis of legitimacy, we will examine the interaction of investment arbitration with the WTO's jurisprudence in facing this crisis through a case study of several investment arbitral awards.
[1]. David Gaukrodger, “The Balance between Investor Protection and the Right to Regulate in Investment Treaties: A Scooping Paperˮ, OECD Working Paper on International Investment 2017/02, at 4.
[2]. Nicholas DiMascio & Joost Pauwelyn, “Non-Discrimination in Trade and Investment Treaties: Worlds apart or Two Sides of the Same Coin?”, AJIL, Vol. 102, No.1, (2008), at 89.
[3]. Jurgen Kurtz and Sungioon Cho, “Convergence and Divergence in International Economic Law and Politics”, EJIL, Vol. 20, No. 1, (2018), at 187.
[4]. Benedict Kingsbury & Stephan W. Schill, “Public Law Concepts to Balance Investor's Rights with State Regulatory Actions in the Public Interest - The Concept of Proportionalityˮ, In Schill Stephan W., International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (UK: Oxford University Press, 2010) at 76.
[5]. Crina Baltag, “Reforming The ISDS System: In Search of a Balanced Approach?ˮ, Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal, Vol. 22, No. 2, (2019), at 285.
[6]. Ibid.
[7]. Andreas Kulick, “Sneaking Through Backdoor – Reflections on Public Interest in International Investment Arbitrationˮ, Arbitration International, Vol. 29, No. 3, (2013), at 438.
Keywords
- Investor-State Dispute Settlement
- International Investment Law
- World Trade Organization
- Crisis of Legitimacy
Main Subjects
کتابها
- اصغریان، مجتبی و محبی، محسن، «بحران مشروعیت داوری سرمایهگذاری بینالمللی»، سالنامه ایرانی داوری، سال دوم، شماره دوم، چاپ اول ( تهران: شهر دانش 1398)
- دالزر، رودلف و شروئر، کریستف، اصول حقوق بینالملل سرمایهگذاری، ترجمه سید قاسم زمانی و به آذین حسیبی (تهران: شهر دانش، 1393).
- سیفی، سید جمال، حقوق مسئولیت بینالمللی: گفتارهایی در مسئولیت بینالمللی دولت (تهران: شهر دانش، 1400).
- لونفلد، آندریاس اف، حقوق بینالملل اقتصادی، ترجمه محمد حبیبی مجنده، چاپ دوم (تهران: انتشارات جنگل، 1392).
- مسئولیت بینالمللی دولت: متن و شرح مواد کمیسیون حقوق بینالملل، ترجمه علیرضا ابراهیم گل، زیر نظر و با دیباچه سید جمال سیفی، چاپ سوم (تهران: شهر دانش، 1390).
مقاله
- محبی، محسن و ابراهیمی لویه، سهیلا، «لزوم تشکیل رکن تجدید نظر در داوری سرمایهگذاری بینالمللی»، مجله تحقیقات حقوقی، دوره 22، شماره 87، (1398).
References
Books
- Cho, Sungioon, Free Market and Social Regulation: A Reform Agenda of the Global Trading System Toward a New International Economic Law (UK: Kluwer law International, 2003).
- Collins, David, An Introduction to International Investment Law, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016).
- Dolzer, Rudolf & Schreuer, Christoph, Principles of International Investment Law, Translated By: Seyed Ghasem Zamani & Behazin Hasibi (Tehran: Shahre Danesh Publications, 2014). [In Persian]
- Gruszczynski, Lukasz & Vadi, Valentina, 'Standard of Review and Scientific Evidence in WTO Law and International Investment Arbitration: Converging Parallels?', In: Gruszcznski Lukasz and Wouter Werner, Deference in International Courts and Tribunals: Standard of Review and Margin of Appreciation (UK: Oxford University Press, 2014).
- Kingsbury, Benedcit & Schill Stephan W., Public Law Concepts to Balance Investor's Rights with State Regulatory Actions in the Public Interest - The Concept of Proportionality, In Schill Stephan W., International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (UK: Oxford University press, 2010).
- Kurtz, Jurgen, The WTO and International Investment Law; Converging Systems (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016).
- Levashova, Yulia, The Right of States To Regulae In International Investment Law: The Search for Balance between Public Interest and Fair and Equitable Treatment (The Netherlands: Wolters Kluwer., 2019).
- Lowenfeld, Andreas F., International Economic Law, Translated by: M. Habibi mojandeh (Tehran: Jungle publications, 2011). [In Persian]
- Mavroidis Petros C. & Wu Mark, The Law of the World Trade Organization (WTO): Documents, Cases & Analysis (St. Paul, MN: West Academic Publishing, 2013).
- Seifi, Seyed Jamal, The Law of International Responsibility: Reflections on the Law of state Responsibility (Tehran: Shahre Danesh Publications, 2021). [In Persian]
- Sulyok, Katalin, Science and Judicial Reasoning: The Legitimacy of International Environmental Adjudication (Cambridge: Cambridg University Press, 2020).
- The Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 2001 Translated by: Alireza Ebrahimgol under Supervision of Seyed Jamal Seifi (Tehran: Shahre Danesh Publications, 2011). [In Persian]
Articles
- Alenezi Atif, M., “Preventing the Regulatory Chill of International Investment law and Arbitrationˮ, International Law Reserch, Vol. 9, No.1, (2020).
- Alvarez, Jose E. & Topalian, Gustavo, “The Paradoxical Argentina Casesˮ, World Arbitration & Mediation Review, Vol. 6, No. 3, (2012).
- Alvarez, Jose E., “Is Investor-State Arbitration Public?ˮ, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, Vol. 7, Issue. 3, (2016).
- Alvarez, Jose E., “The Return of the Stateˮ, Minesota Journal of International Law, Vol. 20, (2011).
- Asgharian, Mojtaba, & Mohebi, Mohsen, “Legitimacy Crisis in Investment Arbitration”, Iranian Yearbook of Arbitration, Vol. 2, (2018). [In Persian]
- Baltag, Crina, “Reforming The ISDS System: In Search of a Balanced Approach?ˮ, Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal, Vol. 22, No. 2, (2019).
- Brown, Colin M., “A Multilateral Mechanism of the Settlement of Investment Dispute: Some Preliminary Sketchesˮ, ICSID Review 32(3), (2017).
- Burke-White, William & Von Staden, Andreas, “Investment Protection in Extraordinary Times: The Interpretation and Aplication of Non-Precluded Measures Provisions in Bilateral Investment Treatiesˮ, (2008). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 146.
- Chantal, Thomas, “Should the World Trade Organisation Incorporate Labor and Environmental Standards?ˮ, 61 WASH. & LEEL. REV. 347, (2004).
- Cutfield, Josephine, “Exception Measures: The Pursuit of Non-Trade Objectives in Light of the EC-Seal Products Disputeˮ, A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Degree of Bachelor of Laws (Honours) at the University of Otago, New Zeland, (2015).
- DiMascio, Nicholas & Pauwelyn, Joost, “Non Discrimination in Trade and Investment Treaties:Worlds Apart or Two Sides of the Same Coin?ˮ, AJIL, Vol. 102, No.1, (2008).
- Elsig, Manfred, “The World Trade Organization's Legitimacy Crisis: What Does the Beast Look Like?ˮ, Journal of World Trade, 41(1), (2007).
- Garica, Frank J. et al., “Reforming the International Investment Regime: Lessons from International Trade Lawˮ, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol. 18, Issue. 4, 2015.
- Gaukrodger, David, “The Balance between Investor Protection and the Right to Regulate in Investment Treaties: A Scooping Paperˮ, OECD Working Papers on Internaational Investment, No. 2017/02.
- Gwynn, Maria A., “Balancying the State's Right to Regulate With Foreign Investment Protection: A Perspective Considering Investment Disputes in the South American Regionˮ, Gronigen Journal of International Law, Vol. 6(1), (2018).
- Ho, Jean, “The Creation of Elusive Investor Responsibilityˮ, 113 AJIL UNBOUND 10, 11, (2018).
- Howse, Robert, “The World Trade Organisation 20 Years On: Global Governance by Judiciaryˮ, EJIL, Vol. 22, Issue. 1, (2016).
- Korzun, Vera, “The Right to Regulate in Investor-State Arbitration: Slicing and Dicing Carve-Outˮ, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 50, No. 2, (2017).
- Krajewski, Markus, “Balancing Trade and Non-Trade Policy Objectives in GATS: Potentials and Limits of Articles XIVˮ, Presented at the Fifth Annual WTO Conference of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, “The Tenth Anniversary of WTO Dispute Seetlement: An Appraisalˮ, London, (17 May 2005).
- Kulick, Andreas, “Sneaking Through Backdoor – Reflections on Public Interest in International Investment Arbitrationˮ, Arbitration International, Vol. 29, No. 3, (2013).
- Kurtz, Jurgen & Cho, Sungioon , “Convergence and Divergence in International Economic Law and Politicsˮ, EJIL, Vol. 29, No. 1, (2018).
- Kurtz, Jurgen, “The Use and Abuse of WTO Law in Investor-State Arbitration: Competition and Its Discontentsˮ, 20 EJIL, (2009).
- Langford, Malcom & Behn, Daniel, “Managing Backlash: The Evolving Investment Arbitrators?ˮ, 29(2), EJIL, (2018).
- Mohebi, Mohsen, & Ebrahimi Louyeh, Soheila, “Imperative of an Appellate Body in International Investment Arbitration”, Legal Research Quarterly, No. 87, (2019). [In Persian]
- Orellana, Marcos A., “The Role of Science in Investment Arbitration Concerning Public Health and the Environmentˮ, 17 Yearbook of International Environmental Law, 48, (2006).
- Peel, Jacqueline, “The Use of Science in Environment-Related Investor-State Arbitrationˮ, Reserch Handbook on Environment and Investment Law, Edward Elger Publishing, (2019).
- Robert, Anthea, “Clash of Paradigms: Actors and Analogies Shaping the Investment Treaty Systemˮ, 107 AJIL, (2013).
- Seifi, Seyed Jamal, “Legitimacy of Investor – State Arbitration: Addressing Development Bias among International Arbitratorsˮ, In: Identity and Diversity on the International Bench: Who is the Judge?, Edited by: Freya Baetens (UK: Oxford University Press 2020).
- Sweet, Stone A. & Cananea, Giacinto D., “Proportionality, General Principles of Law, and Investor-State Arbitration: A Respond to Jose Alvarezˮ, New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, Vol. 46, No. 3, (2014).
- Sweet, Stone A., “Investor-State Arbitration: Proportionality's New Frontierˮ, Law & Ethics of Human Rights, Vol. 4, No. 1, (2010).
- Van, Harten Gus & Loughlin, Martin, “Investment Treaty Arbitration as a Species of Global Administrative Lawˮ, EJIL, Vol. 17, No. 1, (2006).
Cases
- Chemtura Corporation v. Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Award, (2 August 2010).
- CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentina Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Decision of the ad hoc Committee on Application fpr Annulment, (25 September 2007).
- Continental Casualty Co. V. Argentina Republic, ICSID Case no. ARB/03/9, (5 September 2008).
- Methanex Corporation v. United States, UNCITRAL, Final award, (3 August 2005).
- D. Myers, Inc. v. Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Canada Counter Memorial, (5 October 1999).
- D. Myers, Inc. v. Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Memprial of the Investor, (20 July 1999).
- D. Myers, Inc. v. Government of Canada. UNCITRAL, Partial Award, (13 November 2000).
- The Claytons and Bilcon Inc. v. Canada, Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, Permanent Court of Arbitration case No. 2009-04 (17 March 2015).
- Total v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/1, Decision on Liability, (27 December 2010).
- WTO, EC – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, Report of the Panel, WTO Docs WT/Ds291/R, WT/DS292/R, WT/DS293/R (26 September 2006).
- WTO, European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos Containing Products, Report of the panel, WT/DS135/R, (18 September 2000).
- WTO, United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, Report of the Appellate Body, (29 April 1996).
)