Magister Legum - LLM / BITs signed prior to the 21st century are problematic. Some countries with BITs signed during this period have since reviewed those BITs and taken action to address the disadvantages the BITs held for the host nation or have either resorted to eradicating some of their BITs. In particular, developing countries that signed BITs with developed nations seem to be disproportionately disadvantaged in these agreements. This thesis highlights Kenya‟s current BIT situation and compares it in light of another developing country, South Africa, with regards to its BIT experience. Given that South Africa has undergone an extensive BIT review process and moves to change some of these BITs, this thesis compares and contrasts the Kenyan and South African experience. The study highlights the possible lessons that could be learnt from the South African BIT review experience and provides recommendations for the Kenyan government regarding its outdated BITs. The lessons and recommendations benefit not only Kenya but also other countries that are still to review their BITs as it adds to the literature on why it is important for countries with such BITs to revisit them and how best they can go about the review mechanism. In addition, the study is also significant in that it raises awareness of the use and effects of BITs, thereby enabling countries that enter into such agreements to make informed decisions.

Doctor Legum - LLD / Currently most international investment disputes are settled through arbitration. The origin of this dispute settlement system can be associated with the recent proliferation of over 3000 Bilateral Investment Treaties. Through this system disputes are settled by autonomous and differently constituted tribunals which have powers to render final and binding awards. The dissatisfied party has very limited opportunity to challenge the rendered award as there are no higher bodies in the hierarchy where a dissatisfied party can lodge an appeal, save for limited procedural challenges which are allowed under the system. These differently constituted tribunals at times reach diametrically opposed decisions on similar facts and those decisions stand side by side and all are considered valid. These inconsistent decisions are leading to lack of consistency and uniformity which in turn affects the legitimacy of the system as a whole. The rules of these institutions do not allow the proceedings to be held in public despite the fact that at times these tribunals question the regulatory powers of the state and state measures on service provision to its citizens. Another issue under the current system is that due to lack of coordination, arbitrators play dual roles: as counsels and arbitrators. This practice compromises the cherished principle of the rule of law. In the effort to address these concerns, stakeholders have suggested a number of possible solutions. The suggested solutions include: invoking res judicata and lis pendens principles; adopting the doctrine of precedent; applying the ‘fork in the road’ principle; adopting the margin of appreciation standard in interpretation of BITs; creating an appellate structure at ICSID and creating a treaty to treaty appellate body. This research submits that, the suggested solutions singularly and cumulatively don not address the legitimacy issues adequately. The research therefore calls for the establishment of a Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) in order to address the legitimacy issues cumulatively. It is submitted that establishing a Multilateral Investment Agreement (MAI) which provides for creating a standing international investment court with an appellate court is the only solution which addresses all the issues haunting the international investment dispute settlement system. In addition, the research suggests interim solutions which will help to increase the legitimacy of the current system pending the establishment of the MAI and the courts. The interim solutions include: establishment of the investor – state dispute adjudication Centre; effective utilisation of host state courts; mandatory publication of all awards; enhancing the effective use of member states interpretative statement; and forming a working commission to provide basic interpretation and the scope of the basic international investment law principles. These measures are only meant to improve the current system pending the establishment of the MAI and the courts. The research concludes that for the betterment of international investment law, the reform is inevitable and that the benefits would outweigh any demerits.

The recent investment policy shift, by the South African government, including, termination of bilateral investment treaties with some developed countries, is illustrative of the continued discontent by most developing countries with the status quo in the realm of international investments agreements (IIAs) regime. Balancing governments' sovereign right to implement domestic policies, in order to achieve socio-economic goals, for overall sustainable development, and the corresponding duty to protect foreign investments within the host state seems perpetually elusive, within the current bilateral investment treaty (BIT) regime. The parallel rising of free trade agreements (FTAs) incorporating investment chapters to BITs and the withdrawal from international investment arbitration by some countries, is symptomatic of continued disgruntlement with the current investment regime. South Africa is amongst the front runners of this discontentment and has voiced its concerns with the system, by cancelling some of its BITs and substituting same with adopting a new domestic investment regime instead, the investment Act of 2015. This study analyses the government's policy shift, with a view to find the extent to which the current BIT regime constrained the government's policy space towards economic transformation. This is achieved by analysing the substance and objective of the policy reform as against the international standards. Consequently, after probing the global investment regime and more in particularly the country's economic and political architecture, the study found that although South Africa's investment policy shift was labelled 'drastic and regressive' by critics, the latter is rational when subjected to substantive approach to the rule of law. Author however, concludes that it is the implementation thereof that is disproportional, as the same objectives underpinning the policy reform can be achieved through a less contentious approach. Finally author suggests a renegotiation of a model BIT as a less onerous and proportionate tool, to achieve the balance sought, and recommends policy options for enhancing international investment regime to address the challenges identified. / tm2017 / Centre for Human Rights / LLM / Unrestricted

VI Abstract International investment activity plays in the capitalistic globalized world, which is aimed at sustainable economic growth, an important role. Effort of the states to ensure the most favourable investment conditions for foreign investors strikes in some spheres on legitimate regulatory state measures, which are adopted with reference to the international law principle of state sovereignty. Expropriation or nationalisation together with the seizure represented in the past the most compelling taking of foreign investor property rights and their identification didn't make pronounced troubles. It's clear that confiscatory or nationalizing states measure doesn't increase its investment attractivity and so states are nowadays in the sphere of takings into foreign investor property interests much more careful and more inventive. The task of submitted work is among other things to characterize these takings referred to by notion indirect expropriation and to differentiate them from legitimate state measures regarding the general social aims and social interests, which don't require any compensation in contrast to indirect expropriation. By reason that the right to expropriate is seen to be part of customary international law, there was especially a developed states effort to regulate the conditions of...

This research discusses the impacts of oil and gas extraction in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria on the right to health and the right to a healthy environment of the Niger Delta people. It highlights the importance of FDI in oil and gas sector development and the responsibility of multinational corporations towards human rights and environmental rights protection in developing host States where national laws and regulations may not be properly developed and adequate in protecting the people’s human rights. The work argues that BITs should rightly be employed in efforts to protect the right to health and a healthy environment against the excesses of oil and gas multinational corporations. The Niger Delta is used as a case study.

Based on a thorough analysis of theoretical arguments, this meta-analysis does not find a genuine empirical effect of Bilateral Investment Treaties on Foreign Direct Investment after correcting for publication selection bias. / Series: Department of Economics Working Paper Series

No description available.

Doctor Legum - LLD / The existing traditional international investment law regime which is largely based on the conventional European and North American Model Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) has come under intense criticism. The argument is that this regime, among other things, prioritises the protection of foreign investors and investments while sidelining significant public interest issues of the host countries. The inability to adequately accommodate public interest issues in the international investment law has unduly constrained the host countries’ sovereign right to regulate investments in public interests and pursue their public policy objectives.

International investment law has become increasingly prominent in the international legal order. This thesis explores specific and topical problem of international expropriation law, with the main focus on the vast network of international investment agreements (IIAs) supplemented by the general rules of international law. The thesis traces the context and evolution of the protection of foreign investments in response to the transformation of state liability in international law. Particular consideration is given to the relationship between the International Minimum Standard (IMS) and the Calvo Doctrine as two clashing descriptive statements of customary international law governing the treatment of foreigners and their assets. With the onset of the BIT generation, the economical accountability of states is examined in compliance with the scope and conditions defined in clauses and provisions of the contemporary investment treaties. In addition, the thesis focuses on the substantive protection accorded to foreign investors and investments. The aim is to identify the limits of the state's right to expropriate foreign investments by imposing legality requirements standard. The requirements for lawful expropriation are addressed with a thorough examination of jurisprudence of international courts and...

La relation dialectique qui unit les traités bilatéraux d’investissement et la jurisprudence du Centre International de Règlement des Différends relatifs aux Investissements (CIRDI) a fait émerger un droit international des investissements. La rencontre de ces deux dynamiques a permis de dépasser leur caractère a priori isolé et fragmenté, pour aboutir à un véritable système juridique international, doté d’une structure, d’une logique et de principes propres. En effet, rien ne pouvait laisser envisager une telle évolution, le régime de l’investissement international se fondant sur une multitude de traités bilatéraux et sur une instance arbitrale ne faisant qu’héberger des tribunaux éphémères. Les mouvements de va-et-vient qui unissaient ces deux phénomènes ont permis de lui donner des normes quasi-universelles, mais aussi un véritable juge à la compétence extensive et surtout de lui insuffler l’unité, l’efficacité, la cohérence et la complétude, faisant de plus en plus ressembler le droit international des investissements à un véritable ordre juridique qui, même s’il relève du droit international, lui permet également d’évoluer. / The relashionship between bilateral investment treaties and the case-law of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) has led to the emergence of international investment law. It seems surprising, at first, that these two distinct phenomena, being isolated and fragmented, would reach a certain degree of unity so that a real international legal order could appear, with its own structure, reasoning and principles. No one could foresee such an evolution, the regime of international investment being founded on a large number of bilateral treaties and on an international institution which only provides facilities for arbitration of international investment disputes. The unity of the system has been discovered through the back and forth movements between treaties and arbitration which gave rise to international investment law. This system has now almost universal norms, an international judge and satisfies the criteria of unity, efficiency, consistency and completeness, producing a real legal order functioning in accordance with its own logic. There is no doubt that this evolution will influence the course of international law.