Magister Legum - LLM / The main objective of this paper is to critically analyse the solutions that countries are currently implementing in response to the much-debated issue that the conventional investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) regime limits a host-state's space to make regulations under public policy. Consequently, the paper makes recommendations on viable solutions that countries can implement as solutions to the ISDS problems. In order to conduct the study, this paper uses the solutions to ISDS problems that have been implemented by the Republic of South Africa (RSA) and Australia respectively. The paper also compares the solutions implemented by RSA and Australia with some internationally recognised solutions. Chapters two and three of the paper discuss the backgrounds and also analyse the solutions to ISDS that have been implemented by RSA and Australia respectively. Chapter four contains the main findings and arguments of the paper. It analyses the strengths and weaknesses of the ISDS solutions that have been implemented by RSA and Australia respectively. One of the main findings of the paper is that retaining the conventional ISDS regime is less beneficial to developing and least developed countries and more beneficial to developed countries, largely due to the differing levels of outward investments that are present in these categories of countries. The paper recommends, inter alia, that, unlike developed countries, developing countries and least-developed countries should abrogate the conventional ISDS regime and only retain it in particular circumstances as explained in chapter five. The paper recommends that ISDS should only be utilised where state-state arbitration would unnecessarily politicise an investment dispute. The paper also finds the use of domestic court as undesirable to investment disputes. The paper recommends mediation as a more balanced avenue for resolving investment disputes.

Addressing complex global health challenges, including the burden of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), will require change in sectors outside of traditional public health. Contemporary regional trade and investment agreements (RTAs) like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) continue to move further ‘behind-the-border’ into domestic policy space introducing new challenges in the regulation of health risk factors. This dissertation aimed to clarify the pathways through which RTAs influence NCDs, and to explore points along those pathways with the intent of improving the existing evidence base and supporting policy development. This work develops a critical theoretical framework exploring the ideas, institutions, and interests behind trade and investment policy; it also develops a conceptual framework specifying how trade and investment treaty provisions influence NCD rates through the effects of trade and investment on tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and beverage products, as well as access to medicines and the social determinants of health. Using health impact assessment methodology, three analytical components were designed to examine pathways of influence from RTAs to health outcomes as mediated by the interests of transnational corporations (TNCs). The first component explored the influence of industry during the TPP negotiations and how its health-related interests were reflected in the final TPP text. The second component examined the role of trade and investment liberalisation in health-harmful commodity markets, finding a rise in TNC sales after a period of liberalisation. The third component demonstrated how investor rights and investor-state dispute can challenge the state’s right to regulate if it damages the profits of TNCs, which may threaten effective health regulation, and provides opportunities to strengthen the right to regulate. The work in this dissertation provides support for the thesis that trade and investment policies are a fundamental structural determinant of health and well-being, which are highly influenced by TNCs that guide such policies in the interest of maximising their profits and protections, often to the detriment of public policy and population health. This work identifies the need for more robust health impact assessments of RTAs before future agreements are ratified, as well as an imperative to challenge vested interests that entrench neoliberal policy preferences that have hindered sustainable and equitable development.

International investment agreements largely cover today’s transnational investments. These agreements confer certain substantive rights to foreign investors while simultaneously obliging host-states to act in a given manner so as to not interfere with the investments. Most international investment agreements further contain an arbitration clause which provides the investor with the means to enforce the substantive rights of the agreement by directly bringing a claim against the host-state before an arbitral tribunal. Consequently, privately contracted arbitrators have the authority to scrutinize and overrule essentially any sovereign act of the host-state that may affect the investment – judicial and legislative acts included. This practice affects not only the parties of the dispute; when the arbitral award claims superiority to the state’s electoral choices, it further constrains the exercise of sovereignty by the population of the host-state. As a result, the arbitrators who manage the disputes and the investors who initiate them have become central power-holders in the context of both international and domestic law. Meanwhile, the arbitrators and investors alike seem to be unaccountable to the states and individuals who are adversely affected by their power assertions. A commonly accepted feature of democracy is that those who govern and wield power should be accountable to those who are governed and subjected to this power. This thesis relates this notion to a Foucauldian understanding of power, domination and resistance. The primary aim of the thesis is to examine the interplay between the prominent subjects involved in investor-state arbitration and to what degree these subjects hold power in the form of transformative capacity. After this investigation into the relations of power, the thesis scrutinizes the subjugated subjects’ ability to exercise effective resistance through institutionalized accountability mechanisms. The thesis detects an accountability deficit in the regime and concludes that foreign investors and arbitrators hold a dominant position within the context of investor-state arbitration, while states and individuals find themselves in a state of domination. The international investment regime, as it currently stands, is thus found to suffer from a democracy deficit, while it concurrently seems to undermine domestic democratic institutions.

[pt] A dissertação analisa os acordos de integração do Nafta e do Mercosul, especialmente a estrutura institucional e o mecanismo de solução de controvérsias de cada um deles. O trabalho analisa ainda como a lógica determinante de cada acordo afetou sua institucionalidade, criando marcos distintos para a relação entre Estado e empresa em cada bloco. Para tal, duas controvérsias solucionadas no âmbito de cada acordo foram selecionadas para análise, buscando dar destaque à atuação dos Estados e das empresas envolvidas no conflito. Percebeu-se que o acordo de integração norte-americano concede amplos e pioneiros benefícios aos investidores estrangeiros, de acordo com a lógica hegemônica estadunidense, enquanto o acordo do o Mercosul estabelece um mecanismo de solução de controvérsia essencialmente estatal, na tentativa de prover seus membros com um projeto contra-hegemônico, no qual a harmonia entre os mesmos é crucial para o sucesso do acordo. / [en] The dissertation analyses the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) and the Mercosul agreement (the South-American Agreement), especially the institutional structure and the dispute settlement mechanism of each agreement. The paper also analyses how the determining logic of each agreement affected its institutionality, creating different patterns for the relationship between State and enterprise. For this purpose, two controversies resolved under each agreement were selected for analysis, emphasizing the role played by states and enterprises involved in the conflict. It was noticed that the North-American agreement concedes broad and new benefits to the foreign investors, according to the U.S hegemonic position. Mercosul, on the other hand, implemented an essentially State-based dispute settlement mechanism, in an attempt to provide its members with an anti-hegemonic project, in which the harmony among them is crucial for the Mercosul`s success.

No description available.

伴隨著全球化潮流的來臨，國際直接投資金額大幅成長，相對的，投資爭端案件亦持續增加，國際投資人於是迫切期待一個有效而公平之國際投資爭端解決機制。台灣經過多年經濟發展，已成為全球重要對外投資國家，惟根據調查，台灣廠商發生投資爭端，並不擅於利用國際仲裁維護其本身權益。據此，本論文乃針對國際投資協定有關投資人與地主國爭端解決法制加以研析，並希望能對我政府對外談判及廠商對外投資提供具體實用之對策，惟國際間對於投資人與地主國爭端解決機制研究面向相當廣泛，本文研究主軸則以世界銀行於1965年成立之國際解決投資爭端中心(ICSID)之管轄權為中心。 本論文先自投資人與地主國爭端解決機制之發展背景介紹起，並論述1966年生效的ICSID公約主要條款與其他國際投資協定的關係，其後則進一步從ICSID管轄權角度切入，對ICSID對人(ratione personae)及對物(ratione materiae)管轄權相關法律問題逐一說明，並輔以個案加以研析之。 經過上述分析後，本文繼而對現行投資人與地主國投資爭端解決機制提出評論，在制度面方面，本文對ICSID未來運作提出放寬對物管轄範圍、檢討投資未予定義之作法、雙重國籍認定及外國控制的程度與形式等四項改革建議。此外，本文亦針對ICSID管轄權與BITs最惠國待遇條款問題、BITs不同的爭端解決機制所引發程序衝突問題，以及仲裁判斷衝突(conflicting award)問題，說明ICSID公約與BIT所產生之一些法律問題。在未來展望方面，則分析在多邊投資架構是否為解決現階段投資人與地主國爭端解決機制之新契機，以及WTO納入投資人與地主國爭端解決條款之可能性分析，本文末並對我國政府與廠商現階段利用ICSID機制提出建議。 / While the inexorable trend towards globalization has caused international direct investment to grow dramatically, it has also led to a steady increase in the number of investment disputes. International investors therefore eagerly look forward to the institution of an effective and impartial international investment dispute resolution mechanism. Although Taiwan, through its many years of economic development, has become a major source of foreign investment, surveys show that Taiwan firms are not good at using international arbitration to protect their rights and interests in investment disputes. This study accordingly analyzes the investor-State dispute settlement provisions in international investment agreements(IIAs) in an effort to provide concrete, practical strategies for the government of Taiwan in international negotiations and for Taiwanese firms in their foreign investment. Since there is already extensive research literature addressing investor-State dispute settlement mechanisms, this study focuses on the jurisdiction of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Dispute(ICSID) under the aegis of the World Bank in 1965. This study first introduces investor-State dispute settlement mechanisms and their development. Next, the study discusses the main provisions of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention) came into force on 1966 and its relationship to other IIAs. The study then explains the various legal issues connected with ICSID’s jurisdiction ratione personae and ratione materiae, and finally, analyzes specific cases. The results of the aforementioned analysis are employed to critique existing investor-State investment dispute settlement mechanisms. This study makes four system-related recommendations, namely that the ICSID convention should: 1) liberalize the scope of ICSID’s subject-matter jurisdiction; 2) review undefined investment methods; 3) recognize dual nationalities; and 4) reform the degree and circumstances of foreign control. This study further discusses legal problems related to the ICSID Convention and bilateral investment treaties (BITs), including conflicting awards, procedural conflicts stemming from different dispute settlement forum in BITs, and problems involving ICSID's jurisdiction and most-favored nation(MFN) provisions in BITs. As for future prospects, the study analyzes whether the current multilateral investment framework can resolve the problems of the current investor-State dispute settlement mechanism, and examines the possibility of incorporating investor-State dispute settlement mechanism in the WTO. This study concludes with recommendations concerning how the government and companies of Taiwan can use the ICSID mechanism at the current stage.

Le droit international de la bioéthique, construction récente affiliée au système des droits de l'homme, s'élabore au carrefour de plusieurs ordres normatifs et sollicite, du point de vue de sa mise en œuvre, l'intervention d'une multitude de systèmes de régulation et de systèmes juridiques. Dans le contexte d'une crise de la régulation et compte tenu de la complexification et de la fragmentation du droit international, cette thèse propose de reconstruire une ontologie unitaire de l'ordre juridique international à partir d'une critique de l'épistémologie positiviste et de la conception de la mécanique normative qu'elle suppose. La bioéthique qui se conçoit comme une discipline de questionnement critique des principes qui fondent l'action humaine, opère tel un révélateur des contradictions normatives qui agissent au cœur de la structure des systèmes et des ordres juridiques. Ainsi, à partir de l'étude des conflits de valeurs, des conflits de normes, des conflits de droits, des conflits de systèmes juridiques et compte tenu de l'analyse des méthodes de neutralisation et de résolution mise en œuvre, au sein des différents systèmes juridiques, pour les traiter, cette thèse démontre la nécessité de concevoir le droit international comme un système dynamique, composé de normes et d'institutions entretenant entre eux des rapports de légitimité et d'effectivité, dont l'évolution générale est caractérisée par la non-linéarité. Dans cette perspective, cette thèse invite à concevoir la constitutionnalisation du droit international comme un processus dialectique impliquant une multitude de systèmes juridiques et institutionnels. / Bioethics in the field of human rights is a recent corpus of the international law. Biolaw instruments' had been elaborated at the crossroads of several normative orders.Their implementation requires the mobilization of a multitude of regulation systems. In the context of a crisis of legal regulation and considering the complexity and fragmentation of international law, this thesis suggests reconstructing a unified ontology of international law based on a critical appreciation of positivist epistemology. Bioethics, conceived as a critical discipline used to question principles which orient and justify human actions, reveals normative contradictions embedded in the structure of legal systems. Based on the study of conflicts between ethical values or between fundamental rights, norms conflict, conflict between legal systems and after having analyzed the methods used by international institutions to neutralize or resolve such contradictions, this thesis demonstrate the necessity to conceive international legal order as a dynamic system composed with heterogeneous norms and institutions linked by legitimacy and effectivity relationships. The evolution of international law can be characterized by non linearity and constitutionalization of international legal order appears as a dialectical process which requires the intervention of multiple international institutions and legal sub-systems.

Inscrits dans le contexte actuel de mondialisation, le développement et la promotion remarqués des modes amiables de règlement des différends (MARD) témoignent d’une nouvelle appréhension de la production normative où le justiciable est placé au cœur du droit, l’entente se substitue à l’autorité, la discussion et le dialogue prévalent. Tandis que le temps économique ne semble plus cadrer avec le temps judiciaire dans ce contexte concurrentiel qui exige des réactions rapides, les MARD répondent à une demande concrète des entreprises. Placées au centre de ce processus vivant et complexe, les entreprises adaptent leur stratégie de gestion des conflits en faisant appel à des moyens qui servent le mieux leurs intérêts. La prévention des risques est une priorité, la gestion de l’aléa, un défi quotidien et l’adaptation au contexte évolutif à l’espace et au temps, la marque de l’efficience des instruments normatifs adoptés. Les MARD laissent ainsi entrevoir la résurgence de la question de la légitimité du droit et de la justice étatique. On a qualifié ce phénomène de justice douce mais s’agit-il d’une forme de justice fut-elle alternative ? La réponse à cette question dépend de la compréhension globale que nous avons de ce phénomène. Cette réflexion se propose ainsi de le définir bien plus que comme la seule mise en œuvre de modes consensuels de traitement des différends, mais, véritablement comme l’expression d’un ordre juridique en développement. Approuvé par ses principaux usagers, les MARD deviennent un outil efficace de justice équitable. La notion de justice est alors envisagée, non pas dans son sens organique, mais substantiel, la justice pouvant être aussi consensuelle. / As part of the current context of globalisation, the development and promotion of the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) clearly show a new approach in the production of norms, whereby the litigant is positioned at the very heart of the rule of law, and where mutual understanding replaces authority, and discussion and dialogue prevail. While economic time no longer correlates with judicial time in the competitive framework, which by its very nature demands rapid reactions, the ADR process meets concrete corporate needs. At the core of this active and complex process of globalisation, corporations adapt their conflict management strategies through ways which best serve their interests. Risk prevention is a priority, risk management a daily challenge and the adaptation to the evolving context, in space and time, the sign of efficiency of the normative tools used. Thus, ADR and its involvement in the globalisation process, raises anew the issue of the legitimacy of law and court justice. This phenomenon has been qualified as negotiated or consensual justice, but is it at its core a form of justice, even an alternative one? The answer to this question mainly depends on the overall understanding of the ADR phenomenon. That is why this thesis proposes to view it as more than just a simple implementation of a consensual dispute resolution tool as it is often depicted, but more genuinely as the expression of a developing legal order. Approved by its main users, the ADR process has become an instrument of fair and effective justice and has captured the concept of justice in its essence rather than in its structure.

Selon une présentation classique, le droit du contentieux international est apprécié à travers les concepts de pouvoir de juger, de compétence et de recevabilité. Force est toutefois de constater qu’il est aujourd’hui souvent fait référence, dans les décisions des juridictions internationales comme dans la doctrine, à la faculté procédurale, notamment des personnes privées. Cet intérêt pour la situation du requérant et sa faculté d’obtenir une décision sur le fond de son différend interroge quant à une possible évolution des concepts juridiques régissant la matière. L’étude de ce « droit » d’action dans le cadre du contentieux des investissements permet de se rendre compte de l’utilité de la notion pour le droit du contentieux international. D’une part, une fois déployé, le concept réalise un ordonnancement efficace des règles déterminant la possibilité d’une décision sur le fond. La pratique arbitrale fait preuve à cet égard d’une certaine confusion entre ces règles et celles encadrant l’existence de l’obligation alléguée que l’étude permet de dissiper. D’autre part, le droit d’agir en justice permet plus généralement d’appréhender les effets juridiques du consentement de l’Etat à la juridiction. L’étude démontre en effet que la faculté procédurale procède de l’invocabilité de ce consentement : celui-ci reconnaît à l’entité visée par l’engagement le droit d’agir en justice. Or cet effet juridique ne peut être valablement saisi par le concept de pouvoir de juger, lequel procède de la réunion des consentements. Puisque le contentieux des investissements s’intéresse à plusieurs égards à cette invocabilité, soit pour la préserver soit pour la remettre en cause, on comprend que le droit d’agir soit devenu un concept incontournable en la matière. Mais la nécessité d’y recourir peut s’exporter au-delà du contentieux des investissements, n’importe quelle branche du contentieux international pouvant être intéressée à régir les effets juridiques du consentement du seul Etat défendeur. / The settlement of international disputes is classically studied thought the concepts of judicial power, jurisdiction and admissibility. However it is now common to find references to the notion of « right of action » or « right of claim » in decisions of international tribunals especially when individuals are involved. One might wonder whether this observation reveals an evolution in the concepts governing disputes settlement in international law. The study of the right of action in international investment law demonstrates the usefulness of the concept in explaining the applicable rules. First, as a key concept, it can be used to identify the rules that determine the possibility to obtain a decision of the tribunal as opposed to the rules governing the State’s responsibility. In practice, it appears that the tribunals do not always respect this distinction. Secondly, the right of action allows taking into account the legal consequences of the State’s consent to arbitration. In this case, the concept of judicial power is partly irrelevant as it is usually based on a consent agreement between the parties. It follows that the concept of right of action is relevant when the applicable rules deal with the possibility to invoke and to rely on the consent to jurisdiction expressed by the respondent State. The fact that it is the case in the settlement of disputes between a State and an investor does not mean that it can not be so in the context of a interstate dispute.

This thesis examines the process applied by international tribunals for delimiting Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and continental shelf boundaries under international law. Maritime delimitation is governed by articles 74 and 83 of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which are customary international law. However, owing to the vagueness of such legal provisions, international tribunals have been developing a standard process for delimiting maritime boundaries. The delimitation process has evolved significantly since the 1969 judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in North Sea Continental Shelf. The ICJ re-stated this process in its 2009 Black Sea judgment as being constituted of three stages: first, an equidistance line is provisionally drawn; second, this line is adjusted should relevant circumstances so require; third, the overall equitableness of the boundary is evaluated by assessing the proportionality between the length of the relevant coast and the marine areas appertaining to each state. This thesis analyses each stage of the delimitation process as re-stated in Black Sea. By way of introduction, chapter 1 outlines the relevant legal provisions and the historical evolution of the delimitation process through the jurisprudence of international tribunals. Chapter 2 discusses both the notions of the relevant coast and of the relevant area, and the practical methods for their identification. Since Black Sea, international tribunals have tended to identify the relevant coast and the relevant area prior to establishing a provisional equidistance line. Chapter 3 discusses the issues concerning the drawing of the provisional equidistance line. Chapter 4 examines relevant circumstances and the methods for adjusting an equidistance line. Chapter 5 discusses proportionality. Using doctrinal legal research methodologies, this thesis aims to assess the degree of consistency in the international tribunals’ application of the three-stage delimitation process. It argues that, while great leaps forward have been made since 1969, there is still a number of unresolved issues, in relation to which this thesis endeavours to provide some workable solutions.