Magister Legum - LLM

At the dawn of democratic rule in the period 1994–1998, South Africa concluded 15 bilateral investment treaties (BITs), mostly with European nations. Some of these treaties were concluded before the Constitution of 1996. The country has since concluded a total of 47 BITs, with the majority not in effect as they were not ratified per the required constitutional processes. The policy decision to enter into BITs was taken by the African National Congress (ANC) government, led by the late former state president Nelson Mandela. The BITs were seen as an important guarantee to attract foreign investment into the country. The aim was to provide added assurance that foreign investments were safe in a democratic South Africa after many years of international isolation and sanctions. The conventional wisdom at the time was that BITs would increase foreign investor appetite to invest and the country would experience rising levels of foreign direct investment (FDI) as a result. This would facilitate economic growth and the transition of the country into the global economy. South Africa concluded BITs with seven of the top ten investor countries. In October 2013 the South African government cancelled a number of BITs with these European countries invested in South Africa. These countries – namely Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands – complained of lack of consultation by the South Africans. On 1 November 2013 the Minister of Trade and Industry published, in Government Gazette No 36995, the Promotion and Protection of Investment Bill (PPIB or Investments Bill) as the proposed primary legislative instrument for the protection of foreign investments. This created much uncertainty among many European nations as well as in the United States of America (US), who were concerned about the motivation for cancelling bilateral treaties in favour of domestic legislation. BITs had been a part of the policy instruments regulating foreign investments in the country for over 20 years. Globally these treaties have been used to regulate foreign investments in a number of areas, and to provide protection to investments such as full protection and security, guaranteed pre-establishment rights, ease of repatriation of funds, most-favoured nation, fair and equitable treatment, national treatment and efficient dispute settlement mechanisms, among other provisions. In most cases international arbitration via the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and other international arbitral mediums has been a standard provision in the treaties. This has allowed foreign investors to bypass host countries’ legal systems. The latter is believed to be a significant inducement for foreign investors, guaranteeing that should a dispute arise, or if an expropriation occurs, the investor could institute an international arbitral process against the host government. International arbitration is preferred by foreign investors for the reason that, in some cases, domestic courts may lack independence from the state, and may make partial rulings that do not protect investors. Furthermore, international arbitration processes are more efficient and produce rulings faster than domestic courts, which are usually burdened with bureaucratic procedures and limited resources. In cases where delay exacerbates injury, prompt resolution of disputes is preferable. This study evaluates the Investments Bill and the rationale applied by the government of South Africa to cancel BITs with major trade and investment partners in favour of this legislation. The thesis focuses on the Investments Bill, in light of the objective provided by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) for its enactment to law. The Investments Bill is subjected to a constitutional analysis to determine its compliance therewith. Comparisons are also made between the Investments Bill provisions and the prevailing international law principles on foreign investments. The Investments Bill is then critically evaluated against emerging trends on FDI regulation on the African continent to determine its congruence or lack thereof with best practice recommendations at regional economic community (REC) and African Union (AU) level. The thesis concludes with a set of policy recommendations to the DTI on how to improve South African policies related to the regulation of foreign investments taking into account the national imperative as well as Southern African Development Community (SADC) and other broader African continental objectives of harmonisation of FDI regulation, including the Tripartite Free Trade Area (FTA) implementation. The timing of this thesis is significant for South Africa. It adds to various deliberations that are taking place as the Investments Bill is set to makes its way through the legislative approval processes in 2015. The Bill has been met with opposition from some segments of society. Others have expressed support – including several state departments, the ANC, the South African Communist Party (SACP) and other political formations. The summary of findings contained in the thesis will be presented to the DTI to influence policy directions of the state in terms of foreign investment regulations. Should the Bill be enacted, the Minister of Trade and Industry is required to promulgate the dispute resolution mechanism that will govern investment disputes. The findings of this study will be important to the determination of how such dispute resolution mechanisms may function. Furthermore, in 2010 Cabinet instructed the DTI to develop a model new-generation BIT Template to be utilised by South Africa, should a compelling reason arise to enter into bilateral agreements. The research results will assist policy-makers to develop policies that are consistent with and align with the overarching Africa strategy that has been heavily promoted by South Africa. The country faces a number of challenges, particularly those related to low economic growth, high levels of poverty, unemployment and record levels of inequality. The gap between the rich and poor, in terms of the Gini coefficient, was 0,67 based on the World Bank Development Research Group Report of 2010. It is reported as one of the highest in the world and is believed to have worsened since the dawn of democracy. / Public, Constitutional and International Law / LL. D. (Public, Constitutional and International Law)

This thesis examines the implementation, enforcement and evolution of IP laws and regulations in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The period of interest includes the last decade of the twentieth century and the first decade of the twenty first century, with emphasis on the role played by Free Trade Agreements struck between Jordan and the United States, the European Union, and Jordan’s accession to the World Trade Organization. This thesis also examines the enforcement of the current set of IP laws in Jordan, and looks at their social and economic compatibility with the Jordanian societal norms and economic realities. This thesis argues that Jordanian IP laws lack a meaningful social and economic texture, and have failed to be evenly enforced in Jordan, essentially because they do not fit the Jordanian culture and are not compatible with Jordan’s economic stage of development. Additionally, the thesis argues that IP laws have had insignificant economic impact on the Jordanian economy as the majority of technologies used in Jordan, and the majority of foreign direct investments attracted to Jordan, are not IP related. Finally, the thesis argues that the current Jordanian enforcement model, which is built on coercion by donor countries, is serving the interests of foreign companies to the exclusion of the local citizens, and will not, in the long run, produce an enforcement model based on self-regulation by Jordanians, themselves. The laws, therefore, are unable to produce tangible results for the Jordanian people, or help meet their economic interests. The last part of the thesis deals with recommendations and suggestions aimed at creating an integrated approach to the adoption of IP policies.

L’Association des nations de l’Asie du sud-est (ASEAN) est l’une des organisationsrégionales les plus anciennes en Asie. Créée en 1967 par la Déclaration de Bangkok, une déclarationinterétatique, l’ASEAN n’avait pas un statut juridique clair jusqu’en 2007, date de l’adoption de saCharte constitutive. A défaut d’une base conventionnelle, l’ASEAN ne manquait pourtant pas descaractéristiques d’une organisation internationale. Pendant les quarante années qui ont suivi sacréation, elle avait choisi un mode de fonctionnement fondé principalement sur les relations(relationship-based) et non sur les règles de droit. La prédominance du politique dans lefonctionnement de l’ASEAN a donc laissé aux règles de droit une place secondaire voire ambigüe.Cette spécificité, appelée ASEAN way, a fait de l’ASEAN une organisation au service des intérêtsindividuels de ses membres. En 2007, l’ASEAN s’est dotée d’une Charte constitutive, qui tente à latransformer en une organisation fondée sur des règles (rule-based). Cette Charte qui a ouvert unenouvelle ère pour l’ASEAN, l’a mise au rang d’organisation internationale, sujet dérivé du droitinternational. Elle semble remettre en cause la place du politique dans le fonctionnement de cetteorganisation. Néanmoins, la Charte a renforcé l’ASEAN way, ce qui démontre les limites de l’ASEAN.L’étude de l’institutionnalisation de l’ASEAN vise à démontrer les causes de la prééminence del’ASEAN way sur le droit et ses répercussions sur les relations entre les Etats. Cette présente étudeprocède à l’examen de l’articulation entre les objectifs et principes comme cadre axiologique del’ASEAN, son système institutionnel et son ordre juridique. / The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is one of the most ancient regionalorganizations in Asia. Created in 1967 by the Bangkok Declaration, an interstate declaration, ASEANdid not have a clear legal status until 2007, date of its constituent Charter adoption. Lacking aconventional basis, ASEAN however did not lack the characteristics of an international organization.During the 40 years following its creation, it had chosen a mode of functioning mainly based onrelationship and not on rules of law. The political predominance in the ASEAN functioning therefore leftonly a secondary place to the rules of law, somewhat ambiguous. This particularity, so-called ASEANway, has made ASEAN an organization geared towards the individual interests of its members. In2007, ASEAN adopted a constituent Charter, whose aim is to transform ASEAN into a rule-basedorganization. This Charter, opening a new era for ASEAN, raised it to the rank of internationalorganization – derived subject of international law. It seems to call into question the place of politics inits functioning. The Charter nevertheless reinforced the ASEAN way, which shows the limits of ASEAN.The study of the ASEAN institutionalization aims at proving the cause of the predominance of ASEANway on the law and its repercussions on interstate relationships. This present study carries out theexamination of the link between the aims and the principles as an axiomatical framework of ASEAN, ofits institutional system and its legal order.

1 The Influence of EU Common Investment Policy on the System of International Investment Law Abstract Extending exclusive European Union (EU) competence to foreign direct investment (FDI) in the Lisbon Treaty has had profound implications. The EU began to develop its own investment policy, including negotiating either international investment agreements or comprehensive trade and investment agreements with third parties. Taking into account the magnitude of the EU economy and the fact that EU Member States have concluded almost 1 400 bilateral investment treaties (BITs) out of roughly 3 300 in force worldwide, the potential of European influence over the system of international investment, based principally on BITs, is enormous. The aim of this dissertation is to assess how and in which way the new EU competence changes the system. The EU investment policy has developed a specific approach towards investment protection and investment dispute mechanism which does not envision content declared at its beginning. According to initial documents such as the European Commission's Communication Towards a comprehensive European international investment policy, the Union should have followed the available best practices of the Member States. Nevertheless, during the first bilateral negotiations with Canada and...

Performance requirements act as policy instruments for achieving broadly-defined economic and developmental objectives of States, especially industrial and technological development objectives. Many States consider that performance requirements distort trade and investment flows, negatively impact global and national welfare and disrupt investment decisions compared to business-as-usual scenarios. As a result, a number of States have committed to prohibiting performance requirements in international investment agreements (“IIAs.”). Performance requirement prohibitions (“PRPs”) are meant to eliminate trade-distorting performance requirements and performance requirements which replace investor decision-making by State decision-making. This thesis focuses on providing answers to two research questions: first, how do States prohibit performance requirements in IIAs? And second, how should PRPs in IIAs be interpreted and applied? For the first time, this thesis: proposes a comprehensive understanding of PRPs in IIAs by drawing notably on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (“GATT”) Uruguay Round of negotiations and on the United States Bilateral Investment Treaty (“BIT”) Programme; develops a detailed typology and analysis of PRPs in IIAs through the identification of systematically reproduced drafting patterns; conducts the first critical and in-depth analysis of all arbitral awards which have decided claims based on PRPs in IIAs; analyses interpretation and application issues related to provisions that exempt government procurement from PRPs and to reservations that shield sensitive non-conforming measures or strategically important sectors from PRPs; and anticipates the application of most-favoured nation (“MFN”) treatment clauses to PRPs in the future. Finally, this thesis formulates proposals that can help interpret and apply existing PRPs and draft future PRPs in a more deliberate and informed way.

司法院釋字第520號解釋於理由書指出：「基於法治國原則，縱令實質正當亦不可取代程序合法」，即一語道出程序正義之重要性。 民間參與公共建設具專業性、複雜性及高風險性、隔代性、利益衝突等特性，在政府與民間合作理念的推動下，法律規定模式已呈現由「條件式」的模式轉向「目的式」模式，致使政府合作對象的甄審（選）成為一種高度專業趨向之判斷，並且可能陷於「決策於未知之中」的困境。民間參與公共建設的推動上，除技術層面之實體審查標準外，實應認真思考面對決策的程序問題，藉由程序之提升，用以補足實體規範的不足。據此，有關引進民間參與公共建設之法規，甄審程序選出的最佳締約對象、最優申請案件或最優申請人「是否即屬適當」，應思考甄審（或評選）程序與組織設計，是否妥適。 本文擬由正當法律程序於美國及日本之發展出發，藉以了解其規範基礎與發展情形，並分析我國司法實務有關正當法律程序原則之解釋，理解我國對於正當法律程序之內涵與要求。其後聚焦行政實務上經常引用作為民間參與公共建設案件辦理依據之獎參條例、採購法及促參法，就其甄審、評選或評審程序與爭議處理程序檢視正當法律程序實踐情形。 本於基本權保障意旨及法律承認權利之保障，基本上本文認同至少應有一最低限度之保障（即聽證權）。至於其他要求為何？本於民間參與公共建設之興建或營運，涉及政府有限資源之分配及申請人(營業自由、契約自由)與使用者（生命、身體、財產）之基本權保障相關，應可由司法院釋字第384號解釋及釋字第709號解釋推導出「組織」要求，而其他如公正作為(迴避、禁止程序外接觸)、受告知權、說明理由及資訊公開，亦正是落實組織適法與聽證權，所不可或缺之要素。

This thesis examines the relationship between Japan and South Korea and the paradox of its disputes despite the economic interdependence with the relational theory of world politics by Qin (2018b). World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) complaints between the countries between the years 2016 and 2020 have been analyzed to study this. The method utilized is that of a predicate discourse analysis. Both qualitative and quantitative approaches are employed within the analysis as it includes the extraction of the predicates from qualitative complaint documents but additionally, a quantitative table of the predicates is generated to provide information on the frequencies and case locations of the findings. Neither the theory nor the unit of relation has been widely examined by Western international relations (IR) scholars, which allows this study to lead way for future research on the further expansion of knowledge and utilization of the relational theory. Furthermore, it provides insight into the relational object space of disputes in the relationship between the economically interdependent Japan and South Korea. The theoretical concepts of relational identity, actors as relators, hierarchy, and cultural communities in the analysis explain the existence of the paradox of disputes despite interdependence.

Foreign investments in SADC are regulated by Annex 1 of the SADC Protocol on Finance and Investments (SADC FIP), as well as the laws of SADC Member States. At present, SADC faces the challenge that this regime for the regulation of foreign investments is unstable, unsatisfactory and unpredictable. Furthermore, the state of the rule of law in some SADC Member States is unsatisfactory. This negatively affects the security of foreign investments regulated by this regime. The main reasons for this state of affairs are briefly explained below. The regulatory regime for foreign investments in SADC is unstable, due to recent policy reviews and amendments of key regulatory instruments that have taken place. Major developments in this regard have been the suspension of the SADC Tribunal during 2010, the amendment of the SADC Tribunal Protocol during 2014 to bar natural and legal persons from access to the Tribunal, and the amendment of Annex 1 during 2016 to remove investor access to international investor-state arbitration, better known as investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). The regulation of foreign investments in SADC has been unsatisfactory, among others because some SADC Member States have failed or neglected to harmonise their investment laws with both the 2006 and the 2016 Annex 1. Furthermore, SADC Member States such as Angola, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Malawi, Mauritius, Seychelles, Eswatini, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe have multiple Regional Economic Community (REC) memberships. This places these Member States in a position whereby they have conflicting interests and treaty obligations. Finally, the future of the regime for the regulation of foreign investments in SADC is unpredictable, due to regional integration efforts such as the recent formation of the COMESA-EAC-SADC Tripartite Free Zone (T-FTA) and the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). The T-FTA is entitled to have its investment protocol, while the AfCFTA investment protocol will be negotiated from 2018 until 2020. These developments entail that the 2016 Annex 1 will soon be replaced by an investment protocol at either the T-FTA or AfCFTA levels, thereby ushering a new regime for the regulation of foreign investments in SADC. The unknown nature of the future regulations create uncertainty and instability among foreign investors and host states alike. This study analyses the regulation of foreign investments in terms of Annex 1 and selected laws of SADC Member States. In the end, it makes the three findings mentioned above. In order to address these findings, the study makes four recommendations. The first is that foreign investments in SADC must be regulated at African Union (AU) level, by means of an AfCFTA investment protocol (which incidentally is now the case). Secondly, investor-state disputes must be referred to the courts of a host state, optional ISDS, the African Court of Justice and Human Rights (ACJ&HR) or other agreed forum. Thirdly, an African Justice Scoreboard (AJS) must be established. The AJS will act as a gateway to determine whether an investor-state dispute shall be referred to the courts of a host state, ISDS, the ACJ&HR or other forums. Fourthly, the office of an African Investment Ombud (AIO) must be created. The AIO shall facilitate the early resolution of investor-state disputes, so as to reduce the number of disputes that may end-up in litigation or arbitration. / Mercantile Law / LL. D.

Fruit de négociations longues et ardues, la Convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer signée en 1982 est sans doute l’un des traités multilatéraux les plus réussis sur le plan international. Pierre angulaire de la Convention, l’attribution du statut de « patrimoine commun de l’humanité » aux fonds marins et leur sous-sol situés au-delà des limites de la juridiction nationale ainsi qu’à leurs ressources a constitué une innovation majeure dans le domaine du droit international. Le succès de la Convention tient notamment au fait qu’elle a établi un cadre institutionnel sans précédent chargé de la mise en œuvre de la Convention et incarné par trois institutions : l’Autorité internationale des fonds marins, la Commission des limites du plateau continental et le Tribunal international du droit de la mer. Dotées de statuts juridiques divers et de compétences différentes, ces institutions fonctionnent depuis l’entrée en vigueur de la Convention en 1994. Vingt-et-un ans après sa fondation, il convient d’examiner ce cadre institutionnel dans son ensemble et d’évaluer sa mise en œuvre pour mieux comprendre le rôle complémentaire des institutions. Cette étude porte un regard critique sur la genèse, la nature, le fonctionnement et la pratique des institutions, et s’attache à les considérer dans leur interaction et leur interdépendance. Identifier les insuffisances institutionnelles et interinstitutionnelles, ainsi que les défis auxquels les institutions sont confrontées est un préalable indispensable à la recherche de solutions efficaces et viables pour surmonter les difficultés rencontrées, à la mise en œuvre harmonieuse de la Convention et à la concrétisation du concept fondamental de patrimoine commun de l’humanité. Dans cette perspective, l’importance du Tribunal dans son rôle de garant de l’intégrité de la Convention et le pouvoir créateur du juge international face aux lacunes conventionnelles méritent une attention toute particulière. / The result of protracted and arduous negotiations, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seasigned in 1982 is undoubtedly one of the most successful multilateral treaties at the international level. The principle of the common heritage of mankind, represented by the seabed, ocean floor and subsoil and their resources beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, is the cornerstone of the Convention and constituted a major innovation in international law. The success of the Convention lies, in particular, in the establishment of an unprecedented institutional framework, which is incarnated by three institutions: the International Seabed Authority, the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. These institutions of diverse legal status are vested with different functions and have been in operation since the entry into force of the Convention in 1994. Twentyone years following its establishment, it is necessary to review this institutional framework as a whole and to assess its implementation in order to better understand the complementary role of the institutions. This study critically examines the genesis, the nature, the functioning and the practice of the institutions throughtheir interaction and their interdependence. Identifying institutional and inter-institutional weaknesses, and the challenges that the institutions face is an indispensable prerequisite for ensuring effective and viablesolutions, the harmonious implementation of the Convention and for giving substance to the principle ofthe common heritage of mankind. In this context, the role of the Tribunal as the guarantor of the integrityof the Convention and the creative power of the international judge merit special attention.