This thesis contributes to academic debate about the question: how much substantive protection should investment treaties (IITs) provide to foreign investment? Chapters 5 and 6 argue that arbitral tribunals have interpreted fair and equitable treatment and indirect expropriation provisions of existing IITs in several different ways. Each of these interpretations is sketched as a model level of protection that could be explicitly adopted by states in the future, either through inclusion in new IITs, or through amendment to existing IITs. In this way, the thesis defines a range of prospective options available to states concerning the level of protection to provide to foreign investment through IITs. The thesis evaluates the relative desirability of these different levels of protection. The thesis argues that different levels of protection should be evaluated according to their likely consequences. The thesis develops a framework for inferring and understanding the likely consequences of adopting different levels of protection. The framework proposes that the consequences of a given level of protection can be understood in terms of its likely effect on: economic efficiency; the distribution of economic costs and benefits; flows of foreign direct investment into host states; the realisation of human rights and environmental conservation in host states; and respect for the rule of law in host states. Within this framework, the thesis provides an assessment and synthesis of existing empirical evidence and explanatory theory so far as they relate to the consequences of IIT protections. It also specifies the normative criteria by which these consequences should be evaluated. Through the application of this framework, the thesis concludes that lower levels of protection of foreign investment are, in general, likely to be more desirable than higher levels of protection.

Sverige är idag part i ett flertal bilaterala investeringsskyddsavtal med länder världen över. Dessa avtal skyddar investerare som placerar kapital över landsgränserna. Avtalen ger ett långtgående skydd på så sätt att investerare ges rätt att vid tvist föra värdstaten inför internationell skiljenämnd. I tidigare investeringsrättsliga tvister har värdstaternas lagstiftning i vissa fall ansetts strida mot investerarens rätt till rättvis och skälig behandling. Rätten till rättvis och skälig behandling är en vanligt förekommande skyddsklausul i de bilaterala investeringsskyddsavtalen och uppsatsen avser därför utreda på vilket sätt denna rättighet skulle kunna påverka Sveriges möjlighet att lagstifta i allmänhetens intresse.   Uppsatsen utreder dels innebörden av rättvis och skälig behandling genom att undersöka hur tidigare skiljenämnder har tolkat skyddet, dels hur rätten till rättvis och skälig behandling skulle kunna tolkas i förhållande till tre hypotetiska svenska lagförslag. Utredningen tyder på att rätten till rättvis och skälig behandling ger ett långtgående skydd för utländska investerare. Uppsatsen ger avslutningsvis förslag på hur lagstiftning skulle kunna ske i enlighet med tidigare tolkning och tillämpning av skyddet för rättvis och skälig behandling.

The concept of legitimate expectations plays a significant role in international investment law. Although it is only in the past roughly fifteen years that the concept has come to the spotlight, its importance and utilization is on the rise. Generally speaking, the concept of legitimate expectations, under certain conditions, allows a foreign investor to claim compensation in situations where the conduct of a host State creates a legitimate and reasonable expectation that the investor may rely on such conduct, and consequently the host State fails to fulfill those expectations, causing damages to the investor. However, the concept of protection of legitimate expectations has stirred up debates as to the legitimacy of its use in investment law and raised concerns due to its imprecise boundaries and excessively extensive interpretation. Accordingly, it is the goal of this thesis to either confirm or refute two main propositions. The first proposition suggests that the principle of protection of legitimate expectations is an established principle of investment law with traceable origins in both domestic law and general international law. The examination of the first proposition addresses theoretical roots of the concept of legitimate expectations justifying its application in investment law together...

(English) Often evoked by investors before arbitral tribunals and at the same time causing controversy and uncertainty with regard to its contents. Fair and equitable treatment standard of protection (FET) suffers from its vague formulation in bilateral investment treaties but simultaneously this characteristic enables it to fulfil the function of filling gaps left by other standards of protection. This results in a fact that uniform understanding of the standard seems impossible to achieve. Inherent dispute on whether FET amounts only to minimum standard of treatment under customary international law or is rather an autonomous standard is also embodied in various wordings of FET clauses present in the treaties. Unless specific link to minimum standard is made, almost all methods of legal interpretation prove that FET is an autonomous concept. Enumeration of sub-elements of FET in clauses will also not achieve certainty mainly because of disputes on contents of some of these sub-elements. Effort to shed more light on the contents of the standard is achieved by evaluation of values of rule of law as well as requirements of morality and legality (necessary for functioning of every legal system) presented by legal philosopher Lon Fuller. A set of universally accepted principles is extracted from these...

Le débat portant sur la relation entre la protection des droits de l'homme et la protection des investissements étrangers n’est pas nouveau. Quand cette dernière et la protection des droits de l'homme des peuples locaux s'opposent, quelle solution le régime du droit de l'investissement devrait-il proposer? Est-il possible d'inclure la protection des droits de l'homme des investisseurs étrangers dans le régime du droit international de l'investissement? Il faudrait trouver le moyen de rendre le régime du droit international de l'investissement compatible avec le régime du droit international des droits de l'homme. C'est le problème principal que cette thèse souhaite traiter. Je propose d'inclure la protection des droits de l'homme par le biais de la clause du traitement juste et équitable (TJE) dans les TBI. Le sens littéral du TJE est de donner aux investisseurs étrangers le traitement qu'ils méritent. Cela veut dire que l'on ne devrait leur donner ni plus ni moins que ce qu'ils méritent. On leur donne plus quand leur investissement est protégé sans que l'on accorde l'attention qui lui revient à la protection des droits de l'homme des peuples locaux. En même temps, les investisseurs étrangers méritent un environnement d'investissement dans lequel leurs droits de l'homme sont respectés. Pour l'argument de la cohérence, on a pu voir que le TJE était en général la mise en œuvre de l'état de droit. Les investisseurs étrangers méritent un environnement d'investissement où l'état de droit existe. L'état de droit inclut la protection des droits de l'homme. Les investisseurs étrangers méritent un environnement d'investissement où les droits de l'homme sont protégés. / The relationship between human rights protection and foreign investment protection has been an issue that has been widely discussed. When the foreign investment protection and the human rights protection of local people conflicts, how should the investment law regime solve the problem? Moreover, is it possible that foreign investors' human rights protection be included in the international investment law regime? The international investment law regime should find a way to make itself compatible with international human rights law regime. The aforementioned is the major issue that this thesis intends to address. I have proposed to include human rights protection through the fair and equitable treatment (FET) clause in BITs. The literal meaning of FET is to give foreign investors the treatment that they deserve. This means that foreign investors should not be given neither less than they deserve, nor more than they deserve. Foreign investors were given more than they deserve when their investment were protected without giving due regard to local people's human rights protection. Meanwhile, foreign investors deserve an investment environment where their human rights are protected. For the coherence argument, FET is generally the implementation of the rule of law. In its interpretation, there is a presupposed warrant. The warrant is "foreign investors deserve an investment environment where rule of law is implemented." Foreign investors deserve an investment environment where rule of law is implemented. Rule of law includes the protection of human rights. Foreign investors therefore deserve an investment environment where the protection of human rights is implemented.

This dissertation analyses the implications of international investment law on host states’ legal ability to protect the environment, regulate sustainable use of natural resources, and develop new approaches to manage environmental risks and uncertainties. ‘Environmental policy space’ is found to be a useful term when exploring the regulatory autonomy in this context. On one hand, investment law aims to ensure stability of the investment environment. On the other hand, environmental law needs flexibility to react to the degradation of the environment. It is found that those different aims do not have to be in conflict. There are useful mechanisms in national environmental law which provide for accessible, transparent and predictable decisions for the private actor. These mechanisms can fulfill the aim of stability in investment law. It is, however, concluded that core provisions of international investment treaties risk to put constraints to environmental law in a variety of ways. To diminish these risks, states, when concluding investment treaties, should make clear that constraining environmental regulation is not compatible with the overarching aim of sustainable development. Furthermore, the interpretation of provisions of investment protection must respect principles and instruments of environmental law not to continue being unbalanced towards investor interests. It is also concluded that allowing for investor – state arbitration, without the investor exhausting local remedies, will ignore the important national administrative review system of public environmental measures.

Depois de mais de 30 anos da edição da Lei 6.404, de 15 de dezembro de 1976 e da publicação da Instrução CVM 10, de 14 de fevereiro de 1980, volta novamente o regulador brasileiro a sua atenção para os benefícios e perigos dos negócios da companhia com ações de sua emissão. Tal se torna evidente pela publicação, em outubro de 2013, do Edital de Audiência Pública SDM 11/13, por meio do qual a Comissão de Valores Mobiliários pretende substituir a antiga regra aplicável às companhias abertas por uma nova, de conteúdo mais moderno e aderente à nova realidade. Desenvolveu-se durante o século XX e XXI o estudo dos negócios da companhia com as suas ações, admitindo-se cada vez mais numerosas exceções ao inicialmente duro e absoluto preceito proibitivo positivado originalmente pela Aktienrechtsnovelle alemã de 1870. O estudo das finanças sociais e o aprimoramento dos mecanismos de salvaguarda dos interesses protegidos no decorrer do século XX e XXI forçaram (e ainda forçam) a redefinição dos seus contornos jurídicos. No que diz respeito a estes negócios, ressaltam como interesses escudados aqueles dos credores, dos acionistas e do mercado de capitais (e os investidores que nele atuam) os grupos de referência (Bezugsgruppen) do direito societário. É na proteção de seus interesses que se fundamentam as normas que os regem: a utilização de saldo de lucros tutela os credores, o princípio do tratamento equitativo protege os acionistas e as regras de prevenção a atos manipulativos e de repressão ao insider trading salvaguardam o mercado e seus investidores. É, portanto, no confronto com tais interesses que se deve avaliar a legalidade ou ilegalidade de cada um desses negócios, e não na simples (in)existência de uma exceção legal expressa ao conceito proibitivo geral. O art. 30 da Lei das S.A. estipula condições de validade dos negócios com ações próprias, e não meramente um rol de exceções taxativas. / Thirty years after the enactment of Law 6.404, of December 15, 1976 and CVM Instruction 10, of February 14, 1980, once again have the transactions of the company in its own shares gained the attention of the Brazilian regulatory authority, especially in consideration of the benefits and perils arising from them. This is evidenced by the publication, in October 2013, by the Comissão de Valores Mobiliários of Public Hearing SDM 11/13, the purpose of which is to replace the old rule applicable to public companies by a new one, containing a more modern approach on the subject and a more reality-driven concept. The studies about the transactions a company is allowed to perform in its own shares have had a great academic and empiric development during the XX and XXI centuries, the result of which has been the gradual acceptance of an ever-increasing list of possible exceptions to the inititally absolute prohibition originally stated by the german Aktienrechtsnovelle of 1870. The study of financial economics and the improvement of the legal protective measures designed over the last century have forced (and continue to force) a broad redefinition of these transactions legal boundaries. In respect to these transactions, the interests of creditors, shareholders and the capital market itself (including the investors which act in it) arise in the center of the legal protective framework they have been denominated as the reference groups of Corporate Law. Safeguarding their interests is the main purpose of the rules revolving around them: the use of profits and profit reserves safeguards creditors, adherence to the principle of equitable treatment adresses shareholder interests and the rules preventing manipulative acts and insider trading practices sponsor the interests of the capital market and its investors. Therefore, it is mandatory that any interpretation on the legality or ilegality of any given transaction by the company in its own shares be preceded by the examination of these concrete interests; this legal analysis cannot be limited to the verification of an express exception to the general rule. Article 30 of Law 6.404/76 must therefore be read as containing a general validity framework, and not merely an exaustive list of exceptions.

Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. / O crescente fluxo global de investimentos estrangeiros coloca o tema da regulação dos investimentos estrangeiros no cerne das preocupações do Direito Internacional. Em uma estrutura formal com diversos níveis, o Direito Internacional dos Investimentos passa por constantes readaptações e reconstruções. Diversas alternativas teóricas têm sido propostas para responder aos muitos questionamentos relativos ao futuro do Direito Internacional dos Investimentos. Ao longo das décadas, o Brasil optou por manter-se isolado do regime internacional de regulação de investimentos estrangeiros, de maneira que a questão permaneceu regulada inteiramente por um mosaico normativo disperso entre normas constitucionais e infraconstitucionais. O crescente papel do Brasil como país exportador de capitais especialmente em virtude da expansão da indústria do petróleo e gás levou à recente revisão das diretrizes de política externa em matéria de investimentos estrangeiros. A decisão de negociar acordos internacionais de investimentos pode trazer diversas consequências para o ordenamento jurídico doméstico, dentre as quais se destaca a interferência do padrão de tratamento justo e equitativo no exercício do poder regulatório pelo Estado. A recorrente invocação do padrão de tratamento justo e equitativo contrasta com as incertezas sobre seu conteúdo. Ainda que possa existir uma compatibilidade teórica entre esse padrão de tratamento e o Direito brasileiro, a exposição às interpretações criativas dos tribunais arbitrais pode representar um risco para o Brasil, que deve cuidadosamente avaliar a pertinência de incluir uma cláusula do padrão de tratamento justo e equitativo nos acordos atualmente em negociação. / The increasing global flow of foreign capitals raises the issue of the regulation of foreign investments at the core of the concerns of International Law. With a multi-layered formal structure, International Investment Law undergoes continuous readjustment and reconstruction. Several theoretical alternatives have been proposed in order to answer many questions concerning the uncertain future of International Investment Law. Brazil has chosen to remain isolated from the international regime regulating foreign investment and this matter remained fully regulated by an untidy mosaic of constitutional and infra-constitutional rules. The growing role of Brazil as a capital-exporter country especially due to the development of the oil and gas industry has led to a recent revision of foreign policy guidelines regarding foreign investment. The decision of negotiating international investment agreements may have several consequences to the domestic legal system. Standing out as one of the key consequences is the interference of the fair and equitable treatment standard in the exercise of regulatory powers by the State. The recurrent allusion to the fair and equitable treatment standard contrasts with the uncertainty about its normative content. Although there may be a theoretical compatibility between the fair and equitable treatment standard and the Brazilian law, the exposure of state measures to creative interpretations of arbitral tribunals may pose a risk to the country, which must carefully evaluate the appropriateness of including a clause on fair and equitable treatment standard in the agreements currently under negotiation.

Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. / O crescente fluxo global de investimentos estrangeiros coloca o tema da regulação dos investimentos estrangeiros no cerne das preocupações do Direito Internacional. Em uma estrutura formal com diversos níveis, o Direito Internacional dos Investimentos passa por constantes readaptações e reconstruções. Diversas alternativas teóricas têm sido propostas para responder aos muitos questionamentos relativos ao futuro do Direito Internacional dos Investimentos. Ao longo das décadas, o Brasil optou por manter-se isolado do regime internacional de regulação de investimentos estrangeiros, de maneira que a questão permaneceu regulada inteiramente por um mosaico normativo disperso entre normas constitucionais e infraconstitucionais. O crescente papel do Brasil como país exportador de capitais especialmente em virtude da expansão da indústria do petróleo e gás levou à recente revisão das diretrizes de política externa em matéria de investimentos estrangeiros. A decisão de negociar acordos internacionais de investimentos pode trazer diversas consequências para o ordenamento jurídico doméstico, dentre as quais se destaca a interferência do padrão de tratamento justo e equitativo no exercício do poder regulatório pelo Estado. A recorrente invocação do padrão de tratamento justo e equitativo contrasta com as incertezas sobre seu conteúdo. Ainda que possa existir uma compatibilidade teórica entre esse padrão de tratamento e o Direito brasileiro, a exposição às interpretações criativas dos tribunais arbitrais pode representar um risco para o Brasil, que deve cuidadosamente avaliar a pertinência de incluir uma cláusula do padrão de tratamento justo e equitativo nos acordos atualmente em negociação. / The increasing global flow of foreign capitals raises the issue of the regulation of foreign investments at the core of the concerns of International Law. With a multi-layered formal structure, International Investment Law undergoes continuous readjustment and reconstruction. Several theoretical alternatives have been proposed in order to answer many questions concerning the uncertain future of International Investment Law. Brazil has chosen to remain isolated from the international regime regulating foreign investment and this matter remained fully regulated by an untidy mosaic of constitutional and infra-constitutional rules. The growing role of Brazil as a capital-exporter country especially due to the development of the oil and gas industry has led to a recent revision of foreign policy guidelines regarding foreign investment. The decision of negotiating international investment agreements may have several consequences to the domestic legal system. Standing out as one of the key consequences is the interference of the fair and equitable treatment standard in the exercise of regulatory powers by the State. The recurrent allusion to the fair and equitable treatment standard contrasts with the uncertainty about its normative content. Although there may be a theoretical compatibility between the fair and equitable treatment standard and the Brazilian law, the exposure of state measures to creative interpretations of arbitral tribunals may pose a risk to the country, which must carefully evaluate the appropriateness of including a clause on fair and equitable treatment standard in the agreements currently under negotiation.

Depois de mais de 30 anos da edição da Lei 6.404, de 15 de dezembro de 1976 e da publicação da Instrução CVM 10, de 14 de fevereiro de 1980, volta novamente o regulador brasileiro a sua atenção para os benefícios e perigos dos negócios da companhia com ações de sua emissão. Tal se torna evidente pela publicação, em outubro de 2013, do Edital de Audiência Pública SDM 11/13, por meio do qual a Comissão de Valores Mobiliários pretende substituir a antiga regra aplicável às companhias abertas por uma nova, de conteúdo mais moderno e aderente à nova realidade. Desenvolveu-se durante o século XX e XXI o estudo dos negócios da companhia com as suas ações, admitindo-se cada vez mais numerosas exceções ao inicialmente duro e absoluto preceito proibitivo positivado originalmente pela Aktienrechtsnovelle alemã de 1870. O estudo das finanças sociais e o aprimoramento dos mecanismos de salvaguarda dos interesses protegidos no decorrer do século XX e XXI forçaram (e ainda forçam) a redefinição dos seus contornos jurídicos. No que diz respeito a estes negócios, ressaltam como interesses escudados aqueles dos credores, dos acionistas e do mercado de capitais (e os investidores que nele atuam) os grupos de referência (Bezugsgruppen) do direito societário. É na proteção de seus interesses que se fundamentam as normas que os regem: a utilização de saldo de lucros tutela os credores, o princípio do tratamento equitativo protege os acionistas e as regras de prevenção a atos manipulativos e de repressão ao insider trading salvaguardam o mercado e seus investidores. É, portanto, no confronto com tais interesses que se deve avaliar a legalidade ou ilegalidade de cada um desses negócios, e não na simples (in)existência de uma exceção legal expressa ao conceito proibitivo geral. O art. 30 da Lei das S.A. estipula condições de validade dos negócios com ações próprias, e não meramente um rol de exceções taxativas. / Thirty years after the enactment of Law 6.404, of December 15, 1976 and CVM Instruction 10, of February 14, 1980, once again have the transactions of the company in its own shares gained the attention of the Brazilian regulatory authority, especially in consideration of the benefits and perils arising from them. This is evidenced by the publication, in October 2013, by the Comissão de Valores Mobiliários of Public Hearing SDM 11/13, the purpose of which is to replace the old rule applicable to public companies by a new one, containing a more modern approach on the subject and a more reality-driven concept. The studies about the transactions a company is allowed to perform in its own shares have had a great academic and empiric development during the XX and XXI centuries, the result of which has been the gradual acceptance of an ever-increasing list of possible exceptions to the inititally absolute prohibition originally stated by the german Aktienrechtsnovelle of 1870. The study of financial economics and the improvement of the legal protective measures designed over the last century have forced (and continue to force) a broad redefinition of these transactions legal boundaries. In respect to these transactions, the interests of creditors, shareholders and the capital market itself (including the investors which act in it) arise in the center of the legal protective framework they have been denominated as the reference groups of Corporate Law. Safeguarding their interests is the main purpose of the rules revolving around them: the use of profits and profit reserves safeguards creditors, adherence to the principle of equitable treatment adresses shareholder interests and the rules preventing manipulative acts and insider trading practices sponsor the interests of the capital market and its investors. Therefore, it is mandatory that any interpretation on the legality or ilegality of any given transaction by the company in its own shares be preceded by the examination of these concrete interests; this legal analysis cannot be limited to the verification of an express exception to the general rule. Article 30 of Law 6.404/76 must therefore be read as containing a general validity framework, and not merely an exaustive list of exceptions.