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.

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.

Depuis les années deux-mille, les Etats latino-américains ont activement participé aux arbitrages d’investissement administrés par le Centre international pour le règlement des différends relatifs aux investissements (CIRDI). Ainsi, la pratique arbitrale de ce Centre trouve son origine dans les très nombreuses affaires latino-américaines qui ont permis d’encadrer la procédure et d’entériner certaines pratiques liées aux questions de fond de l’arbitrage. Les affaires latino-américaines ont enrichi la procédure en consacrant notamment la participation des tiers à la procédure arbitrale par le biais de l’amicus curiae (l’ami de la Cour). Cette innovation démontre la prise en compte de l’impact des questions d’intérêt public sur les populations concernées. Les divers standards juridiques insérés dans les accords d’investissement ont également été invoqués par les investisseurs afin de voir engagée la responsabilité internationale des Etats. Ainsi, les arbitres ont pu s’exprimer sur le caractère imprécis de certains standards comme celui du traitement juste et équitable. Les tribunaux ont dégagé certains étalons de mesure qui permettent d’évaluer et de comparer les éléments de l’affaire. Deux étalons de mesure semblent être pertinents dans le cas latino-américain. Il s’agit du respect de la stabilité du cadre juridique puis de la protection des attentes légitimes de l’investisseur. C’est dans ce cadre que les Etats latino-américains ont réagi différemment face au contentieux arbitral auprès du CIRDI, ce dernier ayant fait l’objet de critiques quant à sa légitimité et quant aux différentes condamnations prononcées par les tribunaux à l’encontre des Etats. Certains Etats ont pris l’initiative de dénoncer les accords internationaux donnant compétence au CIRDI et de créer un nouveau centre d’arbitrage sur le continent, capable de connaître les différends en matière d’investissement. Ceci dit, les décisions et sentences arbitrales rendues dans le contexte latino-américain constituent une source d’inspiration précieuse pour les arbitrages internationaux en cours et futurs. / Since 2001, Latin American Countries have actively participated in investment arbitrations administered by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Because of that the way to arbitrate in this Centre base itself on a great number of Latin American affairs which helped to delimit the procedures and endorse some practices linked to the very founding principles of arbitration.The procedure of arbitration has been improved by Latin American affairs, by example with the help of the Amicus Curiae, which is the participation of a third party to the arbitral process. This innovation shows how much these questions of public interest are important for the populations concerned.The multiple juridical standards inserted in the investment agreements have often been brought forward by the investors in order to see the responsibility of some countries engaged in an international way. Arbitrators have been able to emphasize on the inaccuracy of some of these standards, such as the the fair and equitable treatment.Different ways to measure the elements of an affair have been brought to light by the tribunals. Two of them are present in the case of Latin American affairs: the compliance with the juridical framework stability and the protection of the investor's legitimate expectations.Latin American countries did take action differently in front of the arbitrations brought to the ICSID which was criticized for its lack of legitimacy and for its decisions in a great number of cases against these countries. Some countries renounced the international treaties giving the ICSID its arbitration rights and created a new arbitration center on the continent capable of giving a ruling in the matter of investment affairs. In spite of this the arbitral decisions and the arbitral awards in the Latin American context should be able to be inspirations for the future of arbitration.

L’investissement étranger est considéré aujourd’hui comme un facteur clé voire une valeur ajoutée à même de faciliter le développement de l’État d’accueil. Ainsi, l'État congolais mise sur l’amélioration de son arsenal juridique interne dont l’objectif consiste à attirer de nombreux investisseurs et investissements étrangers sur son territoire. Pour ce faire, des réformes tendant à l’amélioration de principaux textes juridiques applicables directement ou indirectement en matière d’admission et de sécurisation des investissements étrangers afin de se conformer aux standards internationaux deviennent une obsession pour cet État, dont la finalité demeure : la valorisation de ses ressources naturelles notamment le cobalt, le germanium et la colombo-tantalite etc. très souvent inexploitées et utile à même de servir à la production des batteries pour les voitures électriques. Il serait donc nécessaire désormais que le contrôle de l’État souverain sur ses ressources naturelles considérées comme des minerais stratégiques soit davantage renforcé et que le contentieux en matière d’investissement soit confié à des entités qui prennent en compte l’intérêt général au détriment des arbitrages sous l’égide des arbitres privés, défendant les intérêts privés. Ainsi, la création d’un Centre international africain de règlement des différends pourrait être profitable notamment en permettant aux experts africains - tant arbitres qu’avocats - d’être plus présents dans le cadre des procédures impliquant leurs États d’origine / Foreign investment is now considered a key factor or even an added value that can facilitate the development of the host country. Thus, the Congolese State is focusing on improving its domestic legal arsenal, the objective of which is to attract many foreign investors and investments to its territory. To this end, reforms aimed at improving the main legal texts directly or indirectly applicable to the admission and security of foreign investments in order to comply with international standards are becoming an obsession for this State, the purpose of which remains: the development of its natural resources, in particular cobalt, germanium and colombo-tantalite etc., which are very often unexploited and useful for the production of batteries for electric cars. It would therefore now be necessary for the sovereign State to strengthen its control over its natural resources considered as strategic minerals and for investment litigation to be entrusted to entities that take into account the general interest to the detriment of arbitrations under the aegis of private arbitrators, defending private interests. Thus, the creation of an African International Dispute Resolution Centre could be beneficial, in particular by allowing African experts - both arbitrators and lawyers - to be more present in proceedings involving their States of origin