Les investisseurs étrangers dans les secteurs de services occupent une position particulière dans le droit économique international : ils sont couverts par des accords internationaux d'investissement ainsi que par des disciplines multilatérales sur le commerce des services. Contrairement à ce que la pratique actuelle suggère, les deux principales composantes du droit économique international, à savoir le droit commercial et le droit des investissements, fusionnent. Ils partagent non seulement des principes et des règles essentiellement équivalents, mais leurs disciplines s'appliquent également aux mêmes sujets et situations. Les accords internationaux d'investissement et les règles de l’OMC sur le commerce des services (disciplines de l'AGCS), bien que de nature très différente, présentent des principes communs qui favorisent l'investissement international dans les secteurs de services. En particulier, les deux ensembles d'accords consacrent des obligations de non-discrimination entre les investisseurs étrangers et nationaux dans les secteurs de services. Dans cette situation, les investisseurs étrangers profitent également des obligations que les deux ensembles d'instruments imposent aux États contractants. Ces instruments prévoient de solides mécanismes de règlement des différends en cas de violation de leurs obligations. Les investisseurs étrangers dans les secteurs de services peuvent donc avoir recours à deux mécanismes alternatifs de règlement des différends pour contester les mesures de leurs pays hôtes qui enfreignent les obligations internationales.L’OMC, contrairement au CIRDI, est beaucoup plus qu’un simple système de règlement des différends : l’OMC possède un élément institutionnel important qui a la capacité de fournir et d’appliquer les valeurs systémiques. Cette différence fondamentale entre le système de règlement des différends de l’OMC et d’arbitrage du CIRDI fournit une perspective analytique à travers laquelle l’étude évalue et compare la portée précise du chevauchement entre les disciplines du commerce et de l'investissement, ainsi que la capacité des parties privées à recourir à ces mécanismes de règlement des différends.Du point de vue méthodologique, deux approches sont concevables. Une analyse comparative et contextuelle : l'accent est mis sur les accords internationaux accordant la qualité pour les parties privées dans les procédures internationales de règlement des différends. L'attention est attirée sur le droit international du commerce et d'investissement, en comparant les principes, les règles et les mécanismes de règlement des différends du cadre de l'investissement international (y compris les accords qui définissent les relations d'investissement internationales) et le cadre d'investissement assez limité de l'OMC, principalement les dispositions pertinentes de l'AGCS. Une approche inductive, la jurisprudence est également pertinente. Un examen approfondi de la jurisprudence existante sur chaque sujet, afin de clarifier le sens de règles par ailleurs vagues et ambiguës et de répondre finalement à la question de savoir si les procédures de règlement des différends de l'OMC pourraient constituer une alternative valable pour le règlement des différends entre l'investisseur dans le secteur de services et l'État. / Foreign investors in services occupy a special position in international economic law: they are covered by international investment agreements as well as by multilateral disciplines on trade in services. Contrary to current practice, the two main components of international economic law, namely, trade law and investment law, merge. They share not only the principles and rules essentially equivalent, but their disciplines also apply to the same subjects and situations. International investment agreements and WTO rules on trade in services (GATS disciplines), although of a very different nature, present common principles that promote international investment in the services sector. In particular, the two sets of agreements devote obligations of non-discrimination between foreign and domestic investors in the services sector. In this situation, foreign investors also benefit from the obligations that both sets of instruments impose on the contracting States. These instruments provide for strong dispute settlement mechanisms in case of violation of their obligations. Foreign investors in the services sector can therefore use two alternative dispute settlement mechanisms to challenge the actions of their host countries that violate international obligations.The WTO, unlike ICSID, is much more than a simple dispute settlement system: the WTO has an important institutional element that has the capacity to provide and apply systemic values. This fundamental difference between the WTO dispute settlement system and ICSID arbitration provides an analytical perspective through which the study evaluates and compares the precise extent of overlap between the trade and investment disciplines, as well as the ability of private parties to use these dispute settlement mechanisms.From a methodological point of view, two approaches are conceivable. A comparative and contextual analysis: the focus is on the international agreements granting standing for private parties in international dispute settlement procedures. Attention is drawn to the International Trade and Investment Law, comparing the principles, rules and dispute settlement mechanisms of the international investment framework (including agreements that define international investment relations) and the rather limited investment framework of the WTO, mainly the relevant provisions of the GATS. An inductive approach, jurisprudence is also relevant. An extensive exploration of existing case law on each subject, in order to clarify the meaning of otherwise vague and ambiguous rules and ultimately to answer the question of whether WTO dispute settlement procedures could become a valid alternative for the settlement of disputes between the investor in service and the State.

Mokslinio tyrimo problema Prieš keturis dešimtmečius Vienos konvencija dėl tarptautinių sutar-čių teisės įtvirtino, kad tarptautinė sutartis turi būti aiškinama laikantis geros valios principų, atsižvelgiant į joje vartojamų sąvokų įprastinę reikšmę sutar-ties kontekste ir atsižvelgiant į sutarties objektą bei jos tikslą. Šios taisyklės paprotinį statusą yra pripažinęs ir Tarptautinis Teisingumo Teismas. Nepai-sant to, kartais abejojama tiek dėl to, ar įmanomos aiškinimo normos, (t.y. ar ne tiksliau jas vadinti principais) tiek ir dėl jų naudingumo (t.y. ar ne geriau būtų palikti jas nerašytinėmis) – į tai dėmesį buvo atkreipusi ir pati Tarptauti-nės teisės komisija, rengusi šios taisyklės formuluotę. Kita vertus, jau sutarties rengimo metu buvo aiškūs nuomonių skirtumai dėl tarptautinių sutarčių aiški-nimo, o priėmus Konvenciją mokslinės Niuheiveno grupės atstovai prognoza-vo jos nesėkmę dėl jos „įkyrios, praktikoje nepritaikomos, konformizmo reika-laujančios pažodinio aiškinimo taisyklės.“ Šiuo požiūriu tarptautinės sutartys turėjo būti vertinamos kaip tęstinis šalių bendravimo ir bendradarbiavimo pro-cesas, kuris reikalautų į kontekstą atsižvelgti kur kas labiau nei tai numatė Vienos Konvencija, t.y. sutartis turėtų būti aiškinama siekiant nustatyti ben-druosius šalių ketinimus įsipareigoti sutartimi, o aiškinant sutartį būtina atsi-žvelgti į tarptautinės bendruomenės vertybes. Nepaisant šių akcentų, tekstas būtų išlikęs kaip reikšmingas šalių lūkesčių rodiklis:... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / Research problem It has been four decades since conclusion of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties. The Convention included a provision that a treaty shall be inter-preted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose. The customary status of this rule has been accepted by the International Court of Justice. Disregarding that, some question whether the rules, as opposed to principles, of interpretation are possible (i.e. would that not be better not to reduce them to writing). The International Law Commission itself has com-mented on this. On the other hand, the differences concerning interpretation of treaties were apparent already at the time the treaty was drafted. When the Convention was finally adopted, a few scholars representing the so-called New Haven approach opined that they expected the Convention to fail due to its “insistent emphasis upon an impossible, comformity-imposing textuality”. In their view, conclusion of an international agreement was a continuous process of cooperation and collaboration of the parties, which required a much more detailed focus on the intentions of the parties than the Vienna Convention rule of interpretation envisaged. They called for interpretation which would search for genuine shared expectations, together with the complementary appeals for ‘supplementing’ and ‘policing’ communications in accordance with... [to full text]

This study examines the evolution of the modern necessity defenses in ICSID arbitration claims against Argentina arising from the 2001/2 economic crisis. To date, ICSID tribunals have been fractured in their approaches to Argentina’s necessity defenses. The high degree of inconsistency among the tribunals has provoked criticism and threatens to tarnish the legitimacy of the ICSID system, especially in Latin America. Recent developments indicate that a more coherent and legally sound alternative is emerging with a “two-step” approach that is moving away from reliance on customary international law and towards language in the bilateral investment treaty (BIT) between the Argentina and the United States. The BIT-based “two-step” approach is superior to the other two approaches available in terms of legal justifications and policy implications. Adherence to the “two-step” approach in future tribunals will allow for greater consistency, predictability, and stability for states and investors. Abstract: This study suggests that a weak press establishment was key among factors that enabled the excesses of the government’s response to domestic terrorism during Argentina’s most recent military dictatorship, the Proceso of 1976-1983, which resulted in gross human rights violations. The paper examines the role of the Buenos Aires Herald, which played an exceptional role in reporting violence during the Proceso and was the only major Argentine daily to take a confrontational editorial posture vis-à- vis the government. In researching this topic, the author used the archives of the Herald, primary source documents and press clips from the era, interviews with key figures in Argentine journalism, and a variety of academic sources on the issue. The paper considers political and historical factors as they shaped the Argentine media and set the stage for the events of the Proceso. / text

Katarína Jakabová Abstract ABSTRACT Procedural aspects of the dispute settlement in international economic law The dispute settlement in the international economic law of nowadays takes place under more institutionalized mechanism as in the past half-century. The aim is clear: better enforceability of the law (of the award) based on the fast and efficient "under one roof" procedure. This thesis focuses on the procedural aspects of the dispute settlement within the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Each of these three organizations has its own special dispute settlement procedure, which is above all distinctive from the international trade law by having at least one (member) state as a party to a dispute. I have chosen WTO because it regulates the disputes on a state-state level arising from all the WTO agreements between all WTO members, which makes it the biggest (and very effective, let's admit) dispute settling platform worldwide. ICSID is the first and most popular mixed arbitration allowing a non-state party (an investor) to be a party to a dispute. And finally, NAFTA, even if it is on a substantial level complementing the WTO agreements, represents their competitive version on the...

Can international institutions work independently from the great powers in terms of autonomy and independence? To answer the question, this thesis analyzes 197 concluded arbitration cases and the Convention of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). But why the ICSID? Trade liberalization has long been sought by almost all the countries under multilateralism represented by the GATT and its successor, the WTO. However, due mainly to slow and laborious decision making, proceedings for dispute settlement and acquiring mandatory consent from all the member countries under the WTO, states -especially great economic powers - began to turn to Free Trade Agreements(FTAs) toavoid such problems. Most of the FTAs include Bilateral Investment Treaties and investment dispute settlement provisions. When investment disputes arise, the parties can resolve them bilaterally or they may bring their cases to an international dispute settlement institution. The ICSID is one of leading dispute settlement institutions in the field of international investments. Since the late 1990s, the cases argued at and the references to the ICSID began to increase sharply indicating that states have begun to perceive the ICSID as more important. So I analyzed the ICSID in terms of its autonomy and independence. The findings are as follows.Throughout the Articles of the ICSID Convention, the ICSID endeavors to keep its autonomy and independence. Although there are more arbitrators from developing countries than developed countries in the arbitration panel, developed country arbitrators have been selected more frequently as members of arbitration Tribunals of the ICSID. But the compositions of the Tribunals do not affect the winning rate especially fordeveloped country in the arbitrations. Although the durations of the arbitration proceedings vary in each party category, developing countries tend to show their lack of legal capacities and monetary shortage, especially needed for the due process procedures in arbitrations. As for compliance to ICSID awards, almost all the Contracting Statesfollowed the awards except for some cases, especially Argentine ones. In general, the ICSID has maintained its autonomy and independence though there also is some evidence and some cases where this argument is not supported. Asmore pending cases turn to concluded ones, there will be more cases available for furtherresearch on the ICSID.

En los últimos años, se ha dado un proceso de alejamiento de ciertos países sudamericanos del Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias relativas a Inversiones - CIADI, como son Venezuela, Bolivia y Ecuador, por diversos factores políticos y jurídicos. En ese contexto, la presente tesis identifica y analiza las combinaciones posibles que derivan de la posibilidad de denuncia de un Estado miembro al Convenio CIADI y que paralelamente denuncie o no a los Acuerdos Internacionales de Inversión que remiten al mencionado Centro como foro de solución de controversias, así como la terminación de tratados a partir de esta doble pertenencia al Convenio CIADI y a los Tratados Bilaterales de Inversión, entre otros, todo ello, con la finalidad de determinar los efectos jurídicos y desarrollar una postura crítica frente a estos sucesos sin precedente que se vienen dando, tratando de desarrollar alternativas distintas al CIADI, tanto a nivel mundial, como regional, en virtud, que a pesar, de las denuncias al Convenio CIADI y a los tratados de inversión que remiten las controversias a este Centro, es viable su remisión, debido a la existencia de cláusulas de supervivencia, acuerdos de las partes, mecanismos complementarios existentes y la cláusula de la Nación más Favorecida - NMF, conforme acontece en los casos arbitrales estudiados, donde los Tribunales Arbitrales del CIADI al amparo del principio Kompetenz – Kompetenz han declarado su competencia, generando una serie de interrogantes respecto al futuro del Arbitraje Internacional de Inversiones en el CIADI y creando precedentes para estudios futuros debido a lo novísimo del tema. / Tesis

Pour assurer une croissance économique durable, le Maroc mobilise diverses sources de financement telles que les investissements directs étrangers. Parmi les déterminants de ceux-ci, il y a la stabilité politique, dont le Maroc est un modèle, mais aussi, l’existence d’un corpus de normes, facilitant leur réalisation. Par ces facilités, il s’agit d’instaurer une véritable politique d’attractivité. A cet effet, différents instruments juridiques, tantôt restrictifs, tantôt libéraux, ont été adoptés depuis l’indépendance, selon la méfiance, légitime, que peuvent, en certaines circonstances, susciter les capitaux étrangers. Ces instruments, qui constituent en définitive le droit marocain des investissements étrangers, vont des dispositions de droit commun, aux dispositions spéciales, en passant par les instruments conventionnels multilatéraux et bilatéraux. Cette étude, sans épuiser le sujet, réalise une présentation dynamique de ces instruments en deux axes. Le premier appréhende la richesse du dispositif normatif de l’accueil de l’investissement étranger ; le second met en articulation les moyens d’une sortie, qu’elle soit contentieuse ou non / To ensure sustainable economic growth, Morocco mobilizes various funding resources such as foreign direct investments. Among the determinants of these), there is political stability, of which Morocco is a model, but also the existence of legal standards making their realization easier. By these facilities, is real policy of attractiveness is aimed. For that purpose, various legal instruments, sometimes restrictive, sometimes liberal, have been adopted since the independence, according to legitimate concerns that foreign capital may raise in certain circumstances. These instruments, which ultimately constitute the Moroccan foreign investment lax, vary from general and special provisions to multilateral and bilateral conventional instruments. This study, without exhausting the subject, makes a dynamic presentation of these instruments regarding two main dimensions of an investment process: entry and exit. The first captures the richness of the normative framework related to foreign investments’ reception, whereas the second highlights in case of their exit, either contentious or not

The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), has seen an increased transparency in the past couple of decades. The participation of third parties in the proceedings and the disclosure of documents or information regarding the arbitrations are some of the most important and controversial issues regarding transparency nowadays. The purpose of this thesis is to analyze the evolution of transparency in ICSID, as well as specific cases that dealt with issues of third party participation and the disclosure of documents or information in investment treaty arbitration, and analyze the decisions taken by the tribunals. The evolution of transparency within the history of ICSID allows us to see the principal amendments made, and how transparency has been evolving in favor of investment treaty arbitration, providing more confidence, openness and legitimacy on this system of dispute resolution. Nevertheless, transparency is not a panacea. Excessive transparency might bring more challenges than benefits, depending on the circumstances on a case-by-case basis, therefore, it is necessary to consider the effects that transparency may produce in investment treaty arbitration, and find a right balance with elements such as confidentiality, the power of the tribunals and the will of the disputing parties in the arbitration, among others. This thesis proposed that even if there is always space for improvements, the evolution of transparency has reach a limit where further changes would be futile and prejudicial for the system of investment treaty arbitration. This would bring a series of challenges, such as, an extra burden to the disputing parties, a delay on the proceedings, and in certain cases leaving the result of the arbitration in hands of the public scrutiny, the media or turning the dispute in a political matter.

This research examines and critically analyses to what extent the host states might use their sovereignty in a manner that may be counterproductive to the interests of foreign investors on their territory; and the role played by international investment law in its regulation. Further, it considers the extent to which investor-state arbitration, under both the inter-state bilateral investment treaty (BIT), and investment contract, can be used to rebalance the uneven investment relationship arising from the adverse effect of host state sovereignty. The importance of the investor-state arbitration is based on the fact that such a process will be of no value if its award is not enforceable against sovereigns. It is therefore argued that arbitration enforcement against states must be augmented by further safeguards mechanisms. Challenges are faced by international investment law to minimise the possible adverse effect of host state’s sovereignty, in order to require states to respect investment agreements. Responsibility will be asserted by a wronged foreign investor if the state breaches customary international law when it hosts the foreign investment and if there is a violation of the specific investment agreement. Such challenges expose the limitations on how states can use their sovereign powers (whether legal, economic or political), against foreign investors and question the clarity of such boundaries. An unsuccessful litigant state will often seek to resist award enforcement, claiming sovereign immunity against its execution. International investment law and applicable national and regional bodies must find a balance between the interests of the foreign investor and the host state. This research concludes that the adjudication system used in England provides a framework in which a foreign investor can seek recognition of its claim and thus enforce a foreign arbitral award against recalcitrant states, but improvements could still be made as explained in thesis.

The manifest excess of powers is one of the most invoked grounds for annulment in ICSID Arbitration. This thesis analyzes the main problems on this issue.