Bien qu’elles soient nécessaires et d’intérêt public, les mesures mises en place par les États pour faire face à la pandémie de Covid-19 peuvent être remises en cause par les investisseurs étrangers, alléguant qu’elles violent leurs droits protégés par les accords internationaux d’investissement, occasionnant ainsi un risque sans précédent d’arbitrages en matière d’investissement découlant de plus de 3.300 traités conclus dans le monde en la matière. La présente étude a pour objectif d’examiner l’incidence de l’arbitrage Investisseur-État sur l’action étatique en période de crise sanitaire. Concrètement, nous allons analyser les réclamations potentielles qui pourraient être portées par les investisseurs étrangers contre les États pour des mesures prises en vue de faire face à la crise sanitaire, ainsi que les défenses que les États pourraient opposer à ces réclamations. Il s’agira de voir s’il existe dans les accords internationaux d’investissement ou en droit international coutumier des exceptions ou défenses permettant aux États de prendre des mesures de sauvegarde dans l’intérêt général en période de crise sans engager leur responsabilité. / Although necessary and in the public interest, state responses to the Covid-19 pandemic can be challenged by foreign investors as violating their rights under international investment agreements, creating an unprecedented risk of investment arbitration arising from the more than 3,300 investment treaties in force worldwide. The objective of this study is to examine the impact of investor-state arbitration on state action in times of health crises. Specifically, we will analyse the potential claims that could be brought by foreign investors against states for actions taken in response to the health crisis, as well as the defences that states could raise against such claims. The aim will be to see whether there are any exceptions or defences in international investment agreements or customary international law that allow states to take safeguard measures in the public interest during a crisis without incurring liability.

The Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (CCOFTA) came into force in August 2011 amidst concerns that the provisions protecting Canadian investment in Colombia could exacerbate the precarious human rights situation. The Agreement concerning Annual Reports on Human Rights and Free Trade between Canada and Colombia was negotiated to address such concerns by enshrining the first ever human rights impact assessment (HRIA) of a free trade and investment agreement (TIA) in an internationally binding instrument. This thesis builds on a growing body of international legal scholarship that has considered the duty of home states of private investors to regulate their activity in the host state so as to prevent them from causing or contributing to human rights and environmental harm. It examines state obligations found in human rights, environmental and general principles of international law to propose that while an obligation might exist for the home state to exercise unilateral regulation of its investors, in the presence of a TIA that could cause or enable private human rights or environmental harm, investor regulation through the TIA can be seen as duty for both the home and host states. In view of the absence of such regulation in the CCOFTA, this thesis will consider if the annual HRIA mechanism is an alternative for preventing human rights and environmental harm caused or enabled by the TIA. It is submitted that while HRIAs of TIAs are a novel concept for which little international practice exists, this mechanism has the capacity to provide concrete evidence of human rights or environmental harm caused or enabled by the TIA, but only if based on a methodological model that uses existing state international human rights law obligations as indicators to measure a change in the human rights situation, draws unequivocal causal links between the investment protection provisions and human rights indicators, and allows for broad public participation, especially from the most marginalized and underrepresented groups in the host state to validate its methodology and findings. While under international law all investment-exporting states might have a duty to conduct HRIA on the effects of a proposed TIA as part of the due diligence to prevent transnational harm, the enshrinement of such assessments in an internationally binding instrument triggers a duty for the home state to, on one hand use the HRIA mechanism to prevent transnational human rights or environmental harm and, on the other hand, structure its annual assessments according to the described model in order to give effect to the duty to prevent. Broad and inclusive participation of the local affected communities from the host state in the HRIA becomes an integral component of the home state duty to prevent that can be expected to reveal any negative effects on the human rights situation from the TIA provisions, as well as the type of action required from both states parties to address them.

The Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (CCOFTA) came into force in August 2011 amidst concerns that the provisions protecting Canadian investment in Colombia could exacerbate the precarious human rights situation. The Agreement concerning Annual Reports on Human Rights and Free Trade between Canada and Colombia was negotiated to address such concerns by enshrining the first ever human rights impact assessment (HRIA) of a free trade and investment agreement (TIA) in an internationally binding instrument. This thesis builds on a growing body of international legal scholarship that has considered the duty of home states of private investors to regulate their activity in the host state so as to prevent them from causing or contributing to human rights and environmental harm. It examines state obligations found in human rights, environmental and general principles of international law to propose that while an obligation might exist for the home state to exercise unilateral regulation of its investors, in the presence of a TIA that could cause or enable private human rights or environmental harm, investor regulation through the TIA can be seen as duty for both the home and host states. In view of the absence of such regulation in the CCOFTA, this thesis will consider if the annual HRIA mechanism is an alternative for preventing human rights and environmental harm caused or enabled by the TIA. It is submitted that while HRIAs of TIAs are a novel concept for which little international practice exists, this mechanism has the capacity to provide concrete evidence of human rights or environmental harm caused or enabled by the TIA, but only if based on a methodological model that uses existing state international human rights law obligations as indicators to measure a change in the human rights situation, draws unequivocal causal links between the investment protection provisions and human rights indicators, and allows for broad public participation, especially from the most marginalized and underrepresented groups in the host state to validate its methodology and findings. While under international law all investment-exporting states might have a duty to conduct HRIA on the effects of a proposed TIA as part of the due diligence to prevent transnational harm, the enshrinement of such assessments in an internationally binding instrument triggers a duty for the home state to, on one hand use the HRIA mechanism to prevent transnational human rights or environmental harm and, on the other hand, structure its annual assessments according to the described model in order to give effect to the duty to prevent. Broad and inclusive participation of the local affected communities from the host state in the HRIA becomes an integral component of the home state duty to prevent that can be expected to reveal any negative effects on the human rights situation from the TIA provisions, as well as the type of action required from both states parties to address them.

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.

The relationship between international investment agreements and EU law has attracted increased attention in past few years. The aim of this thesis is to bring a detailed analysis of various aspects of this complicated relationship. In attainment of this aim it proceeds in the following steps. After a short introduction (Chapter I.), Chapter II. briefly overviews typical content of bilateral investment treaties, following with a more detailed analysis of relevant EU law rules concerning foreign investment and subsequent comparison of both sets of rules. Chapter III. deals with investment agreements to be concluded by the EU, in particular with questions of external competence for foreign investment, responsibility for breaches of investment agreements concluded by the EU and the future shape of EU investment policy. The status of existing bilateral investment treaties concluded between EU member states and third countries is analyzed in Chapter IV. Chapter V. tackles various issues related to investment treaties concluded between member states (so called intra-EU BITs).

Investment Policy of the European Union - protection of foreign direct investment Abstract One of the changes brought about by the Lisbon Treaty is the explicit inclusion of foreign direct investment and its protection in the common commercial policy of the European Union. This is one of the areas of exclusive competence of the EU. The European Union has subsequently stated negotiating bilateral agreements governing, inter alia, investment issues. However, it has not been spared from controversy and negative publicity that has been accompanying especially the TTIP and the CETA. This work aims to analyse the investment policy of the EU and mutual interaction of its institutions with the Member States and third parties. After general introduction to the topic of international investment law and EU law (chapters II. and III.), it is devoted to the issue of protection of foreign investment in the internal market. Its regime is then compared with the BIT regime (chapter IV.). Attention is then focussed towards the EU's external relations in the field of investment protection. Its competence is subjected to further analysis (chapter V.) and current results of efforts of the Commission and the EU as such are also discussed (chapter VI.). It is so in the light of possible impacts of foreign investment in terms of...