Cette étude aborde la problématique de la participation des personnes morales de droit public à l’arbitrage à l’occasion des litiges relatifs aux relations qu’elles entretiennent avec les personnes privées étrangères. Par opportunisme économique, un certain nombre de pays développés et en développement se montrent tout à fait favorables à ce que l’État se soumette au contentieux arbitral. Dans d’autres pays, tels qu’en Amérique latine et dans le monde arabe, il se manifeste des tendances nettement hostiles gravitant entre l’interdiction totale et une adhésion conditionnelle de l’État à l’arbitrage. Deux écoles s’affrontent, celle des privatistes qui considèrent l’arbitre international comme le juge naturel du milieu des affaires, face à celle des étatistes qui postulent que les juridictions étatiques demeurent les seules habiles à connaitre souverainement des litiges opposants les personnes publiques à leur interlocuteur privé. Les raisons qui sous-tendent l’assouplissement de certains gouvernements vers un élan libéral de l’arbitrage en droit public, résultent du phénomène globalisant de l’économie qui tend à réduire à néant les règles internes des États dans le cadre du nouvel ordre économique mondial. Par contre, les conséquences sociales, financières et juridiques des sentences arbitrales portent certains gouvernements à adopter une position réfractaire à l’arbitrage mettant en cause les entités publiques. Ils brandissent le droit à l’autodétermination des peuples pour éviter le bradage de leurs ressources au détriment des droits économiques, sociaux et culturels de leurs populations, et ce, en dépit du fait que l’investissement direct étranger joue un rôle considérable dans le développement des pays en émergence. Notre défi ultime dans ce travail est d’explorer les diverses avenues permettant d’atteindre un juste équilibre entre les intérêts publics et la protection des investissements privés. Ceci exige un changement de paradigme qui prendra en compte les dimensions plurielles que constitue le contentieux investisseurs-États. / This study investigates the difficulties that arise when legal disputes between public bodies and foreign private entities are resolved through arbitration. For economic expediency, some Western states and developing countries are quite open to the idea of resolving legal disputes by submitting to arbitration proceedings. Other countries, such as Latin America and the Arab world, have a clearly hostile approach to state participation in arbitration proceedings, ranging from total prohibition to conditional submission. There is a clash between two schools of thought: the privatist approach that considers international arbitration to be the business community’s natural forum, as opposed to the statist approach according to which only state courts are qualified to consider legal disputes between public bodies and private entities. The underlying reasons for the increased flexibility of certain governments in favor of a liberal move towards public law arbitration are a result of the globalizing effect of the economy, which tends to decimate domestic state laws within the framework of the new global economic order. On the other hand, the social, financial and legal consequences of arbitration awards render some governments resistant to arbitration involving public entities. They brandish the right to self-determination of peoples to guard against the depletion of their resources to the detriment of the economic, social and cultural rights of their populations. This is despite the fact that foreign direct investment plays a considerable role in the development of emerging countries. The ultimate aim of this study is to explore different avenues for striking a fair balance between public interests and the protection of private investments. This requires a paradigmatic change so as to take into account the multiple dimensions of legal disputes between the state and investors.

No description available.

No description available.

Les fonds souverains, véhicules d'investissement créés, financés et contrôlés par leur Etat d'origine, échappent à l'heure actuelle à toute qualification juridique. Leur structure et finalité souveraines, conjuguées à la nature privée de leurs activités, suscitent de nombreux débats au sein de la communauté internationale, d'autant plus que certaines de leurs opérations, dont l'opacité est régulièrement relevée, s'effectuent en dehors de leur territoire. Les percevant à la fois chevaliers blancs au secours d'un marché financier en pleine crise, et menaces à la souveraineté des nations, les Etats récepteurs de leurs investissements semblent adopter une position quelque peu ambigüe à leur égard, laquelle oscille entre libéralisme et retour à un protectionnisme latent. Ces craintes plus ou moins fantasmés dont ils font l'objet sont par ailleurs attisées par la nouvelle réalité qu'ils projettent d'un basculement du pouvoir au détriment des pays occidentaux et de l'essor d'un nouveau capitalisme d'Etat. Il importe dès lors de déterminer si les fonds souverains sont des acteurs économiques comme les autres, susceptibles de bénéficier de la protection offerte aux investisseurs étrangers, ou des représentants de l'Etat dont ils émanent. Cette question, pierre angulaire des problématiques posées par les fonds souverains, n'épuise toutefois pas l'ensemble des controverses soulevées à leur sujet, ces dernières étant particulièrement nombreuses en termes de problèmes juridiques relatifs à l'encadrement juridique qui leur serait applicable. / Sovereign wealth funds, investment vehicles created, funded and controlled by nation states, do not adhere to any clear legal status. Their public ownership and ultimate objectives, together with the private nature of their activities, most of which are confidential and international, have created much debate and controversy within the international community. Considered by many to be white knights of a financial market in crisis, sovereign wealth funds are also seen as a threat to the economic sovereignty of their host countries, which seem to adopt an ambiguous position towards them, varying between liberalism and a return to a latent protectionism. These more or less fantasized fears are exacerbated by the new reality they project: a decline in western influence and the rise of a new state capitalism in the global scene. It is therefore imperative to understand whether sovereign wealth funds are ordinary economic players that should benefit from the protection provided to international investors, or whether they represent the objectives of the nation states from which they emanate. This question is at the heart of the debates ranging around sovereign wealth funds in addition to controversies surrounding other legal aspects regarding the legal regime that would apply to them.

Magister Legum - LLM / South Africa

Magister Legum - LLM / The main objective of this paper is to critically analyse the solutions that countries are currently implementing in response to the much-debated issue that the conventional investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) regime limits a host-state's space to make regulations under public policy. Consequently, the paper makes recommendations on viable solutions that countries can implement as solutions to the ISDS problems. In order to conduct the study, this paper uses the solutions to ISDS problems that have been implemented by the Republic of South Africa (RSA) and Australia respectively. The paper also compares the solutions implemented by RSA and Australia with some internationally recognised solutions. Chapters two and three of the paper discuss the backgrounds and also analyse the solutions to ISDS that have been implemented by RSA and Australia respectively. Chapter four contains the main findings and arguments of the paper. It analyses the strengths and weaknesses of the ISDS solutions that have been implemented by RSA and Australia respectively. One of the main findings of the paper is that retaining the conventional ISDS regime is less beneficial to developing and least developed countries and more beneficial to developed countries, largely due to the differing levels of outward investments that are present in these categories of countries. The paper recommends, inter alia, that, unlike developed countries, developing countries and least-developed countries should abrogate the conventional ISDS regime and only retain it in particular circumstances as explained in chapter five. The paper recommends that ISDS should only be utilised where state-state arbitration would unnecessarily politicise an investment dispute. The paper also finds the use of domestic court as undesirable to investment disputes. The paper recommends mediation as a more balanced avenue for resolving investment disputes.

La soutenance de thèse proposée est une soutenance sur travaux qui portent sur des questions de droit comparé des sociétés, de droit européen des sociétés et de l'arbitrage international. Les travaux portant sur le droit des sociétés s'interrogent sur les développements récents en matière de liberté d'établissement des sociétés en Europe suite à la jurisprudence rendue par la Cour européenne de justice et sur l'opération des Limited liability company de droit anglais en Allemagne et des questions de droit international privé que cela soulève. Le travail sur le droit de l'arbitrage s'interroge sur le sort des traités bilatéraux d'investissement conclus entre Etats devenus Etats membres de l'Union européenne face à la politique menée par la Commission Européenne qui vise leur annulation. / The papers submitted for the viva deal with various comparative company law, European company law and international arbitration related issues. The company law papers look at the recent developments in the freedom of establishment of companies in Europe resulting from the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and at the operation of English law limited liability companies in Germany and certain of the private international law questions that arise in that context. The paper on international arbitration discusses the future of bilateral investment treaties concluded between EU member states in light of the European Commission's hostile approach to such treaties aiming at obtaining their annulment.

Submitted by Fernando Mistura (f.mistura@gmail.com) on 2011-10-10T19:43:49Z No. of bitstreams: 1 20111010 - ThesisMistura.pdf: 9859237 bytes, checksum: 549c3f8971cac6c47966b93ec2c8debc (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Gisele Isaura Hannickel (gisele.hannickel@fgv.br) on 2011-10-10T19:48:44Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 20111010 - ThesisMistura.pdf: 9859237 bytes, checksum: 549c3f8971cac6c47966b93ec2c8debc (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Gisele Isaura Hannickel (gisele.hannickel@fgv.br) on 2011-10-10T19:48:59Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 20111010 - ThesisMistura.pdf: 9859237 bytes, checksum: 549c3f8971cac6c47966b93ec2c8debc (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2011-10-11T12:42:21Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 20111010 - ThesisMistura.pdf: 9859237 bytes, checksum: 549c3f8971cac6c47966b93ec2c8debc (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011-10-07 / This dissertation has sought to identify the role of BRIC country governments in the internationalization of their firms. Drawing upon an exploratory comparative analysis of BRIC OFDI trends and policies, it contributes to further an initial understanding of this phenomenon by shedding light on how and why BRIC governments have been promoting their multinationals. For this, it analysed specific OFDI-related policies implemented by BRIC countries as a way of highlighting policy-gaps and the effects of institutional set-ups in the development of internationalized companies. The rapid rise of MNCs from BRIC countries is quite a recent phenomenon. Although they had invested abroad before, only since the early 2000s OFDI by BRIC MNCs has become substantial. BRIC MNCs are becoming major players in many industries, taking-over competitors in both developed and developing countries, and reshaping competition in many industries. In this process, BRIC governments have played an important role. While until the early 1990s, BRIC governments restricted OFDI because of a negative perspective on its effects on home economies (e.g., reduction in investments at home, exports of jobs, and constraints to the balance-of-payments), in the 2000s their perception of OFDI changed. They have become more aware of the importance of OFDI for the competitiveness of their firms and industrial upgrade. While China, and to a lesser extent India, are one step further, having already put in place a comprehensive set of specific OFDI promoting policies, Brazil and Russia have yet to take further steps in order to create an enabling environment for their companies to fully exploit the advantages of global expansion / Esta dissertação procurou identificar o papel dos governos na internacionalização produtiva de empresas dos países BRIC. Por meio de uma análise comparativa do comportamento dos investimentos diretos no exterior (IDE) destes países e dos mecanismos existentes de suporte à internacionalização das empresas, foi possível identificar as diferentes maneiras de envolvimento desses governos na internacionalização produtiva de suas empresas e apontar lacunas de políticas públicas nestes países. Destarte, esta dissertação contribui à compreensão inicial sobre como e por que os governos destes países têm promovido o desenvolvimento de multinacionais. A rápida ascensão das multinacionais dos países BRIC é um fenômeno recente. Apesar de terem investido no exterior anteriormente, apenas a partir do início dos anos 2000 que o IDE de empresas destes países tornou-se significativo. Desde então, as multinacionais dos países BRIC estão se tornando importantes players em diversas indústrias, adquirindo competidores de países desenvolvidos e em desenvolvimento, e redesenhando a concorrência em muitas indústrias globais. Neste processo, os governos dos países BRIC têm desempenhado um papel importante. Até o início dos anos 1990, o IDE era restringido porque era associado a efeitos negativos sobre as economias domésticas (como por exemplo, à redução de investimentos no país de origem, à exportação de empregos, e a problemas na balança de pagamentos). Desde o início dos anos 2000, entretanto, os governos dos países BRIC mudaram de percepção e passaram a adotar políticas favoráveis à internacionalização produtiva de empresas domésticas. Eles perceberam a importância da internacionalização para a manutenção ou expansão da competitividade das empresas domésticas em um mundo globalizado. A China, e em menor grau a Índia, estão um passo adiante, tendo já posto em prática um conjunto de instrumentos específicos que facilitam a internacionalização de suas empresas. O Brasil e a Rússia ainda têm de tomar novas medidas para criar um ambiente propício para que suas empresas possam mais facilmente explorar as vantagens da expansão global.

När en investerare vill investera utomlands finns många risker som måste beräknas, analyseras och hanteras. Utöver olika ekonomiska risker finns politiska risker. En investerare kan, för att hantera dessa politiska risker, välja att investera i en stat med vilken Sverige har ett bilateralt investeringsskyddsavtal. Dessa avtal reglerar både materiellt investeringsskydd, det vill säga hur en investerare ska behandlas, och processuellt skydd, det vill säga möjligheten för en investerare att väcka talan mot staten investeraren investerar i genom ett internationellt skiljeförfarande. Sverige har idag 66 stycken bilaterala investeringsskyddsavtal i kraft, varav tolv stycken är slutna med länder inom EU. Antalet bilaterala investeringsskyddsavtal slutna mellan EU-länder, intra-EU BIT, ökade avsevärt i och med att unionen utvidgades år 2004 och 2007. Sedan dess har avtalens förenlighet med EU-rätten diskuterats i litteraturen, i skiljedomstolar och nyligen även i EU- domstolen i det så kallade Achmea-målet. I uppsatsen kartläggs och analyseras argumenten i diskussionen om relationen mellan intra-EU BIT och EU-rätten. Vidare analyseras vilken del av investeringsskyddet som intra-EU BIT-förespråkare anser vara mest betydelsefull. Från resonemanget och analysen i uppsatsen dras slutsatsen att det är ISDS-systemet, tvistelösningssystemet där en investerare kan väcka talan mot en stat, som kan anses utgöra den mest betydelsefulla delen av investeringsskyddet i intra-EU BIT:en. Därefter analyseras huruvida ett investeringsskydd innehållande ett ISDS-förfarande kan vara förenligt med principen om ömsesidigt erkännande och förtroende. I uppsatsen konstateras att ISDS-förfarandet inte kan vara förenligt denna princip och att problematiken inte kan lösas genom en juridisk debatt utan måste diskuteras på en politiskt hög nivå. / When investing abroad, an investor is faced with many risks that need to be thoroughly analysed in order to be mitigated. Risks are not only financial, but also political. An investor may, to mitigate these risks, choose to invest in states with which Sweden has a bilateral investment treaty, a so called BIT. BIT do not only regulate treatment of the investor and the investment, which is the material investment protection; but also the jurisdictional possibility of the investor to raise charges against the state of in which the investment has taken place in case of violation of investment rights, procedural investment protection. Today, Sweden has 66 BITs in force, out of which twelve are concluded with EU member states, so called intra-EU BIT. The number of intra-EU BITs grew significantly as a result of the enlargement of the union in the year of 2004 and 2007. Since then, the agreements’ compatibility with the EU legislation has been a subject of discussion within literature, investment arbitrations and recently in the European Court of Justice in the Achmea case. This thesis aims to establish and analyse the context of the discussions flourishing the relationship between the intra-EU BITs and the EU legislation. Additionally, the author intends to identify which argumentation regarding investment protection, that by intra-EU BIT praisers is considered to be the most impactful. As a result, the conclusion of the thesis is that it is the ISDS-system, the investor- state dispute settlement, in which an investor can raise charges towards a state, that is the most valuable part of the investment protection given by the intra-EU BITs. Accordingly, it is analysed weather investment protection containing an ISDS-system can be compatible with the principle of mutual trust and recognition. In the thesis it is concluded that the ISDS-system cannot be considered to be compatible with the principle and that this problem should be debated on a high political level and cannot be solved through a legal debate.

Le droit des investissements internationaux et l'Union européenne constituent deux systèmes juridiques qui sont désormais en interaction. La convergence de ces systèmes a été révélée lors de l'entrée en vigueur du Traité de Lisbonne, qui a initié un transfert de compétence en matière d'Investissement Direct Étranger et accorde donc la compétence à l'Union européenne pour conclure de nouveaux accords d'investissement. Dans le cadre d'un chapitre préliminaire, l'analyse tente tout d'abord d'expliquer pourquoi et en quoi le droit des investissements internationaux, tel que résultant de la pratique conventionnelle bilatérale des États membres, et l'Union européenne constituent deux systèmes juridiques en interaction. La méthodologie juridique nécessaire à l'étude des manifestations de la mondialisation juridique est quant à elle décrite. Par la suite, en distinguant les aspects matériels des aspects procéduraux du droit des investissements internationaux, cette thèse s'intéresse aux évolutions des rapports de ces deux systèmes et aux résultats des interactions normatives en cours. La première partie vise à démontrer que le droit matériel des investissements internationaux a fait l’objet d’une approche de la Commission européenne, mise en place dès les années 1990. Quant au droit procédural des investissements internationaux, il ressort que ses liens avec l'Union européenne ont été plus distendus et qu'il n'a fait l’objet que d'un volet qui a été attaché à l’approche européenne du droit matériel des investissements internationaux, à partir de l'entrée en vigueur du Traité de Lisbonne.Sur ces fondements, l'analyse met en exergue le processus d’européanisation en cours du droit des investissements internationaux, qui est relatif au mode de création de la norme internationale, à son contenu et à la participation de l’Union européenne à la procédure de règlement des différends, en vertu d’une procédure arbitrale devant être construite selon la configuration investisseur tiers-Union européenne. / International investment law and the European Union constitute two legal systems that are from now on in interaction. The convergence of these systems has been revealed by the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, which has initiated a transfer of competence in the field of Foreign Direct Investment and thus grants competence to the European Union for the conclusion of new investment treaties. Within the framework of a preliminary chapter, the analysis first attempts to explain why and how international investment law, as it results from the bilateral conventional practice of Member States, and the European Union constitute two interacting legal systems. The legal methodology that is necessary for the study of the manifestations of legal globalisation is described. Subsequently, by distinguishing between the substantive and the procedural aspects of International Investment Law, this thesis focuses on the evolutions of the relations between these two systems and on the results of the ongoing normative interactions. The first part aims to demonstrate that substantial international investment law has been the object of an approach from the European Commission, put in place as soon as the 1990s. As for procedural international investment law, it appears that its links with the European Union have been more tenuous and that it has only been the object of a component which has been attached to the European approach of material international investment law, as soon as the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. On these foundations, the analysis highlights the ongoing Europeanisation process of International Investment Law, which is related to the mode of creation of the international standard, its content and the participation of the European Union in the procedure of dispute resolution, by virtue of an arbitral procedure which should be constructed according to the foreign investor-European Union configuration.