Le droit des investissements internationaux est largement présenté au travers de la jurisprudence arbitrale, notamment celle du CIRDI. Une telle approche a paru insuffisante. En effet, dans l'examen des questions touchant le droit des investissements internationaux, la jurisprudence de la CIJ et de sa devancière semble être un passage obligé à certains égards. S'agissant de règles primaires, c’est dans la jurisprudence de la Cour qu’ont émergé et pris forme certaines règles substantielles relatives aux investissements internationaux, et dont la désuétude est loin d'être établie par l'avènement du CIRDI. Par ailleurs, le rôle général de la Cour dans le fonctionnement de l'ordre juridique international à travers les règles juridictionnelles, procédurales, d’interprétation ou encore de responsabilité internationale, est indéniable. Or, certaines de ces règles se présentent comme des chapitres incontournables du droit des investissements internationaux. Ce sont là autant de raisons qui ont conduit à entreprendre une étude sur Le droit des investissements internationaux vu par la CIJ et le CIRDI en l’abordant au travers de la question de savoir si les tribunaux CIRDI puisent dans l’héritage de la Cour sur les problématiques juridiques relatives aux investissements internationaux ou s’en départissent. La confrontation des jurisprudences de la Cour et des tribunaux CIRDI a permis de conclure que le droit des investissements internationaux vu par la CIJ n’est que partiellement le droit des investissements internationaux vu par les tribunaux CIRDI. Globalement, sur une problématique donnée, en même temps que certaines solutions retenues par la jurisprudence des tribunaux CIRDI dénotent un emprunt aux règles et principes posés par la Cour, d’autres s’en départissent, qu'il s'agisse des règles primaires en la matière, ou bien des règles secondaires du droit international dans leur déclinaison dans le cadre du droit des investissements internationaux. Parce qu’elle livre, entre autres, une vue d’ensemble de la jurisprudence de la Cour de la Haye en matière d’investissements internationaux – démarche inédite –, la thèse se présente comme une piste pour les arbitres sur le chemin de l’émergence d’une jurisprudence arbitrale cohérente en droit des investissements internationaux. / To international investment law questions, the ICJ decisions are materials that must be taken into consideration. Indeed, substantive rules in international investment law and their issues are older than the ICSID creation. The legal issues had already been raised in the Court which set rules and principles covering international investment law principles. Thus, it is into the Court’s decisions that some rules relating to international investments was created. From this perspective, the ICJ cases could be seen as a legitimate forerunner for substantive rules in international investment law. In the other hand, the ICJ has a main role in the development and promotion of the rules of international litigation, some of which are of relevance in international investment law. The present work, by using the ICJ cases as guidance precedents, challenges the ICSID decisions to determine if the ICSID follows or not the rules and principles raised by the Court in international investment law. The analysis shows that if some ICSID decisions borrow the principles and rules established by the ICJ, others follow new ways in both primary and secondary rules in international investment law.

由於中國大陸對企業境內上市的嚴苛要求與外商投資的產業限制，新興互聯網企業不得不訴諸境外上市融資。根據美國會計準則關於「可變利益實體」的規定，新浪網開創以搭建可變利益實體架構實現境外上市的模式成為21世紀初中國大陸互聯網及其他產業上市融資的不二選擇。可變利益實體架構中，境外上市主體與境內運營實體通過協議達成控制關係，將後者營運狀況併入前者財報，滿足其境外上市條件。近年中，支付寶違約、沃爾瑪併購1號店等事件引發法律界、財經界對VIE架構的關注。2015年來，《中華人民共和國外國投資法（草案徵求意見稿）》的公佈，《工業和信息化部關於放開線上資料處理與交易處理業務（經營類電子商務）外資股比限制的通告》（簡稱「工信部196號文」）的公佈，以「暴風科技」為代表的紅籌股回歸現象，都給VIE架構帶來變局。 本文從VIE架構的產生背景出發，梳理其發展狀況，釐清其概念，歸納其特點，分析其所涉法律問題與風險，探討其監管設計，意圖使讀者對中國大陸協議控制下的可變利益實體架構這一法律現象有全面的把握。

Cette thèse porte sur deux espaces juridiques différents : celui des droits de l’homme et celui des investissements étrangers. Le centre de gravité de notre recherche étant défini géographiquement en Amérique latine, le but est d’analyser l’articulation de ces deux espaces juridiques en identifiant et étudiant la circulation normative dans sa dimension horizontale, c'est-à-dire reposant sur le cadre normatif international. L’interaction entre le droit international des investissements et les droits de l’homme est une problématique récente, qui a commencé à attirer l’attention de la communauté internationale et a mis en évidence les avantages et les limites de leur articulation. En effet, les États sont tenus de protéger, respecter et garantir tous les droits de l’homme indépendamment des classifications dont ils font l’objet. Concomitamment, les Etats doivent aussi suivre les obligations relatives aux investissements étrangers déduites des accords en la matière. Le respect de ces deux types d’obligations peut opérer sans poser de problèmes de coordination, ou, au contraire, dans certaines hypothèses, une concurrence de ces deux types d’engagements peut apparaître. De ce fait, l’identification de leurs points de rencontre ainsi que de leurs points d’achoppement devra être menée pour atteindre l’objectif principal de notre analyse défini par l’articulation de ces deux domaines du droit international. La pratique témoigne des implications que les activités d’investissements ont de temps en temps vis-à-vis des droits de la personne, ce qui invite à analyser l’interaction entre ces deux régimes juridiques. C’est ainsi que quelques nouveaux modèles de traités d’investissements commencent à mentionner expressément la protection des droits de l’homme. De la même manière, l’arbitrage international est de plus en plus occupé par des questions concernant les points de rencontre et d’achoppement entre les deux régimes. Ainsi, la jurisprudence arbitrale traite la question, mais souvent de façon timide et hétérogène, et la plupart du temps par le biais d’interprétations privilégiant la protection des droits de l’investisseur sur toute autre question relevant des droits des différentes personnes affectées par l’investissement. La lecture de cette même situation dans l’enceinte contentieuse des droits de l’homme du système interaméricain est souvent divergente, car ceux-ci sont appliqués et interprétés en concordance avec des principes spécifiques et privilégiant l’essence humaniste qui distingue la matière. Ces divergences d’interprétation risquent de s’approfondir du fait de la spécificité des structures régionales participant à la création et au développement du droit international des investissements et des droits de l’homme. En Amérique latine, région reconnue pour ses contrastes, des approches régionales particulières se sont développées autour de la question du traitement et de la protection des étrangers par le biais des doctrines Calvo et Drago, ainsi que de l’interprétation régionale de plusieurs droits dans le cadre du système interaméricain de protection des droits de l’homme. Ces approches particulières ont bâti des traditions juridiques latino-américaines, dans les matières respectives, qui ont évolué dans le temps et se confrontent avec le cadre juridique international de l’investissement étranger. Cette situation de possible fragmentation juridique se nourrit de la création des nouveaux centres de décision et d’institutions régionaux comme l’UNASUR, l’ALBA et plus récemment la CELAC. De ce fait, elle nous invite à approfondir la question de l’articulation des régimes juridiques en l’étudiant sous le prisme de la tradition juridique latino-américaine. / This thesis addresses two different legal areas: Human Rights and foreign investment protection. The focal point of our research is Latin America, and the objective is to analyze the articulation of the above-mentioned legal areas, while identifying and studying the circulation of legal norms in their horizontal dimension, in other words, in the framework of international law. The interaction of foreign investment law and human rights is recent, and is a subject that has begun to attract the attention of the international community and to display the advantages and limits in their articulation In fact, States have to protect, respect and guarantee Human Rights, regardless of the classification they are subject to. At the same time, States must also comply with their obligations to protect foreign investment in their territories derived from international treaties that they are part of. Compliance with these two types of obligations can take place without implying any coordination problems, but in other cases, it could also cause these obligations to clash. We will aim to identify common points in both regimes, as well as conflict areas in order to determine the articulation between these two areas of international law. In fact, practice reflects the implications that investment activities sometimes have on human rights, and invites to analyze the interactions between these two regimes. This is how some new model agreements promoting and protecting foreign investment have begun to expressly refer the protection of human rights. In the same way, international arbitration has been increasingly dealing with questions concerning the common areas, as well as the diverging points of these two regimes. In effect, arbitral jurisprudence deals with this interaction, but often times in a timid and heterogeneous way, and in the majority of the cases biased by interpretations that privilege the rights of investors over any other question relative to rights of other persons affected by the investment. In light of human rights jurisprudence, this situation often receives a different understanding, due to the fact that human rights are interpreted and applied in accordance with specific principles, and placing greater importance on the humanistic essence that distinguishes the area. These differences in the interpretation may deepen, taking into account the specificity of regional structures that participate in the creation and development of international investment law and international human rights law. Concerning Latin America, bearing in mind the contrasts that depict the region, it has featured particular approaches with regard to the treatment of foreign investors, greatly influenced by the Calvo and Drago doctrines, as well as by regional interpretations within the framework of the Inter-American system of human rights. These interpretations have built Latin American legal traditions in the matter that have evolved over time, and can be evaluated against the international investment juridical framework. This landscape of possible legal fragmentation is nourished by the creations of new decision-making centers and regional institutions such as the UNASUR, ALBA, and more recently the CELAC. This question calls us to deepen the study of the articulation of these two legal regimes, under the prism of the Latin American legal tradition.

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.

We begin with a short analysis of the history of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). We then discuss the merits and demerits of the regime, such as the arguments between finality, speediness, and correctness. Following from this, historical reforms are discussed, and whether those issues have gotten worse or better since these discussions. The modern problems are discussed, leading to the explanation of the “legitimacy crisis”. As Appellate Mechanisms (AM) and Investment Court Systems (ICS) both propose multi layered systems, we argue whether ISDS must be a “one bite at the apple” system. We expand on the issues of regulatory chill, before showing the contradictions in the granting of awards. From this, a discussion is raised on the advantages of a tenured system of adjudicators, particularly in reference to their apparent bias. We delve deeper into the direct consequences of the perceived issues of ISDS, in the context of human rights, the environment, and other issues of sovereignty.As more reforms are suggested, the question of “what makes arbitration, arbitration?” is raised. From here, we may begin to suggest reforms based on which key factors are to be preserved. Firstly, we discuss current reform options, such as the Mauritius Convention. We take inspiration from existing AM, and prior discussions on the implementation of such a system across the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) frameworks. We analyse whether these discussions have led to change by comparing trends in drafting.Thereon, we offer suggestions of reform. ICS and how this would be implemented, what it would look like structurally, and its positive and negative effects. Using the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and other contemporary ICS reform suggestions, we gain some knowledge of what an ICS regime could and should look like, the implementation of AM previously discussed in this regime, and other. Finally, we offer a different solution to the problems, yet less pragmatic, the termination of arbitration.

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.

1 The Influence of EU Common Investment Policy on the System of International Investment Law Abstract Extending exclusive European Union (EU) competence to foreign direct investment (FDI) in the Lisbon Treaty has had profound implications. The EU began to develop its own investment policy, including negotiating either international investment agreements or comprehensive trade and investment agreements with third parties. Taking into account the magnitude of the EU economy and the fact that EU Member States have concluded almost 1 400 bilateral investment treaties (BITs) out of roughly 3 300 in force worldwide, the potential of European influence over the system of international investment, based principally on BITs, is enormous. The aim of this dissertation is to assess how and in which way the new EU competence changes the system. The EU investment policy has developed a specific approach towards investment protection and investment dispute mechanism which does not envision content declared at its beginning. According to initial documents such as the European Commission's Communication Towards a comprehensive European international investment policy, the Union should have followed the available best practices of the Member States. Nevertheless, during the first bilateral negotiations with Canada and...

The absence of a relevant legal basis between huge commercial partners such as the EU as a single entity and the Russian Federation promoted the emergence of a legal vacuum. The long term cooperation between Russia and the EU has only one bilateral agreement - the Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation signed in 1994, which is however obsolete, and does not meet the contemporary needs. The adequate legal basis for Russia-EU cooperation in the gas sector is still missing. The protection of investments in the gas sector is being realized by bilateral agreements between Russia and EU member states, soft law and general international agreements, without any specifications for those two partners. The only international instrument covering the energy relations of these two partners - Energy Charter Treaty cannot be considered as a reliable mechanism, as Russia withdrew from it more than 8 years ago. The reasons of the withdrawal and the Yukos case as an illustrative example are discussed in this paper. In order to avoid uncertainty in such strategic area as gas investment relations and unpredictable decisions between the states represented by the commercial entities, there is a need to design a substantive legal basis, and a need to consider on the adequate dispute resolution body. In this thesis, key...