International investment law has become increasingly prominent in the international legal order. This thesis explores specific and topical problem of international expropriation law, with the main focus on the vast network of international investment agreements (IIAs) supplemented by the general rules of international law. The thesis traces the context and evolution of the protection of foreign investments in response to the transformation of state liability in international law. Particular consideration is given to the relationship between the International Minimum Standard (IMS) and the Calvo Doctrine as two clashing descriptive statements of customary international law governing the treatment of foreigners and their assets. With the onset of the BIT generation, the economical accountability of states is examined in compliance with the scope and conditions defined in clauses and provisions of the contemporary investment treaties. In addition, the thesis focuses on the substantive protection accorded to foreign investors and investments. The aim is to identify the limits of the state's right to expropriate foreign investments by imposing legality requirements standard. The requirements for lawful expropriation are addressed with a thorough examination of jurisprudence of international courts and...

Les deux disciplines juridiques, l'arbitrage et la fiscalité, sont traditionnellement considérées comme distinctes, et s'excluent l'une et l'autre.D’un côté, la souveraineté fiscale est primordiale pour l’Etat. De l’autre côté, l’arbitre, étant un juge privé, a toujours été soupçonné, à tort ou à raison, de ne pas être assez sensible à l’intérêt public. Cependant, les développements observés sur les dernières décennies ont prouvé que cette incompatibilité entre les deux disciplines n’était pas ou plus le cas.En effet, avec la mondialisation économique, l’enjeu de l’Etat n’est plus comment taxer ses contribuables mais comment les conserver voire attirer ceux des autres Etats sur son territoire. Dans ce contexte, ils deviennent plus souples quant au règlement des litiges impliquant des questions fiscales. L’arbitrage de ces litiges est donc devenu une réalité en pratique. Cependant, en examinant le droit et la jurisprudence en cette matière, nous constatons que l’arbitrage n’est pas apte à résoudre tous litiges fiscaux, notamment en considérant les intérêts des contribuables. L’arbitrage des contentieux purement fiscaux en droit interne s’est avéré être un échec. Une forme dérivée de l’arbitrage, appelée l’arbitrage de la dernière offre, semble être plus appropriée pour résoudre les litiges concernant la double imposition. Toutefois, en droit de l’investissement international, où la jurisprudence arbitrale en matière fiscale s’est considérablement développée depuis une vingtaine années, nous constatant que l’arbitrage est un mode idéal pour résoudre des litiges fiscaux liés à ce domaine car les arbitres ont su trouver un équilibre entre la protection de la souveraineté fiscale de l’Etat d’accueil et la protection des contribuables –investisseurs étrangers. / The two disciplines, arbitration and taxation, are traditionally considered to be distinct, and exclude one another. On the one hand, tax sovereignty is vital for the state. On the other hand, arbitrator, being a private judge, has always been suspected, rightly or wrongly, of not being sufficiently sensitive to the public interest. However, the developments observed over the last decades have shown that this incompatibility between the two disciplines was not or is no longer the case. Indeed, with economic globalization, the challenge of the state is no longer how to tax its taxpayers but how to keep them in or even to attract those of other states to its territory. In this context, states become more flexible in resolving disputes involving tax issues. Arbitration of these disputes has thus become a reality in practice. However, in reviewing the law and the jurisprudence, we find that arbitration is not suitable for resolving all kinds of tax disputes, especially considering the interests of taxpayers. Arbitration of tax disputes in domestic law has been proved to be a failure. A form derived from arbitration, called baseball arbitration, appears to be more appropriate for resolving double taxation disputes. However, in international investment law, where the jurisprudence in tax matters has developed considerably over the past twenty years, we find that arbitration is an ideal way to resolve tax disputes related to this area, because arbitrators, in their practice, have found a balance between the protection of the host State's tax sovereignty and the protection of taxpayers-foreign investors

Economic globalization, the liberalization of markets, and the opening of once closed societies have all heralded the remarkable emergence of the current system of investment treaty arbitration. The current system, however, has attracted significant criticism and calls for reform. This thesis reviews the historical employment of arbitration in international society and the circumstances that lead to the emergence of the current system of investor-state dispute settlement. Following this, two recent proposals for reform of the current system are outlined: the creation of an international court of investment and the implementation of appellate mechanisms for investment treaty arbitration. The thesis concludes by offering an assessment of these proposals and argues for the rejection of the proposal to replace the current system with an international investment court, but offers a cautious endorsement of appellate mechanisms. / Graduate

La relation dialectique qui unit les traités bilatéraux d’investissement et la jurisprudence du Centre International de Règlement des Différends relatifs aux Investissements (CIRDI) a fait émerger un droit international des investissements. La rencontre de ces deux dynamiques a permis de dépasser leur caractère a priori isolé et fragmenté, pour aboutir à un véritable système juridique international, doté d’une structure, d’une logique et de principes propres. En effet, rien ne pouvait laisser envisager une telle évolution, le régime de l’investissement international se fondant sur une multitude de traités bilatéraux et sur une instance arbitrale ne faisant qu’héberger des tribunaux éphémères. Les mouvements de va-et-vient qui unissaient ces deux phénomènes ont permis de lui donner des normes quasi-universelles, mais aussi un véritable juge à la compétence extensive et surtout de lui insuffler l’unité, l’efficacité, la cohérence et la complétude, faisant de plus en plus ressembler le droit international des investissements à un véritable ordre juridique qui, même s’il relève du droit international, lui permet également d’évoluer. / The relashionship between bilateral investment treaties and the case-law of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) has led to the emergence of international investment law. It seems surprising, at first, that these two distinct phenomena, being isolated and fragmented, would reach a certain degree of unity so that a real international legal order could appear, with its own structure, reasoning and principles. No one could foresee such an evolution, the regime of international investment being founded on a large number of bilateral treaties and on an international institution which only provides facilities for arbitration of international investment disputes. The unity of the system has been discovered through the back and forth movements between treaties and arbitration which gave rise to international investment law. This system has now almost universal norms, an international judge and satisfies the criteria of unity, efficiency, consistency and completeness, producing a real legal order functioning in accordance with its own logic. There is no doubt that this evolution will influence the course of international law.

Foreign Investment Protection One of the signs of globalization is the flow of foreign investment, which continually increases. Because of the benefit that it can bring, there is an interest in its protection. The purpose of my thesis is to analyse the protection of foreign investment in the Czech Republic, focusing on dispute resolution. The first chapter deals with the definition of foreign investment. It is focused on this legal term in multilateral international agreements and bilateral investment treaties. The second chapter contains the sources of relevant law. The main part of the thesis is the third chapter. It characterises the concept of resolving disputes in the field of investment. The first part of the chapter describes litigation between states especially within the framework of the World Trade Organisation. The second part explains the resolution of conflicts between the investor and the target State though the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and it examines particular provisions of the ICSID Convention. The third section of the chapter is focused on investment disputes brought before the arbitration body. The majority of bilateral investment treaties refers to the arbitration rules of UNCITRAL, which regulates the procedure. The text also discusses...

(English) In the field of international law, the negotiated agreement between the EU and the US - TTIP - is a major source of law. In addition, its intended scope should encompass the provisions on investment protection. However, during the course of the bilateral negotiations, there was a leak of information which revealed that the agreement should include provisions of the dispute settlement mechanism that do not differ in its substantial aspects from those which are and have been incorporated into bilateral investment agreements between States. Therefore, in the process of investment disputes initiated under the TTIP agreement, the major influence would have had the provisions of international conventions which set out the rules for the functioning of the International Investment Tribunals - the Convention of the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes and the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. However, given that both the general public and professional circles have long expressed concerns that question the very legitimacy of the international investment arbitration, this fact have been accepted with great disrespect. This was particularly, because of the previous practice of decision-making in the investment disputes, which...

An issue in investment treaty arbitration is the extreme effort needed to obtain recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award. Even though the 1958 New York Convention was signed to simplify the process of recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, in the new digital world, the recognition and enforceability risks of authenticating an investment treaty arbitral award need to be reconsidered. Ultimately, it is the enforceability of the award that gives credence to the entire arbitration process and justifies the costs and time that the parties of a dispute have invested in the resolution process. Thus, upcoming technologies like blockchain could be a part of the future in Investment Treaty Arbitration (ITA) to provide more efficiency and benefits for the rendering an arbitral award. With blockchain, ITA awards could be rooted in digital code, stored in a transparent platform, and protected from removal, tampering, and modification, resolving the necessity to prove the existence of a duly rendered award, previnting additional costs and procedures. The thesis discusses how blockchain could solve recognition and enforcement issues in an investor-state dispute resolution (ISDS) scenario. It introduces legal aspects of the possible application of blockchain technology in investment treaty disputes. It has the purpose to study the possible benefits that blockchain could bring to Investment Treaty Arbitration with particular attention to the recognition and enforcement of investment treaty arbitration awards. The peculiarity of blockchain technology is that it might represent an opportunity to restructure the investments protection paradigm by implementing a trustworthy, transparent, more affordable, highly standardized, time-stamped and automated recognition and enforcement of ITA arbitral awards. Finally, blockchain might not be the solution to all the problems of ISDS. However, it offers a foundation that can bring a new entire value chain by guaranteeing immediate recognition and enforceability of arbitral awards and getting rid of the deficiencies that the actual system has. This would give more legal certainty to the parties of the ITA in the recognition and enforcement of award on investor-state disputes.

In 2014 Russia took control over Crimea, and significant numbers of Ukrainian investors pursued investment claims against Russia regarding investments in Crimea made prior to the annexation.Thus, a fundamental concern is the applicability of the Ukraine-Russia BIT to such investments.The BIT empowers Ukrainian investors to initiate arbitration for compensation if Russia expropriates any Ukrainian investments on its territory. In order for the investors’ capital in Crimea to qualify as “investments” under the BIT, the tribunals had to determine whether Crimea constituted a part of the Russian “territory”. Even though Crimea was de facto controlled byRussia, de jure the Russian sovereignty over it had been questioned. As of time of the Thesis at least 10 cases were initiated and in seven of which decisions on responsibility and compensation were made. Investors are now enforcing the decisions in different jurisdictions facing jurisdictional challenges from Russia`s side. In 2019, Russia changed the strategy deciding to actively participate in the cases, which may play a decisive role on further developments of the disputes. The paper will examine whether investment tribunals in the Crimean cases have authority to hear them and the award to stand during set-aside/enforcement proceedings from the perspective of different enforcing jurisdictions, as well various litigation tactics and strategies presented by Russia.

The past few decades have seen a veritable explosion of investment treaty and other arbitration claims brought against States. Many of these claims have been heard through ICSID arbitration. In comparison to other arbitration frameworks, the ICSID regime has its own self-contained rules for enforcement. Thus, given the significant increase in arbitration claims against States, on the one hand, and States’ not too seldom invoking of the defence of sovereign immunity, on the other hand, this treatise is timely in addressing various outstanding issues that award-creditors have and will continue to encounter when dealing with defaulting States.   The doctrine of sovereign immunity translates into the conventional wisdom that a State cannot be sued without its consent in foreign courts. This doctrine derives from the practical consequence that the sovereign makes the law, and consequently can break it too. This idea is an extension of primarily the common law doctrine to the international plane, which emerged largely as a result of international comity.[1] This concept is also based upon principles ‘equality’ in terms of ‘equal sovereign status’. Some authors even call it ‘independence’ and ‘dignity’ etc., In this respect, the ICJ has also held that it was equality, that is the basis, i.e. justification for the general rule of immunity.   The theory of immunity has gradually shifted from absolute to restrictive immunity, making it significantly easier for award-creditors to enforce an arbitral award. However, the barrier vis-à-vis immunity from execution makes the last link in ITA vulnerable. This evolution has made substantially an easier task for award-creditors in ITA and ISDS holding an arbitration award against a sovereign State. In view of this relatively at ease syndrome that award-creditors now possess, the immunity protections granted to State and its assets will be accessed albeit the proportionality test of acta jure imperii (i.e. sovereign or government purpose) &amp; acta jure gestionis (i.e. commercial or mixed purpose) and the measurement standard applied to such tests is UNSCI 2004, which are now largely constituting States customary international law.   Ultimately, to the author’s opinion, the value of international arbitration (‘ITA and ISDS’) as a means and ends of solving disputes is dependent upon the extent to which arbitral awards are honoured and enforced. In this light, the author can vociferously say that sovereign immunity remains a significant impediment against award-creditors seeking to enforce arbitral awards against unwilling States. The barrier is not one that will fade away. Thus, outstanding award-creditors could be advised to exercise some pressure through alternate and viable forms of enforcement measures. Therefore, the States should not stand-alone to shield their commercial assets from enforcement, attachment and execution, especially for de minimis sovereign purposes.[2]  [1] R Doak Bishop (ed), Enforcement of Arbitral Awards against Sovereigns (JurisNet, LLC Publ 2009). [2] R Doak Bishop (ed), Enforcement of Arbitral Awards against Sovereigns (JurisNet, LLC Publ 2009). / <p>My thesis opposition was done through virtual presentation in Zoom. </p>

The past few decades have seen a veritable explosion of investment treaty and other arbitration claims brought against States. Many of these claims have been heard through ICSID arbitration. In comparison to other arbitration frameworks, the ICSID regime has its own self-contained rules for enforcement. Thus, given the significant increase in arbitration claims against States, on the one hand, and States’ not too seldom invoking of the defence of sovereign immunity, on the other hand, this treatise is timely in addressing various outstanding issues that award-creditors have and will continue to encounter when dealing with defaulting States.   The doctrine of sovereign immunity translates into the conventional wisdom that a State cannot be sued without its consent in foreign courts. This doctrine derives from the practical consequence that the sovereign makes the law, and consequently can break it too. This idea is an extension of primarily the common law doctrine to the international plane, which emerged largely as a result of international comity.[1] This concept is also based upon principles ‘equality’ in terms of ‘equal sovereign status’. Some authors even call it ‘independence’ and ‘dignity’ etc., In this respect, the ICJ has also held that it was equality, that is the basis, i.e. justification for the general rule of immunity.   The theory of immunity has gradually shifted from absolute to restrictive immunity, making it significantly easier for award-creditors to enforce an arbitral award. However, the barrier vis-à-vis immunity from execution makes the last link in ITA vulnerable. This evolution has made substantially an easier task for award-creditors in ITA and ISDS holding an arbitration award against a sovereign State. In view of this relatively at ease syndrome that award-creditors now possess, the immunity protections granted to State and its assets will be accessed albeit the proportionality test of acta jure imperii (i.e. sovereign or government purpose) &amp; acta jure gestionis (i.e. commercial or mixed purpose) and the measurement standard applied to such tests is UNSCI 2004, which are now largely constituting States customary international law.   Ultimately, to the author’s opinion, the value of international arbitration (‘ITA and ISDS’) as a means and ends of solving disputes is dependent upon the extent to which arbitral awards are honoured and enforced. In this light, the author can vociferously say that sovereign immunity remains a significant impediment against award-creditors seeking to enforce arbitral awards against unwilling States. The barrier is not one that will fade away. Thus, outstanding award-creditors could be advised to exercise some pressure through alternate and viable forms of enforcement measures. Therefore, the States should not stand-alone to shield their commercial assets from enforcement, attachment and execution, especially for de minimis sovereign purposes.[2] [1] R Doak Bishop (ed), Enforcement of Arbitral Awards against Sovereigns (JurisNet, LLC Publ 2009). [2] Bishop (n 1).