O presente trabalho trata do sistema internacional de proteção ao investimento estrangeiro direto e do atual papel desempenhado pelos países emergentes em sua sistematização. Para tanto, faz uma abordagem histórica do tema da proteção ao investimento estrangeiro desde a década de quarenta até os dias atuais. Ressaltam-se as divergências históricas de entendimento mantidas entre países desenvolvidos (usualmente exportadores de capital) e países em desenvolvimento (historicamente importadores de capital) no que pertine ao nível de proteção que deve ser garantido ao investidor estrangeiro. Após, faz uma análise dos instrumentos internacionais de proteção ao investimento estrangeiro construídos especialmente durante as décadas de setenta e noventa e demonstra que o conteúdo desses instrumentos baseou-se na supremacia do entendimento dos países desenvolvidos. Em momento posterior, analisa o surgimento dos países emergentes como nações exportadoras de capital a partir da década de noventa e como esses países estão conciliando, por meio da assinatura de tratados bilaterais de investimento, a intenção de manter a soberania sobre seus assuntos internos e o interesse de proteger seus investidores no exterior. Por fim, retrata a tradicional posição brasileira com relação ao investimento estrangeiro direto e apresenta alguns contributos para futuras reflexões, baseados especialmente na atual postura adotada por outros países emergentes no que diz respeito à assinatura de tratados bilaterais de investimento. / This paper deals with the international law on foreign direct investment and the current role played by emerging market countries on this matter. In this sense, it presents a historical approach on the protection of foreign investment from the 1940’s onwards. It focuses on the historical disagreements between developed countries (usually capital-exporting countries) and developing countries (historically capitalimporting countries) in what regards the level of protection that must be accorded to a foreign investor. Moreover, it discusses the international instruments for the protection of foreign investment designed between the 1970s and the 1990s and demonstrates that the content of such instruments is based primarily on the developed countries’ understanding of the issue. Furthermore, it analyses the rise of emerging market countries as capital exporting countries since the 1990s and how they are reconciling the will to keep their sovereignty over internal affairs and the willingness to protect their investors abroad through bilateral investment treaties. Finally, it discusses the traditional view held by Brazil on the protection of foreign direct investment and presents some contributions for further research on this issue, with an emphasis on other emerging market countries current attitude towards the signing of bilateral investment treaties.

Magister Philosophiae - MPhil / Over the years, the world economy has experienced growth in foreign direct investments (FDI), with the role of developing countries becoming more evident as both recipients and investors alike. The proliferation of international investment has also led to more bilateral investment treaties (BITs) with their complex and often duplicated rules. The increase in BITs of this complex nature has thus resuscitated a less publicly debated course, although recently discussed within the United Nations Conference for Trade and Development (UNCTAD), is there need for multilateral agreement on investment (MAI), hosted within the multilateral institution(s)? Since the late 1990s, the discussion as to whether international investments require the MAI has been characterised by diverging interests of developed and developing countries, with neither willing to concede. Even in the immediate post-War II period, this standoff between developed and developing countries has dominated a discourse on whether there is a need for an international agreement on international investment. Yet developing countries, or African countries classified as least developing, continue to be left out of MAI discussions. For example, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 1990's proposed plurilateral agreement excluded African countries.

This paper analyzes the impact of bilateral investment treaties (BITs) on sovereign bond returns of 25 emerging markets from 1993 to 2016. Under a BIT, foreign investors can use an international arbitration scheme to enforce compensation claims against the domestic government in case of direct or indirect expropriation. We focus on the so far unexplored effects of legal risk associated with BITs on sovereign creditworthiness. We find small unconditional effects of BITs on sovereign bond returns. Taking the heterogeneity of BITs and political regimes into account, we find robust and strong negative effects. In countries with high political risk of expropriation (measured by low executive constraints), we find that the implementation of investor-friendly BITs is associated with a significantly negative impact on sovereign bond returns, accounting for roughly 15% of bond returns’ standard deviation.

The so called "Denial of Benefits" clause (DOB) gives the respondent state an opportunity to exclude third parties to the investment protection treaties from enjoying the benefits of the treaty without assuming reciprocal obligations. No less than seventy-three investor-state disputes have been brought to arbitration under the ECT since its entry into force back in 1998. The DOB clause in ECT, Art. 17 has never been successfully invoked. States have tried to exercise their right in at least ten cases without success. This paper poses two research questions. First, what are the distinguishing features of Art. 17 of the ECT that make it function differently from other DOB clauses? Second, given the arbitral decisions, can the Art. 17 of the ECT be effectively invoked by respondent states? The paper is divided into five chapters. The first chapter introduces the topic of DOB clauses and the purpose of this paper. The second chapter is theoretical and addresses the topic of DOB clauses in general and further outlines their past, present and future. The third chapter focuses specifically on the Art. 17 of the ECT it examines the ECT arbitral awards and decisions that touched upon the clause. Chapter four aims to show the procedural issues of DOB clauses from the perspective of respondent states, it...

Le rôle du droit international des investissements est bien connu dans le monde entier. Afin de développer l'économie interne d'un pays, nous avons besoin de fonds étrangers dans le cadre d 'un investissement et pour réaliser cet objectif, nous avons étudié la place des traités bilatéraux des investissements vis-à-vis de l'investisseur étranger. En réalité, nous proposons un modèle adéquat pour les traités bilatéraux des investissements (TBI) iraniens, malgré les défauts qui existent au sein de ces traités et qui résultent du droit interne. Nous comparons les TBI iraniens avec les TBI français et américains car, d'un côté, les sociétés américaines sont parmi les plus grands investisseurs étrangers dans le monde et de l'autre côté, le régime juridique français a influencé le droit iranien. / The role of international law is well known worldwide. To develop the domestic economy of a country, we need foreign within an investment and to achieve this goal, we studied the role of bilateral investment treaties vis-à-vis the foreign investor. In fact, we suggest a suitable model for Iranian bilateral investment treaties (BIT), despite the flaws that exist within these treaties and resulting from domestic law. We compare the Iranian BIT with the French and American BIT because, on the one other hand, US companies are among the largest foreign BIT because, on the other band, the French legal system has influenced Iranian law.

The commercial and investment relations between Thailand and the Czech Republic are longstanding. Currently, the Czech Republic imports a number of agricultural products and food from Thailand, and Thailand imports industrial technology from the Czech Republic. As a result, there are opportunities for Czech companies to invest in and establish business cooperation with Thai businesses with agreements to guarantee stable commercial investment relations between Thailand and the Czech Republic. Because of this, the Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) between both countries facilitates further development. The dissertation deals with research about the Protection of Investments under the Bilateral Investment Treaty between Thailand and the Czech Republic. The first BIT between Thailand and the Czech Republic was the 'Agreement between the Government of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (1991)' which was replaced by the 'Agreement between the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand and the Government of the Czech Republic for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (1994) (BIT between Thailand and the Czech Republic 1994), and this BIT is still in force and has not been modified or amended. The object of...

The thesis answers the question "How does the change in effective control affect investment protection mechanisms in the Ukraine - Russia BIT against the temporal scope of when investment was made?". The essence of the Tribunal's jurisdiction, territorial and temporal scope of the Ukraine - Russia BIT were analyzed according to the rules of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Relevant case law, doctrine and available information on the awards in "Crimean cases" were also parts of the analysis. A conclusion was made that changes in effective control activate BIT protection for Ukrainian investors in Crimea against actions of Russian Federation. As a result, investment arbitral tribunals have jurisdiction in cases where investment has not been initially made in the territory of the host state. The date of Russian Federation consent to arbitrate with Ukrainian investors in Crimea is the date of actual change in effective control.

「雙邊投資協定」是「發展中國家」為積極引進外國資本，與「已開發國家」為有效保護本國投資者間之互惠保障機制。於1990年代以來，因跨國企業數擴大而增加投資活動，因此也擴大投資的規模，故而對投資規範之需求必要性愈來愈增加。「雙邊投資協定」作爲目前最通用的國際投資規範，最近全世界所簽訂之雙邊投資協定的數量為約2,700多個(約180個國家)，惟由於世界上就雙邊投資協定内容還沒統一的形態，而且協定規定上缺乏具體性基準，針對協定内容，已開發國家與發展中國家之間見解往往相左。 其中「徵收條款」是理論解釋上最引起爭論的領域之一。不過迄今與徵收有關協定之實踐過程中，資本輸出國（已開發國家）和資本輸入國（發展中國家）間之理解有很大的差異，即在於絕對多數的雙邊投資協定中，對於徵收條款沒有判斷標準（如間接徵收）、補償標準（如赫爾規則）、補償額價格估價方式（如公平市場價格）之具體基準。 本論文基於雙邊投資協定之現行趨勢，想要研究雙邊投資協定的一般概念與徵收的相關具體内容，尤其為準備臺灣與韓國間簽訂雙邊投資協定的可能性，先觀察最近韓國、臺灣與各國所簽訂的雙邊投資協定之現況，其次則想要比較該協定的徵收條款，進一步嘗試關於未來臺、韓兩國之雙邊投資協定徵收條款之制定方向提出若干意見。

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is one of the factors that can influence the growth and development of the economy of a country, but on the other hand, it could have a negative effect if not regulated properly by the host country. States must ensure that FDI is properly regulated in the best interests of the country and the foreign investor itself. South Africa has reviewed its foreign investment legal framework and during this process, it terminated most of its bilateral investment treaties that previously regulated foreign investment in the country. In turn, it introduced the Protection of Protection of Investment Act that regulates both domestic and foreign investment. This study analyses the way in which national and international investment law affect FDI inflow and the economy of South Africa. The study also deals with the determinants of foreign investment in the host country and the extent to which they have an influence on the inflow of FDI. / Public, Constitutional and International Law / LL. M.

At the dawn of democratic rule in the period 1994–1998, South Africa concluded 15 bilateral investment treaties (BITs), mostly with European nations. Some of these treaties were concluded before the Constitution of 1996. The country has since concluded a total of 47 BITs, with the majority not in effect as they were not ratified per the required constitutional processes. The policy decision to enter into BITs was taken by the African National Congress (ANC) government, led by the late former state president Nelson Mandela. The BITs were seen as an important guarantee to attract foreign investment into the country. The aim was to provide added assurance that foreign investments were safe in a democratic South Africa after many years of international isolation and sanctions. The conventional wisdom at the time was that BITs would increase foreign investor appetite to invest and the country would experience rising levels of foreign direct investment (FDI) as a result. This would facilitate economic growth and the transition of the country into the global economy. South Africa concluded BITs with seven of the top ten investor countries. In October 2013 the South African government cancelled a number of BITs with these European countries invested in South Africa. These countries – namely Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands – complained of lack of consultation by the South Africans. On 1 November 2013 the Minister of Trade and Industry published, in Government Gazette No 36995, the Promotion and Protection of Investment Bill (PPIB or Investments Bill) as the proposed primary legislative instrument for the protection of foreign investments. This created much uncertainty among many European nations as well as in the United States of America (US), who were concerned about the motivation for cancelling bilateral treaties in favour of domestic legislation. BITs had been a part of the policy instruments regulating foreign investments in the country for over 20 years. Globally these treaties have been used to regulate foreign investments in a number of areas, and to provide protection to investments such as full protection and security, guaranteed pre-establishment rights, ease of repatriation of funds, most-favoured nation, fair and equitable treatment, national treatment and efficient dispute settlement mechanisms, among other provisions. In most cases international arbitration via the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and other international arbitral mediums has been a standard provision in the treaties. This has allowed foreign investors to bypass host countries’ legal systems. The latter is believed to be a significant inducement for foreign investors, guaranteeing that should a dispute arise, or if an expropriation occurs, the investor could institute an international arbitral process against the host government. International arbitration is preferred by foreign investors for the reason that, in some cases, domestic courts may lack independence from the state, and may make partial rulings that do not protect investors. Furthermore, international arbitration processes are more efficient and produce rulings faster than domestic courts, which are usually burdened with bureaucratic procedures and limited resources. In cases where delay exacerbates injury, prompt resolution of disputes is preferable. This study evaluates the Investments Bill and the rationale applied by the government of South Africa to cancel BITs with major trade and investment partners in favour of this legislation. The thesis focuses on the Investments Bill, in light of the objective provided by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) for its enactment to law. The Investments Bill is subjected to a constitutional analysis to determine its compliance therewith. Comparisons are also made between the Investments Bill provisions and the prevailing international law principles on foreign investments. The Investments Bill is then critically evaluated against emerging trends on FDI regulation on the African continent to determine its congruence or lack thereof with best practice recommendations at regional economic community (REC) and African Union (AU) level. The thesis concludes with a set of policy recommendations to the DTI on how to improve South African policies related to the regulation of foreign investments taking into account the national imperative as well as Southern African Development Community (SADC) and other broader African continental objectives of harmonisation of FDI regulation, including the Tripartite Free Trade Area (FTA) implementation. The timing of this thesis is significant for South Africa. It adds to various deliberations that are taking place as the Investments Bill is set to makes its way through the legislative approval processes in 2015. The Bill has been met with opposition from some segments of society. Others have expressed support – including several state departments, the ANC, the South African Communist Party (SACP) and other political formations. The summary of findings contained in the thesis will be presented to the DTI to influence policy directions of the state in terms of foreign investment regulations. Should the Bill be enacted, the Minister of Trade and Industry is required to promulgate the dispute resolution mechanism that will govern investment disputes. The findings of this study will be important to the determination of how such dispute resolution mechanisms may function. Furthermore, in 2010 Cabinet instructed the DTI to develop a model new-generation BIT Template to be utilised by South Africa, should a compelling reason arise to enter into bilateral agreements. The research results will assist policy-makers to develop policies that are consistent with and align with the overarching Africa strategy that has been heavily promoted by South Africa. The country faces a number of challenges, particularly those related to low economic growth, high levels of poverty, unemployment and record levels of inequality. The gap between the rich and poor, in terms of the Gini coefficient, was 0,67 based on the World Bank Development Research Group Report of 2010. It is reported as one of the highest in the world and is believed to have worsened since the dawn of democracy. / Public, Constitutional and International Law / LL. D. (Public, Constitutional and International Law)