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

No contexto de avanço da globalização, o Investimento Estrangeiro Direto (IED) mostra-se como um dos principais veículos para a inserção internacional dos países. Como os objetivos das empresas transnacionais e dos Estados hospedeiros não são os mesmos, há a necessidade de adoção de políticas que levem à convergência. No plano legal, observou-se nas últimas décadas a consolidação do regime internacional dos investimentos, com o crescimento exponencial do número de tratados de investimento e de arbitragens investidor-Estado fundadas nos mesmos. Mas há insatisfações de parte a parte com o sistema. Por um lado, os países tentam limitar o ativismo dos árbitros mediante a revisão de seus tratados. Por outro, tanto os investidores como os Estados começam a perceber que não há vencedores reais na arbitragem, dadas as suas diversas deficiências. Nomeadamente: custos elevados, longa duração, incoerência nas decisões e desgaste para as relações investidor-Estado no longo prazo. Nesse diapasão, surgem propostas de alternativas. Pensadores do sistema, valendo-se do Planejamento de Sistemas de Disputas, têm desenvolvido Políticas de Prevenção de Controvérsias. Tais políticas fundamentam-se nas dinâmicas de busca de soluções baseadas em interesses contrapostas às baseadas na força e nos direitos seguindo processos de administração precoce de conflitos. Diversos países, em diferentes níveis de desenvolvimento, têm tido êxito na implementação dessas políticas. A difusão das melhores práticas, movimento apoiado por organizações internacionais, oferece oportunidades para a melhora da governança, através da promoção de maior coerência e coordenação nas ações do Estado, da transparência e do império da lei. O tema é de interesse para o Brasil, país que, diferentemente dos demais, nunca ratificou um único tratado de investimento. Isso porque já surgem vozes na indústria clamando por uma mudança de posição, diante da emergência do país também como um exportador de capital. Caso tal inflexão se confirme, o Brasil tem a oportunidade de tomar partido das melhores experiências internacionais, usando tais tratados como instrumentos na sua estratégia de desenvolvimento. / Against the background of globalization, Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is perceived as one of the key vehicles in the pursuit of countries for global insertion. Since the purposes of transnational corporations and host States do not coincide, there is a need to implement policies leading to convergence. In the legal dimension, the last two decades have witnessed the consolidation of the international investment regime, with an exponential growth in the number of investment treaties and investor-State arbitration proceedings based on them. However, both sides are experiencing discontent with the current system. On the one hand, countries attempt to limit arbitrators activism, undertaking a review of treaties they are parties to. On the other, both investors and States have come to realize that there are no true winners in arbitration, in light of its several shortcomings. Namely: high costs, long duration, discrepant decisions and damages to the long term relationship between investors and States. In line with these concerns, several proposals for alternatives have come to light. System thinkers, based on concepts of Dispute Systems Design, have been developing Dispute Prevention Policies. Such policies are rooted in seeking interest-based solutions as opposed to power and rights-based ones following processes of early conflict management. Several countries, with varying levels of development, have succeeded in implementing such policies. Spreading best practices, an initiative supported by international organizations, allows for improvements in domestic governance, through the promotion of greater coherence and coordination in State actions, transparency and the rule of law. This matter is of interest to Brazil, a country that, unlike others, has never ratified a single investment treaty. There are now growing demands from Brazilian corporations for a shift in position, in view of the countrys emergence as a source of outward FDI. Should such a shift take place, Brazil has in its hands the opportunity to learn from international best practices and use such treaties as instruments in its development strategy.

O novo contexto do Direito Internacional tem buscado acomodar interesses econômicos às exigências de proteção ambiental, em linha com o desenvolvimento sustentável. Nesse particular, o investimento estrangeiro é elemento-chave e contribui para a aproximação entre Direito Internacional do Investimento Estrangeiro e Direito Internacional Ambiental, tanto em relação à elaboração de normas substantivas quanto aos processos de adjudicação. Embora já existam diversos trabalhos voltados a demonstrar como os investimentos estrangeiros podem contribuir com a preservação ambiental, pouco se tem escrito sobre os aspectos mais práticos dessa interação. Durante muito tempo, o caráter vago e impreciso da redação dos tratados ambientais dificultava sua aplicação às operações dos investidores. Contudo, a crescente consciência de parcela significativa da população mundial sobre a proteção ao meio ambiente está dando vida a cláusulas com conteúdo ambiental até então dormentes. Nesse contexto, o objetivo do presente trabalho é analisar empiricamente qual o tratamento concedido às questões ambientais suscitadas nos casos decididos pelos tribunais do Centro Internacional para Resolução de Disputas de Investimento (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes), o ICSID, no período entre 2000-2013. Para tanto, a pesquisa foi dividida em três partes. A primeira parte é dedicada ao contexto histórico que permitiu a aproximação entre Direito Internacional do Investimento Estrangeiro e do Direito Ambiental Internacional. Na segunda parte o ICSID é apresentado, de modo a compreender sua organização e funcionamento e, principalmente, de que forma as questões ambientais podem ser suscitadas no âmbito das disputas de investimento. E, por fim, os resultados obtidos a partir da pesquisa empírica das decisões proferidas pelos tribunais do ICSID são apresentados, sistematizando os argumentos apresentados pelas partes, bem como aqueles utilizados pelos tribunais ao decidir os litígios de investimento compreendendo a matéria ambiental. / The new context of International Law pursues the accommodation of economic interests to the needs of environmental protection, in line with the sustainable development. To that particular, the foreign investment is a key element and contributes to a closer relation between the Foreign Investment International Law and the Environmental International Law, inasmuch as in relation to the enactment of substantive laws, as towards to enforcement procedures. Although there are several studies aiming at demonstrating how foreign investments may contribute to the environmental protection, few has been written about the most practical aspects of such interaction. For a long time, the vague and imprecise character of the provisions in environmental treaties turn harder their enforcement towards the investment transactions. However, the growth in conscience on environment protection of a substantial portion of the world population has given life to clauses with environmental content that were dormant until recently. In this context, the objective of this study is to make an empiric analysis on the treatment granted to environmental matters raised in cases decided by the tribunals of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, the ICSID, in the period between 2000 and 2013. For that, this research is divided in three parts. The first one is dedicated to the historical context that allowed the approximation between Foreign Investment International Law and Environmental International Law. In the second part the ICSID is presented, to allow a better comprehension of its organization and functioning and, mainly, the forms in which environmental matters can be raised within the scope of investment disputes. And, finally, the results obtained with the empiric research on the decisions enacted by the ICSID tribunals are presented, with a systematization of the arguments used by the involved parties, as well as the arguments adopted by the tribunals to decide the investment disputes comprising environmental matters.

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.

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.

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.

Addressing complex global health challenges, including the burden of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), will require change in sectors outside of traditional public health. Contemporary regional trade and investment agreements (RTAs) like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) continue to move further ‘behind-the-border’ into domestic policy space introducing new challenges in the regulation of health risk factors. This dissertation aimed to clarify the pathways through which RTAs influence NCDs, and to explore points along those pathways with the intent of improving the existing evidence base and supporting policy development. This work develops a critical theoretical framework exploring the ideas, institutions, and interests behind trade and investment policy; it also develops a conceptual framework specifying how trade and investment treaty provisions influence NCD rates through the effects of trade and investment on tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and beverage products, as well as access to medicines and the social determinants of health. Using health impact assessment methodology, three analytical components were designed to examine pathways of influence from RTAs to health outcomes as mediated by the interests of transnational corporations (TNCs). The first component explored the influence of industry during the TPP negotiations and how its health-related interests were reflected in the final TPP text. The second component examined the role of trade and investment liberalisation in health-harmful commodity markets, finding a rise in TNC sales after a period of liberalisation. The third component demonstrated how investor rights and investor-state dispute can challenge the state’s right to regulate if it damages the profits of TNCs, which may threaten effective health regulation, and provides opportunities to strengthen the right to regulate. The work in this dissertation provides support for the thesis that trade and investment policies are a fundamental structural determinant of health and well-being, which are highly influenced by TNCs that guide such policies in the interest of maximising their profits and protections, often to the detriment of public policy and population health. This work identifies the need for more robust health impact assessments of RTAs before future agreements are ratified, as well as an imperative to challenge vested interests that entrench neoliberal policy preferences that have hindered sustainable and equitable development.

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.

伴隨著全球化潮流的來臨，國際直接投資金額大幅成長，相對的，投資爭端案件亦持續增加，國際投資人於是迫切期待一個有效而公平之國際投資爭端解決機制。台灣經過多年經濟發展，已成為全球重要對外投資國家，惟根據調查，台灣廠商發生投資爭端，並不擅於利用國際仲裁維護其本身權益。據此，本論文乃針對國際投資協定有關投資人與地主國爭端解決法制加以研析，並希望能對我政府對外談判及廠商對外投資提供具體實用之對策，惟國際間對於投資人與地主國爭端解決機制研究面向相當廣泛，本文研究主軸則以世界銀行於1965年成立之國際解決投資爭端中心(ICSID)之管轄權為中心。 本論文先自投資人與地主國爭端解決機制之發展背景介紹起，並論述1966年生效的ICSID公約主要條款與其他國際投資協定的關係，其後則進一步從ICSID管轄權角度切入，對ICSID對人(ratione personae)及對物(ratione materiae)管轄權相關法律問題逐一說明，並輔以個案加以研析之。 經過上述分析後，本文繼而對現行投資人與地主國投資爭端解決機制提出評論，在制度面方面，本文對ICSID未來運作提出放寬對物管轄範圍、檢討投資未予定義之作法、雙重國籍認定及外國控制的程度與形式等四項改革建議。此外，本文亦針對ICSID管轄權與BITs最惠國待遇條款問題、BITs不同的爭端解決機制所引發程序衝突問題，以及仲裁判斷衝突(conflicting award)問題，說明ICSID公約與BIT所產生之一些法律問題。在未來展望方面，則分析在多邊投資架構是否為解決現階段投資人與地主國爭端解決機制之新契機，以及WTO納入投資人與地主國爭端解決條款之可能性分析，本文末並對我國政府與廠商現階段利用ICSID機制提出建議。 / While the inexorable trend towards globalization has caused international direct investment to grow dramatically, it has also led to a steady increase in the number of investment disputes. International investors therefore eagerly look forward to the institution of an effective and impartial international investment dispute resolution mechanism. Although Taiwan, through its many years of economic development, has become a major source of foreign investment, surveys show that Taiwan firms are not good at using international arbitration to protect their rights and interests in investment disputes. This study accordingly analyzes the investor-State dispute settlement provisions in international investment agreements(IIAs) in an effort to provide concrete, practical strategies for the government of Taiwan in international negotiations and for Taiwanese firms in their foreign investment. Since there is already extensive research literature addressing investor-State dispute settlement mechanisms, this study focuses on the jurisdiction of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Dispute(ICSID) under the aegis of the World Bank in 1965. This study first introduces investor-State dispute settlement mechanisms and their development. Next, the study discusses the main provisions of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention) came into force on 1966 and its relationship to other IIAs. The study then explains the various legal issues connected with ICSID’s jurisdiction ratione personae and ratione materiae, and finally, analyzes specific cases. The results of the aforementioned analysis are employed to critique existing investor-State investment dispute settlement mechanisms. This study makes four system-related recommendations, namely that the ICSID convention should: 1) liberalize the scope of ICSID’s subject-matter jurisdiction; 2) review undefined investment methods; 3) recognize dual nationalities; and 4) reform the degree and circumstances of foreign control. This study further discusses legal problems related to the ICSID Convention and bilateral investment treaties (BITs), including conflicting awards, procedural conflicts stemming from different dispute settlement forum in BITs, and problems involving ICSID's jurisdiction and most-favored nation(MFN) provisions in BITs. As for future prospects, the study analyzes whether the current multilateral investment framework can resolve the problems of the current investor-State dispute settlement mechanism, and examines the possibility of incorporating investor-State dispute settlement mechanism in the WTO. This study concludes with recommendations concerning how the government and companies of Taiwan can use the ICSID mechanism at the current stage.

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.