Trends in recent developments in international investment arbitration: substantive issues

The particularity of international investment law is that it does not consist of uniform rules: there are neither substantive, nor procedural rules. Nor is there a single body for resolving investment disputes. The result is unpredictability in the application and interpretation of IIL provisions. Some clarity is created by the practice of international investment arbitration tribunals. This article analyses specific examples of such practice on the following ten aspects which arise in the course of considering international investment disputes on the merits: international minimum standard of treatment; denial of justice; standard of fair and equitable treatment; expropriation; full protection and security; umbrella clause; most favored nation treatment; setting aside arbitral awards rendered under ICSID Rules; and review of arbitral awards by national courts. Of course, this list is not exhaustive. In turn, some of these ten aspects are being considered from different angles. For instance, the standard of fair and equitable treatment comprises the concept of legitimate expectations of foreign investors. However, these legitimate expectations often collide with the public interest because the state bears the duty to maintain the welfare of the general public. This can be demonstrated by the following example: the state adopts certain healthcare measures, and as a result, the foreign investor may actually lose his investment. That is why it is important for the host state to know to what extent it can change its laws in order to avoid creating a basis for claims which foreign investors may bring against that state. Non-performance of contractual obligations by the state can also be qualified as violation of the fair and equitable treatment standard. As to expropriation, nowadays direct expropriation is a rather rare event. That is why the article deals with indirect expropriation. The latter has various aspects, for instance: interrelation with the right of the state to regulate (state powers doctrine); indirect expropriation of a discrete right or asset; the state’s failure to offer any compensation; and the state’s failure to follow due process principles as a criterion of unlawful expropriation.

About the author: Rachkov Ilia – Candidate of Sciences (Ph.D.) in Law, Associate Professor, Moscow State Institute (University) of International Relations, Moscow, Russia.

Citation: Rachkov I. (2019) Tendentsii razvitiya mezhdunarodnogo investitsionnogo arbitrazha: voprosy po sushchestvu sporov [Trends in recent developments in international investment arbitration: substantive issues]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.9, no.1, pp.93–117. (In Russian).

References

Besch M. (2015) Typical Questions Arising within Negotiations. In: Bungenberg M., Griebel J., Hobe S., Reinisch A. (eds.) International Investment Law: A Handbook, Baden-Baden: Nomos; München: C.H.Beck; Oxford: Hart.

Brauch M.D. (2017) Exhaustion of Local Remedies in International Investment Law: IISD Best Practices Series January – 2017. Available at: https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/best-practices-exhaustion-local-remedies-law-investment-en.pdf (accessed: 20.01.2019).

Burova E.S., Koroteeva K.V. (2018) Veter peremen: actual'nye obsuzhdenia reformy sistemy razreshenia sporov mezhdu inostrannymi investorami i gosudarstvami [Winds of Change: Current Discussions on Reforming Dispute Resolution between Foreign Investors and States]. Zakon, no.5, pp.153–163. (In Russian).

Jacob M., Schill S.W. (2015) Fair and Equitable Treatment: Content, Practice, Method. In: Bungenberg M., Griebel J., Hobe S., Reinisch A. (eds.) International Investment Law: A Handbook, Baden-Baden: Nomos; München: C.H.Beck; Oxford: Hart, pp.700–763.

Kozyakova A. (2017) Delo Urbaser and CABB v. Argentina v mezhduna­rodnom arbitrazhe: poisk spravedlivogo balansa mezhdu inostrannym investorom i prinimayushchim gosudarstvom [Urbaser and CABB v. Argentina in ICSID: searching for a justified balance between foreign investors and host States]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no.3, pp.3–18. (In Russian).

Paparinskis M. (2013) The International Minimum Standard and Fair and Equitable Treatment. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rachkov I. (2011) Byvshie aktsionery “Yukosa” protiv Rossii: Kommentariy k arbitrazhnomu resheniyu pod egidoy Postoyannoy Palaty Treteyskogo Suda v Gaage [Former shareholders of Yukos v. Russia: Commentary on an arbitration decision under the auspices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration Court in The Hague]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no.3, pp.18–34. (In Russian).

Rachkov I.V. (2017) Delo “Rusoro” protiv Venesuely [The “Rusoro” case against Venezuela]. Pravo i biznes, no.3, pp.3–16. (In Russian).

Treves T. (2010) Customary International Law. In: Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Heidelberg, Germany: Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law.