bilaterals.org logo
bilaterals.org logo

Investment

One of the most remarkable recent developments in international law is the exponential growth of International Investment Agreements (IIAs). An IIA is a treaty between countries to deal with issues concerning the protection, promotion and liberalization of cross-border investments. The most common types of IIAs are standalone Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) that contain investment chapters.

Although not precisely defined, a BIT is a legally binding agreement between two countries that establishes reciprocal protection and promotion of investments in both countries. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) defines BITs as “agreements between two countries for the reciprocal encouragement, promotion and protection of investments in each other’s territories by companies based in either country.” The countries signing BITs com¬mit themselves to following specific standards on the treatment of foreign investments within their jurisdiction. If there is a breach of such commitments, BITs provide expansive procedures for the resolution of disputes.

It is fair to say that BITs have emerged as the primary source of international investment law to protect and promote cross-border investment flows. The first BIT was signed between Germany and Pakistan in 1959. Today, there are more than 3,000 BITs in existence globally, with the great majority having been concluded since 1990. Almost every country in the world has signed at least one BIT.

These treaties originated from the desire of capital-exporting developed countries to seek protection for investors and their investments in capital-importing developing countries. However, the underlying interests and power relations have changed considerably in recent years due to the rise of South-South Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) flows. A num¬ber of developing countries, especially the BRICS – Brazil, Russia, In¬dia, China and South Africa – are increasingly emerging as important outward investors. The number of BITs between developing countries has grown remarkably since 2004. With the changing pattern of global investment flows, the landscape of BITs is quickly evolving.

Paradoxically, it seems that the current BIT regime is at a crossroads, in spite of the rapid proliferation of treaties in recent years. There are signs of growing unease with the current regime across countries and regions. To a large extent, this unease has arisen due to frequent use of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms under BITs, which allow investors to directly sue host state governments before international arbitral tribunals for alleged violations of treaty provisions.

The growing number of investor claims against sovereign states challenging a wide array of public policy decisions and regulatory measures has evoked deep concerns about the potential costs associated with investment treaties. The vague terms (such as ‘fair and equitable treatment,’ ‘indirect expropriation’ and ‘umbrella clause’) and other ambiguities can result in expansive interpretations by arbitral tribunals, leading to substantial monetary claims by foreign investors while unduly restricting regulatory space in the form of ‘regulatory chill.’ The risk of regulatory chill is very real, as a wide range of policy and regulatory measures (from taxation to the plain packaging of tobacco products to the disposal of hazardous waste) have all been challenged by foreign investors in the recent past.

The increasing use of ISDS mechanisms also highlights the lack of balance between public rights and private interests under the framework of a BIT. The current BITs regime has failed to address the balance of rights and responsibilities of foreign investors as it offers numerous legal rights for investors without requiring corresponding responsibilities for them. In both policy and academic circles, legitimate questions are being raised on the cost and procedure of arbitration, expansive interpretations by arbitral tribunals and the inconsistency of awards.

Both developed and developing countries are paying far greater attention today to the scope of their treaty obligations and, now more than ever before, are seeking a better balance between investor rights and the right to regulate in the public interest. Increasingly the existing treaty regime is considered irrelevant in terms of addressing emerging social, economic, environmental and developmental challenges, both at national and global levels.

There is hardly any empirical evidence to prove that BITs alone result in increased investment flows. At best, BITs could be considered as one factor among many in creating a favourable investment climate for foreign investors in a host country.

Therefore a number of countries have been revisiting their BITs program since the early 2000s. Some countries are clarifying the language used in BITs in order to bring uniformity and coherence in treaty interpretations while others are terminating their existing treaties in the wake of public outcry over arbitration notices served by foreign companies demanding billions of dollars in compensation for the alleged violation of BITs.

The decisions taken by these countries to roll back their BIT commitments represent a significant development and should be viewed in the much broader context of attempts made by other countries to revisit their BIT regime and to explore innovative policy solutions to tackle the problems posed by the current BIT regime, as well as to improve the governance of cross-border investment flows.

Contributed by Kavaljit Singh (Madhyam) and Burghard Ilge (Both Ends). Excerpt from Rethinking bilateral investment treaties.

last update: March 2017


Hague court declines Russia’s request to reconsider liability under PrivatBank’s Crimea claim
PrivatBank commenced the arbitration on April 13, 2015, for breaches of the Russian Federation’s obligations towards PrivatBank’s assets in Crimea.
Netherlands faces ISDS threat after decision to ban coal-based power generation by 2030
German company Uniper has threatened to bring an ISDS case against the Dutch government after a decision to ban coal-based power generation by 2030.
Solar Wars part XI: The EC strikes back
The European Commission is taking steps to reduce the prospect of future claims by demanding the reform of the Energy Charter Treaty.
Recent developments in ISDS reform
The traditional mechanism of investment arbitration between the investor and the host State has been under attack for some time now from a range of actors and for a variety of reasons.
Cairn arbitration award may be protracted, not expected before 2019-end
UK’s Cairn Energy on Tuesday said the arbitration process against India on imposition of retrospective tax demand is likely to be protracted and a decision is not expected before late 2019.
Reko Diq, Karkey cases: Pakistan to challenge verdicts of ICSID: Omar
Pakistan government is going to challenge the verdicts of International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), said Minister for Power Division.
AS Tallinna Vesi and United Utilities (Tallinn) B.V. v. Republic of Estonia
Squire Patton Boggs has successfully defended the Republic of Estonia against a US$100 million investment treaty claim brought by Estonian water provider AS Tallinna Vesi and its Dutch shareholder United Utilities.
Luxembourg leads EU push to climate-proof Energy Charter Treaty
Critics say the Energy Charter provides excessive legal protection for oil and gas companies, which can claim uncapped reparations from governments who frustrate investments in fossil fuel projects.
KPMG says Moldovan investor falsified financial statements to claim $500mn from Kazakhstan
The audit company claims its reports used in the lawsuits launched by companies controlled by Moldovan businessman Anatol Stati were based on “ knowingly false representations by Stati to KPMG”
World Bank tribunal lowers ConocoPhillips award for Venezuela expropriation -document
A World Bank arbitration panel lowered an initial $8.7 billion award to US oil company ConocoPhillips as compensation for Venezuela’s 2007 expropriation of its assets to $8.5 billion.

    Links


  • ECT’s dirty secrets
    The Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) grants corporations in the energy sector enormous power to sue states at international investment tribunals.
  • EFILA
    The European Federation for Investment Law and Arbitration (EFILA) has been established in Brussels to promote the knowledge of all aspects of EU and international investment law, including arbitration, at the European level
  • Energy Charter Treaty: Investment dispute settlement cases
    The Energy Charter Secretariat has compiled a list of investment dispute settlement cases and this information is updated regularly.
  • Golden Toilet Brush Awards
    Vote for which of these corporations deserve the coveted Golden Toilet Brush for corporate impunity.
  • ICSID
    International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes is an autonomous international organisation, linked to the World Bank. It is the most ’referred to’ arbitration facility for disputes under bilateral trade and investment agreements, with its own set of rules and procedures.
  • IISD
    The International Institute for Sustainable Development is an independent think tank championing sustainable solutions to 21st century problems.
  • Investment Treaty News
    ITN is a web-based platform for discussion and debate, as well as providing regular journalistic reporting on developments and trends in international investment law, hosted by the International Institute for Sustainable Development.
  • ISDS Impactos
    Los impactos del sistema de protección de inversiones en América Latina
  • ISDS: Corporate attacks on the public interest
    Public Citizen website about ISDS, including petition to US government
  • italaw
    Comprehensive and free database on investment treaties, international investment law and investor-state arbitration.
  • Mapping investment treaties
    Discover patterns of consistency and innovation in the bilateral investment treaty universe
  • Network for Justice in Global Investment
    The Network for Justice in Global Investment is a joint effort by citizens and organizations in a variety of countries to challenge one of the most anti-democratic aspects of the global economic order – the rules governing international investment.
  • Red Carpet Courts
    10 stories of how the rich and powerful hijacked justice
  • Reprenons le pouvoir !
    Site présentant quelques cas d’ISDS et de déni de justice de manière interactive.
  • Stop ISDS
    Corporations have too much power. It’s time to take it back from them!
  • The Chevron Pit
    A blog maintained by the team suing Chevron for the oil giant’s human rights problems in Ecuador and across the world
  • UNCITRAL
    United Nations Commission on International Trade Law is a body under the UN General Assembly mandated to unfiy international trade law. Disputes between investors and states under many FTAs and BITs are arbitrated, in private, according to UNCITRAL rules. UNCITRAL itself does not administer arbitrations.
  • UNCTAD BIT database
    UNCTAD maintains the most comprehensive database of BITs online
  • UNCTAD ISDS database
    UNCTAD’s comprehensive database of ISDS cases
  • We won’t give up Rosia Montana!
    Romania’s new government wants to give the green light to the Rosia Montana gold mine in return for a deal with Gabriel Resources dropping its ISDS arbitration case against the government.​ Take action now!