International Rule of Law Through International Investment Law - Strengths, Challenges and Opportunities

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Velimir Zivkovic
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
International Investment ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Challenges And Opportunities ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
International Rule

scholarly journals Fair and Equitable Treatment Between the International and National Rule of Law

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 513-552 ◽  
Author(s):  
Velimir Živković
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
International Investment ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
National Rule ◽  
Fair And Equitable Treatment ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Equitable Treatment

Abstract Promoting the rule of law is a potentially strong legitimating narrative for international investment law. Illustrating the interlinkage, the ubiquitous ‘fair and equitable treatment’ (FET) standard embodies distinctly rule of law requirements. But these requirements remain open-textured and allow understanding their meaning in either more ‘international’ or ‘national’ way. An ‘international’ understanding – detached from the host State’s vision on how the rule of law should look like – should remain dominant. But I argue that decision-making under the FET standard should also involve a systematic engagement with how these requirements would be understood in the host State’s law and how they were complied with from that perspective. Whilst not determinative for establishing a breach, this assessment better respects the expectations of the parties, strengthens the persuasiveness of findings and helps enhance the national rule of law as a key contributor to the ultimate goal of investment protection – economic development.

Interactions between International Investment Law and Constitutional Law: Promoting the Dialogue. A European Perspective on Judicial Cooperation and Deference

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 467-574
Author(s):  
Inga Witte
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Potential Conflict ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Two Systems ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
The Relationship

There are manifold constellations of potential conflict between international investment law and constitutional law. The ordering paradigm for that interaction is an unresolved and underexplored question, which is currently coming up in a number of proceedings. As prominently evidenced by the recent Achmea judgment, we seem to be steering towards supremacy claims of one system over the other with each adjudicative body claiming the final say in the matter. This approach is in line with the classic ordering paradigm of hierarchy. However, this contribution shall argue that hierarchy is ill-suited to properly conceptualize the relationship between the two systems. Instead, it proposes to embrace the heterarchical reality, along with its call for judicial dialogue, as a normatively desirable paradigm. The relationship between international investment law and constitutional law need not be and should not be perceived as inherently antagonistic because their mutual endeavour is to promote the rule of law. Precisely this realization should guide the relationship between the two systems.

China’s International Investment Strategy: Towards a Relational Normativity

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 921-937
Author(s):  
Matthias Vanhullebusch
Keyword(s):  
Investment Strategy ◽  
International Investment ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Investment Strategies ◽  
Individual Subject ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Subject Areas ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
International Rule ◽  
Shed Light

Abstract The edited volume under discussion aims to shed light on China’s international investment strategy along the bilateral, regional and global prong. In doing so, the contributors have sought to answer whether China is a rule-shaper or rule-breaker of international investment norms and whether it will be further liberalizing its domestic market for foreign investment. Despite their comprehensive analysis of individual subject areas where tensions arise between China investment practice at home and overseas and international standards, the reasons for China’s contradictory normative conduct in its various investment relationships remain underexplored. This article calls for a reconceptualization of the sources from which international investment law derives its binding force, namely based on relational normativity. This approach can transcend anxieties about China’s past, present, and future investment strategies and strengthen the normativity of the international rule of law with one of the world’s most prominent economic players instead.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document