Features of the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) Provisions under Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) of Bangladesh: An Overview

not available Dhaka University Law Journal, Vol. 31, 2020 P.85-103

Screening of Foreign Investments and the Bilateral Investment Treaties of Bangladesh

Since 1960, about 2852 bilateral investment treaties (BITs) have been signed. Of them, 2298 BITs are in force at present. In the last 61 years, the WTO members failed to conclude a global treaty to regulate FDI in host countries, consequently, the BITs have played a significant role to regulate FDI. As a member of the WTO, Bangladesh has signed 31 BITs so far with various states to allow and increase the inflow of FDI into the country. Bangladeshi foreign investment laws and BITs mainly protect foreign investors. However, neither of them has any specific provision regarding the screening of foreign investments in Bangladesh. Two questions have been addressed in this paper: (a) Do the BITs of Bangladesh allow the host state for screening of foreign investments at the entry stage? (b) Should the screening of FDI be required during the pre-entry stage in Bangladesh? In this paper, a doctrinal research method has been used to critically analyze 15 BITs to explore whether there is any reference for screening of foreign investments in Bangladesh. We find that the existing Bangladesh BITs have provisions to promote and protect foreign investments but have no reference in relation to the screening of foreign investments. Therefore, the author has recommended that the Government of Bangladesh can consider specific provisions for screening of FDI in future BITs.

Comparative Analysis of Bilateral Investment Treaties of the Russian Federation

The paper analyzes bilateral investment treaties, one of the parties to which is Russia. The article compares the provisions contained in the 1992 and 2001 model agreements of Russia, as well as the provisions of the 2016 Regulations. The concepts of “foreign investor” and “investment” are considered, discrepancies in the concepts and wording used in treaties with different states are revealed. In a comparative aspect, the authors explore the operation of treaties over time, the use of the standard of fair and equal treatment, and the application of provisions on expropriation. The features of the formulation of the national treatment standard and the most favored nation treatment standard, as well as the umbrella clause are revealed.

Hedging Bets with BITS

This chapter argues that bilateral investment treaties (BITS) and free trade agreements (FTAs) erect a high hedge around intellectual property rights, protecting them from the impact of state regulation. Two investor-state dispute settlements (ISDS) involving IP have been resolved by final award. In both cases, the state prevailed, suggesting that the hedge may not be as impenetrable as had originally been feared. However, the chapter contends that this view is mistaken. While the awards in the decided disputes may close the door on specific contentions, they invite further challenges and maintain the heavy shadow that the hedge provided by ISDS casts on state action. In order to trim that hedge, it will be necessary for the drafters of investment obligations and the tribunals that hear ISDS disputes to take into account the intangibility of IP rights in determining when IP is sufficiently localized in a host state that it should be considered protectable by that state's investment obligations. The chapter then explores ways to trim ISDS, including the possibility of using ISDS as a mechanism for building counter-norms—hedges that protect the public and its regulatory interest.

Bilateral Investment Treaties

This paper, “Bilateral Investment Treaties: Liberal Tools Encouraging Greater Financial Direct Investment or Economic Nationalist Instruments?” will examine the legal arguments on how best to regulate Foreign Direct Investment, especially exploring the ramifications of the widespread use of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BTIs).