Connects narratives associated with colonialism, imperialism, civilized justice, debt, and development to international investment treaty law and arbitration.
This book aims to connect narratives associated with the past to the international regime that protects property and contract rights of foreign investors. The book scrutinizes justifications offered to sustain practices associated with colonialism, imperialism, civilized justice, debt, and development, revealing that a number of the rationales offered in support of investment law disciplines replicate those arising out of this discredited past. By revealing these linkages, the book raises concerns about investment law's premises. It would appear that the normative foundations for today's regime reproduces discursive practices that are less than compelling. The book argues that citizens deserve something more than historically discredited reasons to justify the exercise of power over them – something more than mere pretext.
"Decolonization restored African states' sovereign independence. The post-colonial period was, however, characterized by major economic disruptions that resulted in chronically weakened economies. The newly independent African states faced a profound dilemma between economic liberalization and openness on the one hand, and the maintenance of regulatory autonomy on the other. Confronted with unrelenting poverty and inadequate infrastructure, African states needed direct foreign investment to boost their economies. However, most foreign investors were cautious about investing in African countries due to the perceived lack of clear and predictable legal regimes necessary to protect foreign investments from expropriation and other forms of harm"--
The revival of interest in comparative constitutional studies, alongside the rise of legal limitations to state action due to investment treaty commitments, calls for a unique analysis of both investment law and comparative constitutional law. The unresolved tensions that arise between the two are only beginning to be addressed by judges. Are courts resisting these new international limitations on their constitutional space? Constitutional Review and International Investment Law: Deference or Defiance? pioneers this discussion by examining how a selection of the highest courts around the world have addressed this potential discord. A comparison of decisions in the US, Europe, Colombia, Indonesia, Israel, and elsewhere reveals that, rather than issuing declarations of constitutional incompatibility, courts are more likely to respond to constitutional tensions indirectly. Their rulings adopt stances that range from hard deference (such as the Peruvian Constitutional Court viewing constitutional law and investment law as entirely compatible) to soft defiance (for example the Colombian Constitutional Court requiring only modest renegotiation of some treaty terms so that they are constitutionally compliant). Readers learn that judges are not aiming to undermine the investment law regime but are seeking to mitigate constitutional collision.
This book analyses the multi-faceted impact armed conflict has on investment treaties. Refuting the common association of the outbreak of hostilities with the termination or suspension of treaties, it not only makes a case for the continuity of investment treaties. The book argues that the impact of armed conflict on such agreements goes far beyond these questions: Changed factual circumstances and public interests as well as international humanitarian law heavily influence the application and interpretation of investment protection standards. The book argues that investment treaties can and must channel these effects to remain effective during armed conflict and strike a fair balance between investor and public interests. It shows ways in which contextual and systemic interpretation, respect for reasonable state action, and careful treaty design can ensure that investment treaties continue to fulfil their purpose of strengthening compliance with legal rules also in times of armed conflict.
Western governments, companies, economists and lawyers established the international legal order now known as international investment law to protect foreign property from a redistribution of wealth through domestic law making. This book offers a pre-history of these legal arrangements, focusing on the time before 1959 and the ratification of the first bilateral investment treaty and the ICSID Convention. It introduces new archival material, such as arbitral awards, diplomatic notes and concession agreements, as well as scholarly writings pertaining to developments in these proceedings. These materials are systematised into a coherent argument on the protection of foreign property. The book develops the important role of concession agreements and their internationalisation for the making of international investment law, thereby insisting on the private law character of the foundations of the field. In doing so it displays the analytic force of viewing law as jurisdictional practice, rather than as a system of norms.
There is a common perception of reciprocity as a concept that is opposed to the communitarian interests that characterise contemporary international law, or merely a way of denoting reactions to unfriendly or wrongful conduct. This book disputes this approach, and highlights how reciprocity is instead linked to the structural characteristic of sovereign equality of States in international law. This book carries out an in-depth analysis of the concept of reciprocity and the elements that characterise it, before examining the various roles and articulations of reciprocity in a number of fields of public international law: the law of treaties, the treatment of individuals, the execution of international law, and the jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals. In all these areas, it analyses both more traditional and more contemporary examples, to demonstrate how reciprocity is closely linked to the very structure of public international law.
The technological characteristics of drones, together with the law, have been instrumental in expanding warfare in time and space in the counter-terrorism context.