State-to-State Investment Treaty Arbitration: A Hybrid Theory of Interdependent Rights and Shared Interpretive Authority
نویسنده
چکیده
Most investment treaties contain two dispute resolution clauses: one permitting investor-state arbitration for investment disputes and the other permitting state-to-state arbitration for disputes concerning the treaty’s interpretation and/or application. Despite this duality, the potential role of state-to-state arbitration, and its proper relationship with investor-state arbitration, have largely been ignored. However, recent cases, including Peru v. Chile, Italy v. Cuba, and Ecuador v. United States, demonstrate the need to examine the potential and limits of this form of dispute resolution and to consider its implications for the hybridity of the investment treaty system as a whole. One reaction to the re-emergence of state-to-state arbitration has been to view it as a dangerous development that threatens to infringe upon investors’ rights and to re-politicize investor-state disputes. This has led some to suggest radically curtailing the scope and availability of state-to-state arbitration in favor of investor-state arbitration. This Article argues that these attempts are inconsistent with the text, object and purpose, and history of investment treaties. The co-existence of these two forms of arbitration without a clear priority mechanism reflects the system’s essential hybridity and cannot be wished away. This duality helps to demonstrate that the goals of investor protection and the depoliticization of investor-state disputes are important, but not absolute. Instead, the re-emergence of state-to-state arbitration represents an important step toward a new third era of the investment treaty system in which the rights and claims of both investors and treaty parties are recognized and valued, rather than one being reflexively privileged over the other. The investment treaty system has evolved from its first era, which focused exclusively on states’ rights and state-to-state arbitration, to its second era, which focused primarily on investors’ rights and investor-state arbitration. Instead of being an illegitimate or regressive development, the re-emergence of state-to-state arbitration represents a permissible and potentially progressive mechanism by which treaty parties can re-engage with the system in order to correct existing imbalances and help shape its development from within. More generally, the co-existence of investor-state and state-to-state arbitration requires a hybrid theory about the nature of investment treaty rights and the allocation of interpretive authority. This Article argues that: investment treaty rights should be understood as being granted to investors and home states on an interdependent basis, such that either—but usually not both—may bring arbitral claims; and interpretative authority should be understood as being shared between the treaty parties, investor-state tribunals, and state-to-state tribunals. This hybrid theory has the potential to help resolve other controversial issues within the field.
منابع مشابه
The Expropriation of Environmental Governance
What do a Canadian ban on the exportation of hazardous wastes, California's remediation requirements for open-pit mines, and the Municipality of Lima's closure of a pasta factory have in common? They are all government measures that have been the subject of investor-state disputes resolved in international investment arbitration. The ability of foreign investors, as private actors in global pol...
متن کاملApplication of Lex Mercatoria as Applicable Law in International Commercial Arbitration
In settling disputes regarding international commercial arbitration the parties may instead of choosing the law of one country to choose lex mercatoria or the law of merchants as a applicable law to the disputes. When this choice is possible that applicable choice of law rules recognize such power for the parties. The principle of autonomy is choosing lex mercatoria has been recognized in many ...
متن کاملThe Impact of Investment Arbitration on Investment Treaty Design: Myth Versus Reality
I. INVESTMENT LAW AND ARBITRATION .......................................................................................... 5 A. The Development of Investment Law and Arbitration....................................................... 5 B. Three Impact Channels ...................................................................................................... 9 1. Investment Arbitration Clau...
متن کاملتحریمها به مثابه نقض تعهدات بینالمللی دولتها در زمینه حمایت از حقوق بشر
The main purpose of economic sanctions is to exercise pressure on one country or governing state to force it to abide by a specific attitude or action, and finally these are the people in target state who feel the severest consequences of sanctions. Human rights is one of the most important aspects of international law and a vital issue the international community is dealing with. Violation of ...
متن کاملThe Tension between Transparency and Confidentiality in International Arbitrations
The present research study intends to investigate the concepts of transparency, confidentiality and privacy within the scope of Investor-State Arbitration and International Commercial Arbitration.Transparency, confidentiality and privacy are the main pillars of international arbitration which have a close relationship together, however in some cases they are in a controversial situation. The te...
متن کامل