The regime of international investments within the Association Agreements: towards a new comprehensive regulation?
In: The Journal of World Investment & TradeSearch for other papers by Jacopo Tavassi in
Current site
Google Scholar
After the failure of attempts to conclude a Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), there is currently no adequate way of regulating FDI at the multilateral level. The fragmentation of the discipline is accompanied by both an excessive focus on promoting cross-border investments and a limited ability to protect public goods such as natural heritage, cultural diversity and democracy. In other words, the promotional approach prevails over the regulatory one. If the picture looks pretty bleak for the multilateral regulation of international investments, certainly the same cannot be said for development of the discipline by regional agreements. The number of these treaties notified to the WTO stands at nearly 500, ninety percent of which are represented by free trade areas. The growth of regionalism has a strong impact on the regulation of international investments, in the light of the inclusion within regional agreements of chapters governing the movement of capitals and the protection of foreign investors’ rights. From the point of view of regulatory fragmentation, this phenomenon can certainly be considered as negative by virtue of the possible legislative and jurisdictional conflicts; however, regarding the protection of certain Public Interests, this increase can be interpreted in a positive way. Specifically, in these forms of economic integration, despite the provisions included in the BITs, the liberalisation of markets, as well as the investor protection, are not the central purposes of the Agreements. They are instead part of a larger framework that views these objectives as mere instruments for the socio-economic development of the Contracting Parties. Paying particular attention to Association Agreements signed by the EU (and its Member States) with third countries, this paper argues that these treaties represent the ideal structure for the regulation of economic issues and, more particularly, for the flow of capital and investments across borders. Especially after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, which brings the issue of FDI within the scope of the Common Commercial Policy.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Aaken A., ‘Fragmentation of international law’, The Finnish Yearbook of International Law 17 (2008): 91–130.
-
Adinolfi G., , ‘Gli strumenti di cooperazione economica e la protezione degli investimenti’. In I Rapporti di Vicinato Dell’Italia con Croazia, Serbia-Montenegro e Slovenia. ed. Ronzitti N. (Rome: Luiss University Press, 2005) 269–305.
-
Adlung R., ‘MFN exemptions under the general agreement on trade in services’, Journal of International Economic Law 12(2) (2009): 357–392.
-
Aliboni R., L’iniziativa dell’Unione Europea per il Mediterraneo: Gli Aspetti Politici (Istituto Affari Internazionali, Contributi di Istituti di ricerca specializzati, n. 85, January 2008) 1–14.
-
Alvarez A.G., ‘The new face of investment arbitration: NAFTA Chapter 11’, The Yale Journal of International Law 28(2) (2003): 365–407.
-
Alvarez A.G., ‘Investments, fair and equitable treatment, and the principle of “respect for the integrity of the law of the host state”’. In Looking to the Future (2011) 579–605.
-
Appicciafuoco L., ‘L’ Unione europea e la condizionalità democratica nelle relazioni con i Paesi dei Balcani occidentali’, Studi Sull’integrazione Europea 5(2) (2010): 492–508.
-
Baldwin R., Low P.Mulitlateralizing Regionalism, Challanges for the Global Trading System (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).
-
Collins D., ‘A new role for the WTO in international investment law: Public interests in the post-neoliberal period’, Connecticut Journal of International Law 25(1) (2009–2010): 1–35.
-
Correa C., Kumar N.Protecting Foreign Investment: Implications of WTO Regime and Policy Options (London: Zed Books Ltd, 2003).
-
Cosbey A., Mann H., Peterson L.E. et al., Investment and Sustainable Development: A Guide to the Use and Potential of International Investment Agreements (International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2004).
-
Cremona M., A Constitutional Basis for Effective External Action? An Assessment of the Provisions on EU External Action in the Constitutional Treaty, EUI Working Papers, Law n. 2006/30.
-
De Sterlini M.L., , ‘The agreement on trade releated investment measures’. In The World Trade Organization: Legal, Economic and Political Analysis. eds. Macrory P.F.J., Appleton A.E., Plummer M.G. (Springer, 2005) 437–485.
-
Del Sarto R.A., Schumacher T., ‘From EMP to ENP: What's at stake with the European neighbourhood policy towards the Southern Mediterranean?’ European Foreign Affairs Review 10(1) (2005): 17–38.
-
Di Nolfo E., Storia Delle Relazioni Internazionali 1918–1999 (Rome, Bari: Editori Laterza, 2007).
-
Dimopoulos A., ‘The effects of the Lisbon treaty on the principles and objectives of the common commercial policy’, European Foreign Affairs (2010): 153–170.
-
Dolzer R., Schreuer C., Principles of International Investment Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).
-
Dupuy P.-M., , ‘Unification rather than fragmentation of international law? The case of international investment law and human rights law’. In Human Rights in International Investment Law and Arbitration. eds. Dupuy P.-M., Francioni F., Petersmann E.U. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) 45–63.
-
Fry J.D., ‘International human rights law in investment arbitration’, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 18 (2007/08): 77–149.
-
Giardina C., , ‘Aspetti giuridici del partenariato economico e finanziario nell’area euro mediterranea’. In Aspetti Giuridici del Partenariato Euromediterraneo. ed. Marchisio S. (Milan, 2001) 17–34.
-
Hermann C., ‘The Treaty of Lisbon extends the EU's external trade and investment powers’, ASIL Insights 14 (2010) 28, at http://www.asil.org/files/insight100921pdf.pdf
-
Hindelang S., Maydell N., , ‘The EU's common investment policy – connecting the dots’. In International Investment Law and EU Law. eds. Brungenberg M., Griebel J., Hindelang S. (London, New York: Special Edition of European Yearbook of International Economic Law, Springer, 2010) 29–43.
-
Hoekman B., ‘Assessing the general agreement on trade in services’. In The Uruguay Round and the Developing Countries. eds. Martin W., Winters L.A. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) 88–124.
-
Lavranos N., ‘New developments in the interaction between international investment law and EU law’, The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 9 (2010): 409–441.
-
Liberti L., , ‘Investissement et droits de l’Homme’. In Les Aspects Nouveaux du Droit des Investissements Internationaux. eds. Kahn P., Ben Hamida W. (2007) 791–852.
-
Maes M., ‘The Lisbon Treaty and the new EU investment competence’. In Reclaming Public Interest in Europe's International Investment Policy (Seattle to Brussels Network, 2010) 11–13.
-
Mandarino C., Granziera E., , ‘Gli accordi commerciali multilaterali e settoriali’. In Neoliberismo Internazionale e Global Economic Governance. ed. Comba A. (Turin: Giappichelli Editore, 2008) 146–148.
-
Mauro M.R., ‘Accordi internazionali sugli investimenti e Unione europea’, Studi Sull’integrazione Europea 2 (2010): 403–430.
-
Nowak C., , Legal arrangements for the promotion and protection of foreign investments within the framework of the EU Association Policy and the European Neighbourhood Policy’. In International Investment Law and EU Law. eds. Brungenberg M., Griebel J., Hindelang S. (London, New York: Special Edition of European Yearbook of International Economic Law, Springer, 2010) 105–138.
-
Phinnemore D., ‘Stabilisation and association agreements’, European Foreign Affairs Review 8(1) (2003): 77–103.
-
Rafael Leal-Arcas ‘The European Union's Trade and investment policy after the Treaty of Lisbon’, The Journal of World Investment and Trade 11(4) (2010): 463–514.
-
Sacerdoti G., ‘Bilateral treaties and multilateral instruments on investment protection’, Recueil des Cours 269 (1997): 255–460.
-
Salacuse J.W., Sullivan N.P., ‘Do BITs really work?: An evaluation of bilateral investment treaties and their Grand Bargain’. In Harward International Law Journal (2005): 67–130.
-
The Economist, Choosing New Friends, The European Union is Struggling to Help Arab Revolutionaries (April 9th – 15th 2011) 34.
-
United Nations Conference On Trade And Development, Multilateralism and Regionalism, The New Interface. eds. Mashayekhi M., Ito T. (United Nations, New York and Geneva, 2005).
-
Valenti M., , ‘Gli standard di trattamento nell’interpretazione dei trattati in materia di investimenti stranieri’. In Diritto Internazionale dell’economia. eds. Carbone S.M., Comba A., Coscia G., Sacerdoti G., Venturini G. (Turin: Giappichelli Editore, 2009).
-
Viesti G., , ‘Tendenze e prospettive dell’integrazione economica euromediterranea’. In Europa e Mediterraneo, Le Regole per la Costruzione di una Società Integrata. ed. Triggiani E. (Bari: Atti del XIV Convegno della Società Italiana di Diritto Internazionale, 18–19 June 2009) 505–510.
-
3)
C. Correa – N. Kumar, Protecting foreign investment: implications of WTO regime and policy options, Zed Books Ltd, London, 2003, 31 et seq.; M. L. de Sterlini, The Agreement on Trade Related Investment Measures, in The World Trade Organization: Legal, Economic and Political Analysis (edited by P. F. J. Macrory – A. E. Appleton – M. G. Plummer), Springer, 2005, 44; C. Mandarino – E. Granziera, Gli accordi commerciali multilaterali e settoriali, in Neoliberismo internazionale e Global Economic Governance (edited by A. Comba), Giappichelli Editore, Turin, 2008, 146–148; B. Hoekman, Assessing the General Agreement on Trade in Services, in The Uruguay Round and the Developing Countries (edited by W. Martin – L. A. Winters), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996, 88 et seq.; R. Adlung, MFN exemptions under the general agreement on trade in services, Journal of international economic law, 12, 2, 2009, 357–392. A different perspective on the role of WTO Agreements is expressed in D. Collins, A new role for the WTO in International Investment Law: Public Interests in the post-neoliberal period, Connecticut Journal of International Law, 25, 1, 2009–2010, 1–35.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 165 | 17 | 4 |
| Full Text Views | 89 | 0 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 22 | 1 | 0 |
The regime of international investments within the Association Agreements: towards a new comprehensive regulation?
In: The Journal of World Investment & TradeSearch for other papers by Jacopo Tavassi in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
After the failure of attempts to conclude a Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), there is currently no adequate way of regulating FDI at the multilateral level. The fragmentation of the discipline is accompanied by both an excessive focus on promoting cross-border investments and a limited ability to protect public goods such as natural heritage, cultural diversity and democracy. In other words, the promotional approach prevails over the regulatory one. If the picture looks pretty bleak for the multilateral regulation of international investments, certainly the same cannot be said for development of the discipline by regional agreements. The number of these treaties notified to the WTO stands at nearly 500, ninety percent of which are represented by free trade areas. The growth of regionalism has a strong impact on the regulation of international investments, in the light of the inclusion within regional agreements of chapters governing the movement of capitals and the protection of foreign investors’ rights. From the point of view of regulatory fragmentation, this phenomenon can certainly be considered as negative by virtue of the possible legislative and jurisdictional conflicts; however, regarding the protection of certain Public Interests, this increase can be interpreted in a positive way. Specifically, in these forms of economic integration, despite the provisions included in the BITs, the liberalisation of markets, as well as the investor protection, are not the central purposes of the Agreements. They are instead part of a larger framework that views these objectives as mere instruments for the socio-economic development of the Contracting Parties. Paying particular attention to Association Agreements signed by the EU (and its Member States) with third countries, this paper argues that these treaties represent the ideal structure for the regulation of economic issues and, more particularly, for the flow of capital and investments across borders. Especially after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, which brings the issue of FDI within the scope of the Common Commercial Policy.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 165 | 17 | 4 |
| Full Text Views | 89 | 0 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 22 | 1 | 0 |