Evolution or Devolution?

Defining Fair and Equitable Treatment in International Investment Law

In: The Journal of World Investment & Trade
Author: Barnali CHOUDHURY1
View More View Less
  • 1 B. Comm., LL.B., LL.M. (Columbia). The author wishes to thank the faculty and staff at the University of Otago, New Zealand for their assistance in the completion of this article during the course of the author's tenure there as a Visiting Lecturer. The author may be contacted at: ‹Barnali@gmx.net›.
Online Publication Date:
01 Jan 2005
In:
Volume 6: Issue 2
Article Type:
Research Article
Pages:
297–320
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1163/221190005X00091

Purchase instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):

€29.95$34.95
Add to Cart
Rent on DeepDyve
Redeem Access Token
In:
The Journal of World Investment & Trade
E-ISSN:
2211-9000
Print ISSN:
1660-7112
Publisher:
Brill | Nijhoff
Cover The Journal of World Investment & Trade

  • See ADF Group Inc. v. United States c)fanierica (ADF Grollp), ICSID Case No. APB(AF)/00/1, 1 ICSID Rev.-F.I.L.J. 195, Vol. 18, 2003, at para. 190. Fair and equitable treatment is generally considered to be an aspect of the international minimum standard of treatment.

  • 2 Ian Brownlie,, Principles of Publiclntcmational Law, 5th edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.,1998, at 502. 3 1d. 4 L7nited States (L.F. Neer) 1'. United Mexican States (1926), 4 R.LA.A. 60, Mexico-United States General Claims Commission. 5 Ibid.

  • 1, Department of External Affairs of Canada, North American Free Trade A.qrcet)tetit: Canadian Statement Oil Implementation, Canada gazette, 1 Jauuary 1994, at 149. 7 Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, 26 June 1945, 59 Stat. 1(ISS, lists the sources ofintemational law as (1) international conventions; (2) international custom; (3) general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; and (4) judicial decisions and the teachings of tlre most highly qualified publicists. 8 The rulings were those in Metaldad Corporation r. United Mexican States (Metalclad), ICSID Case No. Ants(AF)/97/1, 40 I.L.M. 36, 2001; S.D. Myers v. Canada (S.D. Myers), 40 I.L.M. 1408, 2000; and Poye & Talbot Inc. v. the Govemment of Canada (Pope F7 Talbot), Award on the Merits of Phase 2, 10 April 2001, available at: <www.naftalaw.org� (last visited 8 Fcbmary 2005); and the ongoing proceedings included AJolldcl' Imml<1liollal Ltd v. tiiited States of America (Mo"del'), 42 I.L.M. 85, 2003; and Hie iM'wen Croup, Inc, and Raymolld L. Loewen P. United States <if' America (Loewen), 42 I.L.M. 811, 2003. See discussions of these cases in greater detail in Section [II.A of this article,.

  • ' Free Trade Commission (FIe), Note of Interpretation Concerning Article 1105, issued 31 July 2001; available at: <www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/tna-nac/NAFTA-Interpr-en.asp> (last visited 8 February 2005) (hereinafter FTC Note). '" See, for example, the dicta of the panels in Loewen, supra, footnote 8, and Alolldev, supra, footnote 8, and the discussion in David Ganz, The Revolution of FTA Investment Provisions: From NAF'rA to the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement, 19 Am. U. Int'l L. Rev. 679, 2004, at 716. " Although the fair and equitable treatment standard is found in almost all BtTS, several multilateral investment treaties also specify the standard. See, for example, Article 4R of The United Nations Code �)fcotidiict on TrallSllatiorl<11 Corporation;, United Nations Centre on Transnational Corporations, Current Studies, Series A, New York, 1986, UN Doc. ST/Crc/SER.A/4. Annex 1; Article m(2) of the World Bank Guidelines on Treatment of Foreign Direct Investment, available at: �ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/WorIdBank.pdf (last visited 8 February 2005); and Article 10(1) of the Energy Charter Treaty, available at: <www.enchartcr.org/ index.jsp?psk=01&ptp=tDetaiI.jsp&'pci=265&-pti=12) (last visited 8 February 2005). 12 See, for example, Article 2(a) of the Bilateral Investment Treaty between the United States and The Czech Republic, signed 22 October 1991, entered into force 19 December 1992, available at: <www.mzv.cz/ washington/ekon/ekon_us/bit.pd6 (last visited 8 February 2005); Article 2(a) of the 1996 BIT between the Republic of Armenia and the United States, available at: <www.aniieniaforeignministry.com/doc7conventions/ 92-16-americainvestprotect-23-09-92-e.pdfi (last visited 8 February 2005); and Article 11(2) of the 1986 BIT between the United States and Grenada, available at: (www.sice.oas.org/bits/usagrcn1.asp) (last visited 8 February 2005).

  • Ian Laird, NAFTA Chapter 11: Betrayal, Shock and OutraSmRecent Developments in NAFT4 Article 1105, 3 Asper Rev. Int'I Bus. & Trade L. 185, 2003, at 188. 14 lid. 'S Article 10.5, United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement, signed 15 June 2004; available at: <www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/BilateraI/Morocco_FT A/Final- Text/Section_1 ndex.html, (last visited 8 February 2005). This wording is now commonly used in recent BITS to which the United States is a party. See, for example, Article 11.5 of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreements, which entered into force on 1 January 2005, available at: (www.defat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/usJta/final-text/chapter_l1.html> (last visited 8 February 2005); and Article 10.4 of the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement, signed 6 June 2003, available at: www.ustr.gov/Trade_A6�reciiieiits/Bilateral/Chile-FTA/Fiiial-Texts/Sectioii-lndex.litiiil, (last visited 8 February 2005). 16 Ibid., at Article 10.5(2) and (3). " Ibid., at Article 10.5(2)(a). 'R Ibid., at Annex 10-A. '° Id.

  • -' However, as will be seen, NARTA panels have accepted that due process rights are an element of the fair and equitable treatment standard. 21 Waste Mt)nt�<'HK');f. Iiic. o. United Mexican States, (Wa�te Management), 43 I.L.M. 967, 2004. 22 Ibid., at para.98 23 Supra, footnotc 8.

  • 24 Ibid., at para. 76. 25 The Tribunal interpreted Article 1105 to include the requirement of transparency from the objectives set out in the NAFJA, including the reference to transparency set out in Article 102(1) of the NAFTA. Ibid., at para. 88. Ibid., at para. 99. '8 The United Mexican States v. Metalclad Coryoratiov (Mexico v. Metalclad), 2001 B.C.S.C. 664; available at: (www.canlii.com/bc/cas/bcsc/2001/2001bcsc1529.htmh (last visited 8 February 2005). Ibid., at para. 108. 30 bid.

  • 31 Ibid. 32 Emilio Agustin Maffezini v. The Kingdom of Spain (Ma�ezim), ICSID Case No. A1UJ/97/7. 40 I.L.M. 1148, 2001. 3J Ibid., at para. 83. 3+ Tecnicas Medioambientales Teemed S.A. v. The United Mexican States, (Tecmed), ICSID Case No. Aat3(AF)/00/2, 40 I.L.M. 133, 2004, at para. 154.

  • 35 Ibid., at para. 160. 3ó Ibid., at para. 162. 37 Ibid., at para. 164. 'n See, for example, the 1961 Harvard Draft Convention on Responsibility of States for Damage done on their Territory to the Person or Property of Foreigners, as cited in Louis B. Sohn and R.R. Baxter, Resyonsibility of States for Injuries to the Economic Interests of Aliens, 55 Am. J. Int'1 L. 545, 1961, at 550.

  • .\9 See supra, footnotes 15 and 17. 411 Metalclad, supra, footnote 8, at para. 91. 41 Ibid., at paras. 54 and 91. a= Ibid., at para. 93. �3 Ibid., at para. 92.

  • 44Mondev,supra, footnote 8. 'S Ibid., at para. 127. 4(1 Loewen, supra, footnote 8. Ibid., at para. 132. 4H Ibid., at para. 119. 4" Ibid., at para. 136. 511 Ibid., at para. 122. 51 Ibid., at para. 137. '= Robert Azinial1 and others v. the United Mexican States (Azinian), ICSID Case No. ARu(AF)/97/2, 39 I.L.M. 537, 2000. 53 Ibid., at para. 99.

  • '■> Ibid., at paras. 102-105. 'S Metalclad, supra, footnote 8, at para. 76. 5fi Teemed, supra, footnote 34, at para. 154. 57 CME Czech Republic B.V. (tlie Netherlands) r. The Czech Republic, (C.WE). Partial Award of 13 September 2001; available at: (www.mfcr.cz/static/Arbitraz/ell/PartialAward.pd6 (last visited 8 February 2005). 58 Ibid., at para. 611. 5'1 Ibid., at paras. 1-24. 611 Ibid., at paras. 133 and 611.

  • (l1 Id. See the reference at para. 611 to Vagt's threshold test at para. 526. h2 Ronald Lander P. 77re Czech Republic, (Lander), UNCITRAL Arbitration, Final Award of 3 September 2001; available at: `ita.law.uvic.ca/chronological_list.htnu (last visited 8 February 2005). 63 Ronald Lauder, a U.S. citizen who controlled CME, brought two parallel disputes against the Czech Republic for the loss of (:NTS' broadcasting services. In the CUE case, supra, footnote 57, CME, a Dutch company, brought its complaint under the Netherlands-Czech Republic Bit with its place of arbitration in Stockholm, Sweden. In Llllder, ibid., Ronald Lauder acted as claimant in the dispute which was brought under the United States-Czech Republic BIT with its place of arbitration in London, England. However, in a bizarre twist, the results in the two cases were diametrically opposed. Whereas in CME the Tribunal found for the investor, in Launder each of the investor's claims were rejected. "4 Lauder, ibid., at para. 291. 65 Am- Group, supra, footnote 1. Ibid., at para. 189. (,7 "Buy America" requirements were regulations that required materials used in the project to be from U.S. sources or that mandated the manufacturing processes to occur within the United States. 6H Anr Group, supra, footnote 1, at para. 189.

  • 69WasteManagement,supra, footnote 21, at para. 109. 11 However, since the dispute in question was unresolved, the Tribunal determined that a decision on the fair and equitable claim was premature. See SGS Soci�t� Generale de SlIrt'eillallœ S.A. v. Republic of the Philippine, Icon) Case No. ARB/02/6: available at: 'www.worldbank.org/icsid/cases/pending.htt1l). 71 Waste Management, supra, footnote 21, at para. 115. 72 Id. 71 CAMl Investments, Inc. v. United Mexican States, (CAMt), 15 November 2004; available at: <www.state.gov/ s/)/c7H9.htm<, at para. 103 (last visited 8 February 2005). �� Ibid., at para. 108. �5 Ibid., at para. 97.

  • Ibid., at para. 110. Metalclad, supra, footnote 8, at paras. 85-89. 78 Waste Management, supra, footnote 21, at para. 98. 'v Lauder, S'Tra, footnote 62, at paras. 293-294.

  • R°Pope&Talbat,supra, footnote 8. 91 Ibid., at paras. 172-173. n= Ibid., at para. 174. n3 Ibid., at para. 179. 84 Ibid., at paras. 174 and 177-179. 81 AD!' Group, stipra, footnote 1, at para. 191. 8fl Waste Management, supra, footnote 21, at para. 138.

  • 87GAMI,supra, footnote 73, at para. 94. 88 S.D. Dyers, stwra, footnote 8, at para. 266. Article 1102(1) of the Nana governs national treatment. It states: "Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments." 84 S.D. Myers, supra, footnote 8, at paras. 162 and 252. "I Ibid., at para. 259. » Ibid., at paras. 263-264.

  • ''= Article B(3), FTC Note, supra, footnote 9. y5 Lauder, supra, footnote 62, at para. 291. y� Adf Group, supra, footnote 1, at para. 191. 95 Metalclad, supra, footnote 8, at para. 86.

  • ,)(I Id. 97 Pope & Talbot, supra, footnote 8, at paras. 174-175. 98 Id. vv Tecmed, supra, footnote 34, at para. 153. 100 Id., citing Moniev, supra, footnote 8, at para. 116. 1111 Ibid., at para. 154.

  • ]()2 Id. "'3 G1MI, supra, footnote 73, at para. 97. 104 Waste Management, supra, footnote 21, at para. 138; S.D. Myers, supra, footnote 8, at para. 134. 11" ADF Group, supra, footnote 1, at para. 191. 1. '0(, Lalld aiitl Maritime Boundary (Camerooll v. Nigeria), 1998 1.('J. 275.

  • 1117Lt�H'f'N,supra, footnote 8, at para. 128; �'f;�ft', �t�'rj, footnote 8, at para. 121.

  • ""'Mondcv, ibid., at paras. 122-123 and 125. 109 Courtney C. Kirkman, Fair and Eqllitable Treatment: Methanes v. United States and the Harrowing Srope of NAFTA Artide 1705, 34 Law & Pol'y Iiit'l Bus. 343, 2002, at 392. 1"' Rudolf Dolzcr and Margrete Stevens, Bilateral Investment Treaties, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1995, at xi.; Giorgio Sacerdoti, Bilateral Treaties and Multilateral Instrument.a, in Reciieil des Cours, Collected Courses of the Hague, Academy of International Law, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1998, 251, at 298. '" Dolzer and Stevens, id. 112 In Pope & Talbot, stipri, footnote 8, the Tribunal referred to the NAFTA'S goal as being one which creates a "hospitable" investment climate.

  • m James L. Brierly, Law of Nations, 6th edition, edited by Waldock, Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K., 1963, at 61; lan Brownlie, Principles of Publiclnternational l.nw, 6th edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K., 2003, at pp. 6-10. rr; Brownlie, ibid., at p. 6. "5 Karl-Heinz B6cksticgcl, Cleneral Introduction to Investment Treaty Arbitration, in Gabrielle Kaurmann-Kohler and Blaise Stucki (eds.), Investment Treaties and Arbitration, Association Suisse de ]' Arbitrage, Special Series No. 19, 2002, at 2.

  • 1G.�iiii,supm, footnote 73, at paras. 84-85.

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 752 440 32
Full Text Views 278 34 0
PDF Views & Downloads 189 89 2