Despite the absence of a multilateral investment agreement, states have negotiated a wide range of plurilateral investment agreements. Indeed, most of the interesting changes in investment law today are properly conceived of as plurilateral initiatives. These initiatives have made progress where multilateralism has stalled by doing two things. First, they have not tried to address the core of substantive investment law, focusing instead on procedural and ancilliary issues such as dispute resolution, transparency, and investment promotion. Second, they have been attached to institutions, such as the World Trade Organization and World Bank, that are not investment law institutions. This lack of institutional focus on investment law creates two benefits: a) it breaks difficult linkages between substantive investment law and procedural or ancillary issues, allowing progress to be made on the latter, while b) still embedding the resulting agreement in an institutional framework that promotes negotiation, effective implementation, and compliance.
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
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 327 | 327 | 123 |
Full Text Views | 8 | 8 | 3 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 51 | 51 | 33 |
Despite the absence of a multilateral investment agreement, states have negotiated a wide range of plurilateral investment agreements. Indeed, most of the interesting changes in investment law today are properly conceived of as plurilateral initiatives. These initiatives have made progress where multilateralism has stalled by doing two things. First, they have not tried to address the core of substantive investment law, focusing instead on procedural and ancilliary issues such as dispute resolution, transparency, and investment promotion. Second, they have been attached to institutions, such as the World Trade Organization and World Bank, that are not investment law institutions. This lack of institutional focus on investment law creates two benefits: a) it breaks difficult linkages between substantive investment law and procedural or ancillary issues, allowing progress to be made on the latter, while b) still embedding the resulting agreement in an institutional framework that promotes negotiation, effective implementation, and compliance.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 327 | 327 | 123 |
Full Text Views | 8 | 8 | 3 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 51 | 51 | 33 |