USD $153.00
Browse results
How Involuntary Dissolution Statute May Be the Solution
Author:
Non-pecuniary private benefits, a phenomenon in publicly traded corporations, may be extracted by influencing shareholders to the detriment of minority shareholders and corporations. This book, with particular focus on Turkish law and American law, investigates the loopholes paving the way of non-pecuniary private benefit extractions in the context of corporate law. Pehlivanoğlu proposes to use shareholder oppression law’s reasonable expectations standard to expand the reach of involuntary dissolution statutes to cover non-pecuniary private benefit extractions of influencing shareholders.
How Involuntary Dissolution Statute May Be the Solution
Author:
Non-pecuniary private benefits, a phenomenon in publicly traded corporations, may be extracted by influencing shareholders to the detriment of minority shareholders and corporations. This book, with particular focus on Turkish law and American law, investigates the loopholes paving the way of non-pecuniary private benefit extractions in the context of corporate law. Pehlivanoğlu proposes to use shareholder oppression law’s reasonable expectations standard to expand the reach of involuntary dissolution statutes to cover non-pecuniary private benefit extractions of influencing shareholders.
Author:
Abstract
This article articulates an ‘anti-reformist’ stance toward the reform of international investment law and dispute settlement. The mainstream debates over the future of investment law are generally ‘reformist,’ in the sense that they seek to maintain the system of special legal rights afforded to a discrete class of persons defined as ‘investors’. This system of special rights amplifies investors’ power vis-à-vis other constituencies and is premised on flimsy assumptions about the investor’s vulnerability that are not borne out either in theory or in practice. Drawing on recent work in other fields, this article sketches an anti-reformist approach that asserts these fundamental challenges, even as it remains engaged in contemporary reform debates. It also discusses the near-term implications of this approach for procedural and substantive reform of investment treaties, as well as the long-range goals of an anti-reformist stance.
Author:
Abstract
The current Africanization approaches mask some nuances present in current reform efforts of international investment law (IIL) and investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) in Africa. I adopt the categorization of international law scholarship in Africa developed elsewhere into two trends: contributionist (weak) and critical (strong) scholarship. For reforms in African IIL and ISDS, I relabel this trends benign Africanization representing the contributionist (weak) strand and radical Africanization representing the critical (strong) strand. I argue that African states must focus on wider economic justice engendered in the radical Africanization approach. I propose three lines of action that will implement radical Africanization: first African States, in their reforms, must focus on both extra and intra-African investment; second, the reforms must engage deeply seated substantive issues in addition to the current procedural reforms; and finally, African States must have a real reckoning and engagement with the imperial history of IIL generally and ISDS specifically.
Author:
Abstract
The reforms of investment treaties include the incorporation of flexibilities into standards of investment protection such as indirect expropriation to accommodate public interest regulatory autonomy. In this article, I assess the efficacy of these reforms by analysing the intersection of constitutional provisions on compulsory acquisition and regulation of property in selected African constitutions and expropriation provisions in investment treaties. I argue that indirect expropriation provisions in investment treaties are unconstitutional. I also argue that the new generation investment treaties which incorporate these exceptions do not preserve African States’ authority to acquire and regulate private property. The exceptions do not resolve the incompatibility between the constitutional authority to take and regulate property without paying compensation and African States’ investment treaty obligations on indirect expropriation. By providing for precatory and inefficacious exceptions to indirect expropriation while leaving intact substantive standards of investment protection, the reforms of investment treaties preserve an investment treaty law and arbitration regime that remains skewed towards investors and covered investments.
Author:
Abstract
In this article, I show how the framework of empire remains central for analyzing contemporary international investment law. Moving beyond criticisms about the domination of global South polities by the West, or by a transnational capitalist class, I suggest instead that ‘empire’ can help us analyze the protocols of reasoning in investor-State arbitrations. Through a close reading of scholarship on the fair and equitable (FET) clause, and a recent arbitral award arising out an FET claim, I show that the field is characterized by an imperial mode of legal reasoning. This mode was reason was produced by a foundational distrust of postcolonial developmental States. It involves judging concrete State action against a fictional universal baseline that represents the ordoliberal utopia of an austere rule of law bound State. Crucially, in investor-State dispute settlement, this form of reasoning remains discernible even when foreign investors do not succeed.
Author:
Abstract
The social license to operate can be broadly defined as the social acceptability of an investor’s business practices by local communities. This article argues that the social license to operate can be incorporated into international investment law by allowing for local communities’ participation. The Brazilian cooperation and facilitation of investments agreements (CFIA) are used as a benchmark to sustain this argument. I explain that the CFIAs make room for the social license to operate at a procedural and at a substantial level. First, local communities can participate in the dispute prevention procedures provided for by CFIA. By this means, they bring a third party’s perspective into the investor-State relationship by voicing its concerns on the investors’ activities. Substantially, this can be supported by the detailed provisions on corporate social responsibility enshrined in the CFIA and which can be invoked by the local communities during the dispute prevention procedure.
Author:
Abstract
This article examines the role of indigenous communities in international investment law. It concludes that indigenous communities have only limited agency in the context of investment law-making and adjudication. Such limitations continue the colonial legacy of international law. If international investment law aspires to achieve legitimacy, the departure from the exclusionary practices is necessary. In this context, the article recommends carving out the investment disputes that involve indigenous peoples and/or impact their livelihoods from the traditional model of investor-State dispute settlement. It further argues for reframing investment rules to account for indigenous laws and practices.
Author:
Abstract
Ongoing investment law reform processes take the investment treaty system as the starting point. While this can generate actionable reform options, it also entrenches ‘path dependency’ and forecloses space for more foundational questions. This article argues that, in the context of climate change, effective reform requires re-embedding debates within a policy space that places climate at its centre. The argument entails recognising: (i) climate change as a comprehensive ecological, economic and social challenge; (ii) the preferential nature of the protections investment treaties establish for foreign investment; and (iii) the structural misalignments that exist between this legal regime and climate action. It also involves interrogating the normative considerations invoked to justify investment protection treaties. The findings highlight the need to reorient collective reflection towards designing reforms that – rather than address narrowly defined concerns within the current system – develop a new system that can respond to 21st century challenges.
Author:
Abstract
Foreign investors enjoy the best of both worlds, often to the detriment of local communities, indigenous groups and other rightsholders who suffer violations in their wake. Such investors operate transnationally and access vast amounts of resources in host States around the world enjoying substantial rights secured through numerous trade and investment agreements while their human rights and other obligations remain less clear and more difficult to enforce. Given the relatively undertheorized interaction between efforts to come up with a binding treaty within the regime of business and human rights (BHR) and the reforms currently underway in the regime of international investment law (IIL), this contribution argues that despite reforms in IIL and progress towards a BHR treaty, rightsholders are likely to remain under protected in reality.
Author:
Abstract
Calls to rethink international investment law (IIL) are not new. Yet, current reform efforts have been largely moderate undertakings that do not challenge the underlying rationale and structure of IIL, which have significant implications for local communities and Indigenous peoples. This article argues that while some ongoing reforms may mitigate some challenges of IIL, they do not challenge IIL’s underlying rationale and structure which form the basis for most of the system’s legitimacy concerns. To effectively address IIL’s legitimacy concerns, it must move from moderate reform to perspectives that can foster redefinition of the system, and this requires a re-turn to IIL’s encounters with local communities and Indigenous peoples. The article presents and elucidates three principles that engage the transformative potential of the positions of local communities and Indigenous peoples and support redefinition of IIL – self-determination and agency, democratization, and a reconstructed investment law consciousness.