Search Results

The main focus of the present article is on the entanglement between four bodies of international law sensitive to foreign investment in the creation and/or operation hydroelectric industry: i.e. international investment law, human rights law, international water law and private international law to the extent that public international law rules on conflict of laws on civil liability for transboundary damage are concerned. This horizontal approach to the analysis is supplemented by a vertical one looking at the interactions between international and domestic law. Consideration of the different bodies of international law in question is associated to that of the adjudicative, and non-adjudicative, means of dispute settlement available under each such bodies of law. On that score, the role of the foreign investor in a litigation scenery will be considered, primarily as claimant, but also, prospectively, in relation to the situation in the State hosting the investment is, or may become, respondent in inter-State litigation.

A large number of BITs concluded by France contain quite a peculiar clause (for instance Article 10 BIT with Argentina), which has been recently the object of questionable interpretations and applications in EDF International S.A. et al. v. Argentina and Mr. Franck Charles Arif v. Moldova. Both tribunals allowed the claimants to benefit, through the MNF clause, from umbrella clauses contained in BITs with third States. It is argued that neither tribunal has rigorously interpreted the relevant provisions in the basic treaty, nor ensured compliance with the ejusdem generis principle. The legal uncertainty that surrounds these provisions is detrimental for foreign investors and States alike. Concerned States should consider taking the measures necessary to clarify, jointly or individually, the content of these provisions and of the obligations stemming from them.