Recent situations of States recovering from conflict show that foreign direct investment (FDI) act as a double-edged sword and are characterized by an inherent paradox. Indeed, on the one hand, post-conflict economic reconstruction and development requires and relies on FDI. On the other, rights granted to foreign investors before and during the post-conflict phase may result in a backlash for States recovering from conflict because rights granted to foreign investors have – besides the general tensions caused by such instruments – specific consequences in post-conflict situations due to the economic, security-related, social and demographic specificities of those situations. This article maps and charts the issues raised by FDI protection in post-conflict situations, and thus provides the context for the debate of the interaction between FDI regulation and post-conflict situation.
The functional underpinning of institutional immunity remains crucial today in order to guarantee the independent fulfilment by the organization of its mandate. Despite this relatively firmly established principle, domestic courts and tribunals have shown in recent cases that they are very critical of the idea of the absolute character of international organization immunity, not the least in relation to the right of access to court, guaranteed inter alia by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Belgium is host to between 50 and 100 international organizations or liaison offices of international organizations, most of which are located in Brussels. For that reason, the number of potential disputes involving an international organization in Belgium is important. This paper gives an overview of the official Belgian policy in respect of international organization immunity, and analyses relevant Belgian case-law that considers the rationale behind the grant of privileges and immunities to international organizations. It then considers the source of an international organization’s immunity, the scope of that immunity, and the obligation to provide for alternative means of dispute settlement and the individual’s right of access to court.
The role played by international organizations in international law has evolved in the past decades. However, the continued application of an absolute system of immunities to international organizations has often led to a perception of impunity, in particular when organizations are involved in the administrations of foreign territories. Even though absolute immunity has been described as an 'anachronism', this article argues that international organization immunity serves a useful and essential purpose. The grant of privileges and immunities to international organizations is indispensable to allow the organization to effectively and independently carry out its functions. The functional reflections that lie at the basis of the immunities system of international organizations still are extremely pertinent when organizations exercise administrative duties in place of a state. This articles thus claims that there is a need to maintain immunities in order to preserve institutional autonomy, even when the UN or another international organization has taken up administrative duties in a state or territory, and suggests that, instead of proposing a revision or abolition of the system of immunities, the focus should be placed on the establishment of effective alternative mechanisms to assess alleged violations of the international legal obligations of the organization.
This article seeks to test whether African investment treaties present a specific approach – i.e. distinct from the North-American and Western Hemisphere – to fair and equitable treatment (FET) and (full) protection and security (FPS). The first main argument is that the concepts of FET and FPS are not substantially impacted by the mere fact of being included in investment agreements to which African States are party. The second main argument is that the understanding, interpretation and definitions of these concepts within Africa is not fundamentally different than in other regions. Thirdly, notwithstanding the similarity in the wording of these standards of treatment in African investment treaties, there may still be room for taking into account the specific circumstances of the States in which the investment is made, including the level of development of the host State.