State Responsibility for Breaches of Investment Contracts

Cover
Half Title
Series page
Title page
Imprints page
Dedication
Contents
Foreword
Preface
Acknowledgements
List of abbreviations
Treaties, National Legislation, Cases and Awards
Introduction
1 Power and Principle in the Origins of Contractual Protection
	1.1 Introduction
	1.2 The Early 1800s to the Early 1900s: Contractual Protection through Diplomacy
	1.3 The Early 1900s to the 1920s: Contractual Protection through International Adjudication
		1.3.1 Three Case Studies on the Assertion of Power by Home States to Determine the Format of Dispute Settlement
			1.3.1.1 The Italy­Venezuela Claims Commission
			1.3.1.2 The US­Mexico Claims Commission
			1.3.1.3 The US­Guatemala Claim Commission
		1.3.2 Three Case Studies on the Assertion of Delegated Power by Mixed Claims Commissions to Determine the Legal Content of Contractual Protection and the Outcome of the Dispute
			1.3.2.1 The Martini Case
			1.3.2.2 The North American Dredging Company of Texas Claim
			1.3.2.3 The Shufeldt Claim
		1.3.3 The Emergence of Three General Principles on Contractual Protection
			1.3.3.1 Principle 1: Contractual Forum Selection Clauses Are Not Jurisdictional Bars to International Claims
			1.3.3.2 Principle 2: Contractual Breaches per se Are Not Violations of International Law
			1.3.3.3 Principle 3: Only Contractual Breaches Iure Imperii Are Potential Violations of International Law
	1.4 The 1920s to the 1990s: Contractual Protection through Codification
		1.4.1 State Codifications
		1.4.2 Private Codifications
	1.5 Conclusion
2 Arbitral Awards and the Generation of International Law
	2.1 Introduction
	2.2 How Arbitral Awards Became a Principal Source of International Law on Contractual Protection
		2.2.1 The Capacity of Arbitral Awards to Generate Binding Legal Content on Disputing Parties
		2.2.2 Lacuna or Ambiguity in the Law
		2.2.3 Access to and Adoption of Legal Content Found in Earlier Arbitral Awards
	2.3 A (Dis)orderly Source of International Law
		2.3.1 The Absence of a Formal System of Binding Precedent for Arbitral Awards
		2.3.2 The Analogy between Voluntary Adherence to Earlier Arbitral Awards and Jurisprudence Constante
	2.4 Why Arbitral Awards Converge on the Content of International Law
		2.4.1 The Natural Selection of Arbitral Awards
		2.4.2 A Prevailing Answer to a Common Question among Arbitral Awards
	2.5 Conclusion
3 State Responsibility and the Core Standard of Treatment
	3.1 Introduction
	3.2 The Derivation of a Core Standard for Contractual Protection from the Minimum Standard for Alien Protection
		3.2.1 Arbitrariness
		3.2.2 Contractual Breaches Iure Imperii without Compensation for Injury Suffered or Prospect of Redress
		3.3 The Preservation of the Core Standard of Treatment for Investment Contracts
		3.3.1 The Turn to Fair and Equitable Treatment
			3.3.1.1 Approach 1: FET Has a Single Component
			3.3.1.2 Approach 2: FET Has Several Components
			3.3.1.3 The Preferred Approach for Contractual Breaches
		3.3.2 The Return to the Minimum Standard of Treatment
	3.4 Contractual Breaches That Violate the Core Standard of Treatment
		3.4.1 Non-payment
		3.4.2 Cumulative Acts and Omissions
		3.4.3 Acta Iure Imperii
		3.4.4 Coerced Renegotiation
		3.4.5 Cancellation
	3.5 Conclusion
4 State Responsibility and Expropriation
	4.1 Introduction
	4.2 The Object of Expropriation
		4.2.1 Contract as Property in General International Law
			4.2.1.1 Precedent on Contract as Property in Domestic Law
				4.2.1.1.1 The Meaning of Property
				4.2.1.1.2 Constitutional Protection for Property Rights
				4.2.1.1.3 Judicial Elaboration on Contract as Property
			4.2.1.2 Precedent on Contract as Property in International Law
				4.2.1.2.1 The Meaning of Property
				4.2.1.2.2 International Decisions on Contract as Property
		4.2.2 Contract as Investment in Investment Treaty Law
			4.2.2.1 The Meaning of Investment
			4.2.2.2 Investments Are Subject to the Right of Host States to Expropriate
	4.3 The Existence of Expropriation
		4.3.1 Expropriatory Contractual Breaches
			4.3.1.1 Acta Iure Imperii
			4.3.1.2 Cancellation
		4.3.2 Non-expropriatory Contractual Breaches
			4.3.2.1 Forced Renegotiations
			4.3.2.2 Fractional Interference with Contractual Rights
	4.4 The Unlawfulness of Expropriation
		4.4.1 Absence of Compensation
		4.4.2 Absence of Public Purpose
		4.4.3 Absence of Due Process
	4.5 Conclusion
5 State Responsibility and Internationalisation
	5.1 Introduction
	5.2 Panoptic Internationalisation
		5.2.1 Theoretical Foundations and Flaws
			5.2.1.1 The Vienna School
			5.2.1.2 McNair
			5.2.1.3 Criticism of Internationalisation
		5.2.2 The Engineered Inviolability of Contractual Rights
			5.2.2.1 Contractual Rights as Acquired Rights
			5.2.2.2 Contractual Rights as Stabilised Rights
	5.3 Umbrella Clause Internationalisation
		5.3.1 The Contract­Treaty Claim Distinction and Overlap
		5.3.2 The Interpretation of Umbrella Clauses
			5.3.2.1 Principal Means of Interpretation
			5.3.2.2 Supplementary Means of Interpretation
		5.3.3 Degrees of Umbrella Clause Internationalisation
			5.3.3.1 No Internationalisation: SGS v. Philippines
			5.3.3.2 Partial Internationalisation: Joy Mining v. Egypt
			5.3.3.3 Full Internationalisation: Noble Ventures v. Romania
	5.4 Investment Contract Internationalisation within Investment Treaty Protection
		5.4.1 The Improbability of Absolute Contractual Protection
		5.4.2 The Multilateralisation of Enhanced Contractual Protection
	5.5 Conclusion
6 The Emerging International Law on Investment Contract Protection
	6.1 Introduction
	6.2 The Relationships between General International Law and Investment Treaty Law
		6.2.1 A Relationship of Stabilisation: Core Standard of Treatment and Expropriation
			6.2.1.1 MST-Linked FET and Rationalising the Limited Appeal of Preserving Investor Expectations
			6.2.1.2 Only Property­like Investments Can Be Expropriated
		6.2.2 A Relationship of Separation: Internationalisation
	6.3 The Case for Integrationist Investment Treaty Interpretation
		6.3.1 The Relevance of VCLT Article 31(3)(c)
		6.3.2 The Desirability of Certainty amid Change
	6.4 The Retreat of Isolationist Investment Treaty Interpretation
	6.5 Conclusion
7 The Future of International Investment Contract Claims
	7.1 Introduction
	7.2 The Uniqueness of Contract­based FET Claims
	7.2.1 Substantive Protection under FET and Expropriation Clauses Compared
	7.2.2 Substantive Protection under FET and Umbrella Clauses Compared
	7.3 The Prospects of Contract­based FET Claims
		7.3.1 FET and Expropriation Claims Compared
		7.3.2 FET and Umbrella Clause Claims Compared
	7.4 Investment Contract Protection under Investment Treaties and Beyond
		7.4.1 Protection via the Core Standard of Treatment
		7.4.2 Protection via the Expropriation of Alien Property
		7.4.3 Protection via an FET Clause in an Investment Treaty
		7.4.4 Protection via an Expropriation Clause in an Investment Treaty
		7.4.5 Protection via an Umbrella Clause in an Investment Treaty
	7.5 Conclusion
Conclusion
Bibliography
Index