STATE LIABILITY IN INVESTMENT TREATY ARBITRATION GLOBAL CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW IN THPDF|Epub|txt|kindle电子书版本网盘下载

STATE LIABILITY IN INVESTMENT TREATY ARBITRATION GLOBAL CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW IN THPDF格式电子书版下载

注意：本站所有压缩包均有解压码： 点击下载压缩包解压工具

Introduction1

First Part： A Framework of Analysis29

Chapter 1： The Latin American Position on State Responsibility. Looking into the Past for Lessons on the Future31

Introduction： The Latin American Struggle against Diplomatic Protection31

Ⅰ The Calvo Doctrine and Clause： Two Nineteenth Century Anti-Diplomatic Protection Institutions35

A The Practice of Diplomatic Protection in the Nineteenth Century36

B The Calvo Doctrine38

C The Calvo Clause45

Ⅱ The End of Gunboat Diplomacy48

Ⅲ From the Calvo Doctrine to Expropriation Without Compensation55

Ⅳ International Minimum Standards Strike Back62

Ⅴ Updating the Calvo Doctrine in the BIT Generation74

Conclusions： Building a Normative Stance Based on Equality80

Chapter 2： The BIT Generation’s Emergence as a Collective Action Problem. Prisoner’s Dilemma or Network Effects？83

Introduction： Why Do Developing Countries Sign BITs？83

Ⅰ The BIT Generation as a Prisoner’s Dilemma87

Ⅱ Weak Competition and Network Effects90

Ⅲ A Formal Model of the BIT Generation as a Virtual Network96

Ⅳ Evidence of the BIT Generation as a Virtual Network104

A Five Structural Arguments104

B Positive Externalities of the BIT System112

V Providing answers for critical questions115

Conclusions. Normative Implications of the Virtual Network Theory of the BIT Generation122

Chapter 3： Trading Off Sovereignty for Credibility： Questions of Legitimacy in the BIT Generation125

Introduction： Legitimacy in International Investment Law125

Ⅰ The Legitimacy Problem： Ad Hoc International Arbitral Tribunals Discharging a Preservationist Constitutional Function128

A International Law as Governance129

B Governing with Judges133

C Ad Hoc International Arbitral Tribunals Discharging a Preservationist Constitutional Function135

Ⅱ Assessing Potential Sources of Legitimacy141

A Consent Legitimacy141

B Output Legitimacy144

C Exit Legitimacy145

D Rule of Law Legitimacy146

E Institution-Building Legitimacy154

Ⅲ Diversifying Risks in the BIT Lottery： Why an Appellate Body or an International Investment Court is Not the Solution155

Conclusions： Future of the BIT Generation159

Second Part： An Assessment of the Present State of Investment Treaty Arbitration Jurisprudence163

Chapter 4： Property Rights v The Public Interests： A Comparative Approach to a Global Puzzle165

Introduction： Risks and Benefits of Building a Comparative Patchwork165

Ⅰ Understanding the Intertwined Relationship of PropertyRights and Regulation168

Ⅱ The Core v The Public Interest： Hopeless Attempts to Escape Fully from Balancing177

A Property Rights-at-the-Core as Fundamental Rights177

B The Gateway Question of the Core184

C the Denominator Problem and Conceptual Severance188

D Termination of Property Rights without Compensation191

Ⅲ The Periphery v the Public Interest： The Muddied Waters of Complex Balancing198

A The Protection of Property Rights’ Periphery： Expropriations and Responsabilite de l’Etat199

B Arbitrariness as Illegality200

C Arbitrariness as Irrationality206

D Arbitrariness as Special Sacrifice213

E Arbitrariness as Lack of Proportionality （stricto sensu）216

F Legitimate Expectations222

Conclusions. Three Lessons from Comparative Law for International Investment Law227

Chapter 5. Investments， Indirect Expropriations and the Regulatory State231

Introduction： Why is Recognsing Indirect Takings So Difficult？231

Ⅰ Investments and Indirect Expropriations as GlobalConstitutional Law： New Limits for States’ Police Powers236

A The Investment-Expropriation Relationship in InvestmentTreaties as a Global Constitutional Law Problem237

B A ‘Patterning Definition’ Approach to the Concept of Investment243

C Does the Definition of Investment Play a Substantive Role？251

Ⅱ The Rule of Thumb： Indirect Expropriations as Total or Substantial Deprivations253

A The ‘Sole Effects’ Doctrine in Indirect Expropriations： Total or Substantial Deprivations254

B What is Substantial Deprivation？261

C The Denominator Problem in Investment Treaty Disputes265

Ⅲ Are There Total or Substantial Deprivations That Do Not Qualify as Expropriations？273

A Exceptions Ⅰ： Termination of Investment in Accordance with the Law274

B Exceptions Ⅱ： Pre-eminent Public Interests277

C Counter-Exceptions： Arbitrariness and Fair and Equitable Treatment Considerations in Expropriation Claims281

Conclusions： Fearing Ad Hocism More than an Excessively Extensive Concept of Expropriations288

Chapter 6： Controlling Arbitrariness through the Fair and Equitable Standard293

Introduction： Arbitrariness in International Investment Law293

Ⅰ The Current Debate in International Investment Law： The Alleged Autonomous Character of the FET Standard298

A The Challenge of the FET Standard： Defining a New Standard of Review299

B A New Standard Under Traditional Methods： FET and Treaty Interpretation under Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention303

C IMS as a Methodological Constraint over Arbitral Tribunals307

Ⅱ A General Framework of Analysis： Finding the Essential Dimensions of a GAL Approach to the FET Standard310

Ⅲ The First Dimension of the GAL Approach to the FET Standard： The Legal System Falling Below IMS as the Basis of International Wrongfulness318

Ⅳ The Second Dimension of the GAL Approach to the FET Standard： Domestic Illegalities as the Basis of International Wrongful Acts323

A The Non-Courts of Appeal Doctrine324

B Extent of Domestic Judicial Review326

i First Option： Remanding Cases to Domestic Courts： The Rebirth of the Local Remedies Rule327

ii Second Option： Reviewing Illegality， Irrationality， Special Sacrifice， and Lack of Proportionality in Accordance with Domestic Law329

iii Third Option： Reviewing Only Illegality in Accordance with Domestic Law330

C Standards of Review of Questions of Law332

i First Option： Transposing Denial of Justice Age Standards to the BIT Generation： The ‘Manifestly Unjust’ Standard333

ii Second Option： Municipal Law as Facts： De Novo Review334

iii Third Option： The Same Level of Deference That Is Generally Applied by Domestic Courts337

D The ‘Something More’ Doctrine338

Ⅴ The Third Dimension of the GAL Approach to the FET Standard： Arbitrariness and the Control of Discretionary Powers342

A The Perils of Process-Based Heightened Scrutiny and Object and Purpose Interpretation343

B Due Process： Administrative Denial of Justice348

C Arbitrariness as Irrationality351

i Ends and Legitimate State Interests351

ii Means and Their Relationship to Ends354

D Arbitrariness as Special Sacrifice and Lack of Proportionality （Stricto Sensu）355

E Legitimate Expectations359

i Without Assurances360

ii With Assurances362

Conclusions： The Horizontal and Vertical Constraints on the FET Standard366

Conclusions： Future of the BIT Generation： For a Global Legal Order Committed to the Rule of Law and Human Welfare369

Bibliography375

Index405