‘Necessary’ in Non-Precluded Measures Provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties: The Indian Contribution

Netherlands International Law Review - Tập 67 - Trang 473-501 - 2020
Prabhash Ranjan1
1Senior Assistant Professor, Faculty of Legal Studies, South Asian University, New Delhi, India

Tóm tắt

One of the controversial issues in international investment law disputes has been the interpretation of ‘necessary’ in the non-precluded measures (NPM) provisions in bilateral investment treaties (BITs). investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) tribunals have employed different methodologies to interpret ‘necessary’ in the NPM provisions ranging from using the customary international law defence of necessity codified in Article 25 of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility to using the World Trade Organization (WTO)’s necessity analysis. However, a robust interpretative framework for ‘necessary’ in BITs’ NPM provisions remains elusive. Given this aspect, the new treaty practice of India to incorporate the least restrictive alternative measure (LRM) test in its newly signed BITs to interpret ‘necessary’ in NPM provisions has regenerated the debate on the interpretation of ‘necessary’ in NPM provisions. This article argues that the incorporation of the LRM test to interpret ‘necessary’ in NPM provisions marks a rejection of the use of the customary international law defence of necessity to interpret the treaty defence of necessity. The article proposes a two-step analytical interpretative framework aimed at operationalizing the LRM test to interpret ‘necessary’ in BITs’ NPM provisions. This framework is deferential to the host State’s regulatory autonomy and will also ensure that States fully comply with their treaty obligations towards foreign investors.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Alschner W, Hui K (2018) Missing in action: general public policy exceptions in investment treaties. In: Sachs L, Coleman J, Johnson L (eds) Yearbook on international investment law and policy. OUP, Oxford, pp 362–392 Alvarez JE, Brink T (2010) Revisiting the necessity defence: continental casualty v Argentina. In: Sauvant KP (ed) Yearbook on international investment law and policy. OUP, Oxford, pp 319–362 Alvarez JE, Khamsi K (2008) The Argentine crisis and foreign investors. In: Sauvant KP (ed) Yearbook on international investment law and policy. OUP, New York, pp 379–478 Barak A (2012) Proportionality: constitutional rights and their limitations. CUP, Cambridge Bjorklund AK (2008) Emergency exceptions: state of necessity and force majeure. In: Muchlinski P et al (eds) The Oxford handbook of international investment law. OUP, Oxford, pp 459–523 Blanco SM, Pehl A (2019) National security exceptions in international trade and investment agreements: justiciability and standard of review. Springer, Switzerland Born G, Morris D, Forrest S (2020) ‘A margin of appreciation’: appreciating its irrelevance in international law. Harv Int Law J 61(1):65–134 Bossche P, Zdouc W (2018) The law and policy of the World Trade Organization: text, cases and materials. CUP, Cambridge Bown CP, Tratchman JP (2009) Brazil—measures affecting imports of retreated tyres: a balancing act. World Trade Rev 8(1):85–135 Burke-White WW, von Staden A (2008) Investment protection in extraordinary times: the interpretation and application of non-precluded measures provisions in bilateral investment treaties. Va J Int Law 48(2):307–410 Burke-White WW, von Staden A (2010) Private litigation in a public law sphere: the standard of review in investor-state arbitrations. Yale J Int Law 35(2):283–346 Chaisse J (2013) Exploring the confines of international investment and domestic health protections—is a general exceptions clause a forced perspective? Am J Law Med 39:332–360 Desierto D (2010) Necessity and supplementary means of interpretation for non-precluded measures in bilateral investment treaties. Univ Pa J Int Law 31(3):827–934 Dolzer R (2011) Emergency clauses in investment treaties: four versions. In: Arsanjani MH et al (eds) Looking to the future: essays on international law in honour of WM Reisman. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 705–718 Du MM (2010) Autonomy in setting appropriate level of protection: rhetoric or reality? JIEL 13(4):1077–1102 Du M (2016) The necessity test in world trade law. What now? Chin J Int Law 15(4):817–847 Fontanelli F (2012) Necessity killed the GATT: Article XX GATT and the misleading rhetoric about ‘weighing and balancing’. EJLS 5(2):36–56 Gardiner RK (2008) Treaty interpretation. OUP, New York Henckels C (2016) Protecting regulatory autonomy through greater precision in investment treaties: the TPP, CETA, and TTIP. J Int Econ Law 19(1):27–50 Henckels C (2018) Should investment treaties contain public policy exceptions? Boston Coll Law Rev 59(8):2825–2844 Jans JH (2000) Proportionality revisited. Leg Issues Econ Integr 27(3):239–265 Kabra R (2019) Return of the inconsistent application of the ‘essential security interest’ clause in investment treaty arbitration: CC/Devas v India and Deutsche Telekom v India. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 34(3):723–753 Kapterian G (2010) A critique of the WTO jurisprudence on necessary. Int Comp Law Q 59(1):89–127 Keene A (2017) The incorporation and interpretation of WTO-style environmental exceptions in international investment agreements. J World Invest Trade 18(1):62–99 Kim J (2018) Balancing regulatory interests through an exceptions framework under the right to regulate provisions in international investment agreements. George Wash Int Law Rev 50:289–356 Kingsbury B, Schill SW (2010) Public law concepts to balance investors’ rights with state regulatory actions in the public interest—the concept of proportionality. In: Schill SW (ed) International investment law and comparative public law. OUP, Oxford, pp 75–105 Kurtz J (2010) Adjudging the exceptional at international investment law: security, public order and financial crisis. ICLQ 59(2):325–371 Kurtz J (2014) Building legitimacy through interpretation in investor-state arbitration. In: Douglas Z et al (eds) The foundations of international investment law. OUP, Oxford, pp 257–296 Lalive P (2010) On the reasoning of international arbitral awards. J Int Dispute Settl 1(1):55–65 Landau T (2009) Reasons for reasons: the tribunal’s duty in investor-state arbitration. ICCA Congress Series, pp 187–208. https://www.hvdb.com/wp-content/uploads/2009-AJvdB-Congress-Series-14-Dublin-2009.pdf. Accessed 10 July 2020 Lowe V (2002) Regulation or expropriation. Curr Leg Probl 55(1):447–466 Martinez A (2010) Invoking state defences in investment treaty arbitration. In: Waibel M et al (eds) The backlash against investment treaty arbitration. Kluwer, The Hague, pp 315–338 McGrady B (2008) Necessity exceptions in WTO law: retreaded tyres, regulatory purpose and cumulative regulatory measures. J Int Econ Law 12(1):153–173 Merkouris P (2015) Article 31(3)(c) VCLT and the principle of systemic integration. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden Mitchell AD, Henckels C (2013) Variations on a theme: comparing the concept of necessity in international investment law and WTO law. Chic J Int Law 14(1):93–164 Nagy CI (2020) Clash of trade and national public interest in WTO law: the illusion of ‘weighing and balancing’ and the theory of reservation. JIEL 23(1):143–163 Neumann J, Turk E (2003) Necessity revisited: proportionality in World Trade Organization law after Korea-Beef, EC-Asbestos and EC-Sardines. J World Trade 37(1):199–233 Newcombe A (2011) General exceptions in international investment agreements. In: Segger MC, Gehring MW, Newcombe A (eds) Sustainable development in world investment law. Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 351–370 Newcombe A, Paradell L (2009) The law and practice of investment treaties: standards of treatment. Kluwer, The Hague Nolan MD, Sourgens FG (2010) The limits of discretion? Self-judging emergency clauses in international investment agreements. In: Sauvant K (ed) Yearbook of international investment law and policy. OUP, Oxford, pp 362–418 Nottage LR (2016) Rebalancing investment treaties and investor-state arbitration: two approaches. J World Invest Trade 17(6):1015–1040 Orakhelashvili A (2003) Restrictive interpretation of human rights treaties in the recent jurisprudence of the European court of Human Rights. EJIL 14(3):529–568 Ortino F (2012) Legal reasoning of international investment tribunals: a typology of egregious failures. J Int Dispute Settl 3(1):31–52 Paparinskis M (2011) Investment treaty interpretation and customary investment law: preliminary remarks. In: Brown C, Miles K (eds) Evolution in investment treaty law and arbitration. CUP, Cambridge, pp 65–96 Pathirana D, McLaughlin M (2020) Non-precluded measures clauses: regimes, trends and practice in international investment law and arbitration. In: Chaisse J, Choukroune L, Jusoh S (eds) Handbook of international investment law and policy. Springer, Switzerland. https://link-springer-com-443.webvpn.fjmu.edu.cn/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-981-13-5744-2_6-1. Accessed on 15 July 2020 Rajput A (2017) Protection of foreign investment in India and investment treaty arbitration. Kluwer, The Hague Ranjan P (2019a) Police powers, indirect expropriation in international investment law and Article 31(3)(c) of the VCLT: a critique of Philip Morris v Uruguay. Asian J Int Law 9(1):98–124 Ranjan P (2019b) India and bilateral investment treaties: refusal, acceptance, backlash. Oxford University Press, New Delhi Regan DH (2007) The meaning of ‘necessary’ in GATT Article XX and GATS Article XIV: the myth of cost- benefit balancing. World Trade Rev 6(3):347–369 Reinisch A (2007) Necessity in international investment arbitration—an unnecessary split of opinions in recent ICSID cases? J World Invest Trade 8(2):191–214 Reinisch A (2010) Necessity in investment arbitration. Neth Yearb Int Law 41:137–158 Simma B (2011) Foreign investment arbitration: a place for human rights. Int Comp Law Q 60(3):573–596 Sinha A (2017) Non-precluded measures provisions in bilateral investment treaties of South Asian countries. Asian J Int Law 7(2):227–263 Sloane RD (2012) On the use of and abuse of necessity in the law of state responsibility. AJIL 106(3):447–508 Stone Sweet A (2010) Investor-state arbitration: proportionality’s new frontier. Law Ethics Hum Rights 4(1):47–76 Sykes AO (2003) The least restrictive means. Univ Chic Law Rev 70(1):403–419 Titi C (2014) The right to regulate in international investment law. Hart, Oxford UNCTAD (2009) The protection of national security in IIAs. UNCTAD series on international investment policies for development. United Nations, New York and Geneva UNCTAD (2020) World investment report 2020—international production beyond pandemic. United Nations, New York and Geneva Vandevelde KJ (2013) Rebalancing through exceptions. Lewis Clark Law Rev 17(2):449–459 Viñuales JE (2008) State of necessity and peremptory norms in international investment law. Law Bus Rev Am 14(1):79–103 Viñuales JE (2020) Seven ways of escaping a rule: of exceptions and their avatars in international law. In: Bartels L, Paddeu F (eds) Exceptions and defences in international law. OUP, Oxford, pp 65–87