Tag Archives: Investment treaty

Investment Treaty Forum in Stockholm

ITFSeminarThe Investment Treaty Forum was recently held for the first time in Stockholm.

The British Institute of International and Comparative Law, in cooperation with the SCC, Mannheimer Swartling and Uppsala University, organized Investment Treaty Forum in Stockholm on 12 June 2015.

The Investment Treaty Forum was founded in 2004 with the aim to provide a global centre for serious high level debate in the field of international law. The theme of the meeting – Europe as an Investment Treaty Actor – brought together speakers and participants from government, legal practitioners, academia, politicians and business. See the full program here.

The importance of investment treaty for European economic development was one of the topics discussed. Investment treaty contributes to predictability, stability and transparency in investment relation. It was further highlighted that investment treaty will benefit not only the industry, but also governments and consumers. Investment treaty has the potential to open up new market opportunities for European investors abroad and also to make Europe a more attractive place for investment. But there were also critical voices raised, questioning the need for investment protection.

The evolution of substantive terms of investment treaty was equally addressed. States retain full control of the regime, among others by issuing interpretation of the treaty and by introducing new provisions of investment protection. The former has been done by the state parties to the North American Free Trade Agreement and the latter by, among others, the European Commission.

The seminar ended with the well-anticipated discussion on the roles of the European Commission in investment law regime. In addition to its role as negotiator of future investment treaty, the Commission has also emerged as litigator and enforcer in the regime.

More pictures and presentation materials from the seminar will be published here shortly.

 Photo: Björn Leijon

 

 

 

The Evolution of BITs

CogwheelInternational investment regime, like any other field of international law, is not static. It continues to evolve and adapt to the present day needs and situation. States as the primary actors of the regime maintain full control in its evolution.

Historically, bilateral investment treaties (BITs) emerged as a response to the inadequacies of international law on protection of property of foreigners. Western states also sought to obtain better market access for their nationals to invest in developing states. See more explanation on the history of BITs here.

Germany is the first state to sign the first BIT, with Pakistan, in 1959. Other states quickly followed this effort: Switzerland in 1961, the Netherlands in 1963, Italy in 1964 and Sweden in 1965. BITs in this period were generally quite short – approximately five to six pages. These BITs focus on core protection such as the obligation to accord non-discriminatory and fair and equitable treatment to foreign investors.

Early on, BITs began providing for binding ISDS in the form of international arbitration. However, international arbitration has been used to resolve claims from foreign investors with respect to their property since the 18th century.

In recent years some states have begun adopting new model BITs which are more elaborate than older treaties. The most recent one is India, where its 2015 model BIT provides more detailed ISDS provisions, among others setting time limit of submitting a claim to ISDS and possibilities of counter-claims by a state against a foreign investor. And the Norway 2007 Model BIT provides for example that the unsuccessful party in ISDS shall bear the costs of arbitration.

The ISDS blog has previously discussed some ISDS reforms embodied in the Comprehensive Trade and Economic Agreement between the European Union and Canada (CETA) and the US 2012 Model BIT.

Case Summary No. 1

In a series of blog posts, we will provide summaries of ISDS cases. The summaries are based on the facts as described in the award.

Our first case is Wena Hotels Ltd v. Arab Republic of Egypt and the final award was rendered in 2000.

The dispute arose out of two long-term agreements between Wena Hotels Limited (“Wena”), a British investor to lease, operate and manage two hotels in Egypt, and the Egyptian Hotels Company (“EHC”). EHC was wholly-owned by the Egyptian government. Shortly after the signing of the agreement, Wena alleged the condition of the hotels to be far below that agreed in the lease. Wena therefore withheld part of the rent under the terms of the lease.

Due to this non-payment, EHC threatened to repossess the hotels through force. Wena informed the Egyptian Minister of Tourism about this situation however there was no solution. One night witnesses reported that more than one hundred EHC personnel stormed the two hotels, threatened and physically attacked the hotels’ employees and guests. They were also reported to having removed a number of belongings of the hotels.

The Chief Prosecutor of Egypt ruled that seizures of the hotels were illegal and that Wena was entitled to repossess the hotels. The hotels were subsequently returned but in a vandalized condition.

Wena brought an ISDS claim against Egypt under the ICSID Convention, claiming violation of investment protection in the UK-Egypt investment treaty.

The tribunal found a breach of the investment treaty since, according to the tribunal, there was substantial evidence that Egyptian authorities were aware of EHC’s intentions to seize the hotels but took no action to prevent the seizures. After the seizures, Egypt took no action to immediately restore Wena’s control over the hotels.

The tribunal also found that an expropriation had taken place since Egypt allowed EHC to seize the hotels, to possess them illegally for nearly a year and to return the hotels stripped much of their furniture and fixtures. In the opinion of the tribunal, Egypt did not provide a fair, prompt and adequate compensation to Wena for the expropriation.