No abstract

The work publishes the research findings following Quantitative and Qualitative research methodologies. The conclusion drawn by the authors on the basis of the collected data and comparisons among different legislative provisions does not constitute any former legal or other professional advice. BRAC University shall not assume any liability for action taken on the basis of information, findings or opinions in this work.

Purpose Over the past two decades, the application of most-favoured-nation (MFN) clauses in international investment agreements (IIAs) to dispute settlement matters has generated controversy. The purpose of this paper is to help resolve some of the controversies by examining the rule of law issues that may arise from such application of MFN. Design/methodology/approach The study describes controversies regarding the application of MFN to dispute settlement as per the extant literature on the subject. It explores the elements of rule of law in investor-state arbitration. The paper then analyses the implications of applying MFN to dispute settlement matters for the elements of rule of law. Based on such analysis, the study argues that the application of MFN to dispute settlement matters undermines certain elements of rule of law. Findings The paper has outlined the relevant elements of rule of law in investor-state arbitration as access to dispute settlement; judicial (or tribunal) independence, fairness and impartiality; consistency and predictability of law and decisions; transparency; accountability and subjection of dispute forums and systems to law. It found that the application of MFN undermines various components of rule of law, in particular of consistency and predictability and the requirement of tribunals to adjudicate within the limits of the law. Originality/value The findings of this study will help future investor-state arbitral tribunals to decide on the application of MFN to dispute settlement matters.

No abstract

Purpose This paper aims to examine the prospect for international investment disputes in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic due to measures implemented by the Australian government to tackle the pandemic. Design/methodology/approach Doctrinal research. Contains qualitative analysis. Findings This paper finds that claims based on the protections in the International Investment Agreements (IIAs) signed by Australia are unlikely to succeed and that Australia’s COVID-19 measures can be justified as necessary measures under the general and security exception clauses included in more recent IIAs and under customary international law. Originality/value In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, scholars have written papers apprehending possible claims by international investors against emergency measures adopted by host countries to face the pandemic which might also have damaged the interest of the foreign investors. The existing literature is too vague and general. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first paper that draws some specific conclusions in this regard applicable to the COVID-19 regulatory measures taken by Australia. While the existing literature projects the possibility of such investor claims, this paper argues that at least no such claim would succeed against the COVID-19 measures taken by Australia.