Do Investor–State Dispute Settlement Cases Influence Domestic Environmental Regulation? the Role of Respondent State Capacity

Berge, Tarald Laudal; Berger, Axel

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3522366

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 84 publications

(140 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Alvarez and Sauvant (2011) note that the rise in significant awards against developing countries demonstrates that investor-state arbitration is marred by concerns about legitimacy, accountability, transparency, sound governance and the rule of law. Nonetheless, while these cases support the argument that ISDS can result in a regulatory chill, there exist scarce empirical evidence which establishes whether this problem is endemic or only occurs in isolated cases (Berge & Berger, 2020). Although Sattorova (2019) refers to empirical case studies conducted by Tienhaara (2011) and Côté (2014) which suggest that host states are concerned about the impact which foreign investors can have.…”

Section: Concerns Regarding Investor-state Arbitrationmentioning

confidence: 93%

Preventing the Regulatory Chill of International Investment Law and Arbitration

Alenezi¹

2020

ILR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International investment law has increasingly come under attack because it does not put host states on par with foreign investors. Foreign investors can evoke broad investment rights and pursue investment arbitration. The threat of substantial arbitral awards can result in host states not enacting policies, regulations, laws or reaching decisions, despite them being needed in order to protect a variety of important public interests. The concern is, therefore, that international investment law, including the investor-state dispute resolution system, causes a regulatory chill. The paper examines how the asymmetric relationship between foreign investors and host states can be remedied, so that trust in international investment law is strengthened and its legitimacy crisis is overcome. One core issue with international investment law is that the customary international minimum standard and its therein subsumed full protection and security, and fair and equitable treatment and compensation principles are inherently vague, thereby contributing to the overprotection of foreign investors. Arbitral cases further highlight how regulatory changes can result in host states incurring liability and thus enable foreign corporations to shift potential costs and risks. International, and national solutions to prevent the regulatory chill of international investment agreements are spelled out.

show abstract

Section: Concerns Regarding Investor-state Arbitrationmentioning

confidence: 93%

Preventing the Regulatory Chill of International Investment Law and Arbitration

Alenezi¹

2020

ILR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Do Investor–State Dispute Settlement Cases Influence Domestic Environmental Regulation? the Role of Respondent State Capacity

Cited by 1 publication

References 84 publications

Preventing the Regulatory Chill of International Investment Law and Arbitration

Preventing the Regulatory Chill of International Investment Law and Arbitration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About