INSTRODUCTION  TO  INTERNATIONAL  INVESTMENT  LAW  
Syllabus  Cont’d  
Session  5:  
Substantive   International   Investment   Law:   Differentiating   Investment  
Protection  Obligations  –  Investor’s  Protected  Interests;  Expropriation  
READING:  
• Z   Douglas,   ‘Property,   Investment   and   the   Scope   of   Investment  
Protection   Obligations’   in   Douglas,   Pauwelyn,   Vinuales,   The  
Foundations   of   International   Law:   Bringing   Theory   into   Practice   (Oxford  
UP  2014)  (minus  paragraphs  assigned  for  the  next  session,  and  minus  
paras  1.159-­‐‑1.171)  
QUESTIONS  FOR  DISCUSSION:  
• What   is   the   merits   phase   of   arbitral   proceedings   and   what   is   it’s  
purpose?  
• What   causes   of   action   has   a   claimant   available   in   investment   treaty  
arbitration?  What  factors  influence  the  availability?    
• What  conceptions  of  investment  Douglas  mentions?  Can  you  explain  
the  difference  and  its  importance?  
• What  Douglas  means  by  the  strategic  use  of  different  conceptions  of  an  
investment  by  arbitral  tribunals?  
• What  do  you  think  about  the  distinction  between  right  and  value?  
• How   one   distinguishes   investment-­‐‑as-­‐‑property   and   investment-­‐‑as-­‐‑
contract?   What   is   meant   by   ‘exclusion   strategy’   and   ‘governance  
strategy’?  
• Expropriation  
o What  is  the  de  facto,  indirect,  or  regulatory  expropriation?  
o Can  a  contract  be  expropriated?  
• What  is  meant  by  investment-­‐‑as-­‐‑value?  
o Can  investment-­‐‑as-­‐‑value  serve  as  a  basis  of  adjudicating  liability  
  
Session  6  
Substantive   International   Investment   Law:   Fair   and   Equitable   Treatment   -­‐‑  
Legitimate  Expectations;  Protection  of  Contractual  Rights,  Denial  of  Justice  
READING:  
COMPULSORY:  
• Douglas,  ‘Protection,  Investment’  paras  1.94-­‐‑1.108,  1.115-­‐‑1.158  
• Z  Douglas,  ‘International  Responsibility  for  Adjudication:  Denial  of  
Justice  Deconstructred’,  International  and  Comparative  Law  Quarterly,  
pp  1  -­‐‑  34  DOI:  10.1017/S0020589314000402,  Published  online:  03  
September  2014  (selected  parts)
• Saipem  v  Bangladesh,  paras  179-­‐‑181
QUESTIONS  FOR  DISCUSSION:  
• Contracts  and  jurisdiction:  
o What  are  umbrella  clauses?  
• Contracts  and  responsibility:  
o How  can  international  attach  responsibility  (international,  not-­‐‑
contractual)  to  State’s  conduct  related  to  a  contract?  
• Legitimate  expectations:  
o What  can  be  a  source  of  expectations  that  are  protected  by  BITs?  
o How  are  they  protective  in  substance?  
• Denial  of  Justice  (DoJ:  
o Why  is  DoJ  a  special  category  of  international  wrongful  act?  
o What   does   the   rule   on   the   exhaustion   local   remedies   play   in  
DoJ?    
o What  is  meant  by  procedural  approach  to  DoJ?  
o Violation  of  international  norms  by  domestic  courts  and  DoJ?  
  
Session  7:  
Substantive  International  Investment  Law:  MFN  and  National  Treatment  
READING:  
   COMPULSORY:  
• UPS  v.  Canada,  case  summary;  Award  paras.  173-­‐‑181  
• Parkerings  v.  Lithuania,  case  summary  (first  6  pages:  “facts,  held,  
analysis”);  Award  paras.  362-­‐‑380,  390-­‐‑392    
• Berschader  v.  Russia,  case  summary;  Award,  paras.  47  (text  of  the  
applicable  treaty)  62-­‐‑64,  85-­‐‑88;  159-­‐‑194  Separate  Opinion  (Weiler),  
paras.  1-­‐‑7,  15-­‐‑26      
• Comparing  treaty  texts  document  
SUGGESTED:  
• Z  Douglas,  ‘The  MFN  Clause  in  Investment  Arbitration:  Treaty  
Interpretation  Off  the  Rails’  (2011)  2  Journal  of  International  Dispute  
Settlement  1,  97  
• S  Schill,  ‘Allocationg  Adjudicatory  Authority:  Most-­‐‑Favoured-­‐‑Nation  
Clauses  as  a  Basis  for  Jurisdiction  –  A  Reply  to  Zachary  Douglas’  (2011)  
2  Journal  of  International  Dispute  Settlement  2,  353  
QUESTIONS  FOR  DISCUSSION:  
• What  was  the   UPS   case  about?  What  was  one  of  the  main  problems  
with  UPS’  argument?  
• What   is   the   predicate   of   finding   a   violation   of   national   treatment?  
What  is  the  test?     
• What  was  the  Parkerings  case  about?  
o What  was  the  test  used  by  Parkerings  to  determine  violation  of  
discriminatory  provisions  of  the  BIT?  
o What  was  the  different  from  the  UPS  case?  
o Do  you  agree  with  the  tribunal  when  it  says  that  there  is  no  
reason  to  distinguish  between  different  non-­‐‑discrimination  
provisions  (FET  and  international  minimum  standard,  MFN,  
and  national  treatment)?    
• What  is  ejusdem  generis  principle?  
• What  was  the  Berschader  case  about?  
o What   was   the   problem   for   Berscheders   in   order   to   seize   the  
tribunal?  
o What  did  Berschaders  argue?  
o What  did  the  majority  say  about  the  claims?  
o What  did  the  dissenter  Weiler  say  about  the  majority’s  approach  
to  treaty  interpretation?  
• What  goals  have  been  attempted  to  achieve  through  the  application  of  
MFN  to  dispute  settlement  clauses?  
  
Session  8:  
Revision,  Future  of  IIL,  EU  law  and  current  topics  
READING:  
   COMPULSORY:  
• JHH   Weiler,   ‘European   Hypocrisy:   TTIP   and   ISDS’,   EJILTalk,   21   Jan  
2015  http://www.ejiltalk.org/european-­‐‑hypocrisy-­‐‑ttip-­‐‑and-­‐‑isds/  
• N   Lavranos,   ‘EU   Law   and   Investment   Law:   Two   Worlds   Apart?’,  
Global  Arbitration  Review,  2015  
• EU  Commission,  ‘The  top  10  myths  about  TTIP:  Separating  fact  from  
fiction’,  2015  (particularly  No.  4,    
• Micula  v  Romania  (paras  318-­‐‑329)  
• New  draft  Indian  Model  BIT  of  2015  
SUGGESTED:  
§ J   Kleinheisterkamp,   ‘Investment   Protection   and   EU   Law:   The   Intra-­‐‑  
and   Extra-­‐‑EU   Dimension   of   the   Energy   Charter   Treaty’   (2012)   15  
Journal  of  International  Economic  Law  1.  
QUESTIONS  FOR  DISCUSSION:  
• What  did  the  tribunal  in  Micula  said  about  the  interaction  between  the  
BIT  and  EU  law?  
• Where   would   you   situate   the   decision   in   Micula   on   the   spectrum   of  
perspective   on   the   relationship   between   IIL   and   EU   Law   (Lavranos’  
short  report)?  What  position  you  identify  yourself  with  and  why?  
• How   can   we   approach   the   potential   conflicts   between   BITs   and   EU  
Law?  What  legal  rules  and  principles  you  can  apply?  
• Lavranos  mentions  ‘the  return  of  the  host  state’  what  does  he  mean  by  
it?  
• Can   you   demonstrate   it   by   looking   at   the   text   of   the   Indian   Model  
Draft  BIT?  
• Hot  Topic:  Investor-­‐‑State  Dispute  Settlement  (ISDS)  in  Trans-­‐‑Atlantic  
Trade  and  Investment  Partnership  (TTIP)  
o Recall   the   arguments   in   the   Guardian   article   from   the   first  
session.   How   successful   do   you   think   EU   Commission   was   in  
addressing  them?    
• What  do  you  think  about  the  arguments  voiced  by  Weiler?  
• After  what  we  have  learned  what  do  you  think  about  the  ISDS  system  
in  its  current  form?  What  would  you  change?