File #2379: "2018_Book_FairAndEquitableTreatmentAndTh.pdf"
Testo
1|Foreword|6
1|Acknowledgements|8
1|Contents|9
1|Abbreviations|12
1|1 Introduction|14
2|Abstract|14
2|1.1 Introduction|14
2|1.2 FET as a Manifestation of ‘Normative Equity’|15
2|1.3 FET and Treaty Practice|21
2|1.4 The Role of Case Law and Scholarship in the Interpretation of FET|26
2|1.5 Outline of the Book|27
2|References|29
1|2 FET and the Ongoing Debate on Its Normative Basis|32
2|Abstract|32
2|2.1 Introduction|33
2|2.2 FET as an ‘Evaluation Rule’|33
2|2.3 FET as a Term of Art for a Reference to All Other Standards of Investment Protection|35
2|2.4 FET and Custom. FET as a Specific Instance of the International Minimum Standard|40
3|2.4.1 FET as an Autonomous Custom|45
2|2.5 FET as a Self-Standing Treaty Clause|51
2|2.6 FET and the ‘Rule of Law’ Argument|55
3|2.6.1 Rule of Law and General Principles Common to Domestic Systems|59
3|2.6.2 Rule of Law and General Principles of International Law|63
4|2.6.2.1 FET as a General Principle Specific to International Investment Law|65
2|2.7 Conclusion|66
2|References|66
1|3 FET and Due Process of Law|70
2|Abstract|70
2|3.1 Introduction|71
2|3.2 Due Process as a General Principle of International Law|71
2|3.3 FET and Denial of Justice. The Meaning of the Term ‘Denial of Justice’ in Academic Writing|75
2|3.4 The Meaning of the Term ‘Denial of Justice’ in International Investment Law: The Azinian Case|77
3|3.4.1 The Mondev Case|78
3|3.4.2 The Loewen Case|81
3|3.4.3 Arbitral Case Law in the Aftermath of Mondev and Loewen|84
3|3.4.4 Denial of Justice as a Manifestation of the German Model of Justizverweigerung|86
2|3.5 FET and Procedural Fairness in Administrative Proceedings. The Foreign Investor’s Participation in Public Decisions|88
3|3.5.1 The Conditions Under Which the Right to Be Heard Can Be Violated: The Right Should Be Provided for by the Host State Legal System|91
3|3.5.2 The Administrative Decision Should Cause a Serious Economic Loss to the Investor|92
2|3.6 Conclusion|95
2|References|95
1|4 FET and Legitimate Expectations|98
2|Abstract|98
2|4.1 Introduction|99
2|4.2 Legitimate Expectations as a General Principle of International Law|99
2|4.3 The Circumstances Under which an Investor’s Expectation May Be Regarded as ‘Legitimate’|104
2|4.4 FET and Expectation by Contractual Commitment|105
2|4.5 FET and Expectation by Promise. Promise and National Legal Systems|109
3|4.5.1 Promise and International Law|111
3|4.5.2 Promise and International Investment Law|116
2|4.6 FET and Expectation by Legislation. Expectation by Legislation in National Legal Systems|122
3|4.6.1 Expectation by Legislation and the Original Approach Developed in Investor-State Arbitration|124
3|4.6.2 The Gradual Emergence of the Notion of ‘Expectation by Induction’: The Decision in Suez et al. and AWG Group|126
3|4.6.3 The Decisions in Total, El Paso, Micula and Philip Morris|128
3|4.6.4 Expectation by Legislation and the State Power to Regulate|131
2|4.7 Conclusion|132
2|References|133
1|5 FET and Proportionality|135
2|Abstract|135
2|5.1 Introduction|136
2|5.2 Proportionality as a General Principle of International Law|136
2|5.3 Proportionality and Its Three-Step Normative Structure: Suitability, Necessity and Proportionality Stricto Sensu|139
2|5.4 Proportionality and Domestic Courts|140
2|5.5 Proportionality and International Courts|143
2|5.6 Proportionality as an FET Element|146
3|5.6.1 Business Risk and Its Impact on the Proportionality Analysis|148
3|5.6.2 The ‘Minimum Threshold of Prejudice’ Requirement and Its Impact on the Necessity Test|149
3|5.6.3 The ‘Minimum Threshold of Prejudice’ Requirement and Its Impact on Proportionality Stricto Sensu|150
2|5.7 Conclusion|153
2|References|153
1|6 FET and the Driving Role of Case Law|155
2|Abstract|155
2|6.1 Introduction|155
2|6.2 ‘Taking into Account’ Approach and Domestic Jurisdictions|156
2|6.3 ‘Taking into Account’ Approach and International Jurisdictions|159
2|6.4 ‘Taking into Account’ Approach and Investor-State Arbitration|163
3|6.4.1 ‘Taking into Account’ Approach and FET|166
3|6.4.2 ‘Taking into Account’ Approach and Annulment Committees Decisions|167
3|6.4.3 The Interference Between ICSID and UNCITRAL Case Law|168
2|6.5 Conclusion|169
2|References|170
1|7 Conclusion|172
2|Abstract|172
2|References|176
1|Table of Cases|178
1|Bibliography|186
1|Index|197
1|Acknowledgements|8
1|Contents|9
1|Abbreviations|12
1|1 Introduction|14
2|Abstract|14
2|1.1 Introduction|14
2|1.2 FET as a Manifestation of ‘Normative Equity’|15
2|1.3 FET and Treaty Practice|21
2|1.4 The Role of Case Law and Scholarship in the Interpretation of FET|26
2|1.5 Outline of the Book|27
2|References|29
1|2 FET and the Ongoing Debate on Its Normative Basis|32
2|Abstract|32
2|2.1 Introduction|33
2|2.2 FET as an ‘Evaluation Rule’|33
2|2.3 FET as a Term of Art for a Reference to All Other Standards of Investment Protection|35
2|2.4 FET and Custom. FET as a Specific Instance of the International Minimum Standard|40
3|2.4.1 FET as an Autonomous Custom|45
2|2.5 FET as a Self-Standing Treaty Clause|51
2|2.6 FET and the ‘Rule of Law’ Argument|55
3|2.6.1 Rule of Law and General Principles Common to Domestic Systems|59
3|2.6.2 Rule of Law and General Principles of International Law|63
4|2.6.2.1 FET as a General Principle Specific to International Investment Law|65
2|2.7 Conclusion|66
2|References|66
1|3 FET and Due Process of Law|70
2|Abstract|70
2|3.1 Introduction|71
2|3.2 Due Process as a General Principle of International Law|71
2|3.3 FET and Denial of Justice. The Meaning of the Term ‘Denial of Justice’ in Academic Writing|75
2|3.4 The Meaning of the Term ‘Denial of Justice’ in International Investment Law: The Azinian Case|77
3|3.4.1 The Mondev Case|78
3|3.4.2 The Loewen Case|81
3|3.4.3 Arbitral Case Law in the Aftermath of Mondev and Loewen|84
3|3.4.4 Denial of Justice as a Manifestation of the German Model of Justizverweigerung|86
2|3.5 FET and Procedural Fairness in Administrative Proceedings. The Foreign Investor’s Participation in Public Decisions|88
3|3.5.1 The Conditions Under Which the Right to Be Heard Can Be Violated: The Right Should Be Provided for by the Host State Legal System|91
3|3.5.2 The Administrative Decision Should Cause a Serious Economic Loss to the Investor|92
2|3.6 Conclusion|95
2|References|95
1|4 FET and Legitimate Expectations|98
2|Abstract|98
2|4.1 Introduction|99
2|4.2 Legitimate Expectations as a General Principle of International Law|99
2|4.3 The Circumstances Under which an Investor’s Expectation May Be Regarded as ‘Legitimate’|104
2|4.4 FET and Expectation by Contractual Commitment|105
2|4.5 FET and Expectation by Promise. Promise and National Legal Systems|109
3|4.5.1 Promise and International Law|111
3|4.5.2 Promise and International Investment Law|116
2|4.6 FET and Expectation by Legislation. Expectation by Legislation in National Legal Systems|122
3|4.6.1 Expectation by Legislation and the Original Approach Developed in Investor-State Arbitration|124
3|4.6.2 The Gradual Emergence of the Notion of ‘Expectation by Induction’: The Decision in Suez et al. and AWG Group|126
3|4.6.3 The Decisions in Total, El Paso, Micula and Philip Morris|128
3|4.6.4 Expectation by Legislation and the State Power to Regulate|131
2|4.7 Conclusion|132
2|References|133
1|5 FET and Proportionality|135
2|Abstract|135
2|5.1 Introduction|136
2|5.2 Proportionality as a General Principle of International Law|136
2|5.3 Proportionality and Its Three-Step Normative Structure: Suitability, Necessity and Proportionality Stricto Sensu|139
2|5.4 Proportionality and Domestic Courts|140
2|5.5 Proportionality and International Courts|143
2|5.6 Proportionality as an FET Element|146
3|5.6.1 Business Risk and Its Impact on the Proportionality Analysis|148
3|5.6.2 The ‘Minimum Threshold of Prejudice’ Requirement and Its Impact on the Necessity Test|149
3|5.6.3 The ‘Minimum Threshold of Prejudice’ Requirement and Its Impact on Proportionality Stricto Sensu|150
2|5.7 Conclusion|153
2|References|153
1|6 FET and the Driving Role of Case Law|155
2|Abstract|155
2|6.1 Introduction|155
2|6.2 ‘Taking into Account’ Approach and Domestic Jurisdictions|156
2|6.3 ‘Taking into Account’ Approach and International Jurisdictions|159
2|6.4 ‘Taking into Account’ Approach and Investor-State Arbitration|163
3|6.4.1 ‘Taking into Account’ Approach and FET|166
3|6.4.2 ‘Taking into Account’ Approach and Annulment Committees Decisions|167
3|6.4.3 The Interference Between ICSID and UNCITRAL Case Law|168
2|6.5 Conclusion|169
2|References|170
1|7 Conclusion|172
2|Abstract|172
2|References|176
1|Table of Cases|178
1|Bibliography|186
1|Index|197