The Contents of the European Investment Law and Arbitration Review, Vol. 5 (2020)

Prof. Nikos Lavranos & Prof. Loukas Mistelis (Co-Editors in Chief)

We are very pleased and proud to present the fifth issue of the European Investment Law and Arbitration Review (EILA Rev) 2020.

As of 23 December 2020, all articles of this volume can be ordered online at Brill Publishers:

The stormy developments of the past years regarding international investment law and arbitration broadly understood, which to a large extent were driven by various EU institutions – European Commission, Court of Justice of the EU and the European Parliament – have confirmed the need for a legal journal such as this Review that exclusively tracks these developments and provides a forum for debate on the current state of affairs and future developments.

The Achmea judgment, the termination agreement regarding intra- EU BITs, CETA, Opinion 1/17, Brexit, the ISDS reform efforts in the UNCITRAL Working Group III and the ECT, are just a few of the topics that have been featured and continue to feature in a broad range of different contexts in this Review.

This issue opens with an article by Sarah Vasani and Nathalie Allen, which highlights the need of effective investment protection in order to ensure that the Paris Climate targets are reached by an increase in foreign direct investments in renewable energy. Often investment protection and environmental protection are presented as opposing, mutually exclusive interests; however, the authors convincingly argue that the contrary is true.

Elizabeth Chan’s article turns to Brexit and its potential for post- Brexit UK to design its foreign investment policy anew – independent from the EU.

Subsequently, Alexander Leventhal and Akshay Shreedhar analyze the practice of the European Commission intervening in arbitration proceedings by way of using amicus curiae briefs. They discuss the question whether, and if so, to what extent the European Commission can be considered a neutral friend of the tribunal or rather must be considered a third party with a particular interest – usually in support of the Member State concerned – which would have to be qualified as a potential abuse of the amicus curiae briefs tool.

Brady Gordon’s article provides a critical and sceptical analysis of the CJEU’s case law regarding CETA.

This is followed by David Sandberg and Jacob Rosell Svensson’s article regarding the implications of Achmea for national court challenge proceedings. They highlight the huge impact of Achmea for many on- going proceedings before domestic courts in various jurisdictions.

Samantha Rowe and Nelson Goh (former Managing Editor of this Review) explain how perceived norm conflicts regarding the January 2019 EU Member States Declarations on the consequences of the Achmea judgment can be resolved through principles of treaty interpretation.

Nikos Lavranos concludes this series of Achmea related articles by offering his analysis on the recently signed termination agreement, which would effectively terminate most intra-EU BITs.

As in the past years, we also run an Essay Competition, which resulted in many outstanding submissions. Indeed, this year the quality was so high that the Editorial Team decided to award, next to the first prize winner, two joint second prize winners rather than a second and third prize winner.

Crawford Jamieson is the first prize winner of the Essay Competition 2020 with his submission, which assesses the CJEU’s decisions in Achmea and Opinion 1/ 17 regarding CETA in light of the proposed Multilateral Investment Court (MIC). He shows that there are considerable flaws and inconsistencies in the CJEU’s jurisprudence, which can only be explained by political motivations in order to lend support to the MIC.

Joint second prize winner, Robert Bradshaw, illustrates with his submission that international investment law is in need of a proportionality test. The other joint second prize winners, Florence Humblet and Kabir Duggal, provide an extensive analysis for using Article 37 of the EU Charter as a defence for Climate Change and environmental measures in Investor-State arbitration disputes.

The case-note section is opened by Cees Verburg who analyses the Hague Court of Appeals’ decision, which overturned the lower courts’ decision to annul the USD 50 billion Yukos award. This decision reinstated the award, while at the same time triggered an appeal by the Russian Federation before the Dutch Supreme Court. Thus, there will be another, final, round.

Bianca McDonnell examined the Adamakopoulos v. Cyprus Decision on Jurisdiction by the ICSID arbitral tribunal. This decision is particularly interesting regarding the dissenting opinion of one arbitrator concerning the alleged incompatibility of the bit s and the EU Treaties as well as regarding the aspect of the mass claim nature of the proceeding.

Finally, Alesia Tsiabus and Guillaume Croisant discuss the lessons learned from the Micula saga for the relationship between international investment law and EU competition law.

The focus section on the Young ITA event on investment arbitration and the environment continues the theme, that was initiated by the first article in this Review. The focus section encompasses several written contributions of the presentations given at the Young ITA event held on 5 November 2019 in London.

This section is opened by an extensive analysis of Laura Rees-Evans in which she explains the recent developments and prospects of reform regarding the protection of the environment in international investment agreements.

Crina Baltag looks at the doctrine of police powers in relation to the protection of the environment, while Anna Bilanova explains the option of using environmental counterclaims. This is followed by a discussion of Guarav Sharma on environmental claims by States in investment treaty arbitration.

Finally, Nikos Lavranos, the other Co- Editor-in-Chief of this Review, looks at the (ab)use of third- party submissions in investment treaty arbitration proceedings.

The EFILA focus section contains a summary of the keynote delivered by Meg Kinnear at the 5th EFILA Annual Conference with a particular focus on using ADR tools in investment disputes.

This is followed by the text of the 5th EFILA Annual Lecture delivered by Prof. Laurence Boisson de Chazournes on navigating multiple proceedings in the light of the proliferation of courts and tribunals.

Finally, three book reviews wrap up this issue. Nikos Lavranos looks at the new Practical Commentary on the ICSID Convention, while Nelson Goh (former Managing Editor of this Review) reviews a Case Book on International Law in Domestic Courts and Trisha Mitra (Co- Managing Editor of this Review) examines the book on the future of Investment Treat Arbitration in the EU.

We are confident that this year’s 480 page volume underscores again the raison d’être for publishing this Review, which covers such a dynamic field of law.

In order to produce an interesting volume next year yet again, we invite unpublished, high-quality submissions (long and short articles as well as case notes) that fall within the scope of this Review.

The Call for Papers and the house style requirements are published on the Review’s website:

In addition, we will also again run an Essay Competition. All information regarding the 2021 Essay Competition will be published on the Review’s website:

Table of Contents of the European Investment Law and Arbitration Review 2020

Articles

1 No Green without More Green: The Importance of Protecting FDI through International Investment Law to Meet the Climate Change Challenge 3

Sarah Z. Vasani and Nathalie Allen

2 The UK’s Post- Brexit Investment Policy: An Opportunity for New Design Choices 40

Elizabeth Chan

3 The European Commission: Ami Fidèle or Faux Ami? 70

Alexander G. Leventhal and Akshay Shreedhar

4 A Sceptical Analysis of the Enforcement of ISDS Awards in the EU Following the Decision of the CJEU on CETA 92

Brady Gordon

5 Achmea and the Implications for Challenge Proceedings before National Courts 146

David Sandberg and Jacob Rosell Svensson

6 Resolving Perceived Norm Conflict through Principles of Treaty Interpretation: The January 2019 EU Member State’s Declarations 167

Samantha J. Rowe and Nelson Goh

7 The World after the Termination of intra-EU BITs 196

Nikos Lavranos

Essay Competition 2020

8 Assessing the CJEU’s Decisions in Achmea and Opinion 1/ 17 in Light of the Proposed Multilateral Investment Court – Winner of the Essay Competition 2020 215

Crawford Jamieson

9 Legal Stability and Legitimate Expectations: Does International Investment Law Need a Sense of Proportion? – Joint 2nd Prize Winner of the Essay Competition 2020 240

Robert Bradshaw

10 If You are not Part of the Solution, You are the Problem: Article 37 of the EU Charter as a Defence for Climate Change and Environmental Measures in Investor- State Arbitrations – Joint 2nd Prize Winner Essay Competition 2020 265

Florence Humblet and Kabir Duggal

Case- Notes

11 The Hague Court of Appeal Reinstates the Yukos Awards 299

Cees Verburg

12 Theodoros Adamakopoulos and Others v. Republic of Cyprus, ICSID Case No Arb/15/49, Decision on Jurisdiction, 7 February 2020 315

Bianca McDonnell

13 Investment Arbitration and EU (Competition) Law – Lessons Learned from the Micula Saga

Alesia Tsiabus and Guillaume Croisant 330

Focus section on the Young ITA Event: Investment Arbitration and the Environment – Emerging Themes

14 The Protection of the Environment in International Investment Agreements – Recent Developments and Prospects for Reform 357

Laura Rees- Evans

15 Investment Arbitration and Police Powers: Emerging Issues 392

Crina Baltag

16 Environmental Counterclaims in Investment Arbitration 400

Anna Bilanová

17 Environmental Claims by States in Investment Treaty Arbitration 412

Gaurav Sharma

18 The (ab)use of Third- Party Submissions 426

Nikos Lavranos

Focus Section on EFILA

19 ADR in Investment Disputes: The Role of Complementary Mechanisms – Keynote to the 5th EFILA Annual Conference 2020 439

Meg Kinnear

20 The Proliferation of Courts and Tribunals: Navigating Multiple Proceedings – 5th EFILA Annual Lecture 2019 447

Laurence Boisson de Chazournes

Book Reviews

21 The ICSID Convention, Regulations and Rules – A practical Commentary 471

Nikos Lavranos

22 International Law in Domestic Courts: A Case Book 473

Nelson Goh

23 The Future of Investment Treaty Arbitration in the EU: intra-EU BITs, the Energy Charter Treaty, and the Multilateral Investment Court 475

Trisha Mitra

Regulatory Challenges Arising from Sovereign Wealth Funds and National Security: Exacerbate Great Power Competition between China and the United States?

Charles Ho Wang Mak* and I-Ju Chen**

China is now a major player in some of the United States’ (US) most important sectors. China’s impact can be found through the acquisition by some of its most influential companies, which are later acquired by the sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) of China. US’ companies, for example, Apple and IBM, and their distributors, are indirectly controlled by China. This dynamic and tension of the two great economic power may play a significant role in the US-China trade war. Moreover, concerns about regulations of the SWFs and national security have never ceased in the US. While the US presidential election is in fall 2020, the foreign relationship between China and the US is an essential agenda in both Trump and Biden’s campaigns. This post examines regulatory challenges arising from the SWFs and national security under this new era of great power competition between China and the US.

National security is closely associated with the concept of state capitalism. This is because the states’ governments mostly control the enterprises that existed in states that adopted state capitalism. Therefore, investors (with political agendas) may invest in some state enterprises, which might affect national security. National security will be negatively affected by the SWFs made by state-owned enterprises. Inward SWFs might affect individual strategic firms (investing in infrastructure) and different sectors in the host countries. This is because those state-owned enterprises, which invest in those host countries by SWFs, can access sensitive information and technology of those strategic firms and then misuse that information. States investors seek to get improved access to sensitive technologies of other countries through investment. Therefore, to safeguard national interests, policies and strong regulations are necessary.

The Santiago Principle could be a reference for governments to govern international investment. Establishment of the Santiago Principle aims to depoliticise foreign investment flows and to structure and implement transparent and sound governance.[1] The Santiago Principle covers the following areas: legal framework and coordination with macroeconomic policies; institutional framework and governance structure; and investment and risk management framework.[2] Hence, the Santiago Principle is one of the most important features in reframing international perceptions of SWFs.

The balance between the protection of national security and open investment policy of SWFs is complex. In addition, SWFs raise ‘potentially controversial questions for international financial regulation and governance’.[3] China’s SWFs, such as the China Investment Corporation (CIC), have sought more access to markets in the US after Chinese deals are under more and stricter scrutiny. Chinese firms have criticized the US’ investment regulations imposing unfair restrictions on funding coming from China. Moreover, in a high-profile talk with the US government in 2015, Xi Jinping raised the issue of SWFs and relevant regulations in the US. Xi addressed that the US government should relax regulations of foreign investment in high-tech sectors.[4]

However, the investment flow of China into the US has prompted US’ concerns about the government of the People Republic of China’s influence. This is because, from the perspective of the US government, there is a potential risk of national security of SWFs. Although it is clear that the national interest ensures long-term capital availability – because much of it must come from SWFs now – several US pressure groups still urge restricting foreign investors’ choices lest they ‘steal’ technology, trade secrets or jobs.[5] On this controversial point, Bu’s research, however, indicated that China has no intention of investing in sensitive sectors pursuing the controlling stake because it has steered away from deals that would trigger any political backlash.[6]

The US has a series of critical legal regimes applicable to SWFs. The US adopted a protectionist approach towards the SWFs inward investments. Since 2000, the companies in the US that were invested by SWFs became a major issue. In the US the principal regulations that burdened SWFs are the Securities Exchange Act 1934, Foreign Investment and National Security Act (FINSA) 2007, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 and Defense Production Act of 1950. FINSA codifies the contemporary views of the Committee of Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). FINSA has dramatically strengthened the regulations introduced by CFIUS, those about inward investment, particularly for state-owned entitled such as SWFs. For instance, critical infrastructure needs to be protected against those SWFs that are invested with a political purpose, since those critical infrastructures will give rise an issue of national security. However, with respect to the unpredictability for the transaction parties, an issue arises as to whether the FINSA can strike a balance between the economic benefits of foreign investment and national security concerns about technology and critical infrastructure.[7] Nonetheless, Chinese scholar, Feng, comments that FINSA is unnecessary and even likely to be detrimental to the US capital markets and the overall economy.[8]

Furthermore, the case of Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc. showed that directors and managers owe the duty of loyalty to both the company and shareholders by providing protections from SWFs’ geopolitical agendas. [9] The US government has treated inward investment by SWFs as an issue of national security. Therefore, Congress has greatly strengthened the regulations on equity investment, especially of state-owned bodies. Also, regarding the definition of strategy towards the notion of national security between the US and China, the US is the most protectionist jurisdiction. Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), which predecessor (Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, TPP) was led by the US, pertains to regulations of SWFs. Definitions for SWFs are at the start of Chapter 17 of CPTPP.[10] In addition, SWFs must be member(s) of the International Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds or endorse the Santiago Principles, or such other principles and practices as may be agreed to by the parties of the CPTPP.[11]

The US might adopt the European Union (EU) model in the future. To regulate foreign direct investment (FDI) into the EU within the context of SWFs, the EU and its Member States rely on the treaties and EU legislation. The free trade theory – the free movement of capital within the European Common Market is the most fundamental feature of the EU approach to regulating the SWFs. However, this fundamental freedom is restricted in a limited number of cases. This is because the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) awarded the EU with the competence to adopt different measures to regulate the establishment of foreign investors within the EU. There are two ways to regulate the movement of capital. According to Article 64 of the TFEU, firstly, the EU can impose measures on the movement of capital from third countries involving direct investment, by a qualified majority; secondly, direct investments can be restricted by measures that are introduced by the EU.[12] Since the TFEU explicitly covers the relationship between the Member States and the so-called third party countries, it seems that the EU laws are favourable to the foreign investors in terms of their important rights vis-à-vis their investments in the EU. However, the principle of free movement of capital is subject to two limitations. The limitations are derogations and safeguard clauses respectively. The scope of the limitations determines the extent to which the governments could restrict FDI within their territories. The narrower these limitations are, the easier it is for SWFs to enter the EU market. On the other hand, if the limitations are broader, governments can impose more restrictions to limit access to the Common Market.

In terms of the securitisation of national security, Article 65 of the TFEU is the most important provision as it describes the power retained by the Member States to restrict the concept of free movement of capital within the European Common Market in the name of protection of public order or public security. It also sets out potential obstacles to SWFs that invest in the EU. O’Donnell acknowledged that there are several Member States in the EU which had adopted various measures to restrict investments of SWFs in the defence sector.[13] In Sanz de Lera and Others, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) produced mixed results for the development of the EU law on capital movements.[14] In this case, CJEU clarified the unconditional nature of Article 65 TFEU, that the principle of free movement of capital prohibits those obstacles between the Member States, and between third countries and the Member States. Until mid-2015, Article 65 had never been applied by any of the Member States to regulate SWFs. In October 2020, an EU regulation establishing a framework for the screening of FDI into the Union has entered into force.[15] This new EU regulation aims to better scrutinise direct investments coming from third countries on the grounds of security or public order. It enhances the European Commission’s existing powers to review foreign investments under the existing merger control rules and sector-specific legislations of the EU.

Currently, some commentators might argue that there are only a few rules that can be applied to regulate SWFs within the EU. Nonetheless, in no small extent, it seems that the legal framework of the EU has provided a comprehensive regime to tackle the phenomenon that the US can take as a reference. For instance, the US can take the new free trade agreement between the EU and, Singapore and Vietnam, and the parallel EU-Vietnam Investment Protection Agreement as a reference, to incorporate SWF provision in the future free trade agreement with China.

To conclude, it is a well-established principle of international law that sovereign immunity does not extend to a state’s commercial activities in another jurisdiction. Thus, SWFs are subject to be assessed by investment host countries’ national laws. However, too excessive scrutiny of SWFs investment is likely to fuel nationalism, and will further hamper the free foreign capital flow. Hence, it has been suggested that the potential consequence of protectionism caused by strict examinations of SWFs should be avoided.[16] Nevertheless, it has been unclear whether the Trump administration would take a tougher stance on trade and investment with China. Since the trade war between China and the US has not ceased yet, the new president of the US would have to deal with the SWFs issue for a mutually beneficial future of the two countries.

*Charles Ho Wang Mak is a PhD Candidate in international law at the University of Glasgow. He studied law at the University of Sussex in England (LL.B. (Hons.)), The Chinese University of Hong Kong (LL.M. in International Economic Law), and the City University of Hong Kong (LL.M.Arb.D.R.(with Credit)).

**Dr I-Ju Chen is assistant lecturer at Birmingham City University in the UK. She holds PhD in law from the University of Birmingham and LLM from University College London. She studied law at National Chung Hsing University in Taiwan (LLB and LLM).

  1. International working group of sovereign wealth funds: Generally accepted principles and practices, “Santiago Principles” 3, 2008. https://www.ifswf.org/sites/default/files/santiagoprinciples_0_0.pdf
  2. Id. at 5.
  3. Benjamin J. Cohen, Sovereign Wealth Funds and National Security: The Great Tradeoff 85(4) International Affairs (2009) 713, 713.
  4. Sui-Lee Wee, China’s $800 Billion Sovereign Wealth Fund Seeks More U.S. Access, Nytimes.com (2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/business/china-investment-infrastructure.html (last visited Aug 30, 2020).
  5. Patrick DeSouza & W. Michael Reisman, Sovereign Wealth Funds and National Security, in SOVEREIGN INVESTMENT: CONCERNS AND POLICY REACTIONS 283, 290 (Karl P. Sauvant, Lisa E. Sachs, and Wouter P.F. Schmit Jongbloed ed., 2012).
  6. Qingxiu Bu, ‘China’s Sovereign Wealth Funds: Problem or Panacea?’ 11(5) The Journal of World Investment and Trade (2010) 849, 868.
  7. Id, at 870.
  8. Zhao Feng, How Should Sovereign Wealth Funds be Regulated?, 3(2) Brook. J. Corp. Fin. & Com. L. 483, 484 (2009).
  9. Cede & Co. v. Technicolor [1988] 542 A.2d 1182.
  10. See Article 17.1, CPTPP.
  11. Id.
  12. Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community [2007] OJ C306, Article 64.
  13. O’Donnell C. M., ‘How should Europe respond to sovereign investors in its defence sector?’ (Centre For Euroopean Reform- Policy Brief, September, 2010), PAGE <http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/attachments/pdf/2011/pb_swf_defence_sept10-203.pdf> accessed 21 June 2020.
  14. Sideek M Seyad, European Community Law on The Free Movement of Capital and EMU (Kluwer Law International 1999) 101-102.
  15. Regulation (EU) 2019/452 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the Union, OJEU, L 79I , 21.3.2019, p. 1–14, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/452/oj.
  16. Bu, supra note 6, 871.

Practical Implications of the New Legal Framework for Foreign Direct Investment in the European Union

By Dr. Philipp Stompfe, LL.M. (London)*

In March 2018, following an initiative of Germany, France and Italy, the Council of the European Union (“EU”) approved a Regulation on establishing a framework for screening of foreign direct investments (“FDI”) into the European Union (“Regulation”).

The new Regulation entered into force on 10 April 2019 and will apply from 11 October 2020.

The Regulation creates an enabling framework for Member States to screen foreign direct investments on grounds of security and public order. The Regulation does not require Member States to adopt a screening mechanism for foreign direct investment, nor does it exhaustively mandate the substantive or procedural features for screening mechanisms. It only sets out basic requirements that should be common to Member States’ screening mechanisms.

Furthermore, the Regulation creates a co-operation mechanism between Member States to share information about foreign direct investment planned or completed on the territory of one or several Member States. It also provides the possibility for other Member States and the Commission to comment on such investment, but leaves the final decision on the appropriate response to the Member States in which the investment is planned or completed.

Moreover, the Regulation introduces the possibility for the Commission to screen foreign direct investments which are likely to affect projects or programmes of Union interest on security and public order grounds.

At least according to official EU announcements, the new Regulation does not attempt to harmonize the existing investment screening mechanisms of the Member States or to introduce an EU-wide screening mechanism. However, there is no doubt that the Regulation will have a very practical impact on foreign direct investments into the EU, both in substance and procedure.

Background

The European Commission (“EC”) constantly emphasizes that the EU maintains an open investment environment and welcomes foreign investment.

In its recent Reflection Paper on “Harnessing Globalisation” issued on 10 May 2017, the EC confirmed that openness to foreign investment remains a key principle for the EU and a major source of growth, but at the same time it recognised that there have been some concerns about foreign investors, notably state-owned enterprises, taking over European companies with key technologies for strategic reasons, and that EU investors often do not enjoy the same rights to invest in the country from which the investment originates.

The list of controversial company takeovers and acquisitions of major European companies is getting longer and longer. Kuka, Aixtron or OSRAM light are just a few examples.

Against this backdrop, the growing political will to more actively screen, control, and ultimately even prevent foreign direct investments flowing into Europe does not come as a surprise.

In this regard, screening mechanisms on the national level are not a novel tool. Rather, almost half of the EU Member States maintain foreign investment control regimes, i.e. Austria, Denmark, Germany, Finland, France, Latvia, Lithuania, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

In particular, the new EU Regulation is to be seen in the context of recent amendments to foreign investment review laws in Europe’s major economies, Germany and France.

On 19 December 2018, the German government passed amendments to the German Foreign Trade and Payments Act (“AWG”) and to the German Foreign Trade and Payment Ordinance (“AWV”).

In this regard, the German legislator has lowered the threshold for the screening of FDI to the acquisition of 10% of the voting rights of a German company being active in the military and encryption sector and of German companies which are operating in the field of critical infrastructure according to the Regulation for Identifying Critical Infrastructure.

At first, the French foreign investment review regime was limited to a small number of business activities, in particular to gambling, private security services, weapons, warfare equipment and cryptology. However, due to serious amendments to the French Monetary and Financial Code by Decree No. 2014-479 dated 14 May 2014 and Decree No. 2018-1057 dated 29 November 2018, the right of the French Ministry to review and restrict foreign investment has been substantially increased.

With solid and reasonable arguments it can be concluded that the Regulation as well as the relevant national laws seriously struggle to establish an appropriate balance between addressing legitimate concerns with regard to certain FDIs, in particular those originating from state-owned enterprises and sovereign wealth funds, and the need to maintain an open and positive regime for such investment into the EU.

The new EU investment screening regime

In general, the overriding objective of the Regulation is to provide a framework of substantial and procedural rules for the Member States, and the EC to screen and control FDI in the EU. The precondition for issuing any screening decisions are impairing grounds on “public order and security”.

The main features of the Regulation are the following:

Scope of application

One main characteristic of the Regulation is a broad definition of FDI.

The Regulation defines FDI as an investment of any kind by a foreign investor aiming to establish or to maintain lasting and direct links between the foreign investor and the entrepreneur to whom or the undertaking to which the capital is made available, in order to carry on an economic activity in a Member State, including investments which enable effective participation in the management or control of a company carrying out an economic activity.

In addition, “foreign investor” means a natural person of a third country or a legal entity (undertaking) of a third country, intending to make or having made a foreign direct investment.

It must be highlighted that any post-Brexit UK investors are going to be qualified as “foreign investors” within the meaning of the Regulation.

Relevant economic sectors

The Regulation introduces a wide scope of economic sectors that may be controlled and reviewed:

  • critical infrastructure, whether physical or virtual, including energy, transport, water, health, communications, media, data processing or storage, aerospace, defence, electoral or financial infrastructure, and sensitive facilities, as well as land and real estate crucial for the use of such infrastructure;
  • critical technologies and dual use items including artificial intelligence, robotics, semiconductors, cybersecurity, aerospace, defence, energy storage, quantum and nuclear technologies as well as nanotechnologies and biotechnologies;
  • supply of critical inputs, including energy or raw materials, as well as food security;
  • access to sensitive information, including personal data, or the ability to control such information; or
  • the freedom and pluralism of the media.

In that regard, it is also possible for Member States and the EC to take into account the context and circumstances of the FDI, in particular whether a foreign investor is controlled directly or indirectly by foreign governments, for example through significant funding, including subsidies, or is pursuing State-led outward projects or programmes.

No minimum threshold

It must explicitly be pointed out that the Regulation, contrary to national regulations such as in Germany and France, does not impose any minimum threshold for the screening of FDI, neither regarding the total amount nor pertaining to the corporate stake.

Minimum requirements

The Regulation establishes framework rules which Member States must adhere to that already maintain an FDI screening regime or wish to adopt one. These rules, inter alia, include the following:

  • Member States shall set out the circumstances triggering the screening, the grounds for screening and the applicable detailed procedural rules;
  • Member States shall apply timeframes under their screening mechanisms;
  • Confidential information, including commercially-sensitive information, made available to the Member State undertaking the screening shall be protected;
  • Foreign investors and the undertakings concerned shall have the possibility to seek recourse against screening decisions of the national authorities;
  • Member States which have a screening mechanism in place shall maintain, amend or adopt measures necessary to identify and prevent circumvention of the screening mechanisms and screening decisions.

Co-operation mechanism regarding FDI undergoing screening

The Regulation introduces a co-operation mechanism between Member States and the EC. In this context, Member States shall notify the EC and the other Member States of any foreign direct investment in their territory that is undergoing screening by providing the following information as soon as possible:

  • Whether the ownership structure of the foreign investor and of the undertaking in which the foreign direct investment is planned or has been completed;
  • the approximate value of the foreign direct investment;
  • Whether the products, services and business operations of the foreign investor and of the undertaking in which the FDI is planned or has been completed;
  • Whether the Member States in which the foreign investor and the undertaking in which the foreign direct investment is planned or has been completed conduct relevant business operations;
  • the funding of the investment and its source, on the basis of the best information available to the Member State;
  • the date when the foreign direct investment is planned to be completed or has been completed.

Based on the information received, Member States are entitled to make comments on FDI in another Member State, if that FDI is likely to affect its security or public order, or has information relevant for such screening.

Where the EC considers that a foreign direct investment undergoing screening is likely to affect security or public order in more than one Member State, or has relevant information in relation to that foreign direct investment, it may issue an opinion addressed to the Member State undertaking the screening. The EC may issue an opinion irrespective of whether other Member States have provided comments.

Generally, comments or opinions shall be addressed to the Member State undertaking the screening and shall be sent to it within a reasonable period of time, and in any case no later than 35 calendar days following receipt of the information stated above. It must be considered though, that this timeframe may be extended to an additional 20 days in cases in which additional information were requested.

In any event, the Member State undertaking the screening shall give due consideration to the comments of the other Member States and to the opinion of the EC. However, the final screening decision shall be taken by the Member State undertaking the screening.

Co-operation mechanism regarding FDI not undergoing screening

Where a Member State considers that an FDI planned or completed in another Member State which is not undergoing screening in that Member State is likely to affect its security or public order, or has relevant information in relation to that foreign direct investment, it may provide comments to that other Member State.

The same applies to the EC which is entitled to issue an opinion in cases where FDI is not undergoing screening in the relevant Member State.

The most controversial element in this regard, resulting in great legal uncertainty for planned and even completed FDI, is that making comments and issuing an opinion is allowed up to 15 months after the FDI has been “successfully” completed.

FDI likely to affect projects or programmes of Union interest

Where the EC considers that an FDI is likely to affect projects or programmes of Union interest on grounds of security or public order, the EC may issue an opinion addressed to the Member State where the foreign direct investment is planned or has been completed.

In this regard, projects or programmes of Union interest shall include those projects and programmes which involve a substantial amount or a significant share of Union funding, or which are covered by Union law regarding critical infrastructure, critical technologies or critical inputs which are essential for security or public order.

In particular, this includes the following projects or programmes: Galileo & EGNOS, Copernicus, Horizon 2020, TEN-T (Trans-European Networks for Transport) and TEN-E (Trana-European Networks for Energy).

Practical implications

The mechanisms on foreign investment screening have become an increasingly relevant issue in cross-border transactions that require in-depth legal risk assessment and management prior to concluding the transaction. As a direct consequence thereof, foreign investors are well-advised to seek comprehensive legal and legal policy advice prior to conducting any investment activities in the EU.

In particular, the new reguation will lead to the following:

  1. The lack of any minimum threshold grants the EC and other Member States wide authority to directly interfere in the screening process of FDI in a specific Member State.
  2. Due to the right to directly interfere in the FDI screening of a particular Member State it cannot be ruled out that major European economies are going to force smaller Member States to impede certain FDI, in particular in sensitive sectors.
  3. The Regulation in conjunction with the current amendments of relevant national laws in major European economies further enlarges legal policy protectionism towards FDI.
  4. The new Regulation establishes a dual-system of review and control of FDI on the European level. In addition to screening acquisition transactions under a merger control perspective pursuant to the EC Merger Regulation, the EC now has the competence to review transactions and issue opinions from an FDI perspective.
  5. The Regulation will have a serious impact on the timing of FDI screening. Due to the right of other affected Member States to provide comments and the right of the EC to issue an opinion, flanked by the obligation of the host state (the state where the investment is made) to properly consider those comments and opinions, national scrutiny procedures are likely to be delayed. Furthermore, as a direct consequence, the Regulation will decouple national scrutiny procedures from the short initial review phase pertaining merger control pursuant to Article 10 EC Merger Regulation.
  6. The statutory right of Member States and the EC to provide comments, and to issue an opinion, respectively, for up to 15 months after the relevant transaction has already been completed, creates great legal uncertainty. Especially taking into consideration that, e.g. in Germany and France, the transaction shall remain pending and ineffective until the final approval of the competent government authority. In consequence, this procedural element by itself may further tremendously delay the finalization of cross-border M&A transactions.
  7. The Regulation, inevitably, will raise further awareness of the sensitivities originating from FDI, which in turn may lead to an alignment of substantial and procedural rules of Member States that, until now, have a less comprehensive investment review regime.
  8. This is not the end – it is just the beginning: until today, the new Regulation only grants the EC a “coordinating role”. However, the EC, on a regular basis, in its own publications, emphasizes that other elements will be further assessed accompanying the Regulation. Therefore, considering the unstoppable regulatory craze in Brussels, it is to be expected that the competences of the EC, regarding the review and control of FDI, will be substantially enlarged in the near future.
  9. One major missing element: the Regulation does not contain any default provision for cases where Member States fail to duly consider the comments of other Member States or the opinion of the EC, or even completely fail to duly inform other Member States likely to be affected by the FDI in question.

*Dr. Philipp Stompfe, LL.M. (London) is attorney at law at Alexander & Partner (Berlin/Stuttgart/Paris/Vienna/Doha/Riyadh/Ras Al Khaimah/Cairo/Muscat). Within the team of Alexander & Partner, Dr. Philipp Stompfe is primarily involved in international litigation and arbitration. He is constantly acting as counsel in commercial and investment arbitrations before all of the major arbitral institutions mainly related to construction, energy, distribution, real estate and M&A disputes. He is specialized in international investment law and further advises on international contract and corporate law and on the structuring and implementation of cross-border investment projects, in particular in the Near and Middle East.

The new EU Regulation on the screening of foreign direct investments: A tool for disguised protectionism?

Prof. Nikos Lavranos, Secretary General of EFILA

In December 2018, the EU institutions agreed on the text for an EU Regulation establishing a mechanism for screening all foreign investments into the EU.

In just over a year the EU institutions adopted this Regulation, which is unusually fast and reflects the apparent political will of the institutions involved to deliver something tangible that would address the fear against Chinese investments that would essentially take over the European economies.

The Regulation is in particular noteworthy because it introduces an EU-wide screening mechanism at the EU level as well as at the Member States’ level, which in many ways is similar to the US screening mechanism (CFIUS) whose scope of application was recently also significantly expanded. (The revised CFIUS text is part of the very extensive National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, sections 1701 et seq.)

The EU Regulation is also significant in that it gives the Commission and other Member States the power to directly interfere in the screening of FDI in a particular Member State.

At the Member States’ level, it should be noted that there is a disparity among them regarding their approach of whether or not to screen FDI, and if so, under which conditions and procedures.

According to the Commission, about half of the Member States have currently no screening mechanism at all, while the other half does have one. In addition, the conditions and procedures of the existing screen mechanisms differ.

Accordingly, the Regulation aims to harmonize this situation by grandfathering all existing screenings mechanisms and by encouraging all Member States, which have not yet one, to establish such a mechanism. In addition, common basic criteria for the screening of FDI are laid down in this Regulation. Indeed, all Member States are required to register all incoming FDI and to report them to the Commission and to all other Member States. In fact, the Member States and the Commission are required to set up a dedicated contact point for that purpose.

At the European level, the Regulation gives the Commission – for the first time – the power to actively screen FDI – not only those that are “likely to affect projects or programmes of Union interest on grounds of security or public order”, but also those that are “likely to affect security or public order in more than one Member State”.

The Commission may issue opinions, which the Member State concerned is required to duly take into consideration. Similarly, Member States can comment on the screening of FDI in other Member States.

However, what is most interesting is the wide scope of the sectors that may be screened, which covers, inter alia, the following areas:

(a) critical infrastructure, whether physical or virtual, including energy, transport, water, health, communications, media, data processing or storage, aerospace, defence, electoral or financial infrastructure, as well as sensitive facilities and investments in land and real estate, crucial for the use of such infrastructure;

(b) critical technologies and dual use items as defined in Article 2.1 of Regulation (EC) No 428/2009, including artificial intelligence, robotics, semiconductors, cybersecurity, quantum, aerospace, defence, energy storage, nuclear technologies, nanotechnologies and biotechnologies;

(c) supply of critical inputs, including energy or raw materials, as well as food security;

(d) access to sensitive information, including personal data, or the ability to control such information; or

(e) the freedom and pluralism of the media.

Also, noteworthy is the fact that there is no minimum threshold of the amount of the FDI for screening, which means that potentially any FDI from 1 to 100 billion euros could be screened.

While the fear against a Chinese takeover of the European economies is widespread and understandable, it is not supported by facts. Indeed, as a recent study by the well-respected Copenhagen Economics institute shows that countries other than China invest much more into the EU.

According to this study the US is by far the largest investor in the EU and accounted for 51.1% of the M&As by third country investors, followed by Switzerland (10.8%), Norway (4.6%) Canada (3.8%), while China comes only fourth with a meager 2.8%.

When it comes to investments by State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) from third states, Russian investors accounted for 16.6% of M&As, followed by Norway (15.8%), Switzerland (11.8%), while Chinese SOEs account only for 11% of the M&As.

In other words, the amount of Chinese FDI are far lower than from several other third countries, but which seemingly are considered friendlier and thus approached with less hostility.

Be that as it may, the real risk of this Regulation is not so much the screening of FDI but that it could be abused as a tool for disguised protectionism and classic state-governed economic nationalism.

This is so because the big Member States will be able to force smaller Member States to block FDI, for example from China, in order to give preference instead to French, German or Spanish investors.

Similarly, the Commission may force a Member State to block an FDI for unrelated more important geopolitical reasons.

This can also raise the tension among EU Member States which are competing for FDI. For example, if the Rotterdam harbour wants to attract Chinese investments for upgrading and expanding its facilities in order to be able to better compete against the harbour of Hamburg, Germany might very well use the argument of “security or public order” in this Regulation to force the Netherlands to block the Chinese investor and rather accept a European investor instead, or forget about the whole project altogether.

This is not to say that one should be naïve about Chinese, American or Russian investments, which are often connected with geopolitical aims or potentially (business) espionage. The example of Huawei, which has been restricted in developing the 5G network in some Western countries, is telling. At the same time, one should not forget that EU Member States are competing with each other to attract FDI and have the vested interests of their national champions always in mind.

Thus, the line between genuine protection of “security and public order” and disguised protectionism is very thin and tempting to cross for short term political and/or economic gains. However, this Regulation – unsurprisingly – does not contain any effective mechanisms to mitigate this risk.

Therefore, when this EU Regulation enters into force, foreign investors are well-advised to seek proper in-depth advice prior to investing into the EU.

The Pre-Establishment National Treatment Obligation: How Common Is It?

Vrinda Vinayak*

Introduction

The national treatment obligation in international investment agreements (IIAs) is a double-edged sword – while it may attract foreign investment by guaranteeing equal access to and treatment in the domestic market, it has the potential to limit autonomy and sovereignty of nations in formulating domestic policy, and opens these measures up to challenge before arbitral tribunals. In this light, one of the most important aspects of the national treatment obligation is whether it applies only when investments have been admitted into the host country according to the latter’s rules and regulations (post-establishment obligation), or also before or during the admission stage (pre-establishment obligation).

Exclusively post-establishment obligations allow host states to retain autonomy over the kind and quantum of investment it wants to permit. An obligation to offer pre-establishment national treatment limits the ability of the host state to impose government approval requirements or sectoral caps for foreign direct investment (FDI). There is also a restriction on favourable treatment being granted to infant industries, imposition of performance requirements on foreign entities, requirements of mandatory partnership with local firms as a condition for establishment etc. Owing to these factors, pre-establishment obligations have traditionally been seen only in a small minority of agreements. However, this trend seems all set to change.

Pre-establishment obligations can be incorporated in IIAs in a variety of ways. They can either be embodied expressly in the national treatment clause, or gathered from the definitions of ‘investor’ and ‘investment’. IIAs containing broad, asset-based definitions of ‘investment’ (without reference to the asset having already been admitted in accordance with national law) and defining ‘investor’ as someone who “seeks to make, is making or has made an investment” or that “attempts to make, is making, or has made an investment” usually offer pre-establishment protections.

Treaty Practice – United States and Canada

The United States (US) and Canada have been at the forefront of the pre-establishment national treatment obligation. Early examples of some relevant bilateral investment treaties (BITs) include the US – Jordan BIT (1997)[1] and the Canada – Latvia BIT (1995)[2]. The model BITs of the US (2004 and 2012) and Canada (2004) were also the first models to feature such an obligation. The most prominent example of a provision embodying the pre-establishment national treatment obligation is Article 1102 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (1992)[3], which reads: “1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments…” (clause 2 speaks of treatment accorded to ‘investments’ very similarly). ‘Investor’ is defined in terms of an entity that “seeks to make, is making or has made an investment”, and the agreement contains an asset-based definition of ‘investment’.[4] The NAFTA’s national treatment obligations have also been incorporated in the newly concluded Agreement between the US, Mexico and Canada (USMCA) (2018)[5], but ‘investor’ is now defined in terms of an entity that “attempts to make, is making, or has made an investment”, with a clarification as to the meaning of “attempts to make”.[6]

The IIAs concluded by the US and Canada with emerging economies display a varying practice – while the Canada – China BIT (2012)[7] does not include pre-establishment national treatment, the Rwanda – US BIT (2008)[8], the Canada – Senegal BIT (2014)[9] and the Canada – Mongolia BIT (2016)[10] contain such obligations worded similarly to the NAFTA. The practice of emerging economies will be examined in more detail below.

Treaty Practice – European Union

The European Union (EU) has recently become open to extending national treatment to the pre-establishment phase, as demonstrated by the EU – Montenegro Stabilisation and Association Agreement (2007), which provides for establishment of companies pursuant to the national treatment standard[11]. The EU’s agreements with Georgia[12], Moldova[13] and Ukraine[14] concluded in 2014 also admit pre-establishment national treatment. The most prominent manifestation of this trend is the newly concluded EU – Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) (2016)[15], Article 8.6 of which reads: “1. Each Party shall accord to an investor of the other Party and to a covered investment, treatment no less favourable than the treatment it accords, in like situations to its own investors and to their investments with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, conduct, operation, management, maintenance, use, enjoyment and sale or disposal of their investments in its territory…

Similarly, Article 8.8(1) of the EU – Japan Economic Partnership Agreement (2018)[16] states particularly in the context of establishment that, “each Party shall accord to entrepreneurs of the other Party and to covered enterprises treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like situations, to its own entrepreneurs and to their enterprises, with respect to establishment in its territory,” where “entrepreneur of a Party” means a “natural or juridical person of a Party that seeks to establish, is establishing or has established an enterprise…in the territory of the other Party.

Treaty Practice – Emerging Markets

It is interesting to examine the trend in emerging market states. Initially, most IIAs entered into by such states did not contain pre-establishment national treatment obligations. A typical formulation of such an exclusively post-establishment obligation is seen in the Indonesia – Turkey BIT (1997), which stated that “each party shall, in conformity with its laws and regulations, accord to these investments, once established, treatment no less favourable than that accorded in similar situations to investments of its investors or to investments of investors of any third country, whichever is most favourable.[17] Language facilitating only post-establishment obligations is also seen in the Korea – Qatar BIT (1999)[18], and the South Africa – Turkey BIT (2000)[19].

While the practice of emerging market states is still varied, pre-establishment obligations are becoming more frequent than before. One of the earlier examples of this trend is the BIT concluded by Korea with Japan in 2002[20] which defines investor broadly, provides a wide, asset-based definition of investment, and includes ‘establishment’ within the fold of the national treatment obligation. Around the same time, the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Treaty (CIT) (2009)[21] also provided pre-establishment national treatment to its members, under the ‘mutual national treatment’ model.

In the next decade, regional agreements such as the Pacific Alliance Additional Protocol (PAAP) (2014) between Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru[22], and the ASEAN – India Investment Agreement (2014)[23] also provided such treatment. The Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) concluded by Mongolia with Japan in 2015 states that:  “Each party shall in its area, accord to investors of the other party and to their investments treatment no less favourable than the treatment it accords in like circumstances to its own investors and to their investments with respect to investment activities,”[24] where ‘investment activities’ is defined as “establishment, acquisition, expansion, operation, management, maintenance, use, enjoyment and sale or disposal of an investment[25] – this formulation very clearly includes pre-establishment obligations. The terms ‘investor’ and ‘investment’ are also defined broadly.[26]

There are several recent examples of emerging market IIAs encompassing pre-establishment obligations. A case in point is the China – Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (CEPA) Investment Agreement (2017), which defines ‘investor’ broadly as, “one side, or a natural person or an enterprise of one side, that seeks to make, is making or has made a covered investment,[27] and contains a national treatment obligation phrased very similarly to the NAFTA[28]. Another example is the Central America – Korea Free Trade Agreement (FTA) (2018) between Costa Rica, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama and Korea, which also extends national treatment to the pre-establishment phase[29] and incorporates an obligation phrased like the NAFTA.

On the other hand, some emerging economies still prefer to limit their national treatment obligation only to the post-establishment phase, exercising full investment control. Brazil is a prime example of this – for the longest time, it attracted investment without IIAs, and has only recently started entering into Cooperation and Facilitation Investment Agreements (CFIAs), which may explain its cautious and relatively more protectionist approach. The Brazil – Suriname CFIA (2018)[30] contains a national treatment obligation worded similarly to the NAFTA. However, an ‘investor’ must already have “made an investment”, and an ‘investment’ must be “established or acquired in accordance with the laws and regulations of the other Party”, thereby seemingly excluding pre-establishment national treatment obligations and allowing domestic law to discriminate. This is also clarified by Article 14(a) which clearly states that all investments must conform to domestic law in matters including establishment. Brazil’s CFIA with Ethiopia (2018) also contains an explicit admissions clause, stating that investments of investors of each party shall be admitted in accordance with domestic law,[31] and does not include ‘establishment’ in its national treatment clause[32]. Admissions clauses have been a common trend among countries wishing to retain autonomy over enacting domestic legislation stipulating specific criteria to admit foreign investment. Examples of older IIAs containing such clauses are the Ethiopia – Russia BIT (2000)[33] and the Bahrain – Thailand BIT (2002)[34]. More recently, the South Africa – Zimbabwe BIT (2009)[35] and the Rwanda – UAE BIT (2017)[36] have also adopted such clauses.

India’s 2016 Model BIT also clarifies through the definitions of ‘investor’, ‘investment’ and ‘enterprise’, coupled with non-inclusion of ‘establishment’ in its national treatment obligation, that such obligations are excluded at the pre-establishment stage. Uniquely, the model in Article 2.2 also states that: “…nothing in this Treaty shall extend to any Pre-investment activity related to establishment, acquisition or expansion of any Enterprise or Investment, or to any Law or Measure related to such Pre-investment activities, including terms and conditions under such Law or Measure which continue to apply post-investment to the management, conduct, operation, sale or other disposition of such Investments.

Restrictions on the Pre-Establishment Obligation

It is but natural that IIAs offering pre-establishment protections also contain restrictions on such a broad obligation, over and above general exceptions. Many IIAs of this kind contain ‘negative lists’ of sectors to which the obligation does not apply, such as those involving national interest or security, like telecommunication, transport, defence etc. The NAFTA, EU – Canada CETA, China – Hong Kong CEPA, Japan – Mongolia EPA, PAAP, ASEAN CIT, Central America – Korea FTA etc. are all found to contain such lists. There may also be a narrower approach, that of a ‘positive list’ enumerating sectors wherein national treatment will be granted, such as in the India – Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) (2005)[37]. Most IIAs analysed above also contain provisions making the national treatment obligation inapplicable to existing non-conforming measures and reasonable amendments thereto, while prohibiting the enactment of new discriminatory measures. Article 9 of the China – Hong Kong CEPA, Article 8.15(1) of the EU – Canada CETA and Article 9.13(1) of the Central America – Korea FTA are good examples of such provisions.

Another measure to restrict a broad interpretation of the pre-establishment obligation is to define the meaning of “seeks to make…an investment” or “attempts to make…an investment” in the definition of ‘investor’. Footnote 12 of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) (2018) clearly states that, “For greater certainty, the Parties understand that, for the purposes of the definitions of “investor of a non-Party” and “investor of a Party”, an investor “attempts to make” an investment when that investor has taken concrete action or actions to make an investment, such as channelling resources or capital in order to set up a business, or applying for a permit or licence.[38] Footnote 14 of the Central America – Korea FTA also contains such an understanding.

Explanations ‘for greater certainty’ have also been added in several agreements to explain ‘like circumstances’, so as not to allow arbitral tribunals too broad a discretion. For example, the USMCA in Article 14.4(4) states that, “For greater certainty, whether treatment is accorded in “like circumstances” under this Article depends on the totality of the circumstances, including whether the relevant treatment distinguishes between investors or investments on the basis of legitimate public welfare objectives.” Article 3(4) of the ASEAN-India provides detailed guidance in this regard by clarifying that, “A determination of whether investments or investors are in “like circumstances” should be made, based upon an objective assessment of all circumstances on a case-by-case basis, including, inter alia: (a) the sector the investor is in; (b) the location of the investment; (c) the aim of the measure concerned; and (d) the regulatory process generally applied in relation to the measure concerned. The examination shall not be limited to or biased towards anyone factor.

Further, in response to jurisprudence that discriminatory intent is not a requirement for a finding of violation of national treatment, IIAs offering pre-establishment national treatment in the future may consider including such a requirement in the treaty itself. India’s 2016 Model BIT, despite not offering pre-establishment national treatment, clarifies the need for discriminatory intent in the following words: “A breach of Article 4.1 will only occur if the challenged Measure constitutes intentional and unlawful discrimination against the Investment on the basis of nationality,” and similar wording may be adopted in the future by countries offering a pre-establishment protection. Furthermore, for countries that have chosen not to afford pre-establishment national treatment, it may be beneficial to clarify that such treatment cannot be imported from other IIAs either. The Brazil – Colombia CFIA (2015) in Article 5(3) adopts this method.

Adopting a more extreme measure, some countries are also seeking to renegotiate treaties which had earlier offered pre-establishment guarantees, to retain autonomy over regulation of foreign investment. An example of a domestic measure which would ordinarily violate pre-establishment national treatment obligations is India’s foreign direct investment (FDI) policy, which mandates government approval for foreign entities seeking to invest in certain sectors in India. Moreover, the percentage of foreign investment allowed in these sectors is also limited. These restrictions placed on foreign entities in the pre-establishment phase accords them less favourable treatment than that afforded to domestic entities. India had previously adopted two distinct approaches while concluding IIAs – first, to undertake only post-establishment obligations, which was seen in a majority of agreements, and second, to undertake pre-establishment obligations but either only in certain agreed sectors (the ‘positive list’ approach was adopted in India’s IIAs with Singapore[39]) or by excluding certain sectors from the purview of pre-establishment national treatment (the ‘negative list’ approach was adopted in the IIA with Japan[40] and Korea[41]). Since the FDI policy is a pre-establishment regulatory procedure pertaining to sectors other than those agreed upon, or concerning those expressly excluded, India believed its FDI policy to be in compliance with its obligations under all international agreements. However, in its 2016 model BIT, India has specifically clarified its intent to undertake only post-establishment obligations henceforth, and is renegotiating its investment agreements according to this model.

Conclusion

It can be concluded safely that while countries continue to enter into treaties offering only post-establishment national treatment protection, the trend reflected in many recently concluded IIAs is towards inclusion of pre as well as post-establishment obligations. This trend could in part be attributed to intense liberalisation and globalisation. Countries and regions such as the US, Canada and the EU choosing to adopt pre-establishment protections is unsurprising, given that these developed economies do not fear competition from counterparties to their IIAs. Further, while emerging market economies were initially almost exclusively offering only post-establishment national treatment to protect their domestic economies, pre-establishment protections are now being offered among parties whose economic power is more equal.

There are political factors at play here as well. At the pre-establishment stage, there is strong impetus to the host state to strengthen the economy by attracting foreign investment. However, the same motivation to uphold national treatment may not remain in the post-establishment stage, when the investor has already invested large amounts of capital and other factors of production, and is unlikely to exit easily.[42] Political parties have more to gain from favouring domestic investors, which secures votes for them. In light of this, it will be interesting to see whether countries uphold the obligation with equal commitment in both phases.


*Vrinda Vinayak, Student, 5th Year, B.A. LL.B. (Hons.), National Law University, Delhi (India)


[1] Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment, art. II.1, Jul. 2, 1997.

[2] Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of Latvia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, art. II.3, Apr. 26, 1995.

[3] North American Free Trade Agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico, Dec. 17, 1992.

[4] Id., art. 1139.

[5] Agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada, art. 14.4, Nov. 30, 2018.

[6] Id., art. 14.1 read with footnote 3.

[7] Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the People’s Republic of China for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, art. 6, Sept. 09, 2012.

[8] Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Rwanda Concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment, art. 3, Feb. 19, 2008.

[9] Agreement Between Canada and the Federal Republic of Senegal for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, art. 4, Nov. 27, 2014.

[10] Agreement Between Canada and Mongolia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, art. 4, Sept. 08, 2016.

[11] Council and Commission Decision on the conclusion of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Montenegro, of the other part, art. 53, March 29 2010.

[12] Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and Georgia, of the other part, art.79, June 27, 2014.

[13] Association Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Moldova, of the other part, art. 205, June 27, 2014.

[14] Association Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part, art. 88, June 27, 2014.

[15] Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union (and its member states) of the other part, Oct. 30, 2016.

[16] Agreement between the European Union and Japan for an Economic Partnership, July 17, 2018.

[17] Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Turkey and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia Concerning the Promotion and Protection of Investments, art. II(2), Feb. 25, 1997.

[18] Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the State of Qatar for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, art. 3(2), Apr. 16, 1999.

[19] Agreement Between the Republic of Turkey and the Republic of South Africa Concerning the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments, art. II(3), June 23, 2000.

[20] Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of Japan for the Liberalisation, Promotion and Protection of Investment, art. 2(1), Mar. 22, 2002.

[21] ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement, art. 5, Feb. 26, 2009.

[22] Additional Protocol to the Framework Agreement of the Pacific Alliance, art. 10.4, Feb. 10, 2014.

[23] Agreement on Investment Under the Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the Republic of India, art. 3, Oct. 8, 2003.

[24] Article 10.3, Agreement Between Japan and Mongolia for an Economic Partnership, art. 10.3, Feb. 10, 2015.

[25] Id., art. 10.2(e).

[26] Id., arts. 1.2(k) & (l).

[27] Investment Agreement of the Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Agreement, art. 2(2), June 26, 2017.

[28] Id., art. 5.

[29] Free Trade Agreement between the Republic of Korea and the Republics of Central America, art. 9.3, Feb. 21, 2018.

[30] Cooperation and Facilitation Investment Agreement between the Federative Republic of Brazil and the Republic of Suriname, art. 5 read with art. 3(1.3) and art.3(1.5), May 02, 2018.

[31] Agreement Between the Federativo Republic of Brazil and the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia on Investment Cooperation and Facilitation, art. 3(4), art. 4(1), Apr. 11, 2018.

[32] Id., art. 5(1).

[33] Agreement between the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and the Government of the Russian Federation on the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, art. 2(1), Feb. 10, 2000.

[34] Agreement between the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand and the Government of the Kingdom of Bahrain for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, art. 3(1), May 21, 2002.

[35] Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, art. 2(1), Nov. 27, 2009.

[36] Agreement between the Republic of Rwanda and the United Arab Emirates on the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, art. 3(1), Nov. 01, 2017.

[37] Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement between India and Singapore, art. 6.3, Jun. 29, 2005.

[38] Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, Mar. 08, 2018.

[39] Supra note 37.

[40] Economic Partnership Agreement between Japan and India, art. 90(2), Feb.16, 2011.

[41] Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement between India and the Republic of Korea, art. 10.8(2), Aug, 07, 2009.

[42] Jurgen Kurtz, The WTO and International Investment Law: Converging Systems 90 (2016).

ICC: Policy Statement Foreign Direct Investment

The ICC Commission on Trade and Investment Policy has just issued a Policy Statement on Foreign Direct Investment arguing the necessity of FDI and of ISDS mechanisms for ensuring economic growth in our global society.

Investment, including foreign direct investment (FDI), plays an important role in determining a country’s economic prospects. ICC strongly supports FDI as an effective tool to foster economic growth and sustainable development, and calls on governments to both maintain and strengthen investment protection and promotion agreements.

In the short and medium term, this can be don through high-standard bilateral and regional investment agreements, and in the longer term through an equally high-standard multilateral framework on investment. Investment agreements should continue to include strong dispute resolution provisions, through investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) with independent proceedings to settle investment disputes.

The full document can be consulted here.