Transparency of Foreign Investment; Redefining the Meaning of the Principle of Transparency in International Investment Law

Document Type : Scientific research

Authors

• S. Ali Hosseiniazad
• Pouria Askari,

https://doi.org/10.22067/lowecon.2022.41769

Abstract

 
Abstract
As a traditional approach in the international investment law transparency has always been defined as an obligation of host states in order to create more protection for foreign investors. This aspect of transparency has been recognized in international investment law as a rule. Currently and alongside with advancement of some discourses such as fight against corruption, human rights, good governance, CSR and corporate governance, a new trend has been formed in international investment law according to which the foreign investors are also under an obligation to remain transparent.
This article with a focus on the background of this shift will analyze the details of this new obligation for the foreign investors. The article relying on a descriptive–analytical approach will provide an in-depth study of both the content of legal instruments including the recently signed BITs as well as the case-law of the investment tribunals to indicate that how the transparency as a global obligation is reflected in theory and practice of international investment law.
The studies finally show that world community is going toward recognizing and strengthening wide variety of obligations, inter alia, transparency for foreign investors.
 

Keywords

• Keywords: Principle of Transparency
• Foreign Investment
• International Investment Law
•   Responsibility of investor
• fight against corruption

References

1. References

    

   1. Books
   • Askari, Pouria (2015), the Law of Foreign Investment in International Arbitration Practice, Tehran, the SD Institute of Law Research and Study. (in persian)
   • Herdegen, Matthias (2013). Principles of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press.
   • Herrmann, Christoph and Corinna Dornacher (2017). International and European Monetary Law: An Introduction, Switzerland, Springer.
   • Klein, Pierre (2009). International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law.
   • Subedi, Surya P. (2008). International Investment Law; Reconciling Policy and Principle, Oxford, Hart Publishing.

    

   1. Articles
   • Ansari Mahyari, Alireza and Leila Raisi (2018), “International Standards of Foreign Investment Protection”, Journal Encyclopedia of Economic Law, No. 13. (in persian)
   • Lam, Joanna and Güneş Ünüvar (2019). “Transparency and participatory aspects of investor-state dispute settlement in the EU ‘new wave’ trade agreements”, Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 32.
   • Laverde, Santiago D. (2011). “Analysis of the Principle of Transparency with Special Reference to Its Implications for the Procedure of International Investment Arbitration”, Criterio Jurídico Santiago de Cali, Vol. 11, No. 1.
   • Marcus, Stephen A. (1995). “Bridge Loan Financing: The Syndicator's Perspective”, Journal of Affordable Housing & Community Development Law, Vol. 4, No. 4.
   • Marshall, Fiona (2007). “Fair and Equitable Treatment in International Investment Agreements”, Issues in International Investment Law Background Papers for the Developing Country Investment Negotiators’Forum. International Institute for Sustainable Development.
   • Ruscalla, Gabriele (2015). “Transparency in International Arbitration: Any (Concrete) Need to Codify the Standard?”, Groningen Journal of International Law, Vol. 3, No. 1.
   • Shamsaei, Mohammad and Seyed Ali Hosseiniazad (2021). “The Role of Transparency in Interpretation of the FET Standard in International Investment Law”, Public Law Studies Quarterly, Vol. 51, Issue 2. (in persian)
   • Sheppard, Audley (2003). “Interim ILA Report on Public Policy as a Bar to Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards”, Arbitration International, Vol. 19, Issue 2.
   • Tamada, Dai (2015). “Host States as Claimants: Corruption Allegations.” In: Shaheeza Lalani, Rodrigo Polanco Lazo (eds), Role of the State in Investor-State Arbitration, Brill Nijhoff publishers.
   • Turnes, Paloma B. and Ricardo Ernst (2015). “A framework for transparency in international trade”, Investigaciones Europeas de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa, Vol. 21.
   • Yackee, Jason W. (2011). “Investment Treaties and Investor Corruption: An Emergent Defense for Host States”, Virginia Journal of International Law, of Wisconsin Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1181.

    

   1. International instruments
   • Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, Adopted by the OECD Negotiating Conference on 21 November 1997, Entry into force 15 February 1999
   • FATF (2012-2019), International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism & Proliferation, FATF, Paris, France, para. 24
   • ICC Guidelines for International Investment, 2016
   • International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in resolution 54/109 of 9 December 1999
   • International Institute for Sustainable Development, IISD Model International Agreement on Investment for Sustainable Development, 2006.
   • Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12/Rev.2 (2003)
   • Organization of American States, Inter-American Convention against Corruption, Adopted on March 29, 1996
   • Recommendation of the Council for Further Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, 26 November 2009
   • The African Union (AU) Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption, adopted on July 01, 2003, entry into force on August 05, 2006
   • the Council of Europe: Criminal Law Convention on Corruption, Strasbourg, 27.I.1999; and Civil Law Convention on Corruption, Strasbourg, 4.XI.1999
   • The Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) between the CARIFORUM States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, 2008.
   • The Human Rights Council, “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework”, resolution 17/4 of 16 June 2011.
   • UNCTAD, FAO, IFADand the World Bank, Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investment that Respects Rights, Livelihoods and Resources, February 22, 2010
   • OECD, OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, OECD Publishing, 2011

    

   1. BITs & FTAs
   • Azerbaijan - Croatia BIT (2007)
   • Azerbaijan - Czech Republic BIT (2011)
   • Azerbaijan - Estonia BIT (2010)
   • Azerbaijan - Syrian Arab Republic BIT (2009)
   • Iran, Islamic Republic of - Singapore BIT (2016)
   • Iran, Islamic Republic of - Japan BIT (2016)
   • Iran, Islamic Republic of - Slovakia BIT (2016)
   • Iran, Islamic Republic of - Russian Federation BIT (2015)
   • Montenegro - Azerbaijan BIT (2011)
   • North American Free Trade Agreement Mexico City, DF, Ottawa, ON, Washington, DC, 17 December 1992
   • the United States of America and the Government of Australia Free Trade Agreement, 1 January 2005
   • United States of America - Azerbaijan BIT (1997)

    

   1. International reports
   • UNCTAD, Fair and equitable treatment, UNCTAD Series, Vol. III, United Nations Publications, New York and Geneva, 1999
   • UNCTAD, Transparency, UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II, 2012
   • Energy Charter Secretariat (2004). The Energy Charter Treaty and Related Documents. A Legal Framework for International Energy Cooperation, An Introduction to the Energy Charter Treaty
   • Peterson, Luke E., Bilateral Investment Treaties and Development Policy-Making, International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2004

    

   1. Cases
   • Alex Genin and others v. Republic of Estonia (ICSID Case No. ARB/99/2), Award of June 25, 2001
   • Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/25), Award of August 16, 2007
   • Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines (ICSID Case No. ARB/11/12), Award of December 10, 2014
   • Inceysa Vallisoletana S.L. v. Republic of El Salvador (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26, Award of August 2, 2006)
   • Lucchetti, S.A. and Lucchetti Peru, S.A. v. Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/4, Award of February 7, 2005
   • Metalclad Corporation v. United Mexican States (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1), Award of August 30, 2000;
   • MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Republic of Chile (ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7), Award of May 25, 2004
   • Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. The Republic of Ecuador, London Court of International Arbitration Case No. UN3467, Final Award of 1 July 2004
   • Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. The Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11, Award (Oct. 5, 2012)
   • Plama Consortium Limited v. Republic of Bulgaria (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24), Award of August 27, 2008
   • Siemens A.G. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8, Award of January 17, 2007
   • Stadtwerke München GmbH, RWE Innogy GmbH, and others v. Kingdom of Spain (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/1), Award of 2 December 2019
   • Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. v. United Mexican States (ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2), Award of May 29, 2003
   • Tokios Tokelės v. Ukraine (ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18) Award of July 26, 2007.
   • World Duty Free Company Limited v. Republic of Kenya, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/7, Award, 4 October 2006