Advertisement

A Latin American View on the CETA Investment Chapter

  • Ely Caetano Xavier Junior
Chapter
Part of the Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation book series (SEELR, volume 15)

Abstract

The CETA Investment Chapter incorporates several of the substantive and procedural refinements developed in recent international investment policy-making. In particular, the agreement establishes a permanent investment court as an alternative to traditional investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS). The underlying concerns driving the current European Union (EU) proposal for reforming ISDS are very similar to the concerns that inspired the Calvo doctrine in Latin America in the nineteenth century. Inspired by the CETA Investment Chapter, the EU proposes the establishment of a multilateral investment court with an appeals mechanism. A similar proposal is under consideration at the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). Consequently, it is quite likely that the proposal for a multilateral court will soon be considered by Latin American countries, whose reactions are expected to reflect their diversified views on ISDS. In spite of the denunciation of the ICSID Convention and of some bilateral investment treaties by certain countries in the region, most Latin American countries have, in general, a positive attitude towards ISDS and might be supportive of the creation of a multilateral investment court. Yet, there are other emerging alternatives in parallel to the EU alternative, which are currently under consideration by several Latin American countries in other fora. It remains still unclear which reform alternative will to prevail and it is likely that international investment regime will be relying on traditional investor-State dispute settlement for the next years. The present contribution seeks to present and discuss the diverse positions of Latin American countries and their potential reaction to the proposal of a multilateral court.

Keywords

Latin America Calvo doctrine CETA Investment Chapter Investment court system Multilateral investment court Investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) 

References

  1. Arruda JMA, Costa JAF (2016) O ombudsman de investimentos diretos: um potencial desperdiçado. Consultor Jurídico. http://www.conjur.com.br/2016-out-23/estado-economia-ombudsman-investimentos-diretos-potencial-desperdicado
  2. Brauch MD (2014) Opening the door to foreign investment? An analysis of Bolivia’s new investment promotion law. Invest Treaty News 5(3):9–11. https://www.iisd.org/itn/2014/08/11/opening-the-door-to-foreign-investment-an-analysis-of-bolivias-new-investment-promotion-law
  3. Butler N, Subedi S (2017) The future of international investment regulation: towards a world investment organization? Neth Int Law Rev 64:43–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheng T-H, Bento L (2012) ICSID’s largest award in history: an overview of Occidental Petroleum Corporation v the Republic of Ecuador. Kluwer Arbitration Blog. http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/2012/12/19/icsids-largest-award-in-history-an-overview-of-occidental-petroleum-corporation-v-the-republic-of-ecuador/
  5. Côté C-E (2017) An experienced, developed democracy: Canada and investor-State arbitration. In: De Mestral A (ed) Second thoughts: investor-State arbitration between developed democracies. Centre of International Governance Innovation, Ontario, pp 89–130Google Scholar
  6. Cremades BM (2006) Ressurgence of the Calvo doctrine in Latin America. Bus Law Int 7(1):53–72Google Scholar
  7. Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fernandez-Arroyo DP (2013) New trends in international commercial arbitration in Latin America. In: Cordero-Moss G (ed) International commercial arbitration: different forms and their features. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 398–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gabriel V (2016) The new Brazilian cooperation and facilitation investment agreement: an analysis of the conflict resolution mechanism in light of the theory of the shadow of the law. Confl Resol Q 34(2):141–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hess F, Cavalcante PM (2017) Focusing on investment facilitation: is it that difficult? The E15 Initiative. http://e15initiative.org/blogs/focusing-on-investment-facilitation-is-it-that-difficult/
  11. Kaufmann-Kohler G, Potestà M (2016) Can the Mauritius Convention serve as a model for the reform of investor-State arbitration in connection with the introduction of a permanent investment tribunal or an appeal mechanism? http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/CIDS_Research_Paper_Mauritius.pdf
  12. Lazo LP (2014a) Is there a life for Latin American countries after denouncing the ICSID Convention? Transnatl Disp Manag 1:6–11Google Scholar
  13. Lazo RP (2014b) The no of Tokyo revisited: or how developed countries learned to start worrying and love the Calvo doctrine. ICSID Rev 30(1):172–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leahy PG (2015) The interregional association agreement between the European Union and Mercosur: is the timing right? Bruges Polit Res Papers 46:1–39Google Scholar
  15. Leathley C, Paez D (2017) Ecuador’s legislative branch approves termination of 12 bilateral investment treaties. http://hsfnotes.com/arbitration/2017/05/05/ecuadors-legislative-branch-approves-termination-of-12-bilateral-investment-treaties/
  16. Martins JHV (2017) Brazil’s cooperation and facilitation investment agreements (CFIA) and recent developments. Invest Treaty News 8(2):10–12 https://www.iisd.org/itn/2017/06/12/brazils-cooperation-facilitation-investment-agreements-cfia-recent-developments-jose-henrique-vieira-martins/Google Scholar
  17. Morales R (2017) México quiere un tribunal permanente para diferendos. El Economista. http://eleconomista.com.mx/industrias/2017/08/25/mexico-quiere-tribunal-permanente-diferendos
  18. Morosini FC, Xavier Junior EC (2015) Regulação do investimento estrangeiro direto no Brasil: da resistência aos tratados bilaterais de investimento à emergência de um novo modelo regulatório. Braz J Int Law 12(2):420–447Google Scholar
  19. Newcombe A, Paradell L (2009) Law and practice of investment treaties: standards of treatment. Kluwer, Alphen aan den RijnGoogle Scholar
  20. Olivet C (2017) Why did Ecuador terminate all its bilateral investment treaties? https://www.tni.org/en/article/why-did-ecuador-terminate-all-its-bilateral-investment-treaties
  21. Pantaleo L (2014) Towards an EU–Mercosur investment agreement. Studia Diplomatica 67(1):47–64Google Scholar
  22. Pérez-Aznar F (2017) The recent Argentina–Qatar BIT and the challenges of investment negotiations. Invest Treaty News 8(2):15–16 https://www.iisd.org/itn/2017/06/12/recent-argentina-qatar-bit-challenges-investment-negotiations-facundo-perez-aznarGoogle Scholar
  23. Ripinsky S (2012) Venezuela’s withdrawal from ICSID: what it does and does not achieve. Invest Treaty News 2(3):11–12 https://www.iisd.org/itn/2012/04/13/venezuelas-withdrawal-from-icsid-what-it-does-and-does-not-achieve/Google Scholar
  24. Riviera JCB, Azuga MC (2017) Life after ICSID: 10th anniversary of Bolivia’s withdrawal from ICSID. Kluwer Arbitration Blog. http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/2017/08/12/life-icsid-10th-anniversary-bolivias-withdrawal-icsid
  25. Sauvant KP (2016) China, the G20 and the international investment regime. China World Econ 24(4):73–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schill SW (2016) The European Commission’s proposal of an investment court system for TTIP: stepping stone or stumbling block for multilateralizing international investment law? ASIL Insights 20(9). https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/20/issue/9/european-commissions-proposal-investment-court-system-ttip-stepping
  27. Sen A (2017) Investment facilitation at BRICS cannot be model for WTO pact: India. The Hindu Business Line. http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/policy/investment-facilitation-at-brics-cannot-be-model-for-wto-pact-india/article9838657.ece
  28. Shan W (2007) From North-South divide to private-public debate: revival of the Calvo doctrine and the changing landscape in international investment law. Northwest J Int Law Bus 27(3):631–664Google Scholar
  29. Subedi S (2008) International investment law: reconciling policy and principle. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Tiburcio C (2014) Arbitragem envolvendo a Administração Pública: estado atual no Direito Brasileiro. DPU 58:62–82Google Scholar
  31. Titi C (2014) Investment arbitration in Latin America: the uncertain veracity of preconceived ideas. Arbitr Int 30(2):357–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Titi C (2015) International investment law and the European Union: towards a new generation of international investment agreements. Eur J Int Law 26:639–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tomimatsu C, Alves MC (2015) The recent amendments to the Brazilian Arbitration Act: one sept back, two steps forward? Kluwer Arbitration Blog. http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/2015/06/30/the-recent-amendments-to-the-brazilian-arbitration-act-one-step-back-two-steps-forward/
  34. Van Harten G (2016) The European Union’s approach to ISDS: a review of the Canada–Europe CETA, Europe–Singapore FTA and European–Vietnam FTA. Univ Bologna Law Rev 1(1):138–165Google Scholar
  35. Vandevelde KJ (2005) A brief history of international investment agreements. U C Davis J Int Law Policy 12:157–194Google Scholar
  36. Vetulli E, Kaufman EE (2016) Is Argentina looking for reconciliation with ISDS? Kluwer Arbitration Blog. http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/2016/10/13/is-argentina-looking-for-reconciliation-with-isds
  37. Vetulli EH, Fernández Arroyo DP (2016) The new Argentinian arbitration law: a train in an unknown direction? Arbitr Int 32:349–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Villarreal P (2017) Portrait of an opened State: constitutionalism and protection of foreign investors in Mexico during the age of NAFTA. Paper presented at the expert workshop Transformative constitutionalism in Latin America and international economic law: avoiding conflict and fostering dialogue, Fundação Getúlio Vargas, Rio de Janeiro, 28–29 August 2017Google Scholar
  39. Voon T, Mitchell AD (2016) Denunciation, termination and survival: the interplay of treaty law and international investment law. ICSID Rev 31(2):413–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations