Advertisement

National Treatment

  • Andrea K. Bjorklund
  • Lukas Vanhonnaeker
Chapter
Part of the Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation book series (SEELR, volume 15)

Abstract

The National Treatment (NT) obligation, a key standard of protection in international trade and investment law, requires that the contracting parties to investment agreements provide to foreign investors and their investments treatment no less favourable than that accorded to their own investors and investments. This obligation not to discriminate on the basis of nationality is provided in the vast majority of international investment agreements and the CETA is no exception. The CETA’s NT provision, found in Article 8.6 of the Investment Chapter, does not differ significantly from NT provisions in other international investment agreements. Thus, the interpretation and application of the standard under the CETA will likely still entail a three-step analysis to identify whether the investor is in “like circumstances” with respect to domestic investors, whether it suffered nationality-based discriminatory treatment, and whether the discriminatory treatment was justified. However, the CETA’s NT provision nevertheless presents some specific characteristics. The CETA contains numerous exception clauses, both general and specific, which is consistent with a more general trend in recently concluded investment and trade agreements. Second, because the CETA imposes slightly different obligations on sub-federal (and sub-national) government units, the way that its obligations will be interpreted when an EU Member State is implementing an EU regulation or directive raises some interesting interpretive questions.

Keywords

National treatment Like circumstances Discriminatory treatment CETA Exception clauses Sub-national governments Sub-federal governments 

References

  1. Alvarez JE, Topalian G (2012) The Paradoxical Argentina Cases. World Arb Mediation Rev 6(3):491–544Google Scholar
  2. Baetens F (2010) Discrimination on the basis of nationality: determining likeness in human rights and investment law. In: Schill S (ed) International investment law and comparative public law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 279–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Behn D (2015) Legitimacy, evolution, and growth in investment treaty arbitration: empirically evaluating the state-of-the-art. George J Int Law 46:363–415Google Scholar
  4. Bjorklund AK (2005) Reconciling state sovereignty and investor protection in denial of justice claims. Va J Int Law 45(4):809–895Google Scholar
  5. Bjorklund AK (2008) National treatment. In: Reinisch A (ed) Standards of investment protection. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 29–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bjorklund AK (2010) The national treatment obligation. In: Yannaca-Small K (ed) Arbitration under international investment agreements: a guide to the key issues. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 411–444Google Scholar
  7. de Mestral A, Vanhonnaeker L (2017) Exception clauses in mega-regionals (international investment protection and trade agreements). In: Mega-regional trade agreements and the future of international trade and investment law. Springer, Chapter 5Google Scholar
  8. DiMascio N, Pauwelyn J (2008) Nondiscrimination in trade and investment treaties: worlds apart or two sides of the same coin? Am J Int Law 102:48–89Google Scholar
  9. Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2008) Principles of international investment law. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dugan C, Wallace D, Rubins N, Sabahi B (2008) Investor-state arbitration. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Franck SD (2005a) Occidental Exploration & Production Co. v. Republic of Ecuador. Final Award. London Court of International Arbitration Administered Case No. UN 3467. Am J Int Law 99(3):675–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Franck SD (2005b) The legitimacy crisis in investment treaty arbitration: privatizing public international law through inconsistent decisions. Fordham L Rev 73(4):1521–1625Google Scholar
  13. Grierson-Weiler T, Laird I (2008) Standards of treatment. In: Muchlinski P, Ortino F, Schreuer C (eds) The Oxford handbook of international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 259–304Google Scholar
  14. Harris S (2014) Growing Opposition in Europe Could Still Derail CETA. The Council of Canadians. https://canadians.org/sites/default/files/publications/ceta_1.pdf
  15. Heiskanen V (2008) Arbitrary and unreasonable measures. In: Reinisch A (ed) Standards of investment protection. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 87–110Google Scholar
  16. Henckels C (2013) Balancing investment protection and the public interest: the role of the standard of review and the importance of deference in investor-state arbitration. J Int Dispute Settlement 4(1):197–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Howse R, Chalamish E (2010) The use and abuse of WTO law in investor-state arbitration: a reply to Jürgen Kurtz. Eur J Int Law 20(4):1087–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kinnear M, Bjorklund AK, Hannaford J (2009 Update) Investment disputes under NAFTA: an annotated guide to NAFTA Chapter 11. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 1102-1–1102-61Google Scholar
  19. Kläger R (2011) ‘Fair and equitable treatment’ and sustainable development. In: Cordonier Segger M-C, Gehring MW, Newcombe A (eds) Sustainable development in world investment law. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 237–263Google Scholar
  20. Kriebaum U (2015) Arbitrary/unreasonable or discriminatory measures. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds), Kim Y-I (ass ed) International investment law: a handbook. C.H. BECK-Hart-Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 790–806Google Scholar
  21. Kurtz J (2007) National treatment, foreign investment and regulatory autonomy: the research for protectionism or something more? In: Kahn P, Wälde T (eds) New aspects of international investment law. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 311–352Google Scholar
  22. Kurtz J (2009) The use and abuse of WTO law in investor-state arbitration: competition and discontents. Eur J Int Law 20(3):749–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kurtz J (2010) The merits and limits of comparativism: national treatment in international investment law and the WTO. In: Schill S (ed) International investment law and comparative public law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 243–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McLachlan C, Shore L, Weiniger M (2017) International investment arbitration: substantive principles, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Montt S (2009) State liability in investment treaty arbitration: global constitutional and administrative law in the BIT generation. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Newcombe A, Paradell L (2009) The law and practice of investment treaties. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den RijnGoogle Scholar
  27. Ortino F (2009) Non-discriminatory treatment in investment disputes. In: Dupuy P-M, Francioni F, Petersmann E-U (eds) Human rights in international investment law and arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 344–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Patterson B (2015) Not a Done Deal: European countries oppose CETA. The Council of Canadians. https://canadians.org/sites/default/files/publications/CP-spring-15-ceta.pdf
  29. Reinisch A (2015) National treatment. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds), Kim Y-I (ass ed) International investment law: a handbook. C.H. BECK-Hart-Nomos, Baden-Baden, p 846–869Google Scholar
  30. Sabahi B (2008) National treatment – is discriminatory intent relevant? In: Weiler T (ed) Investment treaty arbitration and international law, vol 1. JurisNet, New York, pp 269–297Google Scholar
  31. Schwarzenberger G (1966) The principles and standards of international economic law. In: The Hague Academy of International Law (ed) Collected courses of the Hague Academy of international law, vol 117. Brill Nijhoff, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  32. Sinclair S, Trew S (2016) Why progressives oppose Canada-EU trade deal. The Toronto Star. https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/09/22/why-progressives-oppose-canada-eu-trade-deal.html
  33. Sornarajah M (2008) A coming crisis: expansionary trends in investment treaty arbitration. In: Sauvant KP (ed) Appeals mechanisms in international investment disputes. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 39–79Google Scholar
  34. Tabet S (2007) Application de l’obligation de traitement national et de traitement de la nation la plus favorisée dans la jurisprudence arbitrale en matière d’investissment. Nouveaux problèmes à la lumière de la jurisprudence de l’OMC. In: Kahn P, Wälde T (eds) New aspects of international investment law. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 353–390Google Scholar
  35. Tabet S (2008) Beyond the smoking gun – is a discriminatory objective necessary to find a breach of national treatment? In: Weiler T (ed) Investment treaty arbitration and international law, vol 1. JurisNet, New York, pp 299–313Google Scholar
  36. Tienhaara K (2011) Regulatory chill and the threat of arbitration: a view from political science. In: Brown C, Miles K (eds) Evolution in investment treaty law and arbitration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 606–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (1999) National treatment. UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/11, vol. IVGoogle Scholar
  38. Vanhonnaeker L (2015) Intellectual property rights as foreign direct investments: from collision to collaboration. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Verloren Van Themaat P (1981) The changing structure of international economic law. Martinus Nijhoff, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  40. Waibel M, Kaushal A, Chung K-HL, Balchin C (eds) (2010) The backlash against investment arbitration: perceptions and reality. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den RijnGoogle Scholar
  41. Wallace D Jr, Bailey DB (1998) The inevitability of national treatment of foreign direct investment with increasingly few and narrow exceptions. Cornell Int Law J 31:615–630Google Scholar
  42. Weiler T (2005a) Methanex Corp. v. USA – turning the page on NAFTA chapter eleven. J World Invest Trade 6:903–921Google Scholar
  43. Weiler T (2005b) Saving Oscar Chinn: non-discrimination in international investment law. In: Weiler T (ed) International investment law and arbitration: leading cases from the ICSID, NAFTA, bilateral treaties and customary international law. Cameron May, London, pp 557–595Google Scholar
  44. Wu M (2014) The scope and limits of trade’s influence in shaping the evolving international investment regime. In: Douglas Z, Pauwelyn J, Viñuales JE (eds) The foundations of international investment law: bringing theory into practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 169–209Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.McGill University, Faculty of LawMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations