Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Protection of Foreign Investments Against the Effects of Hostilities: A Framework for Assessing Compliance with Full Protection and Security

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover International Investment Law and the Law of Armed Conflict

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((Spec. Issue))

Abstract

In recent years there has been an increase in the number of investor-State arbitrations involving war-torn States. Among other issues, the investors in these claims seek redress for the State’s alleged failure to protect against the destruction of property by third parties as required under the “full protection and security” standard. Although this standard appears in most investment instruments, its content and scope is mostly controversial, while its operation against the particular backdrop of armed conflicts and international humanitarian law, is completely neglected. This chapter addresses both points of controversy. It is argued that, “full protection and security” imposes a relative due diligence obligation that accounts for the particular circumstances of the host State in the assessment of compliance with the obligation. The law of armed conflict, in turn, also imposes a relative due diligence obligation to take “feasible” precautions in favour of foreign investments against the effects of attacks. Assessment of compliance with this international humanitarian law obligation turns on an available means analysis. Both assessments of the applicable due diligence standards may however result in contradictory results. To ascertain whether a State failed to protect an investment against attacks, it is important to consider the relationship between investment law and the law of armed conflict, since in practical terms of State responsibility, only the rule that prevails in a norm conflict may be breached and engage the State’s international responsibility.

Thank you to Caroline Henckels and William Kent for their comments and to the reviewers for their suggestions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    “Attack” means “acts of violence against the adversary, whether in offence or in defence” (Article 49(1), Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 1125 UNTS 3 (1977) (API)), while “military operations” comprise “all the movements and activities carried out by armed forces related to hostilities” (Sandoz et al. (1987), paras 1936).

  2. 2.

    The terms “hostilities” and “armed conflict” are used interchangeably herein, although they are not fully the same; armed conflict presupposes the existence of hostilities between the armed forces of the belligerents, see Melzer (2015), pp. 243–246.

  3. 3.

    ICRC (2016), para. 485.

  4. 4.

    Sandoz et al. (1987), para. 1882.

  5. 5.

    Articles 48, 51(2) and 52 API.

  6. 6.

    Articles 57-8 API; Quéguiner (2006), pp. 820–821; Oeter (2013), para. 448.

  7. 7.

    Trapp (2011), pp. 70–72.

  8. 8.

    Articles 3, 4, 7, and the Annex to Article 7, ILC Draft Articles on the Effects of Armed Conflict on Treaties, Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-sixth Session, Supp 10 (A/66/10).

  9. 9.

    Schreuer (2013), p. 6.

  10. 10.

    E.g.: Article 10(1) Energy Charter Treaty 2080 UNTS 95; 34 ILM 360 (1995).

  11. 11.

    E.g.: Article 1105 North American Free Trade Agreement, 32 ILM 289, 605 (1993).

  12. 12.

    E.g.: Article 1 2012 US Model Bilateral Investment Treaty; Article 9.6 Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement; Article 8.10. EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement; Article 7(1) Morocco—Nigeria BIT; Article 4 Japan—Israel BIT; Article 9(1) Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations; Article 4(1) China—Hong Kong CEPA Investment Agreement.

  13. 13.

    On the scope of FPS and whether it covers legal, and not only physical, protection, see CME v The Czech Republic, Partial Award (13 September 2001); CSOB v Slovak Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/97/4, Award (29 December 2004); Siemens v Argentina, ICSID Case No ARB/02/8, Award (6 February 2007); Rumeli Telekom v Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No ARB/05/16, Award (29 July 2008), paras 662–668; Tatneft v Ukraine, UNCITRAL, Award (29 July 2014), pp. 15–27; Saluka v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award (17 March 2006), para. 483; PSEG v Turkey, ICSID Case No ARB/02/5, Award (19 January 2007), para. 258; Oxus Gold v Uzbekistan, UNCITRAL, Final Award (17 December 2015), paras 830-832; Houben v Burundi, ICSID Case No ARB/13/7, Award (12 January 2016), paras 157-158; Mesa Mining Corporation v Ecuador, PCA No 2012-2, Award (15 March 2016), paras 6.80-6.82; Rusoro Mining Ltd. v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/12/5, Award (22 August 2016) p. 122; Allard v The Government of Barbados, PCA Case No 2012-06, Award, (27 June 2016) paras 231-52. On the relationship of FPS with other standards, see Giuditta (2008), pp. 146–149; Schreuer (2010), pp. 362–369; Lorz (2015), pp. 781–786.

  14. 14.

    For a detailed discussion of arbitral practice, see Giuditta (2008), pp. 146–149; Lorz (2015), pp. 781–786.

  15. 15.

    AAPL v Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No ARB/87/3, Award (27 June 1990); AMT v Zaire, ICSID Case No ARB/93/1, Award (21 February 1997) paras 85; Tecmed v The Mexico, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/00/2, Award (29 May 2003), para. 177; Nobel Ventures v Romania ICSID Case No ARB/01/11, Award (12 October 2005), para. 177; Saluka v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award (17 March 2006), para. 484; Frontier Petroleum v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award (12 November 2010), para. 273; AES v Hungary, ICSID Case No ARB/07/22, Award (23 September 2010), paras 13.3.1-13.3.3; El Paso v Argentina, ICSID Case No ARB/03/15, Award (31 October 2011), para. 523; Bernhard von Pezold v Zimbabwe, ICSID Case No ARB/10/15, Award (28 July 2015), para. 596; Allard v Barbados, PCA Case No 2012-06, Award (27 June 2016) para. 244; Isolux v Spain, SCC Case V2013/153, Award (17 July 2016), paras 818–825.

  16. 16.

    Saluka v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award (17 March 2006), para. 483; PSEG v Turkey, ICSID Case No ARB/02/5, Award (19 January 2007), para. 258; Oxus Gold v Uzbekistan, UNCITRAL, Final Award (17 December 2015), paras 830-32; Houben v Burundi, ICSID Case No ARB/13/7, Award (12 January 2016), paras 157–158; Giuditta (2008), p. 138 (noting that it is “undisputed” that FPS applies to the hostilities paradigm); Schreuer (2010), p. 354 (stating that “it is beyond doubt” that this is the purpose of FPS); Schreuer (2013), p. 6.

  17. 17.

    AAPL v Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No ARB/87/3, Award (27 June 1990), para. 26.

  18. 18.

    AAPL v Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No ARB/87/3, Award (27 June 1990), para. 77.

  19. 19.

    Zeitler (2010), p. 201.

  20. 20.

    Lorz (2015), p. 780.

  21. 21.

    Pantechniki v Albania, ICSID Case No ARB/07/21, Award (30 July 2007), paras 71–74.

  22. 22.

    Pantechniki v Albania, ICSID Case No ARB/07/21, Award (30 July 2007), paras 76–77.

  23. 23.

    Houben v Burundi, ICSID Case No ARB/13/7, Award (12 January 2016), paras 160–164.

  24. 24.

    Houben v Burundi, ICSID Case No ARB/13/7, Award (12 January 2016), paras 160–164.

  25. 25.

    Houben v Burundi, ICSID Case No ARB/13/7, Award (12 January 2016), paras 164, 170–179.

  26. 26.

    AAPL v Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No ARB/87/3, Award (27 June 1990), para. 59.

  27. 27.

    Ampal-American Israel Corporation v Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/12/11, Decision on Liability (21 February 2017).

  28. 28.

    Ampal v Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/12/11, Decision on Liability (21 February 2017), para. 284.

  29. 29.

    Ampal v Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/12/11, Decision on Liability (21 February 2017), para. 245 (“the duty imposed by the international standard is one that rests upon the State”).

  30. 30.

    Of course, investment awards are significant. These decisions are capable of affecting State practice and may provide basis for subsequent bilateral treaty practice (Fitzmaurice (1958), p. 170). Nonetheless, these are subsidiary means, which do not prove or create international law (Article 38 Statute of the International Court of Justice, USTS 993).

  31. 31.

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 UNTS 331, entered into force 27 January 1980.

  32. 32.

    Finley (1985), pp. 160–162; Young (2001), pp. 63–64; Weiler (2013), pp. 67–69.

  33. 33.

    E.g.: Treaty of Amity and Friendship, and of a Free Intercourse of Trade and Mechandizes between Henry VII King of England, and Philip Archduke of Austria, Duke of Burgundy (1495); Article V Treaty of Peace and Commerce between Francis I King of France, and Henry VIII King of England (5 April 1515); Article XVI Treaty of Confederacy and Alliance between Charles the IX, King of France and Queen of England, at Blois (29 April 1572); Treaty of Truce and Commerce between Portugal and the Netherlands (12 June 1641); Article VII Treaty between Great Britain and Tunis (5 October 1662); Article I Treaty of Peace between France and Great Britain (13 November 1655).

  34. 34.

    E.g.: Article V The Treaty of Peace between Henry II King of France, and Elizabeth Queen of England (2 April 1559); Articles I, II, IX. Marine Treaty between the Crowns of Great Britain and France (24 February 1676-7).

  35. 35.

    United States Continental Congress (1778), p. 208.

  36. 36.

    Treaty of Friendship, Limits and Navigation Spain—US (27 October 1795).

  37. 37.

    E.g.: Article I Convention to Regulate the Commerce between the Territories of The US and GB, signed, 3 July 1815; Article 11 General convention of peace, amity, navigation and commerce US—Colombia, concluded, 3 October 1824; Article 2 Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation GB—Mexico, signed 26 December 1826; Article XIII Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation US—Brazil, concluded 12 December 1828; Article III Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation US—Mexico, signed 5 April 1831; Article 1 Treaty of Commerce and Navigation GB—Free City of Frankfurt, signed 13 May 1832.

  38. 38.

    Article 14 Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, between His Britannick Majesty; and the United States of America (19 November 1794) (Jay Treaty).

  39. 39.

    United States Congress (1832), pp. 433, 460, 464, 467.

  40. 40.

    United States Congress (1832), pp. 433, 460–467; emphasis added.

  41. 41.

    Dunn (1933), pp. 3–10; Bowden (2009), pp. 177–178; Schwarzenberger (1969), p. 163.

  42. 42.

    Case of the Montijo: Agreement between the United States and Colombia of August 17, 1874 (26 July 1875) reported in: Moore (1898), pp. 1421, 1444.

  43. 43.

    This change is partially attributed to Calvo’s impact on the legal traditions of Latin American States (Asante (1998), pp. 589–593). This reform was bolstered by the increased engagement of developing States with international law and the establishment of the UN and other instruments, such as the GATT (Rajamari (2006), ch 2; Alexander (2008), pp. 817–820).

  44. 44.

    E.g. Borchard (1913), pp. 27–30; Dunn (1933), pp. 3–4.

  45. 45.

    E.g.: Kummerow, Otto Redler & Co., Fuda, Fischbach, and Friedericy Cases, 10 RIAA 369, 387 (1903); Home Frontier and Foreign Missionary Society of the United Brethren in Christ (US) v GB, 6 RIAA 42-4 (1920); George Adams Kennedy (US) v Mexico, 4 RIAA 194, 195, 198–201 (1927); G. L. Solis (US) v Mexico, 4 RIAA 358-64 (1928); Mexico City Bombardment Claims (GB) v Mexico, British-Mexican Claims Commission, 5 RIAA 80-1, 90 (1930).

  46. 46.

    The Sambaggio Case (Italy—Venezuela) 10 RIAA, pp. 499, 509, 517 (1903).

  47. 47.

    The Sambaggio Case, pp. 518, 524.

  48. 48.

    Root (1910), p. 523. However, see: Sharpe (2015), pp. 269–267.

  49. 49.

    Article 7 of the ILC (1961).

  50. 50.

    Article 31 VCLT; Schwarzenberger (1968), pp. 212–219; Dörr et al. (2012), p. 543; Gardiner (2017), pp. 162–170.

  51. 51.

    E.g.: AAPL v Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No ARB/87/3, Award (27 June 1990), paras 40-8; National Grid plc v Argentina, UNCITRAL, Award (3 November 2008), paras 187-89; Foster (2012), pp. 1106–108.

  52. 52.

    The qualifiers “full”, “complete”, “constant”, and “perfect” plainly refer to something “absolute” that “cannot be improved upon”. “Protection” ordinarily denotes “shelter, defence, or preservation from harm, danger, damage, etc.” And, “security” is “the state or condition of being or feeling secure” see Oxford English Dictionary (2013), for the entries: “full”, “complete”, “constant”, “perfect”, “security”.

  53. 53.

    Azurix v Argentina, ICSID Case No ARB/01/12, Annulment (14 July 2006), para. 408.

  54. 54.

    US—Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services, WTO Appellate Body Report, WT/DS285/AB/R (7 April 2005), paras 164; Weiler (2001), p. 191; Wälde (2009), pp. 747–748.

  55. 55.

    Wälde (2009), p. 771; ILC (1966), p. 542.

  56. 56.

    Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v Turkey) (Judgment) [1978] ICJ Rep 3, paras 53; Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador v Honduras, Nicaragua intervening) [1992] ICJ Rep 351, paras 373-74; Dörr et al. (2012), pp. 543–544. See also: Lucchetti v Peru, ICSID Case No ARB/03/4, Decision on annulment, 5 September 2007, dissenting opinion of Berman, para. 8.

  57. 57.

    See authorities in n 33 and Treaty of Peace between Great Britain and Morocco, signed 8 April 1791.

  58. 58.

    De Vattel (2008), Section 104.

  59. 59.

    Article 14 Jay Treaty.

  60. 60.

    Lodge (1904), Defence XIX, emphasis added.

  61. 61.

    Syrett and Cooke (1957), Defence XXII; emphasis added.

  62. 62.

    E.g.: In 1841, Alexander Macomb, the Commanding General of the US army, ordered the forces in Florida to “adopt all efficient and proper measures necessary […] so as to afford the most perfect protection and security to the frontiers” (General Order No 29 dated 20 May 1841, cited in Samuel (1841), p. 351.

  63. 63.

    E.g.: Article 2 Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, Mexico—Honduras; Article X Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation, Japan—Colombia; Article 1 Treaty of Commerce and Navigation US—Japan; Article 1(6) Treaty of Commerce and Navigation UK—Japan; Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Consular Relations US—Germany; Treaty and protocol regarding rights in East Africa, US– Belgium.

  64. 64.

    Article V Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, US—Italy; Article II(1) Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, US—Ireland. Likewise, Article 3(1) of the first (1959) Germany—Pakistan BIT instructed that, “investments by nationals or companies of either Party shall enjoy protection and security”. This language was taken from the US FCN treaty draft, which served as a basis for the negotiations of the US—Germany treaty (1953-55) (Vandevelde (2017), pp. 298–305).

  65. 65.

    Telegram dated 28 August 1951, from the Department of State to the US embassy in Addis Ababa, cited in: Vandevelde (2017), p. 414.

  66. 66.

    Vandevelde (2017), p. 414.

  67. 67.

    Article 1 Abs and Shawcross (1960), pp. 115–124; Article 2 OECD Draft Convention on the Protection of Foreign Property (1967) 7 ILM 117.

  68. 68.

    Comment to Article 1 Abs-Shawcross Convention; Notes and comments to Article 2 OECD Draft Convention.

  69. 69.

    Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (US v Italy) ICJ Pleadings Vol I, US memo, pp. 100–102, the US maintained that under FPS clause “States must use due diligence to prevent wrongful injuries” and that this “does not require that [the State] prevents any injury whatsoever”, but rather to take “reasonable actions”; United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (US v Iran) ICJ Pleadings, US memo, pp 179-81 (“the precise content ascribed to the phrase “the most constant protection and security” may well depend on the circumstances of any particular case”).

  70. 70.

    Gottlieb (1969), p. 131; Linderfalk (2007), pp. 65–67; Gardiner (2017), p. 291; Aguas del Tunari v Bolivia, ICSID Case No ARB/02/3, Decision on Jurisdiction (21 October 2005), para. 230.

  71. 71.

    Article 31(4) VCLT; ILC (1966), p. 57; ILC (1966), pp. 222–223; PCIJ, Legal Status of Eastern Greenland, PCIJ (1933) Ser. A/B, No.53, 49; Dörr et al. (2012), p. 568; Gardiner (2017), pp. 291–293; Weeramantry (2012), pp. 95–96 and Appendix III.

  72. 72.

    Paparinskis (2013), pp. 160–166.

  73. 73.

    Articles 48, 52 API.

  74. 74.

    Articles 57-8 API. See also Articles 41 and 56 API. These provisions are recognized as customary and thus apply to non-international armed conflicts as well and bind all belligerent parties in hostilities Henckarets and Doswald-Beck (2009), Rules 15, 22; ICTY, Prosecutor v Kupreškić, IT-95-16, Judgment, 14 January 2000, para. 524; Oeter (2013), paras 448(4), 475; Hays Parks (1990), p. 158; Quéguiner (2006), p. 817; Jensen (2016), p. 157. For a view that maintains that Article 58 has not attained customary status see: Sassòli and Quintin (2014), pp. 107–111.

  75. 75.

    Article 52 API. For instances when investments may be classified as military objectives and thus be lawfully targeted, see: Ryk-Lakhman (2018), pp. 171–193.

  76. 76.

    Article 57(1) API; Quéguiner (2006), p. 817; Jensen (2016), pp. 155–156; Sassòli and Quintin (2014), pp. 75–80.

  77. 77.

    Article 57(2)(a) API.

  78. 78.

    Article 57(2)(b) API.

  79. 79.

    Article 57(c) API.

  80. 80.

    Article 57(3) API.

  81. 81.

    Article 58 API; Sandoz et al. (1987), para. 2239.

  82. 82.

    Sandoz et al. (1987), paras 692; Kalshoven (2007), p. 223; Bothe et al. (2013), p. 413; Jensen (2016), pp. 155–156.

  83. 83.

    Article 58(a) API.

  84. 84.

    Article 58(b) API.

  85. 85.

    Article 58(c) API.

  86. 86.

    The Official Records of the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts 1974-77 (Geneva), Vol 14, 198–200 esp. the Canadian proposal in paras 9 and 14.

  87. 87.

    Rogers (1999), pp. 75–76; Jensen (2016), p. 162; Quéguiner (2006), pp. 818–819.

  88. 88.

    Trapp (2013), p. 156.

  89. 89.

    Article 58 chapeau API.

  90. 90.

    The Rapporteur of the Working Group at the Diplomatic Conference leading to the adoption of the API explained that, “agreement was reached fairly quickly” on the inclusion of the obligations to take precautionary measures once the benchmark of “feasibility” was changed to “modify all paragraphs”. See ICRC (1977), p. 258 para. 102; Bothe et al. (2013), p. 414.

  91. 91.

    For State practice, see Henckarets and Doswald-Beck (2009), practice on Rules 15 and 22, which is available in the most updated version at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/home. For State declarations, see Gaudreau (2003), pp. 154–155 (Namely, Algeria, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and the Netherlands). For other sub-sets of IHL that adopt the same meaning, see Article 4 Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (10 October 1980), 1342 UNTS 171; Article 1(5) Protocol III to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (and Protocols) (Amended, 21 December 2001), 10 October 1980, 1342 UNTS 137. For jurisprudence see Prosecutor v Galić (Case No IT-98-29-T), Judgement (Trial Chamber), 5 December 2003, paras 58, fn 105. For doctrine see Sassòli and Quintin (2014), pp. 69–123; Quéguiner (2006), pp. 802–803, 808–810; Trapp (2013), pp. 155–157.

  92. 92.

    US Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, US v Wilhelm List et al., Case No 47, Judgment (Military Tribunal V), 19 February 1948.

  93. 93.

    Of course, any such assessment also comprises topographical and geopolitical considerations, human resources, etc. see Schmitt (2005), pp. 30–33; Trapp (2013), pp. 163–164.

  94. 94.

    E.g.: Section 5.3.3.2, General Counsel of Department of State, Department of Defence—Law War Manual (June 2015) pp. 189–191, emphasis added. See also Section 0550, The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands, cited in Henckarets and Doswald-Beck (2009), practice relating to rule 22; Quéguiner (2006), pp. 819–820; Jensen (2016), pp. 164–165.

  95. 95.

    Trapp (2011), p. 70; Trapp (2013), p. 158, explaining in both authorities that, “as a general rule, capacity (or rather incapacity) is the limit of responsibility”.

  96. 96.

    This is in contrast to the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion (1996) ICJ Rep 226, para. 25, where the Court referred to r to IHL as lex specialis to human rights law.

  97. 97.

    This analysis is applicable, mutadis mutandis, to the relationship between API Article 57 and FPS.

  98. 98.

    The Government of Afghanistan, Ministry of Mines & Petroleum, Aynak Tender Process History http://mom.gov.af/en/page/1401.

  99. 99.

    See: A Difficult Choice, 31 August 2014, http://www.pressreader.com/pakistan/southasia/20140831/281582353796696; Rescuing Mes Aynak, September 2015, http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/mes-aynak/bloch-text.

  100. 100.

    Copper Bottomed? Bolstering the Aynak contract: Afghanistan’s first major mining deal, 20 November 2012, https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/afghanistan/copper-bottomed/?.

  101. 101.

    The Government of Afghanistan, Mes Aynak Archeological Project, Project Management Unit PMU http://mom.gov.af/Content/files/Mes-Aynak-Complete_January_2014.pdf.

  102. 102.

    In 2014 MCC withdrew its employees from the site. It is estimated that by then the Taliban attacks caused damage worth more than USD 2 billion. See The Taliban and China’s quest for Afghan copper, 2 December 2016, http://www.dw.com/en/the-taliban-and-chinas-quest-for-afghan-copper/a-36607748.

  103. 103.

    ILC (2006), p. 1.

  104. 104.

    Simma (2011), p. 584.

  105. 105.

    Article 31(3) of the VCLT.

  106. 106.

    WTO, European Communities—Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, WT/DS291/R,WT/DS292/R, WT/DS293/R, Reports of the Panel (29 September 2006), paras 7.67.

  107. 107.

    Pauwelyn (2003), pp. 261–263; Linderfalk (2008), pp. 343–364; Gardiner (2017), pp. 270–275.

  108. 108.

    WTO, Peru—Additional Duty Imports of Certain Agricultural Products, WT/DS457/AB/R, Report of the Appellate Body (20 July 2015), para. 5.101.

  109. 109.

    Simma and Kill (2009), p. 696. For scholarship that followed this approach: Bjorklund and Reinisch (2012), pp. 185–187; Kline (2012), pp. 199–215; Hernandez (2013), pp. 29–30.

  110. 110.

    Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti v France), Judgment, ICJ Rep 1 [2008], paras 114.

  111. 111.

    Article 60 African Charter on Human Rights and Peoples’ Rights, 21 ILM 58 (1982).

  112. 112.

    Vadi (2008), p. 266.

  113. 113.

    Sands (1998), p. 102.

  114. 114.

    Case concerning Oil Platforms (Iran v USA), Merits [2003] ICJ para. 41.

  115. 115.

    Simma and Kill (2009), pp. 698–691; Simma (2011), p. 585.

  116. 116.

    Aust (2013), p. 216; Garcia (2013), pp. 37–39.

  117. 117.

    Case concerning Oil Platforms, Separate opinion of Judge Higgins, para. 49.

  118. 118.

    Milanović (2011), pp. 96–97.

  119. 119.

    Schwarzenberger (1968), pp. 212–219; Pauwelyn (2003), pp. 263–274; Gourgourinis (2011), pp. 37–43; Lo (2012), p. 9.

  120. 120.

    According to the publically available data as provided by the World Bank http://data.worldbank.org/country/afghanistan; US, Central Intelligence Agency, World Factbook, 21 November 2016 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/af.html.

  121. 121.

    Vranes (2006), p. 395; Pauwelyn (2003), ch 4-7.

  122. 122.

    Lindroos (2005), p. 36; Pauwelyn (2003), pp. 387–389; Milanović (2011), p. 115.

  123. 123.

    Pauwelyn (2003), pp. 327–418; ILC (2004), para. 21.

  124. 124.

    Pauwelyn (2003), pp. 327–418; ILC (2004), para. 21; Article 55 of the ILC (2001).

  125. 125.

    Pauwelyn (2003), pp. 389.

  126. 126.

    Pauwelyn (2003), pp. 390–391.

  127. 127.

    Pauwelyn (2003), p. 327.

  128. 128.

    Amoco v Iran, Award, 15 IUSCTR 289, 14 July 1987, para. 112.

  129. 129.

    ILC (2006), para. 60.

References

  • Abs H, Shawcross H (1960) Draft convention on investments abroad. J Public Law 9(1):115–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander EA (2008) Taking account of reality: adopting contextual standards for developing countries in international investment law. Virginia J Int Law 48(4):815–842

    Google Scholar 

  • Asante SKB (1998) International law and foreign investment: a reappraisal. Int Comp Law Q 37(3):588–628

    Google Scholar 

  • Aust A (2013) Modern treaty law and practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjorklund A, Reinisch A (2012) International investment law and soft law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Borchard E (1913) The diplomatic protection of citizens abroad or: the law of international claims. Banks Law, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bothe M et al (2013) New rules for victims of armed conflicts: commentary on the two 1977 protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bowden B (2009) The Empire of Civilization: the evolution of an imperial idea. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • De Vattel E (2008) The law of Nations, or, principles of the law of nature, applied to the conduct and affairs of Nations and Sovereigns. Liberty Fund, Indianapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Dörr O et al (2012) Vienna Convention on the law of treaties: a commentary. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn FS (1933) The diplomatic protection of Americans in Mexico. Columbia University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Finley I (1985) The ancient economy. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzmaurice G (1958) Some problems regarding the formal sources of international law. In: Symbolae Verzijl: Présentées au Professeur JHW Verzijl à l’occasion de son LXX-ième anniversaire. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 153–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster GK (2012) Recovering “Protection and Security”: the treaty standard’s obscure origins, forgotten meaning, and key current significance. Vanderbilt J Transnational Law 45:1095–1156

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia LG (2013) The role of human rights in international investment law. In: Calamita J et al (eds) Current issues in investment treaty law. BIICL, Bloomsbury, pp 29–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner R (2017) Treaty interpretation. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaudreau J (2003) The reservations to the protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions for the protection of war victims. Int Red Cross Rev 849:143–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giuditta CM (2008) Full protection and security. In: Reinisch A (ed) Standards of investment protection. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 131–150

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gottlieb G (1969) The interpretation of treaties by tribunals. Proc Am Soc Int Law 63:122–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Gourgourinis A (2011) The distinction between interpretation and application of norms in international adjudication. J Int Dispute Settlement 2(1):31–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hays Parks W (1990) Air war and the law of war. Air Force Law Rev 32(1):1–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Henckarets JM, Doswald-Beck L (2009) Customary international humanitarian law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernandez G (2013) The interaction between investment law and the law of armed conflict in the interpretation of full protection and security clauses. In: Baetens F (ed) Investment law within international law: integrative perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 21–50

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • International Committee of the Red Cross (1977) Official records of the diplomatic conference leading to the adoption of the additional protocols, Report to Committee III on the Work of the Working Group Geneva 1974-1977. CDDH/2l5/Rev.l, Vol XV

    Google Scholar 

  • International Committee of the Red Cross (2016) Commentary on the First Geneva Convention. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission (1961) Sixth report of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. FV García-Amador. Doc.A/CN.4/134, and Add.1

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission (1966) Draft articles on the law of treaties with commentaries 1966. Doc.A/6309/Rev.1

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission (2001) Draft articles on the responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts with commentaries. U.N. Doc. A/56/10

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission (2004) Study on the function and scope of the Lex Specialis rule and the question of ‘self-contained regimes’. ILC(LVI)SG/ FIL/CRD.1

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission (2006) Fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion international law. Report of the Study Group of the international law commission. UN Doc A/CN.4/L.682

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen E (2016) Precautions against the effects of attacks in urban areas. Int Red Cross Rev 98(1):147–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalshoven F (2007) Reflections on the Law of War: collected essays. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kline N (2012) Human rights and international investment law: investment protection as human right? Goettingen J Int Law 4(1):199–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Linderfalk U (2007) On the interpretation of treaties the modern international law as expressed in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Linderfalk U (2008) Who are ‘The Parties’? Article 31, Paragraph 3(c) of the 1969 Vienna Convention. Netherlands Int Law Rev 55(3):343–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindroos A (2005) Addressing norm conflicts in a fragmented legal system: the doctrine of Lex Specialis. Nordic J Int Law 74(1):27–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lo C (2012) The difference between treaty interpretation and treaty application and the possibility to account for Non-WTO treaties during WTO treaty interpretation. Indiana Int Comp Law Rev 22(1):1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lodge H (1904) The works of Alexander Hamilton. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorz RA (2015) Protection and security and customary international law. In: Bungenberg M et al (eds) International investment law: a handbook. CH Beck/Hart/Nomos, Munich/Oxford/Baden-Baden, pp 764–790

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Melzer N (2015) Targeted killing in international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Milanović M (2011) Norm conflicts, international humanitarian law, and human rights law. In: Ben-Naftali O (ed) International humanitarian law and international human rights law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 95–126

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Moore JB (1898) History and digest of the international arbitrations to which the united states has been a party. US Government Printing Office, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Oeter S (2013) Methods and means of combat. In: Fleck D (ed) The handbook of international humanitarian law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 119–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Paparinskis M (2013) The international minimum standard and fair and equitable treatment. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pauwelyn J (2003) Conflict of norms in public international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Quéguiner JF (2006) Precautions under the law governing the conduct of hostilities. Int Red Cross Rev 88(864):793–821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajamari L (2006) Differential treatment in international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers APV (1999) Law on the battlefield. Manchester University Press, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Root E (1910) The basis of protection to citizens residing abroad. Am J Int Law 4(3):517–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryk-Lakhman I (2018) Foreign investments as non-human targets. In: Baade B et al (eds) International humanitarian law in areas of limited statehood – adaptable and legitimate or rigid and unreasonable? Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 171–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuel H (1841) Hazard’s United States commercial and statistical register, containing documents, facts, and other useful information. Geddes, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandoz A et al (1987) Commentary on the additional protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Sands P (1998) Treaty, custom and cross-fertalization of international law. Yale Hum Rights Dev J 1(1):85–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Sassòli M, Quintin A (2014) Active and passive precautions in air and missile warfare. Isr Yearb Hum Rights 44:69–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt MN (2005) War, technology, and international humanitarian law. Harvard Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research Occasional Paper (4):1–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreuer C (2010) Full protection and security. J Int Dispute Settlement 1(2):353–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreuer C (2013) The protection of investments in armed conflicts. In: Baetens F (ed) Investment law within international law: integrative perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–22

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzenberger G (1968) Myths and realities of treaty interpretation: Articles 27–29 of the Vienna Draft Convention on the Law of Treaties. Virginia J Int Law 9(1):205–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzenberger G (1969) Foreign investment and international law. Stevens & Sons, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharpe JK (2015) The minimum standard of treatment, Glamis Gold, and Neer’s enduring influence. In: Kinnear M et al (eds) Building international investment law: the first 50 years of ICSID. Kluwer Law International, London, pp 269–281

    Google Scholar 

  • Simma B (2011) Foreign investment arbitration: a place for human rights? Int Comp Law Q 63(1):573–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simma B, Kill T (2009) Harmonizing investment protection and international human rights: first steps towards a methodology. In: Binder C et al (eds) International investment law for the 21st century: essays in honour of Christoph Schreuer. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 678–707

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Syrett H, Cooke J (1957) The papers of Alexander Hamilton. Wiley, Hoboken

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Trapp K (2011) State responsibility for international terrorism. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Trapp K (2013) Great resources mean great responsibility: a framework of analysis for assessing compliance with API obligations in the information age. In: Saxon D (ed) International humanitarian law and the changing technology of war. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 153–170

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Congress (1832) American state papers: documents, legislation, and executive, vol IV. United States Congress, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Continental Congress (1778) Journals of Congress containing the proceedings from January 1, 1776, to January 1, 1777, vol II. United Sates Government, Pennsylvania

    Google Scholar 

  • Vadi V (2008) Cultural heritage in international investment law and arbitration. Cambridge Universtiy Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandevelde K (2017) The first bilateral investment treaties: US postwar friendship, commerce, and navigation treaties. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vranes E (2006) The definition of ‘Norm Conflict’ in international law and legal theory. Eur J Int Law 17(2):395–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wälde TW (2009) Interpreting investment treaties: experiences and examples. In: Binder C et al (eds) International investment law for the 21st century: essays in honour of Christoph Schreuer. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 724–781

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weeramantry J (2012) Treaty interpretation in investment arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiler JHH (2001) The rule of lawyers and the ethos of diplomats reflections on the internal and external legitimacy of WTO dispute settlement. J World Trade 35(2):191–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiler T (2013) The interpretation of international investment law. Brill, Leiden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Young GK (2001) Rome’s Eastern trade: international commerce and imperial policy from 31 BC to AD 305. Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeitler HE (2010) Full protection and security. In: Schill S (ed) International investment law and comparative public law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 183–212

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UCL, Laws, London, UK

    Ira Ryk-Lakhman

Authors
  1. Ira Ryk-Lakhman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ira Ryk-Lakhman .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Law School, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain

    Katia Fach Gómez

  2. Athens Public International Law Center, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

    Anastasios Gourgourinis

  3. French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS)-CERSA, University Paris II Panthéon-Assas, Paris, France

    Catharine Titi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ryk-Lakhman, I. (2019). Protection of Foreign Investments Against the Effects of Hostilities: A Framework for Assessing Compliance with Full Protection and Security. In: Fach Gómez, K., Gourgourinis, A., Titi, C. (eds) International Investment Law and the Law of Armed Conflict. European Yearbook of International Economic Law(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10746-8_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10746-8_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-10745-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-10746-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation