Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

International Investment Law and Public Procurement: An Overview

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
International Investment Law and Competition Law

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

  • 778 Accesses

Abstract

Public procurement law inter alia provides a means to foster competition in the purchasing of goods and services by governments. For tenderers incurring significant expenditures during the procurement procedure, legal remedies are of vital importance. Since these are not equally guaranteed by all states, the issue occurs as to whether international investment law can serve as a gap-filling regime to protect foreign tenderers against harmful state conduct during procurement proceedings. The chapter therefore examines the applicability of international investment agreements (IIAs) to the procurement procedure and, hence, the qualification of a tender and the pre-award expenditure as protected investments. However, the question is neither regulated adequately in most IIAs, nor has a definite approach developed in arbitral practice so far. While successful bidders can claim compensation for damages arising from the pre-award phase, the protection of unsuccessful bidders must be answered in a differentiated manner. The chapter argues that a distinction has to be made between an open and a pre-elective award procedure. In the latter case, the host state invites the foreign tenderer to participate in the procurement proceeding and thus provides the consent to admit the investment in its territory. Moreover, foreign tenders increase competition within the award procedure, fostering competition in the host state’s procurement market. Assuming that the IIA is applicable, the chapter argues that the ordinary business risks of participating in a tender procedure can be sufficiently taken into account when assessing liability.

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 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
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.

    Kennedy-Loest et al. (2011), p. 78.

  2. 2.

    Dreher et al. (2015), para. 6.

  3. 3.

    Bovis (2015), para. 1.42.

  4. 4.

    Bovis (2015), paras 1.22 et seq. Critically on the term “public market” see Sánchez Graells (2011), pp. 35 et seq.

  5. 5.

    OECD statistics 2017, https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?QueryId=78413# (30.01.2019).

  6. 6.

    Behrens (2017), para. 1713.

  7. 7.

    Bungenberg (2007), p. 178; Snider Smith (2008), pp. 110 et seq.

  8. 8.

    From a European perspective, see Bovis (2015), paras 5.01 et seq. and 12.01 et seq. Specifically on the legal remedies, see Shirvani (2016), pp. 59 et seq. On the US reforms, highlighting competition and transparency as the two major aspects, see Snider Smith (2008), pp. 110 et seq.

  9. 9.

    CJEU, case C-458/03, Parking Brixen, ECLI:EU:C:2005:605, paras 49 et seq.

  10. 10.

    As for the EU, see e.g. Article 2(1) lit. d of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992, OJ L 76 of 23.3.1992, p. 14.

  11. 11.

    See Burgi (2018), p. 248.

  12. 12.

    See inter alia Reich (1999), pp. 133 et seq. On the GPA in general Matsushita et al. (2015), pp. 675 et seq.

  13. 13.

    Yescombe (2007), pp. 11 et seq.

  14. 14.

    Bovis (2015), paras 13.76 et seq.

  15. 15.

    See inter alia Hamida (2005), p. 50 et seq; Yescombe (2002), p. 257. With regard to the construction industry Metje (2008), pp. 29 et seq.

  16. 16.

    On the procurement process and the different phases from an economic point of view see Yescombe (2007), pp. 74 et seq.

  17. 17.

    Yescombe (2007), p. 107.

  18. 18.

    Mihaly International Corporation v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/2.

  19. 19.

    Williams (2008), p. 881.

  20. 20.

    Dolzer and Schreuer (2012), p. 89. See also Schill (2017), pp. 16 et seq.

  21. 21.

    The Energy Charter Treaty, UNTS 2080, p. 95.

  22. 22.

    See Wälde (1996), pp. 277 et seq.

  23. 23.

    Wälde (1996), p. 280.

  24. 24.

    Text available at http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ceta/ceta-chapter-by-chapter/.

  25. 25.

    See also the additional exemptions with regard to the performance requirements according to Article 1106 of the NAFTA and Article 1108(8)(b) of the NAFTA.

  26. 26.

    Bjorklund (2013), p. 490. See on public procurement under NAFTA in general Reich (1999), pp. 261 et seq.

  27. 27.

    Text available at https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/united-states-mexico-canada-agreement/agreement-between.

  28. 28.

    Text available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1833.

  29. 29.

    Text available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1437.

  30. 30.

    See e.g. Bischoff and Happ (2015), para.1; Rubins (2004), p. 283.

  31. 31.

    See Schlemmer (2008), pp. 62 et seq.; Schreuer et al. (2009), Article 25 paras 113 et seq.

  32. 32.

    Bischoff and Happ (2015), paras 8 et seq.; Vandevelde (2010), pp. 122 et seq.

  33. 33.

    Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco, Decision on Jurisdiction of 23 July 2001, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4, para. 52. See also Consortium R.F.C.C. v. Kingdom of Morocco, Decision on Jurisdiction of 16 July 2001, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/6, Rn. 60.

  34. 34.

    FEDAX N.V. v. The Republic of Venezuela, Decision on Jurisdiction of 11 July 1997, ICSID Case No. ARB/96/3, para. 43.

  35. 35.

    Bischoff and Happ (2015), para. 35. On the criteria see Schreuer et al. (2009), Article 25 paras 154 et seq.

  36. 36.

    See Saba Fakes v. Republic of Turkey, Award of 14 July 2010, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/20, para. 110; Consortium Groupement L.E.S.I. - DIPENTA v. People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, Award of 10 January 2005, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/8, para. II.13(iv).

  37. 37.

    For instance, the tribunal in Phoenix Action Ltd v. Czech Republic, Award of 15 April 2009, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, para. 100, is limiting the notion to bona fide investments.

  38. 38.

    See e.g. Autopista Concesionada de Venezuela, C.A. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Decision on Jurisdiction of 27 September 2001, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/5, para. 97.

  39. 39.

    As for German procurement law see Burgi (2018), p. 220.

  40. 40.

    See for Article 25 ICSID Convention Schreuer et al. (2009), Art. 25, para. 180. Regarding contract awarded after a procurement proceeding see Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco, Decision on Jurisdiction of 23 July 2001, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4, para. 58.

  41. 41.

    On the concerns see also Robinson (2004), p. 265.

  42. 42.

    Footnote added by the authors; it is referred to Schreuer, ICSID-Commentary, Article 25.

  43. 43.

    Malicorp Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Award of 7 February 2011, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/18, para. 113.

  44. 44.

    PSEG Global Inc. and Konya Ilgin Elektrik Üretim ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Republic of Turkey, Decision on Jurisdiction of 4 June 2004, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/5, para. 104.

  45. 45.

    PSEG Global Inc. and Konya Ilgin Elektrik Üretim ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Republic of Turkey, Award of 19 January 2007, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/5, para. 304.

  46. 46.

    Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13.

  47. 47.

    Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Decision on Jurisdiction of 16 June 2006, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13, para. 14.

  48. 48.

    Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Decision on Jurisdiction of 16 June 2006, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13, paras 94 et seq.

  49. 49.

    Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Decision on Jurisdiction of 16 June 2006, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13, para. 95.

  50. 50.

    Schreuer et al. (2009), Article 25 para. 180; Bischoff and Happ (2015), paras 110 et seq.

  51. 51.

    Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Decision on Jurisdiction of 16 June 2006, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13, paras 94 et seq.

  52. 52.

    PSEG Global Inc. and Konya Ilgin Elektrik Üretim ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Republic of Turkey, Award of 19 January 2007, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/5, para. 304.

  53. 53.

    PSEG Global Inc. and Konya Ilgin Elektrik Üretim ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Republic of Turkey, Award of 19 January 2007, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/5, para. 304.

  54. 54.

    Malicorp Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Award of 7 February 2011, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/18, para. 113.

  55. 55.

    Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability of 14 January 2010, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18, para. 89.

  56. 56.

    Mihaly International Corporation v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, Award of 15 March 2002, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/2, paras 60 et seq.

  57. 57.

    Mihaly International Corporation v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, Concurring Opinion by Mr. David Suratgar of 7 March 2002, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/2. See Hornick (2003), pp. 192 et seq.

  58. 58.

    Mihaly International Corporation v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, Concurring Opinion by Mr. David Suratgar of 7 March 2002, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/2, para. 10.

  59. 59.

    Mihaly International Corporation v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, Concurring Opinion by Mr. David Suratgar of 7 March 2002, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/2, para. 6.

  60. 60.

    Submission and evaluation of proposals for private power generation projects in developing countries, World Bank Discussion Papers No. 250 of September 1994, p. 14, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/353541468782149070/pdf/multi-page.pdf (1.2.2019).

  61. 61.

    Mihaly International Corporation v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, Concurring Opinion by Mr. David Suratgar of 7 March 2002, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/2, para. 6.

  62. 62.

    Zhinvali Development Ltd v. Georgia, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/1, unpublished. A summary is provided by Happ and Rubins (2009), pp. 8 et seq. See also Schreuer et al. (2009), Article 25 para. 178, and Hamida (2005), pp. 67 et seq.

  63. 63.

    Happ and Rubins (2009), p. 9.

  64. 64.

    Hamida (2005), p. 68.

  65. 65.

    See Johannsen (2009), p. 32.

  66. 66.

    Schreuer et al. (2009), Article 25, para. 153.

  67. 67.

    Consortium R.F.C.C. v. Kingdom of Morocco, Decision on Jurisdiction of 16 July 2001, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/6, para. 65; Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco, Decision on Jurisdiction of 23 July 2001, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4, para. 52. On the debate see inter alia Bischoff and Happ (2015), para. 39.

  68. 68.

    On the access of investments in the natural resources exploitation field see Bungenberg (2015), pp. 129 et seq.

  69. 69.

    See because of this the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the access of third-country goods and services to the Union’s internal market in public procurement and procedures supporting negotiations on access of Union goods and services to the public procurement markets of third countries, COM(2016) 34 final.

  70. 70.

    Malicorp Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Award of 7 February 2011, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/18, para. 113.

  71. 71.

    Burgi (2018), p. 220.

  72. 72.

    See with regard to the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), 1489 UNTS 3, Schütz (1996), pp. 173 et seq.

  73. 73.

    Mihaly International Corporation v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, Award of 15 March 2002, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/2, para. 39.

  74. 74.

    Mihaly International Corporation v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, Award of 15 March 2002, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/2, para. 51.

  75. 75.

    Mihaly International Corporation v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, Award of 15 March 2002, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/2, para. 60.

  76. 76.

    See also Hamida (2005), p. 63.

  77. 77.

    On this Bungenberg and Titi (2015), paras 2 et seq.

  78. 78.

    See with a similar result Yala (2005), pp. 122 et seq.; Bischoff and Happ (2015), para. 112.

  79. 79.

    Yala (2005), p. 123; Bischoff and Happ (2015), para. 112.

  80. 80.

    See Johannsen (2009), p. 32; Hamida (2005), p. 51; Hornick (2003), p. 192.

  81. 81.

    Hornick (2003), pp. 192 et seq.

  82. 82.

    Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability of 14 January 2010, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18, para. 55.

  83. 83.

    Emmis International Holding, B.V., Emmis Radio Operating, B.V., MEM Magyar Electronic Media Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. v. Hungary, Award of 16 April 2014, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/2, para. 155.

  84. 84.

    See on the criticism Fischer (2018), p. 121.

  85. 85.

    Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine, Dissenting Opinion of Arbitrator Voss of 1 March 2011, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18, paras 121 et seq.

  86. 86.

    Mihaly International Corporation v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, Concurring Opinion by Mr. David Suratgar of 7 March 2002, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/2, para. 10.

  87. 87.

    Metalclad Corporation v. The United Mexican States, Award of 30 August 2000, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1, paras 76 et seq.

  88. 88.

    Merrill & Ring Forestry L.P. v. The Government of Canada, Award of 31 March 2010, ICSID Case No. UNCT/07/1, para. 231; Siemens A.G. v. The Argentine Republic, Award of 6 February 2007, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8, para. 308. The importance of transparency is emphasized by Schreuer (2005), p. 374.

  89. 89.

    Metalclad v. Mexico, Award of 25 August 2000, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1, para. 91: “Moreover, the permit was denied at a meeting of the Municipal Town Council of which [the claimant] received no notice, to which it received no invitation, and at which it was given no opportunity to appear.” See also Middle East Cement v. Egypt, Award of 12 March 2002, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/6, para. 143.

  90. 90.

    Mohammad Ammar Al-Bahloul v. The Republic of Tajikistan, Award of 2 September 2009, SCC Case No. 064/2008, para. 221. On the obligations see also Dolzer (2013), pp. 29 et seq.; Schill (2006), pp. 24 et seq.

  91. 91.

    Waste Management v. United Mexican States (II), Award of 30 April 2004, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/3, para. 98.

  92. 92.

    Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Award of 6 November 2008, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13, para. 187.

  93. 93.

    Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Award of 6 November 2008, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13, para. 210.

  94. 94.

    Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Award of 6 November 2008, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13, para. 207.

  95. 95.

    See e.g. Kläger (2011), p. 227.

  96. 96.

    Kläger (2011), pp. 175 et seq.; Schill (2006), pp. 15 et seq.

  97. 97.

    See with regard to legitimate expectations Dolzer (2013), pp. 26 et seq.

  98. 98.

    Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability of 14 January 2010, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18, paras 419 et seq.

  99. 99.

    See supra Sec. 3.2.

  100. 100.

    On the interaction of FET with the standard against unreasonable or discriminatory measures, see also Schreuer (2007), pp. 4 et seq.

  101. 101.

    Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine, Dissenting Opinion of Arbitrator Voss of 1 March 2011, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18, para. 128.

  102. 102.

    Jacob and Schill (2015), paras 97 et seq.; Fischer (2018), p. 255.

  103. 103.

    See also Bischoff and Happ (2015), para. 112. Critically Schreuer et al. (2009), Article 25 para. 181; Fischer (2018), pp. 114 et seq.

References

  • Behrens P (2017) Europäisches Marktöffnungs- und Wettbewerbsrecht: Eine systematische Darstellung der Wirtschafts- und Wettbewerbsverfassung der EU. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Bischoff J, Happ R (2015) The notion of investment. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law: a handbook. C.H. Beck, Hart, Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 495–544

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bjorklund A (2013) NAFTA chapter 11. In: Brown C (ed) Commentaries on selected model investment treaties. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 465–533

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovis C (2015) The law of EU public procurement, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bungenberg M (2007) Vergaberecht im Wettbewerb der Systeme: Eine rechtsebenenübergreifende Analyse des Vergaberechts. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bungenberg M (2015) Evolution of investment law protection as part of a general system of national resources sovereignty (and management)? In: Bungenberg M, Hobe S (eds) Permanent sovereignty over natural resources. Springer, Heidelberg

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bungenberg M, Titi C (2015) Precedents in international investment law. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law: a handbook. C.H. Beck, Hart, Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 1505–1516

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Burgi M (2018) Vergaberecht: Systematische Darstellung für Praxis und Ausbildung, 2nd edn. C.H. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolzer R (2013) Fair and equitable treatment: today’s contours. Santa Clara J Int Law 12:7–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dreher M, Hoffmann J, Kling M (2015) Das sekundäre Binnenmarktrecht der öffentlichen Auftragsvergabe. In: Hatje A, Müller-Graff P-C (eds) Enzyklopädie Europarecht. Band 4: Europäisches Wirtschaftsordnungsrecht. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 1015–1088

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer S (2018) Vergabeverfahren im Investitionsschutzrecht: Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede der Standards des Investitions- und Vergaberechts. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hamida W (2005) The Mihaly v. Sri Lanka case: some thoughts relating to the status of pre-investment expenditures. 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 47–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Happ R, Rubins N (2009) Digest of ICSID awards and decisions 2003–2007. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornick R (2003) The Mihaly arbitration: pre-investment expenditure as a basis for ICSID jurisdiction. J Int Arbitr 20:189–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacob M, Schill S (2015) Fair and equitable treatment: content, practice, method. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law: a handbook. C.H. Beck, Hart, Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 700–763

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Johannsen S (2009) Der Investitionsbegriff nach Art. 25 Abs. 1 der ICSID-Konvention. In: Tietje C, Kraft G (eds) Beiträge zum Transnationalen Wirtschaftsrecht Heft 87

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy-Loest C, Thomas C, Farley M (2011) EU public procurement and competition law: the yin and yang of the legal world? Compet Law Int 7:77–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Kläger R (2011) ‘Fair and equitable treatment’ in international investment law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Matsushita M, Schoenbaum T, Mavroidis P, Hahn M (2015) The World Trade Organization: law, practice, and policy, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Metje T (2008) Der Investitionsschutz im internationalen Anlagenbau: Eine Untersuchung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung internationaler BOT-Projekte. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reich A (1999) International public procurement law: the evolution of international regimes on public purchasing. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson J (2004) ICSID cases on its jurisdiction: a serious problem for public/private partnerships for infrastructure in developing countries. Int Bus Lawyer 32:263–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubins N (2004) The notion of ‘investment’ in international investment arbitration. In: Horn N (ed) Arbitrating foreign investment disputes: procedural and substantive legal aspects. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 283–324

    Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez Graells A (2011) Public procurement and the EU competition rules. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Schill S (2006) Fair and equitable treatment under investment treaties as an embodiment of the rule of law. IILJ Working Paper 2006/6

    Google Scholar 

  • Schill S (2017) The impact of international investment law on public contracts. ACIL Research Paper 2017-07

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlemmer E (2008) Investment, investor, nationality, and shareholders. In: Muchlinski P, Ortino F, Schreuer C (eds) The Oxford handbook of international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 49–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreuer C (2005) Fair and equitable treatment in arbitral practice. Journal of World Investment and Trade 6:357–386

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreuer C (2007) Fair and equitable treatment (FET): interactions with other standards. TDM 4(5)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreuer C, Malintoppi L, Reinisch A, Sinclair A (2009) The ICSID convention: a commentary, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schütz M (1996) UN-Kaufrecht und Culpa in Contrahendo. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Shirvani F (2016) Optimierung des Rechtsschutzes im Vergaberecht. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Snider Smith J (2008) Competition and transparency: what works for public procurement reform. Public Contract Law J 38:85–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandevelde K (2010) Bilateral investment treaties: history, policy, and interpretation. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Wälde T (1996) International investment under the 1994 Energy Charter Treaty. In: Wälde T (ed) The Energy Charter Treaty: an East-West gateway for investment & trade. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 251–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams D (2008) Jurisdiction and admissibility. In: Muchlinski P, Ortino F, Schreuer C (eds) The Oxford handbook of international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 868–931

    Google Scholar 

  • Yala F (2005) The notion of “investment” in ICSID case law: a drifting jurisdictional requirement? Some “un-conventional” thoughts on Salini, SGS and Mihaly. J Int Arbitr 22:105–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yescombe E (2002) Principles of project finance. Academic Press, Boston and Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Yescombe E (2007) Public-private partnerships: principles of policy and finance. Elsevier, Burlington and Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Marc Bungenberg & Fabian Blandfort

Authors
  1. Marc Bungenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fabian Blandfort
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marc Bungenberg .

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

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bungenberg, M., Blandfort, F. (2020). International Investment Law and Public Procurement: An Overview. In: Fach Gómez, K., Gourgourinis, A., Titi, C. (eds) International Investment Law and Competition Law. European Yearbook of International Economic Law(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33916-6_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33916-6_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-33915-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-33916-6

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation