Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Anti-competitive Investor Behaviour and Illegal Investments in Investment Treaty Arbitration

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

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

  • 725 Accesses

Abstract

Anti-competitive behaviour on the part of investors can lead to breaches of the host state legal order and cause market distortions. This chapter discusses the legal consequences of such behaviour within the framework of investment treaty arbitration and aims to show that anti-competitive strategies may lead to breaches not only of competition law, but also of a variety of host state national laws and regulations. It consequently proposes the adoption of a functional definition of anti-competitive actions that taint investments with illegality and explores the ways in which such investments may be excluded from the protection offered by bilateral investment treaties (BITs). The study of recent case law tends to show that investors are likely to face the consequences of their anti-competitive conduct in investment treaty arbitration. Two main hypotheses are explored: first, the issue of illegality when the BIT in question contains a specific legality requirement, and second, the possibility for states to rely on international law when challenging investors’ anti-competitive behaviour.

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.

    Hayek (1960).

  2. 2.

    Alvarez (2011), pp. 287–288.

  3. 3.

    Working Group on the Interaction between Trade and Competition Policy, The fundamental principles of competition policy, Background note by the Secretariat, WT/WGTCP/W/127, 7 June 1999, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/comp_e/wgtcp_docs_e.htm.

  4. 4.

    Alasdair Ross Anderson and others v. Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/07/3, Award, 19 May 2010, para. 53: “[t]he assurance of legality with respect to investment has important, indeed crucial, consequences for the public welfare and economic well-being of any country.” In a “criminal” context, see also Betz (2017), pp. 281–282.

  5. 5.

    Moloo and Khachaturian (2011), p. 1475; Schill (2012), pp. 281 and 309; El Gawhary (2015), p. 300.

  6. 6.

    Article 11.1, Chapter 11 of the Agreement between Japan and Mongolia for an Economic Partnership, concluded 10 February 2015. It must be specified that under this Chapter the parties agreed to include each state’s obligations in the matter of competition laws and that all disputes connected to such commitments are non-arbitrable, in conformity with Article 11.6 of this Agreement.

  7. 7.

    Khemani and Shapiro (1993). See also UNCTAD (2007), UNCTAD Model Law on Competition: Substantive elements for a competition law including commentaries and alternative approaches, https://unctad.org/en/Docs/tdrbpconf5d7rev3_en.pdf.

  8. 8.

    Mehta et al. (2008).

  9. 9.

    Mehta et al. (2008), pp. 45–46.

  10. 10.

    Mehta et al. (2008), p. 46.

  11. 11.

    Para. 11, Preamble, Energy Charter Treaty, adopted in Lisbon on 17 December 1994.

  12. 12.

    Oxford Dictionary online, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/behaviour.

  13. 13.

    In fact, if the purpose of competition law is to fight against certain behavioural patterns and to ensure market equilibrium at a horizontal level (between firms), consumer laws adopted by states complement this objective in a vertical sense by addressing relationships between firms and consumers. For more explanations, see: Dhall (2008).

  14. 14.

    Pradhan et al. (2000). See more explanations in Kryvoi (2018), https://ssrn.com/abstract=3212741 (electronic version used hereinafter).

  15. 15.

    OECD, Fighting corruption and promoting competition, Executive Summary of key findings from the discussion held during Session I of the 13th meeting of the Global Forum on Competition on 27–28 February 2014, DAF/COMP/GF(2014)12/FINAL, 20 November 2014, http://www.oecd.org/competition/fighting-corruption-and-promoting-competition.htm.

  16. 16.

    World Duty Free Co. Ltd. v. Kenya, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/7, Award, 4 October 2006, paras 62–66.

  17. 17.

    World Duty Free Co. Ltd. v. Kenya, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/7, Award, 4 October 2006, para. 136.

  18. 18.

    Metal-Tech Ltd. v. Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/3, Award, 4 October 2013, paras 199–203 and 225–227. The arbitral tribunal also considered other factors, namely the absence of services or proof of services, the lack of qualifications on the part of the consultants, fake consulting contracts and the lack of payee transparency (paras 204–224). For a deeper analysis of corruption in investment arbitration, see: Lamm et al. (2014), pp. 328–349; Llamzon (2014); Kryvoi (2018).

  19. 19.

    Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18, Dissenting Opinion of Arbitrator Dr. Jürgen Voss, 1 March 2011, para. 117.

  20. 20.

    Inceysa Vallisoletana S.L. v. El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26, Award, 2 August 2006, paras 53 and 58.

  21. 21.

    Plama Consortium Limited v. Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Award, 27 August 2008, para. 133. For an in-depth analysis of fraud and misrepresentations in investment arbitration, see Llamzon and Sinclair (2015), pp. 469–478.

  22. 22.

    Federal Act of December 19, 1986, on Unfair Competition (status as of January 1st, 2016).

  23. 23.

    Moloo and Khachaturian (2011), p. 1476; El Gawhary (2015), p. 300.

  24. 24.

    Electrabel S.A. v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Award, 25 November 2015, para. 5.43; Schill (2012), pp. 283–291. For a more in-depth analysis of the wording of “in accordance with laws” clauses, see also Obersteiner (2014), pp. 268–269.

  25. 25.

    Quiborax S.A., Non Metallic Minerals S.A. and Allan Fosk Kaplún v. Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/2, Decision on Jurisdiction, 27 September 2012, para. 266. The arbitral tribunal in Metal-Tech v. Uzbekistan supported this approach when ruling on the legality requirement under the Israel-Uzbekistan BIT. See Metal-Tech Ltd. v. Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/3, Award, 4 October 2013, para. 164.

  26. 26.

    Vladislav Kim and al. v. Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/6, Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 March 2017, para. 19.

  27. 27.

    For general criticisms of arbitral tribunals’ limitations of these clauses, see Hepburn J, In accordance with which host state laws? Restoring the ‘defence’ of investor illegality in investment arbitration, 24 April 2014, http://ssrn.com/abstract=2428859.

  28. 28.

    Alasdair Ross Anderson and others v. Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/07/3, Award, 19 May 2010, para. 57.

  29. 29.

    Phoenix Action, Ltd. v. The Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award, 15 April 2009, para. 134.

  30. 30.

    Saba Fakes v. Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/20, Award, 14 July 2010, para. 119. See also Mamidoil Jetoil Greek Petroleum Products Societe S.A. v. Albania, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/24, Dissenting Opinion of Steven A. Hammond, 30 March 2015, para. 130.

  31. 31.

    Saba Fakes v. Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/20, Award, 14 July 2010, para. 119.

  32. 32.

    LESI SpA and Astaldi SpA v. People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/03, Decision on Jurisdiction, 12 July 2006, para. 83(iii); Desert Line Projects LLC v. Yemen, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/17, Award, 6 February 2008, para. 104; Rumeli Telekom A.S. and Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. v. Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/16, Award, 29 July 2008, para. 319.

  33. 33.

    Desert Line Projects LLC v. Yemen, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/17, Award, 6 February 2008, para. 104.

  34. 34.

    Fraport A.G. Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/25, Award, 16 August 2007, paras 397–398.

  35. 35.

    Hochtief AG v. Argentine, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/31, Decision on Liability, 29 December 2014, para. 199.

  36. 36.

    Peter A. Allard v. Barbados, PCA Case No. 2012-06, Award on Jurisdiction, 13 June 2014, para. 92.

  37. 37.

    Peter A. Allard v. Barbados, PCA Case No. 2012-06, Award on Jurisdiction, 13 June 2014, paras 92–95.

  38. 38.

    Peter A. Allard v. Barbados, PCA Case No. 2012-06, Declaration of Professor Reisman, 27 June 2016.

  39. 39.

    Peter A. Allard v. Barbados, PCA Case No. 2012-06, Award on Jurisdiction, 13 June 2014, para. 94.

  40. 40.

    See, for example, Swedish Supreme Court, Systembolaget Aktiebolag v. The Absolut Company Aktiebolag, T 5767-13, 17 June 2015.

  41. 41.

    Quiborax S.A., Non Metallic Minerals S.A. and Allan Fosk Kaplún v. Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/2, Decision on Jurisdiction, 27 September 2012, para. 266 (footnotes omitted); Metal-Tech Ltd. v. Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/3, Award, 4 October 2013, para. 165. For another approach based on the type of wrongdoings, see Llamzon and Sinclair (2015), pp. 503–505.

  42. 42.

    See, for example, Mamidoil Jetoil Greek Petroleum Products Societe S.A. v. Albania, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/24, Award, 30 March 2015, para. 489: “the Tribunal rejects the argument that the non-application for and the non-issuance of the [exploitation] permits were but minor administrative errors”.

  43. 43.

    Vladilam Kim and others v. Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/6, Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 March 2017, para. 421.

  44. 44.

    Vladilam Kim and others v. Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/6, Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 March 2017, paras 19–20. For the approval of this analysis and more comments, see Kryvoi (2018).

  45. 45.

    Vladilam Kim and others v. Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/6, Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 March 2017, para. 406.

  46. 46.

    Phoenix Action, Ltd. v. The Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award, 15 April 2009, para. 103.

  47. 47.

    Fraport A.G. Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/25, Award, 16 August 2007, para. 345; Quiborax S.A., Non Metallic Minerals S.A. and Allan Fosk Kaplún v. Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/2, Decision on Jurisdiction, 27 September 2012, para. 266; Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v. Argentine, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26, Decision on Jurisdiction, 19 December 2012, para. 260; Teinver S.A., Transportes de Cercanías S.A. and Autobuses Urbanos del Sur S.A. v. Argentine, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/1, Decision on Jurisdiction, 21 December 2012, paras 317–322; Vannessa Ventures Ltd. v. Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)04/6, Award, 16 January 2013, para. 167; ECE Projektmanagement v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2010-5, Award, 19 September 2013, para. 3.166; Metal-Tech Ltd. v. Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/3, Award, 4 October 2013, para. 193; Bernhard von Pezold and others v. Zimbabwe, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/15, Award, 28 July 2015, para. 420. See also Schill (2012), pp. 307–309; Obersteiner (2014), pp. 278–280; El Gawhary (2015), p. 303.

  48. 48.

    Copper Mesa Mining Corporation v. Ecuador, PCA No. 2012-2, Award (Redacted), 15 March 2016, paras 5.54–5.57.

  49. 49.

    Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka, A.S. v. Slovakia, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/4, Decision of the Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, 24 May 1999, para. 72.

  50. 50.

    Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. AA 227, Final Award, 18 July 2014, para. 1369; Mamidoil Jetoil Greek Petroleum Products Societe S.A. v. Albania, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/24, Award, 30 March 2015, para. 369.

  51. 51.

    Joseph Houben v. Burundi, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/7, Award, 12 January 2016, paras 127–130.

  52. 52.

    Saba Fakes v. Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/20, Award, 14 July 2010, para. 120.

  53. 53.

    Mr. Franck Charles Arif v. Moldova, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/23, 8 April 2013, paras 41–124.

  54. 54.

    Mr. Franck Charles Arif v. Moldova, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/23, 8 April 2013, para. 376.

  55. 55.

    For the analysis of the appropriate stages for dealing with investor misconduct, see for example Moloo and Khachaturian (2011), pp. 1418–1494; Newcombe (2011), pp. 187–200; Llamzon and Sinclair (2015), pp. 507–508; Kryvoi (2018).

  56. 56.

    For criticisms of the limitations of the state’s consent entailed by general principles of international law, see Douglas (2014), pp. 169–172.

  57. 57.

    Scholars have already discussed some aspects related to the idea of an “emerging principle requiring compliance with the law of the host state”. See Moloo and Khachaturian (2011), p. 1475.

  58. 58.

    Anatolie Stati, Gabriel Stati, Ascom Group SA and Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd v. Kazakhstan, SCC Case No. V (116/2010), Award, 19 October 2013, para. 812.

  59. 59.

    Bear Creek Mining Corporation v. Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/2, Award, 30 November 2017, paras 309 and 320.

  60. 60.

    Achmea B.V. v. Slovakia, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2008-13, Award, 7 December 2012, paras 135–139.

  61. 61.

    Achmea B.V. v. Slovakia, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2008-13, Award, 7 December 2012, para. 176.

  62. 62.

    Achmea B.V. v. Slovakia, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2008-13, Award, 7 December 2012, para. 177.

  63. 63.

    Phoenix Action, Ltd. v. The Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award, 15 April 2009, para. 100 (footnote omitted).

  64. 64.

    Phoenix Action, Ltd. v. The Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award, 15 April 2009, para. 101.

  65. 65.

    Yaung Chi Oo Trading Pte. Ltd. v. Government of the Union of Myanmar, Asean I.D. Case No. ARB/01/1, Award, 31 March 2003, para. 58; Gustav F. W. Hamester GmbH & Co. KG v. Ghana, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/24, Award, 18 June 2010, para. 123–124; SAUR International S.A. v. Argentine, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/4, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability, 6 June 2012, para. 308; Oxus Gold plc v. Uzbekistan, the State Committee of Uzbekistan for Geology & Mineral Resources, and Navoi Mining & Metallurgical Kombinat, UNCITRAL, Final Award, 17 December 2015, para. 706.

  66. 66.

    Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines (II), ICSID Case No. ARB/11/12, Award, 10 December 2014, para. 332; Ampal-American Israel Corporation and others v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11, Decision on Jurisdiction, 1st February 2016, para. 301.

  67. 67.

    Khan Resources Inc., Khan Resources B.V., and Cauc Holding Company Ltd. v. The Government of Mongolia, UNCITRAL, Decision on Jurisdiction, 25 July 2012, para. 383; Mamidoil Jetoil Greek Petroleum Products Societe S.A. v. Albania, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/24, Award, 30 March 2015, para. 360.

  68. 68.

    Energoalians TOB v. Moldova, UNCITRAL, Award, 23 October 2013, para. 261.

  69. 69.

    Plama Consortium Limited v. Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Award, 27 August 2008, paras 135–145.

  70. 70.

    Plama Consortium Limited v. Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Award, 27 August 2008, para. 139.

  71. 71.

    Energy Charter Secretariat, The Energy Charter Treaty and Related Documents. A Legal Framework for International Energy Cooperation, An Introduction to the Energy Charter Treaty, September 2004, http://www.ena.lt/pdfai/Treaty.pdf.

  72. 72.

    Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. AA 227, Final Award, 18 July 2014, para. 1346.

  73. 73.

    Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. AA 227, Final Award, 18 July 2014, para. 1352. A similar conclusion had also been made in Fraport A.G. Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/25, Award, 16 August 2007, para. 402.

  74. 74.

    Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. AA 227, Final Award, 18 July 2014, para. 1364.

  75. 75.

    Plama Consortium Limited v. Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Award, 27 August 2008, para. 138.

  76. 76.

    World Duty Free Co. Ltd. v. Kenya, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/7, Award, 4 October 2006, para. 138.

  77. 77.

    EWHC, Anatolie Stati, Gabriel Stati, Ascom Group S.A., Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd v. Kazakhstan, [2017] EWHC 1348 (Comm), 6 June 2017, para. 84. See also Fry (2009), pp. 86–87.

  78. 78.

    World Duty Free Co. Ltd. v. Kenya, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/7, Award, 4 October 2006, para. 139 (quoting Lalive 1987). For more detailed explanations, see Douglas (2014), pp. 180–183; Llamzon and Sinclair (2015), pp. 517–523; Jagusch (2014), pp. 24–27.

  79. 79.

    Forteau (2011), paras 10–15.

  80. 80.

    For other definitions of truly international public policy, see Fry (2009), pp. 88–89.

  81. 81.

    Llamzon and Sinclair (2015), p. 519.

  82. 82.

    Plama Consortium Limited v. Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Award, 27 August 2008, paras 140 and 143.

  83. 83.

    Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. AA 227, Final Award, 18 July 2014, paras 1350 and 1352.

  84. 84.

    Churchill Mining PLC and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/14 and 12/40, Award, 6 December 2016, para. 493.

  85. 85.

    For example, Bottini (2010), p. 298: “there is a growing consensus that corruption is against the international ordre public”.

  86. 86.

    World Duty Free Co. Ltd. v. Kenya, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/7, Award, 4 October 2006, paras 129, 137–188. For further explanation, see, Kryvoi (2018).

  87. 87.

    Metal-Tech Ltd. v. Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/3, Award, 4 October 2013, para. 292; Infinito Gold Ltd. v. Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/5, Decision on Jurisdiction, 4 December 2017, para. 137.

  88. 88.

    Niko Resources (Bangladesh) Ltd. v. Bangladesh Petroleum Exploration & Production Company Limited (Bapex) and Bangladesh Oil Gas and Mineral Corporation (Petrobangla), ICSID Case No. ARB/10/18, Decision on Jurisdiction, 19 August 2013, para. 431–433.

  89. 89.

    Vladislav Kim and al. v. Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/6, Decision on Jurisdiction, 8 March 2017, para. 593.

  90. 90.

    Plama Consortium Limited v. Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Award, 27 August 2008, paras 141 and 143 (quoting the arbitral tribunal in Inceysa).

  91. 91.

    Churchill Mining PLC and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/14 and 12/40, Award, 6 December 2016, para. 508.

  92. 92.

    Churchill Mining PLC and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/14 and 12/40, Award, 6 December 2016, paras 507 and 515.

  93. 93.

    Forteau (2011), para. 92 (discussing Phoenix, Plama, Mytilineos Holdings, LESI, Rumeli).

  94. 94.

    World Duty Free Co. Ltd. v. Kenya, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/7, Award, 4 October 2006, para. 141: “Tribunals must be very cautious in this respect and must carefully check the objective existence of a particular transnational public policy rule in identifying it through international conventions, comparative law and arbitral awards”. See also Douglas (2014), p. 181.

  95. 95.

    Inceysa Vallisoletana S.L. v. El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26, Award, 2 August 2006, para. 247.

  96. 96.

    Inceysa Vallisoletana S.L. v. El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26, Award, 2 August 2006, para. 248.

  97. 97.

    See, for example., Sempra Energy International v. Argentine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, 11 May 2005, para. 156: ‘there is no obstacle in international law to the expression of the will of states through treaties being at the same time an expression of practice and of the opinion juris necessary for the birth of a customary rule if conditions for it are met’. On the customary nature of truly international public policy from the standpoint of public international law, see Forteau (2011), paras 55–69.

  98. 98.

    Blusun S.A., Jean-Pierre Lecorcier and Michael Stein v. Italy, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/3, Final Award, 27 December 2016, para. 264 and footnote 490.

  99. 99.

    Douglas (2014), pp. 181–182.

  100. 100.

    See Gaillard and Savage (1999), p. 824, para. 1468 (and references given by the authors); Jagusch (2014), pp. 37–38 (arguing that truly international public policy includes competition laws).

  101. 101.

    UNCTAD (2000), “The Set of Multilaterally Agreed Equitable Principles and Rules for the Control of Restrictive Business Practices”, http://unctad.org/en/docs/tdrbpconf10r2.en.pdf.

  102. 102.

    Jagusch (2014), p. 38.

  103. 103.

    UNCTAD (2014), Handbook on Competition Legislation, Vol. II, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ditcclp2012_handbook_en.pdf.

  104. 104.

    Aydin and Büthe (2016), p. 2.

  105. 105.

    World Duty Free Co. Ltd. v. Kenya, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/7, Award, 4 October 2006, para. 139 (referring to “universal standards” when defining the concept of truly international public policy) and para. 140 (observing that “active and passive corruption, are sanctioned by criminal law in most, if not all, countries”); see also Douglas (2014), p. 181: “the grounds of international public policy are limited to conduct that is universally condemned and abhorred by the international community” (quoting World Duty Free); Llamzon and Sinclair (2015), p. 519: “In determining the existence and content of a certain transnational public policy, it therefore must be shown that […] [values are] (1) essential; (2) supported by a large adherence or what in a usual language is called a large consensus, let alone a universal one; and (3) therefore requiring immediate application, regardless of any contrary agreement’.”

References

  • Alvarez JE (2011) The public international law regime governing international investment. In: Collected courses of The Hague Academy of International Law, The Hague Academy of International Law, vol 344

    Google Scholar 

  • Aydin U, Büthe T (2016) Competition law & policy in developing countries: explaining variations in outcomes; exploring possibilities and limits. Law Contemp Probl 79:1–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Betz K (2017) Economic crime in international arbitration. ASA Bull 35(2):281–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bottini G (2010) Legality of investments under ICSID jurisprudence. In: Waibel M, Kaushal A et al (eds) The backlash against investment arbitration. Kluwer Law International, pp 297–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhall V (2008) Competition law and consumer protection — insights into their interrelationship. In: Qaqaya H, Lipimile G (eds) The effects of anti-competitive business practices on developing countries and their development prospects. UNCTAD. http://unctad.org/en/docs/ditcclp20082_en.pdf

  • Douglas Z (2014) The plea of illegality in investment treaty arbitration. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 29:155–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El Gawhary M (2015) Reflections on recent ICSID arbitral awards in which the “illegality of the investment” defense was raised by the host State. In: Leboulanger P, Abdel Raouf M, Ziadé NG (eds) Festschrift Ahmed Sadek El-Kosheri. Kluwer Law International, pp 299–324

    Google Scholar 

  • Forteau M (2011) L’ordre public international face à l’enchevêtrement croissant du droit international privé et du droit international public. Journal du droit international (Clunet) 1:3–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Fry JD (2009) Désordre Public International under the New York Convention: wither truly international public policy. Chin J Int Law 8:81–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaillard E, Savage J (eds) (1999) Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on international commercial arbitration. Kluwer Law International

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek FA (1960) The constitution of liberty. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Jagusch S (2014) Issues of substantive transnational public policy. In: Bray D, Bray HL (eds) International arbitration and public policy, pp 23–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Khemani RS, Shapiro DM (1993) Glossary of industrial organisation economics and competition law. OECD. http://www.oecd.org/regreform/sectors/2376087.pdf

  • Kryvoi Y (2018) Economic crimes in international investment law. Int Comp Law Q 67:577–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lalive P (1987) Transnational (or truly international) public policy and international arbitration. In: Sanders P (ed) Comparative arbitration practice and public policy in arbitration, ICCA Congress Series 1986, vol 3. Kluwer Law International, New York, pp 258–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamm C, Greenwald B, Young K (2014) From “World Duty Free” to “Metal-Tech”: a review of international investment treaty arbitration cases involving allegations of corruption. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 29:328–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Llamzon A (2014) Corruption in international investment arbitration. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Llamzon A, Sinclair AC (2015) Investor wrongdoing in investment arbitration: standards governing issues of corruption, fraud, misrepresentation and other investor misconduct. In: van den Berg A (ed) Legitimacy: myths, realities, challenges, ICCA Congress Series, vol 18. Kluwer Law International, pp 451–530

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehta PS, Mitra S, Dube C (2008) Competition policy and consumer policy: complementarities and conflicts in the promotion of consumer welfare. In: Qaqaya H, Lipimile G (eds) The effects of anti-competitive business practices on developing countries and their development prospects. UNCTAD. http://unctad.org/en/docs/ditcclp20082_en.pdf

  • Moloo R, Khachaturian A (2011) The compliance with the law requirement in international investment law. Fordham Int Law J 34(6):1473–1501

    Google Scholar 

  • Newcombe A (2011) Investor misconduct: jurisdiction, admissibility or merits? In: Brown C, Miles K (eds) Evolution in investment treaty law and arbitration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 187–200

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Obersteiner T (2014) “In accordance with domestic law” clauses: how international investment tribunals deal with allegations of unlawful conduct of investors. J Int Arbitr 31(2):265–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pradhan S et al (2000) Anticorruption in transition: a contribution to the policy debate. World Bank. https://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWBIGOVANTCOR/Resources/contribution.pdf

  • Schill SW (2012) Illegal investments in investment treaty arbitration. Law Pract Int Courts Tribunals 11:281–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Lille, Lille, France

    Elena Belova

Authors
  1. Elena Belova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elena Belova .

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

Belova, E. (2020). Anti-competitive Investor Behaviour and Illegal Investments in Investment Treaty Arbitration. 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_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33916-6_8

  • 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