Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Indian Yearbook of Comparative Law 2018 pp 297–317Cite as

Legitimate Expectations in Investment Arbitration: A Comparative Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 362 Accesses

Part of the book series: The Indian Yearbook of Comparative Law ((IYCL))

Abstract

The fair and equitable standard (FET) in investment treaties is one of the most frequently invoked standards for protection of foreign investment. The absence of precise scope and contents in the text of the standard has led to arbitral tribunals interpreting it broadly and innovatively. One such element said to be a part of the standard is the protection of ‘legitimate expectations’ of an investor. The concept of legitimate expectations, fundamentally a domestic administrative law concept, has been transposed to international law through investment arbitration disputes and has now become an important principle constituting the FET standard. It is therefore important to inform the application of the principle of legitimate expectations in international investment law with its evolution and application in the domestic laws. This chapter conducts a comparative analysis of the evolution and application of the principle in administrative law of UK, India and Australia and attempts to identify the basic contours of the principle which may aid in ameliorating its application in investment arbitration disputes.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a survey of various formulations of the FET standard see Tudor 2008.

  2. 2.

    Vasciannie 2000.

  3. 3.

    See Dolzer and Schreuer 2012.

  4. 4.

    Vicuña 2003.

  5. 5.

    Vicuña, ‘Regulatory Authority and Legitimate Expectations’, p. 192.

  6. 6.

    Teerawat 2014, Potesta 2013.

  7. 7.

    Gold Reserve v. Veneuzela ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/09/1, Award, [576].

  8. 8.

    Saluka Investments BV v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award, [271]–[275]; Middle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co SA v Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/99/6, Award, [139]; Duke Energy v. Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/19, [378]–[382]; Lemir v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability, [356], [385], [389], [294], [409], [418]; Quiborax v. Bolivia, ICSID Case No ARB/06/2, Award, [214], [226], [227].

  9. 9.

    See Teerawat, ‘The Transplantation’, pp. 69–102, Snodgrass 2006.

  10. 10.

    Schønberg 2000.

  11. 11.

    ‘Private persons’ is used to collectively represent ‘natural’ as well as ‘legal’ persons in this article.

  12. 12.

    Schønberg, ‘Legitimate Expectations in Administrative Law’, pp. 9–30.

  13. 13.

    Wade and Forsyth 2009.

  14. 14.

    Wade and Forsyth., ‘Administrative Law’, p. 454.

  15. 15.

    This classification is taken from Schønberg, ‘Legitimate Expectations in Administrative Law’, p. 8.

  16. 16.

    Electrabel S.A. v. Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Decision on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law and Liability, [7.75].

  17. 17.

    Arif v. Moldova, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/23, Award, [533].

  18. 18.

    Sempra v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Award, [297].

  19. 19.

    El Paso v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15, Award, [339].

  20. 20.

    See generally Potesta, ‘Legitimate expectations in investment treaty law’, pp. 90–93.

  21. 21.

    SPP v. Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/84/3, [83].

  22. 22.

    Tecmed v Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/2, Award, [153].

  23. 23.

    Case concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay) [2006] ICJ Rep 113, [143]–[150]; Murphy v. Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/4, Award on Jurisdiction, [154]; Enron v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Award on Jurisdiction, [88]; See generally Goldmann 2016, O’Connor 1991, Ziegler and Baumgartner 2015, Kolb 2006, D’Amato 1995. See generally Peters 2003.

  24. 24.

    See Ziegler and Baumgartner, ‘Good Faith as a General Principle’, p. 10–11.

  25. 25.

    Dolzer and Schreuer 2012, p. 145.

  26. 26.

    CMS v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Award, [274]–[276].

  27. 27.

    Feldman v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/1, Award, [128]; Azinian v Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/97/2; Award, [95]–[97]; Mondev v. United States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/2, Award, [156]; LG&E v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, Decision on Liability, [130]; Enron v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Award, [262]; BG v. Argentina, UNCITRAL, Final Award, [297]–[298]; Duke Energy v. Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/19, Award, [340], [365]; Jan de Nul v. Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13., Award, [265]; Bayindir v. Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/29, Award, [190], [191]; EDF v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/13, Award, [219]; AES v Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22, Award, [9.3.8]–[9.3.18]; Frontier Petroleum v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award, [287], [468]; Schreuer and Kriebaum 2009.

  28. 28.

    GAMI v. Mexico, UNCITRAL, Award, [39]; Mondev v United States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/2, Award, [156]; Azinian v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/97/2, Award, [95]–[97]; Oscar Chinn Case (UK v Belgium), 12 December 1934, PCIJ, Series A/B, No 63, [184].

  29. 29.

    Occidental v. Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11, Award, [184]–[186].

  30. 30.

    Eureko v. Poland, Partial Award, [231]–[234].

  31. 31.

    Tecmed v. Mexico, [154].

  32. 32.

    National Grid v. Argentina, UNCITRAL, Award, [173].

  33. 33.

    Metaclad, v. Mexico ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1, Award, [85].

  34. 34.

    Total v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/01, Decision on Liability. [145].

  35. 35.

    ADF v. ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/1, Award, [189].

  36. 36.

    National Grid v. Argentina, UNCITRAL, Award, [177]–[178]; EDFI-SAUR v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/23, Award, [65], [1008]–[1022]; Parkerings v. Lithuania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8, Award, [334], Glamis Gold v. USA,UNCITRAL, Award, [620]–[622], [800]–[801]; White Industries v. India, UNCITRAL, [10.3.2], [10.3.7], [10.3.15]–[10.16]; David Minnotte and Robert Lewis v. Poland, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/10/1, Award, [193]; El Paso v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15, Award, [375]–[376]; Grand River v. United States of America, UNCITRAL, Award, [140]; Feldman v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/1, Award, [148]; Continental v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/9, Award, [261]; Charanne v. Spain, SCC Case No. V 062/2012, Award (Unofficial English Translation), [493].

  37. 37.

    David Minnotte and Robert Lewis v. Poland, [193].

  38. 38.

    El Paso v. Argentina, [375]–[379].

  39. 39.

    Grand River v. United States of America, UNCITRAL, [140]; Feldman v. Mexico, [148].

  40. 40.

    Continental v. Argentina, [261].

  41. 41.

    Duke Energy v. Ecuador, [340]; Generation Ukraine v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/9, Award, [20.37]; Bayindir v. Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/29, Award, [179], Micula v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, Award, [67]; LG&E v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, Decision on Liability, [130]; Suez v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, Award, [209].

  42. 42.

    Dolzer and Schreuer, ‘Principles of International Investment Law’, p. 148.

  43. 43.

    Parkerings v. Lithuania, Award, [327]–[328]; BG Group v. Argentina, Final Award, [292]–[310]; Plama v. Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Award, [219]; Continental Casualty v. Argentina, Award, [258]–[261]; AES v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22, Award, [9.3.27]–[9.3.35]; Paushok v. Mongolia, UNCITRAL, Award, [302]; Impregilo v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/17, Award, [290]–[291]; El Paso v. Argentina, Award, [344]–[352], [365]–[374].

  44. 44.

    Saluka Investments BV v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award, [304]; White Industries v. India, [10.3.5]–[10.3.7]; Douglas 2006.

  45. 45.

    Dolzer and Schreuer, ‘Principles of International Investment Law’, pp. 79–81.

  46. 46.

    Aminoil v. Kuwait, Award, 24 March 1982; Amoco International Finance v. Iran, Award, 14 July 1987.

  47. 47.

    CME v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award, [611]; Bayindir v Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/29, Decision on Jurisdiction, [231]–[232]; LG&E v. Argentina, Decision on Liability, [131]; PSEG v Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/5, Award, [240]–[256]; Enron v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Award, [260]–[262]; Sempra v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Award, [300], [303]; National Grid v. Argentina, UNCITRAL, Award, [178]–[179]; Alpha v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/16, Award, [420]; Lemire v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability, [267], Award, [68]–[73].

  48. 48.

    Saluka v. Czech Republic, Partial Award, [305].

  49. 49.

    Bayindir v Pakistan, Award, [195].

  50. 50.

    Glamis Gold v. United States of America, Award, [767].

  51. 51.

    Total v Argentina, Decision on Liability, [123]–[124], [162], [309], [333], [429]; Plama v. Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Award, [177]; EDF v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/13, Award, [299]; El Paso v. Argentina, [358].

  52. 52.

    Arif v Moldova, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/23, Award, [536].

  53. 53.

    Arif v. Moldova, Award, [537].

  54. 54.

    R v IRC, ex p. Unilever PLC [1996] STC 681, p. 695 (Simon Brown LJ).

  55. 55.

    Schmidt v. Home Secretary [1969] 2 Ch 149, pp. 170–171.

  56. 56.

    Wade and Forsyth., ‘Administrative Law’, pp. 446–447; R v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Sheriff, The Times, December 18, 1986, 18/12-86.

  57. 57.

    Schønberg, ‘Legitimate Expectations in Administrative Law’, pp. 41–42.

  58. 58.

    R v. Civil Service Appeal Board, ex p Cunningham [1992] ICR 816, p. 831; R v. Home Secretary, ex p Doody [1994] 1 AC 531; R v. Wear Valley DV, ex p Binks [1985] 2 All ER 699.

  59. 59.

    Woolf and Sueur 1995.

  60. 60.

    Wade and Forsyth., ‘Administrative Law’, pp. 446, 454, 457.

  61. 61.

    Coughlan and Ors., R (on the application of) v North and East Devon Health Authority [1999] EWCA Civ 1871 [57].

  62. 62.

    R v. Home Secretary ex p. Hargreaves [1997] 1 WLR 906 (although the change was held to be not irrational);.

  63. 63.

    Coughlan [58].

  64. 64.

    Schønberg, ‘Legitimate Expectations in Administrative Law’, pp. 37–38.

  65. 65.

    Schønberg, ‘Legitimate Expectations in Administrative Law’, pp. 120–122.

  66. 66.

    Schønberg, ‘Legitimate Expectations in Administrative Law’, p. 51.

  67. 67.

    R v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex p MFK Underwriting Agents [1990] 1 WLR 1545, p. 1569 (Bingham LJ); R (Bancoult) v. Foreign Secretary (No 2) [2008] UKHL 61 [60]. However, the assessment seems to be a difficult exercise. See Bancoult.

  68. 68.

    R (on the application of Association of British Civilian Internees-Far East Region [ABCIFER] v. Secretary of State for Defence [2003] EWCA Civ 473 [72].

  69. 69.

    Unilever, pp. 690F–692A and 692D-; R v. Secretary of State for Education and Employment, ex parte Begbie 2000 1 WLR 1115, p. 1123H (Bingham J), pp. 694H–695C, 695J, 697C–D (Brown LJ); P. Sales and K. Steyn. 2004. ‘Legitimate expectations in English public law: an analysis’ Public law, 3, pp. 564–693, 575.

  70. 70.

    Unilever, pp. 693–695 (Brown LJ).

  71. 71.

    Wade and Forsyth., ‘Administrative Law’, pp. 456; R (on the application of Structadene Ltd) v. Hackney LBC [2001] 2 All ER 225, p. 236B-C; Begbie, p. 1129–1131 (Laws LJ); Wheeler v. Office of the Prime Minister [2008] EWHC 936 [44]; Sale and Steyn, ‘Legitimate Expectations in English public law’, p. 588.

  72. 72.

    R v. DPP Ex p. Kebilene [2000] 2 AC 326, pp. 339E–F.

  73. 73.

    Sale and Steyn, ‘Legitimate Expectations in English public law’, p. 576.

  74. 74.

    R (Bibi) v. Newham LBC [2002] 1 WLR 237, p. 21; Begbie, p. 1125 (Gibson LJ); Rowland v. Environment Agency [2003] EWCA Civ 1885 [102].

  75. 75.

    Wade and Forsyth., ‘Administrative Law’, p. 451.

  76. 76.

    Rowland v. Environment Agency [2003] EWCA Civ 1885 [135].

  77. 77.

    Coughlan [57].

  78. 78.

    See R v. Secretary of State of Health, ex p US Tobacco International Inc [1992] QB 353; CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374, p. 409.

  79. 79.

    Endicott 2011.

  80. 80.

    Endicott, Administrative law, pp. 290–294.

  81. 81.

    R(Niazi) v. Home Secretary [2008] EWCA Civ 775.

  82. 82.

    Regina (Nadarajah) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 1363.

  83. 83.

    Begbie, p. 1131C.

  84. 84.

    Begbie, p. 1131C.

  85. 85.

    [2008] EWHC 1409 [43].

  86. 86.

    Henry Boot Homes Ltd. v Bassetlaw DC [2002] EWCA Civ 983 [55], [56].

  87. 87.

    Wade and Forsyth., ‘Administrative Law’, p. 456.

  88. 88.

    R v. Inland Revenue Comrs Ex p MFK Underwriting Agents Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 1545, p. 1569.

  89. 89.

    Begbie, p. 1124 (Gibson LJ), p. 1130 (Laws LJ).

  90. 90.

    Food Corporation of India v. M/s. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries (1993)1 SCC 71 [7], [8]; State of West Bengal v. Niranjan Singha (2001) 2 SCC 326 [4]; Lalaram and Ors. v. Jaipur Development Authority and Ors. (2016) 11 SCC 31 [135].

  91. 91.

    Navjyoti Co-operative Group Housing Society v. Union of India (1992) 4 SCC 477 [16].

  92. 92.

    Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries (1993)1 SCC 71 [8].

  93. 93.

    Madras City Wine Merchants Association and Anr. v. Sate of T.N. and Anr. (1994) 5 SCC 509 [60]; Sethi Auto Service Station and Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 180, [27].

  94. 94.

    Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation (1993) 3 SCC 499, [29].

  95. 95.

    Ram Parvesh Singh v. State of Bihar (2006) 8 SCC 381 [16]; State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. United Bank of India and Ors (2016) 2 SCC 757 [41], [42].

  96. 96.

    (2004) 6 SCC 765 [20]–[25].

  97. 97.

    (2004) 6 SCC 765 [25].

  98. 98.

    (1993) 3 SCC 499 [35]; Food Corporation of India v. M/s. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries (1993)1 SCC 71 [8]; Sethi Auto Service Station and Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 180 [27].

  99. 99.

    (1993) 3 SCC 499, [35].

  100. 100.

    Sethi Auto Service Station and Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 180 [27]; Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation (1993) 3 SCC 499 [36]–[37]; P.T.R. Exports (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (1996) 5 SCC 268 [3], [4]; National Building Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan and Ors., (1998) 7 SCC 66 [18] (‘abuse of discretion’).

  101. 101.

    National Building Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan and Ors., (1998) 7 SCC 66; Sethi Auto Service Station and Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 180 [27]; State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. United Bank of India and Ors (2016) 2 SCC 757 [42].

  102. 102.

    MP Oil Extraction v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1997) 7 SCC 592 [44].

  103. 103.

    Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India (1999) 4 SCC 727 [37]; M.P. Oil Extraction and Anr. v. State of M.P. and Ors. (1997) 7 SCC 592 [44]; Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2012) 11 SCC 1 [153]; National Building Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan and Ors. (1998) 7 SCC 66 [18].

  104. 104.

    Bannari Amman Sugars v CTO (2005) 1 SCC 625 [19]. See also National Building Construction v. Raghunathan AIR 1998 SC 2779 [31]; UP Gram Panchayat v Daya Rama Sarog (2007) 2 SCC 138 [24].

  105. 105.

    Chandrachud 2016.

  106. 106.

    See Part [●] on Australia.

  107. 107.

    Chandrachud 2016, p. 5.

  108. 108.

    Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation (1993) 3 SCC 499 [35].

  109. 109.

    Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation (1993) 3 SCC 499 [35].

  110. 110.

    Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation [35].

  111. 111.

    Madras City Wine Merchants' Association and Anr. v. State of T.N. and Anr. (1994) 5 SCC 509 [61]; State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. United Bank of India and Ors (2016) 2 SCC 757 [42].

  112. 112.

    Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation (1993) 3 SCC 499 [35].

  113. 113.

    P.T.R. Exports (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1996) 5 SCC 268 [5]; Jitendra Kumar v. State of Haryana and Anr. (2008) 2 SCC 161.

  114. 114.

    Madras City Wine Merchants’ Association and Anr. v. Sate of T.N. and Anr. (1994) 5 SCC 509 [66].

  115. 115.

    1992 (2) SCC 643 [22].

  116. 116.

    Union of India (UOI) and Ors. v. Lt. Col. P.K. Choudhary and Ors. (2016) 4 SCC 236 [47]; Punjab Communications v. Union of India 1999) 4 SCC 727 [42].

  117. 117.

    Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries (1993) 1 SCC 71 [8].

  118. 118.

    Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries (1993) 1 SCC 71 [8].

  119. 119.

    F.A.I. Insurances Ltd. v. Winneke (1982) 151 CLR 342 [19] (Mason J), [14], [15] (Brennan J); Salemi v. Mackellar (No. 2) (1977) 137 CLR 396 [48] (Stephen J).

  120. 120.

    F.A.I. Insurances Ltd. v. Winneke [19] (Mason J).

  121. 121.

    Kioa v. West (1985) 159 CLR 550 [34] (Brennan J); Attorney General (N.S.W) v. Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1 [16] (Dawson J), [26] (Brennan J); Haoucher v. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1990) 169 CLR 648 [14] (Dawson J); Salemi v. Mackellar (No. 2) (1977) 137 CLR 396 [5] (Barwick CJ).

  122. 122.

    Kioa v. West (1985) 159 CLR 550 [29], [30] (Mason J), [21] (Brennan J).

  123. 123.

    Attorney General (N.S.W) v. Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1 [30] (Mason CJ); Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v. Ah Hin Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273, [4] (McHugh J); Haoucher v. Minister For Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1990) 169 CLR 648 [13] (McHugh J).

  124. 124.

    Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex Parte Lam [2003] HCA 6 [61], [62] (McHugh J. and Gummow J).

  125. 125.

    Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex Parte Lam [2003] HCA 6 [61], [62] (McHugh J. and Gummow J).

  126. 126.

    Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex Parte Lam [2003] HCA 6 [145] (Hayne J).

  127. 127.

    Attorney-General (N.S.W.) v. Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1 [26] (Brennan J).

  128. 128.

    Attorney-General (N.S.W.) v. Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1 [26] (Brennan J).

  129. 129.

    Attorney-General (N.S.W.) v. Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1 [23] (Brennan J).

  130. 130.

    Attorney-General (N.S.W.) v. Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1 [25] (Dawson J).

  131. 131.

    Haoucher v. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs 169 CLR 648 [16] (Toohey J).

  132. 132.

    Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v. Ah Hin Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273, [28] (McHugh J).

  133. 133.

    Attorney-General (N.S.W.) v. Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1 [24] (Brennan J), [15] (Dawson J), Cazaly Iron Pty Ltd -v. The Hon John Bowler Mla, Minister for Resources and Ors [2006] WASCA 282, [60] (Buss JA); Annetts v. Mccann (1990) 170 CLR 596 [2] (Mason C.J., Deane J. and McHugh J.).

  134. 134.

    Kioa v. West (1985) 159 CLR 550 [29], [32] (Mason J), referring to Reg. v. Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; Ex Parte Angliss Group (1969) 122 CLR 546 pp. 552–553 and National Companies and Securities Commission vv News Corporation Ltd. (1984) 156 CLR 296, pp. 311–312, 319–320; Haoucher v. Minister For Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1990) 169 CLR 648 [4] (Gaurdon J), [14] (Dawson J).

  135. 135.

    Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v. Ah Hin Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273, [31] (McHugh J).

  136. 136.

    Attorney-General (N.S.W.) v. Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1 [37] (Mason CJ).

  137. 137.

    Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex Parte Lam [2003] HCA 6 [25] (Gleeson J).

  138. 138.

    Attorney-General (N.S.W.) v. Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1 [20] (Brennan J).

  139. 139.

    The doctrine of legitimate expectations may appear to be less important in Australian law as it recognizes a common law duty to accord procedural fairness in making administrative decisions which affect rights, interests and legitimate expectations, subject to any statutory modification thereof. (See Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596 [2]).

  140. 140.

    Annetts v. Mccann (1990) 170 CLR 596 [4] (Brennan J).

  141. 141.

    See ASEAN Framework Agreement and the Indian Model BIT, 2015.

References

  • Chandrachud, C. (2016). The (Fictitious) doctrine of substantive legitimate expectations in India. In M. Groves & Weeks, Legitimate expectations in the common law world (p. 21). Oxford: Hart. Available at SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2738799.

  • D’Amato, A. (1995). Good faith. In R. Bernhardt (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of public international law (Vol. 2, pp. 599–601). Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolzer, R., & Schreuer, C. (2012). Principles of international investment law (pp. 119–149). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M. (2006). Nothing if not critical for investment treaty arbitration: Occidental, Eureko and Methanex. Arbitration International, 22(1), 28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endicott, T. (2011). Administrative law (p. 287). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goldmann, M. (2016). Putting your faith in good faith: A principled strategy for smoother sovereign debt workouts. Yale Journal of International Law, 41(2), 117–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, R. (2006). Principles as sources of international law (with special reference to good faith). Netherlands International Law Review, 53(1), 17, 18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, J. (1991). Good faith in international law (pp. 45–79). Farnham: Aldershot Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, A. (2003). International dispute settlement: A network of cooperational duties. European Journal of International Law, 14(1), 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potesta, M. (2013). Legitimate expectations in investment treaty law: Understanding the roots and the limits of a controversial concept. ICSID Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal, 28(1), 88–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schønberg, S. (2000). Legitimate expectations in administrative law (p. 13). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schreuer, C. & Kriebaum, U. (2009). At what time must legitimate expectations exist? In J. Werner & A. H. Ali (Eds.), A liber Amicorum: Thomas Wälde. Law beyond conventional thought (p. 265). London: CMP Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snodgrass, E. (2006). ‘Protecting investors’ legitimate expectations—Recognizing and delimiting a general principle. ICSID Review—Foreign Investment Law Journal, 21(1), 21–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teerawat, W. (2014). The transplantation of legitimate expectations in investment treaty arbitration: A critique. In S. Lalani & R. Polanco (Eds.), The role of the state in investor-state arbitration (pp. 71, 75–79). Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tudor, I. (2008). The fair and equitable treatment standard in the international law of foreign investment (pp. 16–52). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasciannie, S. (2000). The fair and equitable treatment standard in international investment law and practice. British Yearbook of International Law, 70, 102–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vicuña, F. O. (2003). Regulatory authority and legitimate expectations: Balancing the rights of the state and the individual under international law in a global society. International Law Forum Du Droit International, 5(3), 188–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade, H. W. R., & Forsyth, C. F. (2009). Administrative law (p. 449). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolf, L. J., & Sueur, A. (1995). De Smith’s judicial review of administrative action (p. 411). London: Sweet and Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziegler, A. R., & Baumgartner, J. (2015). In A. D. Mitchell, M. Sornarajah & T. Voon (Eds.), Good faith as a general principle of (international) law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Supreme Court of India, New Delhi, India

    Aniruddha Rajput

  2. Delhi High Court, New Delhi, India

    Sarthak Malhotra

Authors
  1. Aniruddha Rajput
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarthak Malhotra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aniruddha Rajput .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Comparative Law, National Law University, Delhi, New Delhi, India

    Mahendra Pal Singh

  2. Centre for Comparative Law, National Law University, Delhi, New Delhi, India

    Niraj Kumar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rajput, A., Malhotra, S. (2019). Legitimate Expectations in Investment Arbitration: A Comparative Perspective. In: Singh, M., Kumar, N. (eds) The Indian Yearbook of Comparative Law 2018. The Indian Yearbook of Comparative Law. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7052-6_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7052-6_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-7051-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-7052-6

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation