Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-24T20:57:58.180Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Foreign Investment Disputes: Access of Private Individuals to International Tribunals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

Ronald G. Atkey
Ronald G. Atkey*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law, University of Western Ontario
Get access

Extract

The increase in private international investment since the Second World War has given rise to a substantial number of disputes, often of a most complex nature. A private investor in a foreign land might be subject to certain governmental activities which tend to undermine his investment and provoke a subsequent legal claim. Expropriation and nationalization, currency and exchange restrictions, discriminatory taxation, export and import quotas, and political and economic harassment are types of governmental activity that have given rise to disputes in the past. Governments have traditionally defended many such activities as necessary measures to curb excessive resource exploitation and to deter the promotion of foreign investment schemes inconsistent with national interests.

Type
Notes and Comments
Information
Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 5 , 1967 , pp. 229 - 240
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Council on International Law / Conseil Canadien de Droit International, representing the Board of Editors, Canadian Yearbook of International Law / Comité de Rédaction, Annuaire Canadien de Droit International 1967

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Snyder, , “Foreign Investment Protection: Is Institutional Arbitration an Answer,” 40 N. Carolina L. Rev. 665 (1962 Google Scholar).

2 See Schacter, , “Private Foreign Investment and International Organization,” 45 Cornell L.Q. 415 (1960 Google Scholar); also see Fatouros, , Government Guarantees to Foreign Investors 351 (1962 Google Scholar).

3 The doctrine of espousal has its foundations in the international jurisprudence of the P.C.I.J., and its basis has been set forth in the following statement : “... by taking up a case on behalf of its nationals before an international tribunal, a State is asserting its own right... to ensure in the person of its subjects, respect for the rules of international law”: Serbian Loans case, [1929] P.C.I.J., Ser. A, Nos. 20/21, 17. See also Reparation for Injuries case, [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 174, 202.

4 Larson, , When Nations Disagree 93 (1961 Google Scholar).

5 “Postwar International Judicial Organization”, Report of the Co-ordinating Committee of the American Bar Association on Postwar International Judicial Organization, Chairman: Murdock, James O. , A.B.A. Proceedings of the Section of International and Comparative Law 96 (September 1944 Google Scholar).

6 See Jully, , “Arbitration and Judicial Settlement: Recent Trends,” 48 Am. J. Int’lL. 386, 391 (1958 Google Scholar).

7 E.g., Advisory Opinion on Judgment of the Administrative Tribunal of the I.L.O. [1956] I.C.J. Rep. 77

8 [1929] P.C.I.J., Ser. A, Nos. 20 and 21.

9 Case of Certain Norwegian Loans (France v. Norway), [1957] I.C.J. Rep. 9; also see case comment (i960) Duke L. J. 418.

10 [1954-1955] I.C.J. Y.B., 76-80.

11 See 54 Am. J. Int'l L. 933 (1960).

12 See Kutner, , “Habeas Proprietatem: Due Process for International Investments: A Prior Consideration for Investments Abroad,” 40 U. Det. L.J. 617, 627 (1963 Google Scholar).

13 See Nwogugu, , The Legal Problems of Foreign Investment in Developing Countries 238 (1965 Google Scholar).

14 E.C.H.R. Ser. B., 1960-61; 56 Am. J. Int'l L. 171 (1962).

15 For a most comprehensive work on the court, see Valentine, , The Court of Justice of the European Coal and Steel Community (The Hague, 1955 CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

16 See the treaty constituting the European Coal and Steel Community, Arts. 63-66, 261 U.N.T.S. 140, 193-205 (1957); 46 Am. J. Int'l L. (Suppl.) 107 (1952).

17 See Note, “The Court of Justice of the European Communities,” 10 Int’l. & Comp. L.Q. 337 (1961).

18 See Simpson, & Fox, , International Arbitration 16–17 (1959 Google Scholar).

19 E.g.. Franco-German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal, Rules: Art. 20, 21, 22; Ree. T.A.M. Vol. 1, at 48. Czechoslovak-Hungarian Mixed Arbitral Tribunal, Rules: Art. 29-30; Ree. T.A.M. Vol. 3, at 197.

20 Supra note 18, at 37-39.

21 Kaeckenbeeck, , “The Character and Work of the Arbitral Tribunal of Upper Silesia,” 21 Grotius Society 27 (1935 Google Scholar).

22 See Domke, , “Dispute Settlement of International Loans,” in International Financing and Investment 544 (World Community Assoc., Yale Law School, 1964 Google Scholar).

23 Ibid, Also see Note, “Arbitration Between Governments and Foreign Private Firms,” 55 Am. Soc. Int'l L. Proc. 69, 72 (1961).

24 For a thorough and comprehensive review of the work of the Central American Court of Justice, including a review of all cases coming before the Court, see Hudson, , “The Central American Court of Justice,” 26 Am. J. Int'l L. 759 (1932 CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

25 Ibid., 772.

26 See Bockstiegel, , “Arbitration of Disputes Between States and Private Enterprises in the International Chamber of Commerce,” 59 Am. J. Int'l L. 579 (1965 Google Scholar).

27 Ibid., 582-83.

28 See Delaume, , “Jurisdiction of Courts and International Loans,” 6 Am. J. Comp. L. 189, 205 (1951 CrossRefGoogle Scholar). Also see Domke, supra note 22, at 533-34.

29 I U.N.R.I.A.A. 314.

30 Ibid., 217.

31 Hudson, , International Tribunals 197–203 (1944 Google Scholar).