Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Law and Development Review

Editor-in-Chief: Lee, Y.S.

2 Issues per year

Online
ISSN
1943-3867
See all formats and pricing
More options …

When Investment Arbitration Curbs Domestic Regulatory Space: Consistent Solutions through Amicus Curiae Submissions by Regional Organisations

Ciaran Cross
  • Corresponding author
  • Freelance Legal Researcher, Berlin, Germany,
  • Email:
/ Christian Schliemann-Radbruch
  • Department of Law, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany
  • Email:
Published Online: 2013-09-04 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ldr-2013-0021

Abstract

To date, African states have been called before 62 tribunals of the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID); 26 cases are pending. Recently, foreign investors have invoked Bilateral Investment Treaty provisions to challenge legislation aimed at addressing historical inequalities in the distribution of natural resources in Southern Africa (Funnekotter, Piero Foresti, Border Timbers). This tension between the right to property as international investment law’s origin and other rights protected by national regulation raises the question of applicable law in investor-state arbitration. The principle of “systemic integration” expressed in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties requires arbitrators to have regard for the disputing parties’ other relevant obligations under international law, including human rights. Such considerations are often paramount to the determination of whether expropriations are arbitrary, discriminatory, or pursued in good faith for a public purpose. In practice, however, decisions by ICSID tribunals are far from consistent in this respect. Attempts to address this through submissions made by non-disputing parties acting as amicus curiae have produced mixed results (Biwater, Border Timbers). As questions remain concerning the harmonisation of these parallel regimes, an environment of legal uncertainty is emerging which impacts negatively on local populations and investors, both current and potential. This paper argues that since the admission of the EU Commission as amicus curiae in AES v. Hungary, the door has opened for regional organisations like the Southern African Development Community to participate actively in ICSID arbitrations. This may provide an enhanced opportunity to counteract the effects of a legal regime that promotes economic and political subordination to investors and investor-states, by introducing into investment law a perspective that reflects the particular circumstances of post-colonial economies.

Keywords: investment arbitration; human rights; international law

References

  • Anaya, J. and R.A. Williams Jr., The Protection of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights over Lands and Natural Resources Under the Inter-American Human Rights System, 14 Harvard Human Rights Journal (2001).Google Scholar

  • Anghie, A., Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).Google Scholar

  • Anghie, A., The Evolution of International Law: Colonial and Postcolonial Realities, 27 Third World Quarterly, no. 5 (Reshaping Justice: International Law and the Third World 2006).CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Barelli, M., The Role of Soft Law in the International Legal System: The Case of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 58 International and Comparative Law Quarterly, no. 4 (2009).Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bartholomeusz, L., The Amicus Curiae before International Courts and Tribunals, 5 Non-State Actors and International Law (2005).CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bedjaoui, M., Towards a New International Economic Order (Paris: Holmes & Meier, 1979).Google Scholar

  • Bernasconi-Osterwalder, N. and Hoffmann, R.T., The German Nuclear Phase-Out Put to the Test in International Investment Arbitration? Background to the new dispute Vattenfall v. Germany (II) (International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2012).Google Scholar

  • Brickhill, J. and M. Du Plessis, Two’s Company, Three’s a Crowd: Public Interest Intervention in Investor-State Arbitration (Piero Foresti v. South Africa), 27 South African Journal on Human Rights (2011).Google Scholar

  • Brower, C.N., A Crisis of Legitimacy, National Law Journal (7 October 2002).Google Scholar

  • Brower, C.N., C.H. Brower II and K.J. Sharpe, The Coming Crisis in the Global Adjudication, 19 Arbitration International, no. 415 (2003).Google Scholar

  • Brower, C.N. and S. Schill, Is Arbitration a Threat or a Boon to the Legitimacy of International Investment Law? 9 Chicago Journal of International Law (2009).Google Scholar

  • Burke-White, W. and A. Von Staden, “The Need for Public Law Standards of Review in Investor-State Arbitrations”, in S. Schill (ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).Google Scholar

  • Dolzer, R., The Impact of International Investment Treaties on Domestic Administrative Law, 37 Journal of International Law & Politics (2005).Google Scholar

  • Eberhardt, P. and C. Olivet, Profiting from Injustice: How Law Firms, Arbitrators and Financiers Are Fuelling an Investment Arbitration Boom (Corporate Europe Observatory/Transnational Institute, 2012).Google Scholar

  • Fach-Gomez, K., Rethinking the Role of Amicus Curiae in International Investment Arbitration: How to Draw the Line Favourably for the Public Interest, 35 Fordham International Law Journal (2011–2012).Google Scholar

  • Francioni, F., Access to Justice, Denial of Justice and International Investment Law, 20 European Journal of International Law (2009).CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Franck, S.D., The Legitimacy Crisis in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Privatizing Public International Law through Inconsistent Decisions, 73 Fordham Law Review, no. 1521 (2005).Google Scholar

  • Gathii, J.T., “Third World Approaches to International Economic Governance”, in R. Falk, B. Rajagopal and J. Stevens (eds.), International Law and the Third World: Reshaping Justice (London: Routledge-Cavendish, 2008).Google Scholar

  • Gathii, J.T., War, Commerce and International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).Google Scholar

  • Gathii, J.T., African Regional Trade Agreements as Legal Regimes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011).Google Scholar

  • Kingsbury, B. and S. Schill, Investor-State Arbitration as Governance: Fair and Equitable Treatment, Proportionality and the Emerging Global Administrative Law (New York University School of Law, Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series, Working Paper No. 09-46, 2009).Google Scholar

  • Knahr, C. and A. Reinisch, Transparency versus Confidentiality in International Investment Arbitration – The Biwater Gauff Compromise, 6 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals (2007).CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Koskenniemi, M., Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law (Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, UN-Doc. A/CN.4/L.682, 13 April 2006).Google Scholar

  • Levine, E., Amicus Curiae in International Investment Arbitration: The Implications of an Increase in Third-Party Participation, 29 Berkeley Journal of International Law, no. 1 (2011).Google Scholar

  • Muchlinski, P., “Corporate Social Responsibility”, in P. Muchlinski (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).Google Scholar

  • Mutua, M., What Is TWAIL? 94 ASIL Proceedings, no. 31 (2000).Google Scholar

  • Ndlovu, P.N., Campbell v. Republic of Zimbabwe: A Moment of Truth for the SADC Tribunal, 1 SADC Law Journal (2011).Google Scholar

  • Peterson, L.E. and R. Garland, Bilateral Investment Treaties and Land Reform in Southern Africa (Montreal: Rights & Democracy, 2010).Google Scholar

  • Peterson, L.E. and K.R. Gray, International Human Rights in Bilateral Investment Treaties and in Investment Treaty Arbitration (International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2003).Google Scholar

  • Reiner, C. and C. Schreuer, “Human Rights and International Investment Arbitration”, in P.M. Dupuy, F. Francioni and E.U. Petersmann (eds.), Human Rights in Intenational Investment Law and Arbitration (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).Google Scholar

  • Salacuse, J.W., Law of Investment Treaties (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).Google Scholar

  • Schill, S., Multilateralization of International Investment Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).Google Scholar

  • Schneiderman, D., Constitutionalizing Economic Globalization: Investment Rules and Democracy’s Promise (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008).Google Scholar

  • Simma, B., Foreign Investment Arbitration: A Place for Human Rights? 60 International and Comparative Law Quarterly, no. 3 (2011).Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Simma, B. and T. Kill, “Harmonizing Investment Protection and International Human Rights: First Steps Towards a Methodology”, in C. Binder et al. (eds.), International Investment Law for the 21st Century: Essays in Honour of Christoph Schreuer (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).Google Scholar

  • Sornarajah, M., The International Law on Foreign Investment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).Google Scholar

  • Sornarajah, M., Mutations of Neo-Liberalism in International Investment Law, 3 Trade Law & Development (2011).Google Scholar

  • Van Harten, G., The Public-Private Distinction in the International Arbitration of Individual Claims Against the State, 56 International and Comparitive Law Quarterly (2007).CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Van Harten, G., Five Justifications for Investment Treaties: A Critical Discussion, 2 Trade Law & Development, no. 1 (2010).Google Scholar

  • Van Harten, G., Arbitrator Behaviour in Asymmetrical Adjudication: An Empirical Study of Investment Treaty Arbitration, 50 Osgoode Hall Law Journal (2012).Google Scholar

  • Van Harten, G. and M. Loughlin, Investment Treaty Arbitration as a Species of Global Administrative Law, 17 European Journal of International Law, no. 1 (2006).CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Vandevelde, K.J., Bilateral Investment Treaties (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).Google Scholar

  • Waelde, T. and S. Dow, Treaties and Regulatory Risk in Infrastructure Investment: The Effectiveness of International Law Disciplines versus Sanctions by Global Markets in Reducing the Political and Regulatory Risk for Private Infrastructure Investment, 34 Journal of World Trade, no. 2 (2000).CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Waibel, M., et al. (eds.), The Backlash against Investment Arbitration: Perceptions and Reality (The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2010).Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2013-09-04


AES Summit Generation Limited and AES Tisza Erömü Kft. v. Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22, Award of 23 September 2010, para. 3.22.

C.N. Brower, C.H. Brower II and J.K. Sharpe, The Coming Crisis in the Global Adjudication, 19 Arbitration International, no. 415 (2003); L.E. Peterson and K.R. Gray, International Human Rights in Bilateral Investment Treaties and in Investment Treaty Arbitration (2003), available at: <www.iisd.org/pdf/2003/investment_int_hum_rights_bits.pdf>, accessed 31 January 2013; M. Waibel, A. Kaushal, L. Kyo-Hwa Chung and C. Balchin (eds.), The Backlash against Investment Arbitration: Perceptions and Reality (The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2010); S.D. Franck, The Legitimacy Crisis in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Privatizing Public International Law through Inconsistent Decisions, 73 Fordham Law Review, no. 1521 (2005).

UNCTAD, IIA Issue Note, April 2012, p. 1, available at: <www.unctad.org/diae>, accessed 31 January 2013. The 46 cases registered in 2011 constitute the highest number of known treaty-based disputes ever filed in 1 year.

International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, Case Statistics, available at: <www.icsid.worldbank.org/ICSID/FrontServlet?requestType=CasesRH&actionVal=ListCases>, accessed 31 January 2013.

G. Van Harten, Arbitrator Behaviour in Asymmetrical Adjudication: An Empirical Study of Investment Treaty Arbitration, 50 Osgoode Hall Law Journal (2012), available at: <www.ssrn.com>, accessed 31 January 2013.

Peterson and Gray (2003), supra note 2; C. Reiner and C. Schreuer “Human Rights and International Investment Arbitration”, in P.M. Dupuy, F. Francioni and E.U. Petersmann (eds.), Human Rights in International Investment Law and Arbitration (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 82 et seq.

Piero Foresti et al v. The Republic of South Africa, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/07/1; Bernhard von Pezold and others v. Republic of Zimbabwe and Border Timbers Limited, Border Timbers International (Private) Limited, and Hangani Development Co. (Private) Limited v. Republic of Zimbabwe, Joint ICSID Cases No. ARB/10/15 and ARB/10/25.

Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises (J. Ruggie): ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework’, UN-Doc.A/HRC/17/31, Principles 9 and 10.

UNCTAD, IIA Issues Note: What States Can Do, December 2012, p. 1, available at: <www.unctad.org/diae>, accessed 31 January 2013.

M. Mutua, What Is TWAIL?, 94 ASIL Proceedings, no. 31 (2000).

A. Anghie, The Evolution of International Law: Colonial and Postcolonial Realities, 27 Third World Quarterly, no. 5 (Reshaping Justice: International Law and the Third World, 2006), 739.

The jurisprudence of arbitral tribunals provides fertile ground to identify what J.T. Gathii identifies as Regime Bias: this approach traces adverse outcomes for Third World countries in the way in which the “rules of international trade, commerce and investment are crafted, applied and adjudicated between Third World and developed countries or between Third World countries and the interests of international capital.” See J.T. Gathii, “Third World Approaches to International Economic Governance”, in R. Falk, B. Rajagopal and J. Stevens (eds.), International Law and the Third World: Reshaping Justice (London: Routledge-Cavendish, 2008), p. 261 et seq.

A. Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); J.T. Gathii, War, Commerce and International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010); G. Van Harten, Five Justifications for Investment Treaties: A Critical Discussion, 2 Trade Law & Development, no. 1 (2010); M. Bedjaoui Towards a New International Economic Order (Paris: Holmes & Meier, 1979); M. Sornarajah, Mutations of Neo-Liberalism in International Investment Law, 3 Trade Law & Development, no. 206 (2011); M. Sornarajah, The International Law on Foreign Investment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).

K.J. Vandevelde, Bilateral Investment Treaties (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 19-20.

Anghie (2005), Gathii (2010) and Sornarajah (2010), supra note 13.

Sornarajah (2010), supra note 13, p. 20; Vandevelde (2010), supra note 14, pp. 19-20.

J.W. Salacuse, Law of Investment Treaties (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 82.

Vandevelde (2010), supra note 14, pp. 29-30.

Gathii (2010), supra note 13, pp. 145-190.

Charter of the United Nations, 1 U.N.T.S. XVI, Articles 2(4) and 51.

Among others, the International Law Commission and the International Chamber of Commerce developed draft multilateral agreements and proposals were put before the Organisation for European Economic Cooperation. None were adopted. Vandevelde (2010), supra note 14, pp. 53-54.

Ibid, p. 78.

UNCTAD, Research and Policy Analysis, available at: <www.unctad.org/en/pages/DIAE/International%20Investment%20Agreements%20%28IIA%29/Research-and-Policy-Analysis.aspx>, accessed 14 February 2013.

K. Daele and M. de Reya (2012), Africa’s Track Record in ICSID Proceedings, available at: <http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/blog/2012/05/30/africa%E2%80%99s-track-record-in-icsid-proceedings/>, accessed 10 February 2013.

Despite massive Chinese investment in Africa not one reported claim has been initiated under ICSID by a Chinese investor (Daele and Reya (2012), Ibid.) Gathii notes that frequent critical accounts of Chinese investment in Africa have “tended to privilege seeing Africa’s external relations from the perspective of a continent that must necessarily pursue relations based on a particular development model promoted by Western donors, that the Chinese do not buy into.” See J.T. Gathii, African Regional Trade Agreements as Legal Regimes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), p. 366; see also F. Crouigneau and R. Hiault, Wolfowitz slams China banks on Africa lending, available at: <www.ft.com/cms/s/0/45e594e0-62fc-11db-8faa-0000779e2340.html#axzz2I9qnXTqD>, accessed 1 February 2013.

Gathii (2010), supra note 13, p. 146.

Ibid, pp. 145-190. See also, Vandevelde (2010), supra note 14.

Bedjaoui (1979), supra note 13.

Such is implicit in the language of classic BITs. The United Kingdom, for example, concluded BITs with, inter alia, Cameroon (1982), South Africa (1994), Zimbabwe (1995), Côte d’Ivoire (1995) and Kenya (1999). Each BIT is entitled “Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investments”, accords the UK (the capital-exporting state) first priority of named contracting parties and is couched in identical terminology. The UK advocated the creation of these treaties and in doing so articulated what would be the benefit of signing (and the disadvantage of not signing) to potential treaty partners. A comprehensive database of BITs is available at: <www.unctad.org/en/pages/DIAE/International%20Investment%20Agreements%20%28IIA%29/IIA-Tools.aspx>, accessed 14 February 2013. See also R. Dolzer, The Impact of International Investment Treaties on Domestic Administrative Law, 37 Journal of International Law & Politics (2005), 254-255.

Anghie details how, in Vitoria’s juridical texts, “an apparently benevolent approach of including the aberrant Indian within a universal order is then a basis for sanctioning and transforming the Indian.” Anghie (2006), supra note 11, pp. 741, 744.

Van Harten (2010), supra note 13, pp. 30-31.

UNCTAD, supra note 23. By the end of 2011, UNCTAD report that “the IIA universe consisted of more than 3,100 agreements, including more than 2,860 BITs and 330 ‘other IIAs’ (e.g. free trade agreements or economic partnership agreements with investment provisions).”

Although Article 26 of the ICSID Convention permits states to reserve right to impose such a requirement, in practice few states have done so. Notably Guatemala notified ICSID in 2003 that it intended this to be a condition of consent to arbitration under the Convention. See P. Muchlinski, “Corporate Social Responsibility”, in P. Muchlinski (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), p. 1026.

T. Waelde and S. Dow, Treaties and Regulatory Risk in Infrastructure Investment: The Effectiveness of International Law Disciplines versus Sanctions by Global Markets in Reducing the Political and Regulatory Risk for Private Infrastructure Investment, 34 Journal of World Trade, no. 2 (2000), 45.

Van Harten (2010), supra note 13, p. 55.

Peterson and Gray (2003), supra note 2, p.7.

W. Burke-White and A. von Staden, “The Need for Public Law Standards of Review in Investor-State Arbitrations”, in S. Schill (ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 691; G. Van Harten and M. Loughlin, Investment Treaty Arbitration as a Species of Global Administrative Law, 17 European Journal of International Law, no. 1 (2006), 121-150.

B. Kingsbury and S. Schill, Investor-State Arbitration as Governance: Fair and Equitable Treatment, Proportionality and the Emerging Global Administrative Law (New York University School of Law, Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series, Working Paper No. 09-46, 2009), p. 50, available at: <www.ssrn.com>.

Ibid.

C.N. Brower, A Crisis of Legitimacy, National Law Journal (7 October 2002), p. 1.

Van Harten (2010), supra note 13, p. 36.

Kingsbury and Schill (2009), supra note 38, pp. 2, 44.

Burke-White and von Staden (2010), supra note 37, p. 694, citing the cases of CMS Gas Transmission Co v. Argentine Republic ICSID Case No ARB/01/8, Award, 12 May 2005, para. 324; LG&E Energy Corp, LG&E Capital Corp, LG&E International Inc v. Argentine Republic ICSID Case No ARB/02/1, Decision on Liability, 3 October 2006, paras. 201-266; Continental Casualty Co v. Argentine Republic ICSID Case No ARB/03/9, Award, 5 September 2008, paras. 160-236.

C.N. Brower and S. Schill, Is Arbitration a Threat or a Boon to the Legitimacy of International Investment Law? 9 Chicago Journal of International Law (2009), 477.

S. Schill, Multilateralization of International Investment Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 242-244.

F. Francioni, Access to Justice, Denial of Justice and International Investment Law, 20 European Journal of International Law (2009), 732.

Art. 35 (1), European Convention on Human Rights, 213 U.N.T.S. 222; Art. 62 (3) American Convention on Human Rights, 1144 U.N.T.S. 123; Art. 50 African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, 21 I.L.M. 58; Art. 52 (b) International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.

Aguas Del Tunari, S.A. v. Republic of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, 21 October 2005, para. 332.

Van Harten (2010), supra note 13, p. 34; G. van Harten, The Public-Private Distinction in the International Arbitration of Individual Claims Against the State, 56 International and Comparitive Law Quarterly (2007), 371.

L. Johnson, Case Note: How Chevron v. Ecuador is Pushing the Boundaries of Arbitral Authority, available at: <http://www.iisd.org/itn/2012/04/13/case-note-how-chevron-v-ecuador-is-pushing-the-boundaries-of-arbitral-authority/#_ftn1>, accessed 31 January 2013.

Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Company v. The Republic of Ecuador (PCA Case No. 2009-23), Second Interim Award on Interim Measures, 16 February 2012, para. 3.

Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Company v. The Republic of Ecuador (PCA Case No. 2009-23), Fourth Interim Award on Interim Measures, 7 February 2013.

P. Eberhardt and C. Olivet, Profiting from Injustice: How Law Firms, Arbitrators and Financiers Are Fuelling an Investment Arbitration Boom (Corporate Europe Observatory/Transnational Institute, 2012), p. 15.

UNCTAD, supra note 23.

Piero Foresti, supra note 7, Award, 4 August 2010, para. 96.

J. Brickhill and M. Du Plessis, Two’s Company, Three’s a Crowd: Public Interest Intervention in Investor-State Arbitration (Piero Foresti v. South Africa), 27 South African Journal on Human Rights (2011), 165; See also, D. Schneiderman, Constitutionalizing Economic Globalization: Investment Rules and Democracy’s Promise (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008), p. 155: “[T]he prospects are that any number of [foreign] investor disputes could render BEE fiscally unsustainable.”.

S. Ripinksy, Venezuela’s Withdrawal from ICSID: What It Does and Does Not Achieve, available at: <www.iisd.org/itn/2012/04/13/venezuelas-withdrawal-from-icsid-what-it-does-and-does-not-achieve/>, accessed 1 February 2013.

IA Reporter, United States Defeats Ecuador’s State-to-State Arbitration; Will Outcome Dissuade Argentine Copycat Case? available at: <http://www.iareporter.com/articles/20120903_3>, accessed 31 January 2013.

L. Ensor, New Law to Deal with Compensating Foreign Investors for Expropriation, available at: <http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/2013/02/15/new-law-to-deal-with-compensating-foreign-investors-for-expropriation>, accessed 19 February 2013.

SADC Model Bilateral Investment Treaty Template and Commentary (SADC, 2012), available at: <www.iisd.org/itn/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/SADC-Model-BIT-Template-Final.pdf&sa=U&ei=QHEeUY7vN87Psga83oG4Ag&ved=0CBgQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNEtrLwZey3Puqul2DuF86_9vT6WxQ>, accessed 1 February 2013.

Van Harten (2010), supra note 13, p. 56.

J. Marias, South Africa, European Union Lock Horns, available at: <http://www.bdlive.co.za/businesstimes/2012/09/23/south-africa-european-union-lock-horns>, accessed 1 February 2013.

Recently, the energy company Vattenfall brought two ICSID cases against Germany. In 2009, Vattenfall sought over €1billion in damages from Germany for the imposition of stricter environmental regulations on its coal-fired power plant. A second case continues challenging Germany’s nuclear phase-out policy. Greenpeace unsuccessfully attempted to use Germany’s OECD National Contact Point to challenge Vattenfall’s first ICSID complaint, claiming that the complaint undermined German environmental law. See N. Bernasconi-Osterwalder and R.T. Hoffmann, The German Nuclear Phase-Out Put to the Test in International Investment Arbitration? Background to the New Dispute Vattenfall v. Germany (II) (IISD, 2012); Beschwerde nach den OECD Leitsätzen für multinationale Unternehmen gegen die Gesellschaften Vattenfall AB et al., October 2009, p. 12, available at: <www.oecdwatch.org/cases/Case_170>, accessed 1 February 2013.

Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, supra note 8, Principle 17; OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises: Recommendations for Responsible Business Conduct in a Global Context, 25 May 2011, Part I. Chap. IV Human Rights, No. 5.

Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, supra note 8, Principle 11 and Commentary.

OECD Guidelines, supra note 64, Part I. Chap. II. General Policies A, No. 1, 2.

MTD Equity v. Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7, Award, 25 May 2004, para. 178; Alex Genin, Eastern Credit Limited, Inc. v. Republic of Estonia, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/2, Award, 25 June 2001, para. 345; Muchlinski (2008), supra note 33, pp. 637-687; P. Muchlinski, “Caveat Investor”? The Relevance of the Conduct of the Investor Under the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard, 55 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (2006), 527-588.

Muchlinski (2008), supra note 33, p. 683.

Methanex Corporation v. United States of America, Decision of the Tribunal on Petition from Third Persons to Intervene as “Amici Curiae”, 15 January 2001.

NAFTA, Statement of the Free Trade Commission on Non-Disputing Party Participation, 7 October 2003, available at: <www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/Nondisputing-en.pdf>, accessed 10 February 2013.

Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, Order in Response to Petition for Transparency and Participation as Amicus Curiae, 19 May 2005.

ICSID Convention, 575 U.N.T.S. 159, Rule 37 (2) Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings, Art. 41 (3) Additional Facility Rules, Schedule C, Arbitration.

UNCITRAL, Working Group II (Arbitration and Conciliation), Settlement of Commercial Disputes: Preparation of a Legal Standard on Transparency in Treaty-Based Investor-State Arbitration, UN-Doc. A/CN.9/WG.II/WP.169, Art. 5, para. 35.

For a comprehensive list of cases featuring amicus petitions, see K. Fach-Gomez, Rethinking the Role of Amicus Curiae in International Investment Arbitration: How to Draw the Line Favourably for the Public Interest, 35 Fordham International Law Journal (2011–2012), 510-564.

Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Petition for Amicus Curiae Status, 27 November 2006, p. 2.

Methanex, supra note 69, para. 42; Biwater, supra note 75, Procedural Order No. 5, 2 February 2007, para. 71.

Pacific Rim Cayman LLC v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/12, Public Hearing, available at: <https://icsid.worldbank.org>, accessed 1 February 2013.

ICSID Convention, supra note 72. Regulation 22(1) ICSID Administrative and Financial Regulations.

See the analysis of the relevant norms in Biwater, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural Order No. 3, 29 September 2006, paras. 121-132. The tribunal discusses whether the parties are free to publicize different arbitral documents. Also see C. Knahr and A. Reinisch, Transparency versus Confidentiality in International Investment Arbitration – The Biwater Gauff Compromise, 6 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals (2007), 97-118.

Ibid, para. 121. In Methanex access to documents was denied as there was a specific agreement by the parties not to disclose information. Methanex, supra note 69, para. 46.

ICSID Convention, supra note 72, Rule 48(4) Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings.

ICSID Convention, supra note 72, Regulation 22 (2) Administrative and Financial Regulations.

Suez, supra note 71. Order in response to a petition by five non-governmental organizations for permission to make an amicus curiae submission, 12 February 2007, para. 24.

Piero Foresti, supra note 7, Letter of the Tribunal to the petitioners 20 May 2009, p. 1; Award, para. 28.

Glamis Gold Ltd. V. United States of America, Procedural Order No. 6, 15 October 2005, paras. 11-12.

Biwater, supra note 76, para. 65; Suez, supra note 84, para. 24.

AES Summit, supra note 1, para. 3.22.

ICSID Convention, supra note 72, Rule 37(2) ICSID Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings and Rule. 41(3) Additional Facility Rules; NAFTA Free Trade Commission Statement, supra note 70; Current Draft of UNCITRAL, Working Group II, supra note 73.

Glamis Gold, supra note 85, Award, 8 June 2009, para. 269; Pacific Rim, supra note 77, Procedural Order No. 8, para. IV; Suez, supra note 84, para. 26; United Parcel Service of America Inc. V. Government of Canada, Decision of the Tribunal on Petitions for Intervention and Participation as Amici Curiae, 17 October 2001, para. 69.

United Parcel, supra note 89, para. 69; Suez, supra note 83, paras. 21, 27; Biwater, supra note 76, paras. 59-60; Aguas Provinciales de Santa Fe S.A., Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and InterAguas Servicios Integrales del Agua S.A. v. The Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/17, Order in Response to Petition for Participation as Amicus Curiae, 17 March 2006, para. 15; Methanex, supra note 69, paras. 36-37. See on substantive impact also: UNCITRAL, Report of Working Group II (Arbitration and Conciliation) on the work of its fifty-fifth session, UN-Doc. A/CN.9/736, para. 77.

Apotex Inc V. The Government of the United States of America, Procedural Order No. 2 on the Participation of a Non-Disputing Party, 11 October 2011, para. 23.

Methanex, supra note 69, para. 38.

UNCITRAL, Working Group II, supra note 73, Art. 5 (2), para. 35; NAFTA Statement of the Free Trade Commission, supra note 70, para. 2 (c)-(e); Aguas Provinciales, supra note 90, paras. 24, 29, 32.

Aguas Provinciales, supra note 90, para. 30; Suez, supra note 84, para. 15.

United Parcel, supra note 89, Amicus Submission of the US Chamber of Commerce of 20 October 2005, p. 4, para. 9.

UNCITRAL, Report of Working Group II (Arbitration and Conciliation) on the work of its fifty-seventh session, UN-Doc. A/CN.9/760, para. 49-51.

United Parcel, supra note 95, p. 1, para. 4 and pp. 4-5, para. 9.

Biwater, supra note 76, p. 3.

Von Pezold, supra note 7, Procedural Order No. 2, 26 June 2012, paras. 55-56.

Biwater, supra note 76, paras. 51-53; Methanex, supra note 69, para. 49.

L. Bartholomeusz, The Amicus Curiae before International Courts and Tribunals, 5 Non-State Actors and International Law (2005), 209-286, at p. 241.

Suez, supra note 71, para. 20.

Glamis Gold, supra note 85, Non-Party Supplemental Submission of the Quechan Indian Nation, 16 October 2006; Decision on Application and Submission by Quechan Indian Nation, 16 December 2005.

United Parcel, supra note 89, paras. 3, 70.

Von Pezold, supra note 99, para 51; see also T. Ferando, Investment Arbitration: Restricted Area, available at: <http://criticallegalthinking.com/2012/07/16/investment-arbitration-restricted-area/#fn-9659-11>, accessed 1 November 2012.

L.E. Peterson, IA Reporter, Analysis: Tribunal’s Reading of Amicus Curiae Tests Could Make Life Difficult for Antagonistic Amici – and Those Seeking to Raise Novel Concerns Such as Human Right Law, available at: <http://www.iareporter.com/articles/20120628>, accessed 1 December 2012.

Centre for International Environmental Law, Amicus Brief Highlights the Environmental and Human Rights Impacts of Mining in $77 Million Investment Arbitration Case, available at: <http://www.ciel.org/HR_Envir/PAC_RIM_4Mar11.html>, accessed 1 February 2013.

Pacific Rim, supra note 89.

AES Summit, supra note 1; Electrabel S.A. v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Decision on Jurisdiction, 30 November 2012.

E. Triantafilou, A More Expansive Role for Amici Curiae in Investment Arbitration? available at: <http://kluwerarbitrationblog.com/blog/2009/05/11/a-more-expansive-role-for-amici-curiae-in-investment-arbitration>, accessed 1 February 2013.

Electrabel, supra note 109, para. 4.92; equally in AES the tribunal accepted a significant interest relating to certain matters under EU-law: AES Summit, supra note 1, Decision on Amicus Petition, 26 November 2008, pp. 1-2.

AES Summit, supra note 1, European Commission, Written Submission Pursuant to Art. 37 (2) ICSID Arbitration Rules, 15 January 2009, JURM (2009)10001; Suez, supra note 71, Amicus Curiae Submission, 4 April 2007; Von Pezold, supra note 7, Petition for Leave to Make Submissions as Amicus Curiae, 23 May 2012.

United Parcel, supra note 89, para. 71; AES Summit, supra note 111, p. 2, para. (i).

Pacific Rim, supra note 89, and Amicus Curiae Submission, 20 May 2011.

AES Summit, supra note 112, para. 13.

Electrabel, supra note 109, paras. 5.8-5.20, 5.32-5.34.

Apotex, supra note 91, para. 33.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, Article 31.(3) (c); See B. Simma and T. Kill, “Harmonizing Investment Protection and International Human Rights: First Steps Towards a Methodology”, in C. Binder et al. (eds.), International Investment Law for the 21st Century: Essays in Honour of Christoph Schreuer (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 678-707.

B. Simma, Foreign Investment Arbitration: A Place For Human Rights? 60 International and Comparative Law Quarterly, no. 3 (2011), 573-596, at 584.

M. Koskenniemi, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, UN-Doc. A/CN.4/L.682, 13 April 2006, paras. 410-480.

O. De Schutter, Confronting the Global Food Challenge: A Human Rights Approach to Trade and Investment Policies, paper given at the conference “Confronting the global food challenge: finding new approaches to trade and investment that support the right to food” (Geneva, Switzerland, 24–26 November 2008), p. 19.

Koskenniemi (2006), supra note 120, para. 480.

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, supra note 117, Article 60(5).

Charter of the United Nations, 1 U.N.T.S. XVI, Articles 1(3) and 55 and 103.

De Schutter (2009), supra note 121, pp. 4 and 7.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, Judgment, 29 March 2006, Series C No. 146, para. 140.

Biwater, supra note 75.

Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United Republic of Tanzania for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed at Dar es Salaam 7 January 1994, entered into force 2 August 1996.

Biwater, supra note 75, Award of 24 July 2008, paras. 97, 122-146, 147-175.

Ibid, paras. 200-228.

Ibid, paras. 96-98.

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 993 U.N.T.S. 3.

African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/24.9/49 (1990), Art. 14 (2) (c); Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, 1249 U.N.T.S. 13, Art. 14 (2) (h); Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3, Art. 24 (2) (c).

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), General Comment No. 15, The right to water (arts. 11 and 12 of the ICESCR, UN-Doc. E/C.12/2002/11), paras. 12, 17.

Ibid, para. 24; C. de Albuquerque, Report of the Independent Expert on the Issue of Human Rights Obligations Related to Access to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation, UN-Doc. A/HRC/15/31, 29 June 2010, para. 21.

Biwater, supra note 75, Amicus Curiae Submission of 26 March 2007 of The Lawyers’ Environmental Action Team et al., para. 98.

Biwater, supra note 129, paras. 97, 491-493.

De Albuquerque (2010), supra note 135, para. 36.

Biwater, supra note 136, para. 85.

Biwater, supra note 129, para. 601.

Piero Foresti, supra note 7.

Agreement between the government of the Republic of South Africa and the government of the Italian Republic for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed in Rome 9 June 1997, entered into force 16 March 1999; Agreement between the Republic of South Africa and the Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed in Pretoria 14 August 1998, entered into force 14 March 2003.

Piero Foresti, supra note 7, Petition for Participation as Non-Disputing Party Pursuant to Article 41(3) of the ICSID Arbitration (Additional Facility) Rules, International Commission of Jurists, 19 August 2009, (hereafter, The ICJ Petition); Petition for Limited Participation as Non-Disputing Parties in Terms of Articles 41(3), 27, 39, and 35 of the Additional Facility Rules, The Legal Resources Centre et al., 17 July 2009, (hereafter The LRC Petition).

The LRC Petition, supra note 143, para. 4.12.

South African Constitution, Sections 1 (a), Section 9 (2), 25 (4), 25 (8).

Soobramoney v. Minister of Health, KwaZulu-Natal, 1998 (1) SA 765 (CC), para. 8.

Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, No. 28 of 2002, 448 Government Gazette, no. 23922 (October 2002), Preamble, paras. 5-7: “Reaffirming the State’s commitment to reform to bring about equitable access to South Africa’s mineral and petroleum resources; Being committed to eradicating all forms of discriminatory practices in the mineral and petroleum industries; Considering the State’s obligation under the Constitution to take legislative and other measures to redress the results of past racial discrimination.”

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 660 U.N.T.S. 195, Art 1 (4) and 2 (2), ratified by South Africa 10 December 1998.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, supra note 47, Art. 2 (1), ratified by South Africa 10 March 1999; Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 18, Non-Discrimination (10 November 1989), para. 10; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, supra note 131, Art. 2 (2); African [Banjul] Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, supra note 47, Art. 2, ratified by South Africa 7 September 1996.

The ICJ Petition, supra note 143, para. 24.

International Law Commission, Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Report of the International Law Commission on its Fifty-Third Session, UN-G.A. Official Records, Fifty-Sixth Session, Supp. No. 10 A/56/10, pp. 208 and 283.

The ICJ Petition, supra note 143, para. 25.

AES Summit, supra note 112, paras. 68-69.

Brickhill and Du Plessis (2011), supra note 56, p. 160.

This took the form of a contractual agreement which effectively exempted the investors from the requirements of the legislation. Ibid, p. 164.

Von Pezold, supra note 7.

Agreement between the Republic of Zimbabwe and the Federal Republic of Germany concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investments, signed in Harare 14 August 1998, entered into force 14 March 2003; Accord entre la Confédération suisse et la République du Zimbabwe concernant la promotion et la protection réciproque des investissements, signed in Harare 15 August 1996, entered into force 9 February 2001.

Von Pezold, supra note 99, para. 51.

Von Pezold, supra note 99, para. 21.

Von Pezold, supra note 7, Procedural Order No 3, 11 January 2013, para. 18.

Von Pezold, supra note 159, paras. 18 and 24.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Art. 26, General Assembly Official Records, UN-Doc. A/RES/61/295.

United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Report on its Eighth Session (2009), UN-Doc. E/2009/43-E/C.19/2009/14, para. 14. On the legal status of the Declaration, see also: J. Anaya and S. Wiessner, The UN-Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Towards Re-empowerment, JURIST Legal News & Research (2007), available at: <www.jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2007/10/un-declaration-on-rights-of-indigenous.php>, accessed 13 February 2013.

Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 23, The Rights of Minorities, 8 April 1994, UN-Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.5, para. 3.2; Committee for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, General Recommendation No.23, Indigenous Peoples, 18 August 1997, UN-Doc. A/52/18, Annex V, paras. 4d and 5. The customary nature of indigenous land rights is also recognised: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Mary y Carrie Dann v. United States of America, Merits, Report No. 75/02, Case 11.140, para. 124, 131; Inter-American Commission on Human, Derechos de los pueblos indígenas y tribales sobre sus tierras ancestrales y recursos naturales (2009), OAS-Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.doc.56/09, para. 18; M. Barelli, The Role of Soft Law in the International Legal System: The Case of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 58 International and Comparative Law Quarterly, no. 4 (2009), 957-983, 973-975; J. Anaya and R.A. Williams Jr., The Protection of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights over Lands and Natural Resources Under the Inter-American Human Rights System, 14 Harvard Human Rights Journal (2001), 33-86, 74-84.

African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights, The Social and Economic Rights Action Center and the Center for Economic and Social Rights v. Nigeria (Ogoni), Communication No. 155/96, para. 64; African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) and Minority Rights Group International on Behalf of Endorois Welfare Council v. Kenya, Communication No. 276/2003, paras. 187, 196.

Ogoni, supra note 165, paras. 63, 69.

Endorois, supra note 165, paras. 186-191, 199-204.

Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, supra note 8, Principles 17, 12, 18 and Commentary; OECD Guidelines, supra note 64, Part. I, Chap. IV and Commentary. This is also highlighted in 2012 the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Analysis of the duty of the State to protect indigenous peoples affected by transnational corporations and other business enterprises (2012), UN-Doc. E/C.19/2012/3, para. 21.

World Bank Operational Policy 4.10 (July 2005); International Finance Corporation, Performance Standard 7: Indigenous Peoples (2012), available at: <www1.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/115482804a0255db96fbffd1a5d13d27/PS_English_2012_Full-Document.pdf?MOD=>, accessed 20 February 2013.

Von Pezold, supra note 99, para. 57.

Ibid.

Peterson (2012), supra note 106.

Von Pezold, supra note 99, para. 62.

Ibid, para. 51.

AES Summit, supra note 1.

Energy Charter Treaty, 2080 U.N.T.S. 100.

AES Summit, supra note 1, paras. 10.3.10-10.3.34.

AES Summit, supra note 112, para. 100.

Ibid, para. 87.

Ibid, para. 102.

Ibid, para. 55.

Ibid, para. 55, citing Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed SA v. United Mexican States, Award of 29 May 2003, para. 154.

AES Summit, supra note 1, para. 7.6.6.

Ibid, paras. 10.3.31-10.3.34.

Electrabel, supra note 109, paras. 4.130, 4.194-4.195.

Ibid, paras. 4.130, 4.196.

Pacific Rim, supra note 78, Decision on the Respondent’s Jurisdictional Objections, 1 June 2012, para. 2.43.

Glamis Gold, supra note 89, para. 8.

Biwater, supra note 76, paras. 50-51.

E. Levine, Amicus Curiae in International Investment Arbitration: The Implications of an Increase in Third-Party Participation, 29 Berkeley Journal of International Law, no. 1 (2011), 216.

AES, supra note 1.

Electrabel, supra note 2.

Levine (2011), supra note 190, pp. 214-215.

Ibid, p. 218.

Ibid, p. 213.

Von Pezold, supra note 99, para. 60.

ILO Convention 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (1989), Art. 1 (2); UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples, supra note 162, Art. 33 (1); J. R. Martinez Cobo, UN Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, Study on the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations; UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7, paras. 379-382; Inter-American Court of Human Rights, The Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment August 24 2010, Series C No. 214, paras. 39-43; Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Rights over their Ancestral Lands and Natural Resources: Norms and Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Human Rights System, OEA/Ser.L/V/II., Doc. 56/09 (30 December 2009), paras. 31-38; World Bank Operational Policy 4.10 (July 2005), 4(a).

AES Summit, supra note 1, paras. 10.3.22-10.3.31.

Bernardus Henricus Funnekotter et al v. Republic of Zimbabwe, ICSID Case ARB/05/6, Award 22 April 2009, para. 56.

Ibid, para. 106.

Ibid; see also L.E. Peterson and R. Garland, Bilateral Investment Treaties and Land Reform in Southern Africa, (Montreal: Rights & Democracy, 2010), p. 9.

Gathii (2008), supra note 12, pp. 255, 262.

“Border Timbers Limited was incorporated in 1979 through an amalgamation of three companies namely Border Eastern Forest Estates, Renfee Timbers (Pvt) Limited and Forestry Management Services. Forestry Management Services had taken over plantations that were first established in Imbeza by the British South African Police Company (BSAP co) [sic] in 1924. The BSAP Company increased plantings substantially in 1946 after the Second World War to include the Chimanimani area.” Information from Border Timbers Limited, available at: <http://www.bordertimbers.com/about_us.html>, accessed 1 December 2012.

United Nations Development Programme (ed.), Zimbabwe Land Reform And Resettlement: Assessment And Suggested Framework For The Future Interim Mission Report (2002); UK Parliamentary Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, Zimbabwe: UK Approach to Land Reform, 27 May 2003, available at: <www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmfaff/339/3032509.htm>, accessed 19 March 2012.

The tribunal is not without its own internal controversy. See P.N. Ndlovu, Campbell v. Republic of Zimbabwe: A Moment of truth for the SADC Tribunal, 1 SADC Law Journal (2011), 63-79.

Mike Campbell & others V. Republic of Zimbabwe, Southern African Development Community Tribunal, SADC (T) Case No. 2/2007, pp. 53, 55.

Ibid, p. 54.

Agreement Amending the Treaty of the Southern African Development Community, 14 August 2001, Art. 5; Treaty of the Southern African Development Community, 17 August 1992, Art. 5 (a) and (d).

Mike Campbell, supra note 202, p. 26, referring to the Treaty of the Southern African Development Community, supra note 201, Art. 4 (c) and 6 (1).

SADC Secretariat Press Release, SADC, KfW [Development Bank] and DBSA [Development Bank of Southern Africa] sign Agreement on a Regional Fund for Water and Basic Sanitation, 13 January 2012. Available at: <www.sadc.int/files/6613/5783/5076/Press_Release_signing_Water_Fund_Agreement_final_version.pdf>, accessed 20 February 2013.

Art. 19, SADC, Protocol on Finance and Investment, entered into force on 16 April 2010.

Levine (2012), supra note 190, p. 216.

SADC Model BIT, supra note 60, p. 3.

Ibid, Preamble, pp. 5-6.

Ibid, Preamble, pp. 5-6, and Part III, Articles 13-21, pp. 34-41.

Levine (2012), supra note 190, pp. 215-216.

Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, supra note 9.

World Bank, Regional Integration and Cooperation: Southern Africa – Southern African Development Community. Available at: <http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/AFRICAEXT/EXTREGINI/EXTAFRREGINICOO/0,,contentMDK:20626642~menuPK:1592446~pagePK:64168445~piPK:64168309~theSitePK:1587585,00.html>, accessed 27 May 2013; R. Lee, South Africa and Regional Economic Integration, 10 August 2011. Available at: <http://www.osisa.org/economic-justice/south-africa-and-regional-economic-integration>, accessed 27 May 2013.

The Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe v Karel Fick and others, Constitutional Court of South Africa, Case CCT 101/12. Documents available at: <http://www.constitutionalcourt.org.za>, accessed 27 May 2013.

Burke-White and von Staden (2010), supra note 37, p. 704. See also Schill (2009), supra note 45, p. 375.

European Court of Human Rights, Broniowski v. Poland, Case no. 31443/96, Judgment 28 September 2005, ECHR 2005-IX, para. 149.

Salacuse (2010), supra note 17, p. 57.

Burke-White and von Staden (2010), supra note 37, p. 704.

Continental Casualty, supra note 43, para. 181.

Ibid, footnote at para. 270.

Siemens A.G. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8, Award 6 February 2007, para. 354.


Citation Information: The Law and Development Review, ISSN (Online) 1943-3867, ISSN (Print) 2194-6523, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ldr-2013-0021.

Export Citation

©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin / Boston. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in