Abuse of Rights eller The Right to Abuse - En undersökning om treaty shopping inom internationell investeringsrätt
(2018) JURM02 20182Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- International investment law is regulated by a system of bilateral investment agreements. These protect international investments through a number of substantive rights. One of the principle rights conferred is through the dispute settlement clause, which generally dictates that disputes shall be settled through arbitration. Thus, investors have the possibility of suing states through an arbitration tribunal. States can opt out of this system, by not signing any BITs. They can alternatively sign BITs with only a few states they wish to have active cooperation with. However, through treaty shopping, just one BIT can open the doors to a flock of investors they were not counting on, to sue them through arbitration.
Treaty shopping is the... (More) - International investment law is regulated by a system of bilateral investment agreements. These protect international investments through a number of substantive rights. One of the principle rights conferred is through the dispute settlement clause, which generally dictates that disputes shall be settled through arbitration. Thus, investors have the possibility of suing states through an arbitration tribunal. States can opt out of this system, by not signing any BITs. They can alternatively sign BITs with only a few states they wish to have active cooperation with. However, through treaty shopping, just one BIT can open the doors to a flock of investors they were not counting on, to sue them through arbitration.
Treaty shopping is the investors act of gaining access to a BIT previously not included in. This is done through strategic planned corporate structures and restructuring, establishing shell company’s in states selected for their BITs, and funnelling their investments through these. Once a dispute in relation to a BIT has risen in cases of treaty shopping, arbitration tribunals have had to judge whether they have jurisdiction over the dispute. This has been done with regards to four separate grounds, which are ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis and abuse of rights. Through an analysis of precedents, this essay intends to examine how these grounds have been applied in cases of treaty shopping.
The essay concludes that the act of treaty shopping is not prohibited per se. Nor has the interpretation of these grounds entailed any real obstacle to conducting treaty shopping. The closest existing ban of treaty shopping, is the principle of abuse of rights. It can be applied when a restructuring is undertaken in order to gain access to a BIT, when a specific future dispute was foreseeable. This principle does however not entail a rather large obstacle, and the act of treaty shopping is still very much allowed. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Den internationella investeringsrätten regleras i stort genom ett system av bilaterala investeringsavtal upprättat två stater emellan. Dessa skyddar internationella investeringar genom en rad olika substantiella rättigheter. Det utmärkande skyddet de erbjuder är dock rätten till skiljeförfarande. Genom skiljeklausuler i investeringsavtal har investerare möjlighet att stämma stater genom skiljeförfarande. Stater kan välja att stå utanför detta systemet, eller att endast erbjuda sagda skydd genom investeringsavtal med ett visst antal stater. Genom förfarande av treaty shopping, kan dock ett enda investeringsavtal öppna dörrarna för en stor skara investerare som kan stämma staten genom skiljeförfarande.
Treaty shopping innebär investerares... (More) - Den internationella investeringsrätten regleras i stort genom ett system av bilaterala investeringsavtal upprättat två stater emellan. Dessa skyddar internationella investeringar genom en rad olika substantiella rättigheter. Det utmärkande skyddet de erbjuder är dock rätten till skiljeförfarande. Genom skiljeklausuler i investeringsavtal har investerare möjlighet att stämma stater genom skiljeförfarande. Stater kan välja att stå utanför detta systemet, eller att endast erbjuda sagda skydd genom investeringsavtal med ett visst antal stater. Genom förfarande av treaty shopping, kan dock ett enda investeringsavtal öppna dörrarna för en stor skara investerare som kan stämma staten genom skiljeförfarande.
Treaty shopping innebär investerares förfaranden att komma i åtnjutande av investeringsavtal den inte var avsedd att omfattas av. Förfarandet sker genom strategiskt planerade företagsstrukturer och omstruktureringar av dessa, placering av skalföretag i utvalda stater och investeringar gjorda genom dessa. Då tvister grundade i investeringsavtal har uppkommit i fall av treaty shopping, har skiljedomstolar haft att ta ställning till om de verkligen haft jurisdiktion över tvisten. De fyra grunder bedömningen har avgjorts på, är ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis och abuse of rights. Genom en rättsfallsanalys ämnar denna uppsatts att undersöka hur dessa grunder har tillämpats i fall av treaty shopping.
I dagens läge finns inget förbud mot treaty shopping. Tillämpningen av ovanstående grunder för jurisdiktion har inte heller ställt upp särskilt stora hinder mot förfaranet. Det närmsta som kommit ett förbud mot treaty shopping hittills är abuse of rights. Principen kan tillämpas då en omstrukturering av företagskedjan skedde för att åtkomma ett investeringsavtal inför en specifik tvist som gick att förutse. Även denna princip ställer dock inte upp ett särskilt stort hinder, och förfarandet är fortfarande i stor utsträckning tillåtet. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8965978
- author
- Melin, Magnus LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Abuse of Rights or The Right to Abuse - An examination of treaty shopping within international investment law
- course
- JURM02 20182
- year
- 2018
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- folkrätt, internationell investeringsrätt, treaty shopping
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8965978
- date added to LUP
- 2019-01-28 11:26:06
- date last changed
- 2019-01-28 11:26:06
@misc{8965978,
abstract = {{International investment law is regulated by a system of bilateral investment agreements. These protect international investments through a number of substantive rights. One of the principle rights conferred is through the dispute settlement clause, which generally dictates that disputes shall be settled through arbitration. Thus, investors have the possibility of suing states through an arbitration tribunal. States can opt out of this system, by not signing any BITs. They can alternatively sign BITs with only a few states they wish to have active cooperation with. However, through treaty shopping, just one BIT can open the doors to a flock of investors they were not counting on, to sue them through arbitration.
Treaty shopping is the investors act of gaining access to a BIT previously not included in. This is done through strategic planned corporate structures and restructuring, establishing shell company’s in states selected for their BITs, and funnelling their investments through these. Once a dispute in relation to a BIT has risen in cases of treaty shopping, arbitration tribunals have had to judge whether they have jurisdiction over the dispute. This has been done with regards to four separate grounds, which are ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis and abuse of rights. Through an analysis of precedents, this essay intends to examine how these grounds have been applied in cases of treaty shopping.
The essay concludes that the act of treaty shopping is not prohibited per se. Nor has the interpretation of these grounds entailed any real obstacle to conducting treaty shopping. The closest existing ban of treaty shopping, is the principle of abuse of rights. It can be applied when a restructuring is undertaken in order to gain access to a BIT, when a specific future dispute was foreseeable. This principle does however not entail a rather large obstacle, and the act of treaty shopping is still very much allowed.}},
author = {{Melin, Magnus}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Abuse of Rights eller The Right to Abuse - En undersökning om treaty shopping inom internationell investeringsrätt}},
year = {{2018}},
}