THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEMS

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 11, 299 - 314, 28.05.2019

Esra Yıldız Üstün

Öz

Foreign direct investment is
currently one the fastest growing parts of international law. It has increased
due to the proliferation of bilateral investment treaties (BIT). The
contribution of the BITs has ensured the protection of foreign investors and
investment. In other words, in cases where there is a dispute, the investor
will settle the dispute before the impartial and independent arbitration
tribunal instead of the courts of the host state. Thus, BITs limit the host
states’ sovereignty by providing arbitration method. Although the introduction
of arbitration method is considered to be a big step after the Second World War,
it cannot be said that it solves the fundamental problem over the time. Before
the war, when an investment dispute arose, the investor was used to go to the
court of the host state and see the sovereignty power. After the war, investor
has been encountered the same effect in the execution of the arbitral award in
the host state. Therefore, the focus of the article will be on the history of
international investment law based on dispute settlement systems of BITs
compared with historical investment dispute settlement systems. In addition, it
is argued that the application to arbitration does not change the result of
state sovereignty. It may signal future problems in this field since it causes
revisiting to the court system. The most obvious example of this is the efforts to
establish a multilateral investment court.                                  

Anahtar Kelimeler

FDI, State Sovereignty, The World War II

ULUSLARARASI YATIRIM UYUŞMAZLIKLARI ÇÖZÜM YÖNTEMLERİNİN GELİŞİMİ

Öz

Doğrudan yabancı yatırım günümüzde uluslararası
hukukun en hızlı gelişen alanlarından biridir. Bunun nedeni ise 2. Dünya Savaşı’ndan
sonra ortaya çıkan ikili yatırım anlaşmaları olmuştur. Bu yatırım
anlaşmalarının katkısı yabancı yatırımcıyı ve yatırımını korumayı garanti
etmesidir. Diğer bir değişle uyuşmazlık çıktığı durumlarda artık yatırımcı,
yatırım yaptığı ev sahibi devletin mahkemelerinde değil, tarafsız ve bağımsız
tahkim hakem heyeti önünde uyuşmazlığı çözüme kavuşturabilecektir. Böylelikle,
asıl sorun olan devlet egemenliğini sınırlandıracaktır. Her ne kadar tahkim yönteminin gelmesi, 2. Dünya savaşından sonra
büyük bir adım olarak kabul edilse de zaman içerisinde sonuç bakımından bir
farklılık yaratmadığı görülmektedir. Savaştan önce yatırımcı uyuşmazlık
çıktığında baştan ev sahibi devletin mahkemesine giderek egemenlik baskısını
görürken, savaştan sonra tahkim sonrası alınan kararın ev sahibi devlette
icrasında aynı etkiyle karşılaşmaktadır. Bu nedenle bu makalede 2. Dünya Savaşı
öncesi ve sonrası yabancı yatırım uyuşmazlıklarının çözüm yöntemleri
karşılaştırılarak, aslında savaş sonrası tahkime başvurulmasının devlet
egemenliğinin azaltılması noktasında sonucu değiştirmediği savunulacaktır. Bunun
da yatırım tahkiminin geleceği için büyük bir tehlike arz ettiği çünkü savaş
öncesi gibi mahkeme sistemenine dönüş olduğu görülmektedir. Bunun en belirgin
örneği de milletlerarası yatırım mahkemesinin kurulma çalışmalarıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Doğrudan Yabancı Yatırım, Devlet Egemenliği, 2. Dünya Savaşı

Kaynakça

• AIG Capital Partners, Inc. v. Republic of Kazakhstan (AIG, Inc.), [2005] EWHC (Comm) 2239, [22], [2006] 1 WLR 1420 3
• Akgul, Z. (2008). “The Development of International Arbitration on Bilateral Investment Treaties: Disputes Between States and Investor, ICSID Cases Against Turkey Regarding Energy Sector” (Universial Publishers 2008) available at: <http://www.bookpump.com/dps/pdf-b/9426692b.pdf> accessed 15 January 2013.
• Al-Adba, N M. (2014). “The Limitation of State Sovereignty in Hosting Foreign Investments and The Role of Investor-State Arbitration to Rebalance The Investment Relationship”, (University of Manchester) 181.
• Bishop, R D. Crawford, J. and Reisman, W M. (2005). Foreign Investment Disputes: Cases, Materials, and Commentary. KIL.
• Boğa, S. (2017), Finansal Kırılganlıklar ve Uluslararası Sermaye Hareketleri: Gelişmekte Olan Ülkeler Üzerine Bir Analiz. Finansal Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi, 9(16), 1-17.
• Bordwell, P. (1906). Calvo and the Calvo Doctrine18 Green Bag 377-381.
• Bubba, R J. and Rose-Ackerman, S. (2007). Bits and Bargains: Strategic Aspects of Bilateral and Multilateral Regulation of Foreign Investment” 27 Int'l Rev.L.& Econ. 291–311 Butler, N. (2012). “The State Of International Investment Arbitration: The Possibility Of Establishing An Appeal Mechanism” The University of Leeds, School of Law
• Choi, W M.(2007). The Present and Future of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement Paradigm 10.3J Intl Econ L 725-747.
• Cremades, B M. (2004). “Disputes Arising Out Of Foreign Direct Investment In Latin America: A New Look At The Calvo Doctrine And Other Jurisdictional Issues” 59 Disp.Resol.J. 78.
• Dalrymple, C K. (1996). Politics and Foreign Direct Investment: The Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency and the Calvo Clause” 29 Cornell Int'l L.J. 161.
• Dolzer, R. and Schreuer, C. (2008). Principles of International Investment Law, OUP
• Dolzer, R. and Stevens, M. (1995). Bilateral Investment Treaties. KIL
• Douglas, Z. (2009). The International Law of Investment Claims. CUP
• Egger, P. and Pfaffermayr, M. (2004). “The Impact of Bilateral Investment Treaties on Foreign Direct Investment” 32 Journal of Comparative Economics 788.
• Gallagher, N. “Parallel Proceedings, Res Judicata And Lis Pendens: Problems And Possible
• Solutions’ in Mistelis, L M. and Lew, J DM. (2006). Pervasive Problems in International Arbitration. KIL
• Germany No. 91 / W1, Franz J. Sedelmayer (Germany) v. Russian Federation, Federal Republic of Germany, Bundesgerichtshof [Federal Supreme Court], 4 October 2005.
• Ginsburg, T. (2005). “International Substitutes for Domestic Institutions: Bilateral Investment Treaties and Governance” 1 IRLE 118.
• Gottwald, E J. (2006). “Leveling the Playing Field: Is It Time for a Legal Assistance Centre for Developing Nations in Investment Treaty Arbitration?” Bepress Legal Series Working Paper 1804.
• Guilds, J C. (1992). “”If It Quacks Like A Duck:" Comparing The ICJ Chambers To International Arbitration For A Mechanism Of Enforcement” 16 Md.J.Int'l L.& Trade 43.
• Guzman, A T. (1998). “Why LDCs Sign Treaties that Hurt Them: Explaining the Popularity of Bilatreal Investment Treaties?” 38 Va.J.Int'l L. 640.
• Hamrock, K J.(1992). “The ELSI Case: Toward an International Definition of "Arbitrary Conduct””. 27 Tex.Int'l L.J. 837.
• Hanink, D M. (1994). The International Economy: A Geographical Perspective. J. Wiley
• Hoekman, B M. and Kostecki, M M. (2009). The Political Economy of the World Trading System: The WTO and Beyond. OUP
• Jackson, J N. (1999). Legal Problems of International Economic Relations. West Publishing.
• Kaushal, A. (2009). “Revisiting History: How The Past Matters For The Present Backlash Against The Foreign Investment Regime”. 50 Harv.Int'l L.J. 491.
• Kishoiyian, B. (1994). “The Utility of Bilateral Investment Treaties in the Formulation of Customary International Law”. 14 Nw. J. Int'l L. & Bus. 327.
• Landes, D S. (1999). The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor. WW Norton & Company.
• Lavranos N, ‘The first steps towards a Multilateral Investment Court’ (13 July 2017) see from < http://www.ciarb.org/news/ciarb-news/newsdetail/news/2017/07/13/the-first-steps-towards-a-multilateral-investmentcourt-(mic)> last accessed 16 November 2017.
• Liberian E. Timber Corp. v. Gov’t of the Republic of Liberia (LETCO I), 650 F Supp 73 (SDNY 1986), aff’d 854 F2d 1314 (2d Cir 1987)
• Miles, K. (2013). Origins of International Investment Law: Empire, Environment, and The Safeguarding of Capital. CUP.
• Murphyt, S D. (1991). “The ELSI Case: An Investment Dispute at the International Court of Justice” 16 Yale J.Int'l L. 391.
• Neumayer, E. and Spess, L. (2005). “Do Bilateral Investment Treaties Increase Foreign Direct Investment to Developing Countries?”. 10 World Development 1567.
• Salacuse, J W. and Sullivan, N P. “Do BITs Really Work?: An Evaluation of Bilateral Investment Treaties and their Grand Bargain” in Sauvant, K P. and Sachs, L E. (2009). The Effect of Treaties on Foreign Direct Investment: Bilateral Investment Treaties, Double Taxation Treaties, and Investment Flows. OUP.
• Schefer, K N. (2016). International Investment Law: Text, Cases and Materials. Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Schreuer, C. (2007). “Investment Protection and International Relations’ The law of international relations—Liber amicorum Hanspeter Neuhold”. Eleven International Publishing 345-358. http://www.univie.ac.at/intlaw/wordpress/pdf/87_investment_protect.pdf> last accessed 10.11.2017.
• Schwebel, S M. (2004). “Influence of Bilateral Investment Treaties on Customary International Law”. 98 ASIL 27.
• Shea, D R. (1955). The Calvo Clause: A Problem of Inter-American and International Law and Diplomacy. University of Minnesota Press.
• Sauvant, K P and Sachs L E. (2009). The Effect of Treaties on Foreign Direct Investment: Bilateral Investment Treaties, Double Taxation Treaties, and İnvestment Flows. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Szasz, P C. (1971). “The Investment Disputes Convention and Latin America” 11 Va.J.Int'l L. 256. UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2018, https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2018_en.pdf last accessed 08.05.2019.
• Vandevelde, K J. (1998). ”Sustainable Liberalism and the International Investment Regime” 19 Mich.J. Int'l L. 373.
• Vandevelde, K J. (1998). ‘The Political Economy of a Bilateral Investment Treaty’ 92 the American Journal of International Law, 621.
• Vandevelde, K J. (2005). ‘A Brief History of International Investment Agreements’12 UC Davis J. Int'l L. & Pol'y, 157.
• Vig Z and Gajinov, T. (2016). ‘The Development of Compensation Theories in International Expropriation Law’ 57 Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies, 447–461.