i

International Investment Law (Hons.) Project

On

Emergence of International Minimum Standards

Submitted to:

Mr. Mohammad Atif Khan

Faculty, International Investment Law

By:

Akhil Gangesh
Roll no. 14

Section C

Semester VII, B.A. LLB (Hons.)

Submitted on:

April 5, 2017

Hidayatullah National Law University

Uparwara, Abhanpur, New Raipur (C.G.)

 ii

Declaration:
I, Akhil Gangesh, of Semester VIII, Section C, declare that this project submitted to H.N.L.U.,
Raipur is an original work done by me under the able guidance of Mr. Mohammad Atif Khan,
Faculty of International Investment Law. The work is a bona fide creation done by me. Due
references in terms of footnotes have been given wherever necessary.

Akhil Gangesh

Roll No. 14
 iii

Acknowledgements:
I feel elated to work on the project “Emergence of international minimum standards.” The
practical realisation of the project has obligated the assistance of many persons. Firstly I express
my deepest gratitude towards Mr. Mohammad Atif Khan, Faculty of International Investment
Law, to provide me with the opportunity to work on this project. His able guidance and
supervision were of extreme help in understanding and carrying out the nuances of this project.

I would also like to thank The University and the Vice Chancellor for providing extensive
database resources in the library and for the internet facilities provided by the University.

Some printing errors might have crept in which are deeply regretted. I would be grateful to
receive comments and suggestions to further improve this project.

Akhl Gangesh

Roll No. 14

Section C, Semester VIII

 iv

Contents:
1. Declaration ii
2. Acknowledgments iii
3. Abbreviations & Acronyms v
4. Introduction 1
4.1. Objectives 2
4.2. Methodology 2
4.3. Questions 2
4.4. Hypothesis 2
4.5. Mode of Citation 3
4.6. Chapterisation 3
4.7. Scope of Study 3
5. Origin of the minimum standard 4
5.1. The Calvo Doctrine 5
6. What is minimum standard of treatment 6
7. Fair and equitable standard as part of the minimum standard 9
required by the customary international law
8. Is the fair and equitable treatment as same as international 13
minimum stadard
9. Conclusion 15
10. References 16
 v

Abbreviations & Acronyms:

1. & And
2. % Percentage
3. Art. Article
4. BITs Bilateral Investment Treaties
5. Eg. Exempli Gratia
6. Etc. Et Cetra
7. GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
8. ICJ International Court of Justice
9. MAI Multilateral Agreement on Investment
10. OECD Organisation for Economic
Co-peration and Development
11. Para Paragraph
12. US United States
13. V. Versus
14. Vol. Volume
15. WTO World Trade Organisation
 1

Introduction:
Most investment treaties include a so-called minimal standard of treatment (MST) that requires
that the host State treat foreign investors in accordance with an indefinable standard such as "fair
and equitable" treatment. Traditionally, this type of provision applied only to extreme cases of
mistreatment. Arbitral tribunals under the North American Free Trade Agreement's (NAFTA)
investment chapter have interpreted this provision much more broadly, however. In so doing,
these tribunals have both destroyed the traditional barrier to second guessing legitimate
government decisions and failed to articulate a clear, objective standard in its place.

The existence of an international minimum standard for the treatment of foreign and, its property
and investments, has been frequently challenged in the past. During most of the last century, it
has been the object of tension between developed and developing countries, with several
countries challenging the existence of a customary international law of minimum standard. As
mentioned in the OECD Working Papers on International Investment:

“This tension had implications in several sectors, for example the League of Nations and the UN
International Law Commission was unable to reach agreement on a codification of the law of
State responsibility for injury to aliens. The work of the UN centre and Commission on
Transnational Corporation was equally impaired by the fundamental differences on issues
related to the treatment of foreign property. With their overwhelming majority within the UN
General Assembly, the developing countries were able to assert the principle of national
treatment as the rule in the case of expropriation…1

1
OECD Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs. Working Papers on International Investment. Number
2004/3. Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in International Investment Law. September 2004. Page 8
 2

Research Methodology:
Objectives:

The objectives of this project are:

1. To study the significance of minimum standards in the field of international investment.

2. To study briefly outlines MST's origins and ties with international legal doctrines on
diplomatic protection and on State responsibility for injuries to aliens.

Methodology:

This research project is descriptive in nature. Accumulation of the information on the topic
includes wide use of primary sources such as cases as well as secondary sources like books,
articles etc. The matter from these sources have been compiled and analysed to understand the
concept.

Questions:

This project aims to answer questions such as:

1. What is the international minimum standard?

2. What elements compound this concept?
3. What are its features?
4. How do we identify it?
5. Is it the same standard as the fair and equitable treatment?
 3

Mode of Citation:

This project follows a uniform Bluebook 19th edition citation format for footnotes and
bibliography.

Chapterisation:

The project broadly has been divided into 4 chapters. Chapter 1 comprises of the introduction to
the topic along with the research methodology that has been adopted in this project. Chapter 2
consists of the origin of the minimum standard treatment in international law. Chapter 3 covers
the mening of minimum standard treatment on the basis of some decided cases. Chapter 4
consists of the relation between and difference between fair and equitable treatment and
international minimum standard treatment.

Scope of Study:

Due to time constraint this project aims to cover the role of international minimum standard in
the international investment law. The project further deals with the origin , definition and
evolution of the international minimum standard. Also, this project discuss about the relation and
difference between the fair and equitable treatment and international minimum standards. With
the help of some authorities in international investment law, the project also discusses the feature
of minimum standard.
 4

ORIGIN OF THE MINIMUM STANDARD

The Minimum Standard of Treatment can claim a long existence in international law throughout
its origins in the ancient doctrine of denial of justice and the origins of the latter can be traced
back as far as ancient Greece. Hugo Grotius and Emer de Vattel embraced the doctrine as part of
the law of nations, which was viewed during the 17th and 18th centuries as derived primarily
from natural law. During the 19th century, the natural law version was supplanted by the
modern, positivist view of the law of nations. According to this view, the law of nations is based
in the implicit consent of nations as demonstrated through customary practice. Yet, despite the
rise of the positivist approach to international law, the doctrine of denial of justice endured into
the early 20th century as part of the natural law legacy of the law of nations.2

In ancient times as a result of a missing central power when people of one “country” or state,
specially merchants, could not acceded nor obtained justice from a foreign country or state for
the acts of their citizens some practices and law4 became spread by which the merchant, who
was looking for the satisfaction of his rights or grievances, appealed to his prince or authorities
who in turn appealed to the authority of the debtor and, in case of no response, the aggrieved
person was authorized to take reprisal. This institution of reprisal became regularized and
evolved into gunboat diplomacy and “Out of this history there eventually developed, as
institutions of customary international law, the more civilized practice of diplomatic protection
and the attendant idea of an international minimum standard”3

Something quite similar was repeated during the colonial times. People and investor from the old
continent were migrating to the new colonies which, by the time, were lacking evolved forms of
government, institutions and legal framework. Worried about their citizens and interests, this
capital exporting countries began to design new legal doctrines for the protection of their
nationals (and even intervening in the host country if necessary).4 An international minimum
standard was necessary in order to provide them satisfactory protection. During colonial times
the idea of minimum standard was linked to the protection of the life and liberty of nationals
2
Alwyn V. Freeman. The International Responsibility of States for Denial of Justice. Longmans, Green and Co.
Belgium. 1938. pp.498-507.
3
Don Wallace Jr. Fair and Equitable Treatment and Denial of Justice: Loewen v. US and Chattin v. Mexico.
International Investment Law and Arbitration: Leading Cases from the ICSID, NAFTA, Bilateral Treaties and
Customary International Law. Cameron May (2005) pp 67
4
M. Sornarajah. The International Law on Foreign Investment, (CUP), 1994, pp. 8-20, 27-37
 5

which evolved to protect also their properties and investments against expropriation and
economic measures in developing countries. The international law doctrine of State
responsibility for injuries to nationals provided that the injury caused to the national of a foreign
State was an injury profited to the national’s State, allowing the protection of the latter when
domestic recourse was unavailable or exhausted.5 Two conditions were necessary: the nationality
of the alien (corporations were also entitled to this protection), and the exhaustion of local
remedies in the host State6. Hence, the State of nationality owned the investor’s claim and under
such power could pursue it,7 settle it or just ignore it.

National treatment was not an option for this capital exporting countries which, as said before,
were not satisfied with the political, legal and judiciary system governing in these uncivilized
countries. Investors and their countries were demanding for an absolute protection, a minimum
standard, below which international law and their diplomatic protection would come in their
defense.

 The Calvo Doctrine

As a reaction to the abusive exercise of power, in defense of their citizens, by capital exporting
countries (especially Europe and United States) Latin American countries started to develop a
series of resistance founded in the principles of Sovereign Equality of States and the Equality of
Nationals and Aliens. For this reason Carlos Calvo, a distinguished jurist from Argentina (born
in Uruguay), declared in 1896 that the responsibility of governments toward foreigners cannot be
greater than that which these Governments have towards their own citizens thus, an investor
could not be granted with better rights than local citizens and investment disputes would be
adjudicated by local courts applying domestic law.8

5
Supra note 3, p. 674. See also footnote 23.
6
Justice Bagge, in the Finnish Ships case, talking about what the “exhaust” standard means The received wisdom is
that remedies must be “non-existent,” or “futile” because of judicial bias is not the only reason to stop quoted in
supra note 3
7
This is known as diplomatic protection or diplomatic espousal as well. The Center for International Environmental
Law Issue Brief, International Law on Investment. August, 2003.
www.ciel.org/Publications/investments_10Nov03.pdf. p. 1.
8
The challenge of Latin America’s Calvo doctrine to the concept of denial of justice was part of its assault on
diplomatic protection by the powerful (e.g. the United States) and on the notion of a minimum standard (other than
national treatment for foreigner equal to one’s nationals) – it led to a very narrow view of the concept: if a country’s
courts were open to foreigners that would be sufficient, irrespective of any subsequent judicial failure and without
the need to meet any international minimum standard. Supra note 3, p. 677.
 6

WHAT IS THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF TREATMENT?

The great majority of scholars consider that there exists an international minimum standard
according to which the States have to accord to aliens certain rights …even in the case they
would deny the same treatment to their nationals.9 As defined by OECD: The international
minimum standard is a norm of customary international law which governs the treatment of
aliens, by providing for a minimum set of principles which States, regardless of their domestic
legislation and practices, must respect when dealing with foreign nationals and their property. It
continues by comparing this norm of customary international law with the national treatment,
another standard of major importance, by saying: While the principle of national treatment
foresees that aliens can only expect equality of treatment with nationals, the international
minimum standard sets a number of basic rights established by international law that States
must grant to aliens, independent of the treatment accorded to their own citizens. Violation of
this norm engenders the international responsibility of the host State and may open the way for
international action on behalf of the injured alien provided that the alien has exhausted local
remedies.10

The American Law Institute’s Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United
States refers to the protection ought by a state to a foreign national or his property making it
responsible for injury when the protection falls below a minimum standard of reasonableness.
Furthermore, a state is also responsible if it fails to provide to the foreign national remedies for
injuries suffered, whether those injuries were inflicted by the state or a private person.

In order to better understand the concept of the Minimum Standard of Treatment, some
cases where the standard has been analyzed:

The 1926 decision on the Neer case, along with the Roberts case, became the landmark case for
the international minimum standard. Following revolutionary activity in the beginning of
twentieth century, Mexico signed agreements with European States and the United States to
decide cases of injuries suffered by their nationals in the previous years. The United States –
Mexico Commission was granted jurisdiction to decide thus cases.

9
C. Rousseau, Droit International Public, Paris, 1970, p. 46,
10
Supra note 1. P 8, at note 32
 7

U.S.A. (L.F. Neer) v. United Mexican States Paul Neer was a U.S. national murdered on his
way back from a mine. His wife filed a claim arguing that the Mexican Government had shown
lack of diligence in investigating and prosecuting the murder. The Commission noted that
although the authorities might have acted in a more effective way, it was not for an international
tribunal to decide whether another course of procedure might have been better. It found that this
did not violate the international minimum standard on the treatment of aliens, in what turned a
classical pronouncement:

The propriety of governmental acts should be put to the test of international standards, and…
The treatment of an alien, in order to constitute an international delinquency, should amount to
an outrage, to bad faith, to willful neglect of duty, or to an insufficiency of governmental action
so far short of international standards that every reasonable and impartial man would readily
recognize its insufficiency. Whether this insufficiency proceeds from deficient execution of an
intelligent law or from the fact that the laws of the country do not empower the authorities to
measure up to international standards is immaterial.11

Roberts v. United Mexican States The second case mentioned above was about a U.S. national,
Roberts, confined for nineteen months in a small cell along with thirty of forty other men, with
no sanitary facilities, no furniture, and no opportunities to exercise. The Commission declared
that equality, although relevant in determining the merits of a complaint of mistreatment of an
alien, is not the ultimate test of the propriety of the acts of authorities in the light of international
law. Rather, the test is whether aliens are treated in accordance with ordinary standards of
civilization. The Commission concluded that the treatment of Roberts was such as to warrant an
indemnity on the ground of cruel and inhumane imprisonment. The Neer standard, whereby
every reasonable and impartial man would readily recognize outrage, was applied.12

Treaties of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation

11
Quoted by supra note 9, p. 2.
12
Supra note 9
 8

The debate over the recognition and importance of an international customary law which
demands a minimum standard of treatment for investors evolved simultaneously with the
emergence and proliferation of so called friendship, commerce, and navigation (FCN) 13 treaties
and the later appearance of bilateral investment treaties (BITs) -an overlap between customary
and conventional law-. Regarding the FCN treaties, the earlier ones dealt more with the due
process for aliens in host States; however, the FCN of the twentieth century contained provisions
specific to investment, which later developed into BITs.14

Minimum Standard of Treatment and Bilateral Investment Treaties

Bilateral investment treaties started to proliferate since World War II. More than 2000 BITs were
ratified during the second half of the 20th century, most of which included the obligation to
provide the minimum standard of treatment to foreign investors, to which they were entitled
under customary international law. Among the reasons bilateral investment treaties started to
develop, scholars cite the need to clarify the uncertainties surrounding customary law and the
desire to influence the progress of customary law. The references to the standard of treatment in
BITs extend from national treatment15, to most favored nation16 to fair and equitable treatment17.
This latter principle served as precedent in subsequent instrument concerning international
investment. By this time the equivalence between the minimum standard and the fair and
equitable treatment, among capital exporting countries, became dominant.18

13
The first FCN treaty negotiated by the United States was with France in 1778. www.wikipedia.org.
14
Supra note 9, p. 2
15
National Treatment (UNCTAD, 1999). Dispute Settlement: Investor-State. United Nations. New York and
Geneva, 2003, p.7
16
Emilio Agustin Maffezini v. The Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7. 26 Go to letters III and IV for
definitions.
17
Go to letters III and IV for definitions.
18
In the context of NAFTA Chapter XI, some claimants argued, as they had regarding earlier BITs, that “fair and
equitable” are additional to or beyond MST
 9

FAIR AND EQUITABLE STANDARD AS PART OF THE

MINIMUM STANDARD REQUIRED BY THE CUSTOMARY
INTERNATIONAL LAW.

The Fair and equitable principle has been identified by part of the scholars as one of the elements
of minimum standard of treatment required by international law. We mentioned before cases that
support this position (Neer and Roberts). But lately, the question has been raised whether the
content of the minimum standard is limited to the interpretation given in the early 20th century,
or refers to an evolving customary law influenced by the BITs, international decisions involving
investment disputes and the opinion of jurists.

Most international instruments, mainly BITs, have adopted the fair and equitable standard of
treatment although, in most of them, with certain exceptions including the NAFTA, the US Free
Trade Agreements and the commentaries of the OECD Draft Convention, this is done without
any reference to an international law standard. Some think this is a possible way of avoiding the
divergence surrounding the international standard and in order to give to it a direct content.
However, international law is referred to in relation to “fair and equitable treatment” in a number
of BITs, in particular those concluded by France, Japan, the UK and the US and the new US and
Canada model BITs.

In the NAFTA Chapter XI context, the minimum standard and the fair and equitable treatment
are contained in Article 1105 (1), which reads:

Each Party shall accord to investments of investors of another Party treatment in accordance
with international law, including fair and equitable treatment and full protection and security.

In order to clarify the interpretation of Article 1105 (1), since tribunals gave different
interpretation of the fair and equitable provision, the NAFTA Free Trade Commission (FTC)
issued a binding interpretation on July 21, 2001, according to which:

Article 1105 (1) prescribes the customary international law minimum standard of treatment of
aliens as the minimum standard of treatment to be afforded to investments of investors of
another Party.
 10

The concepts of “fair and equitable treatment” and “full protection and security” do not require
treatment in addition to or beyond that which is required by the customary international law
minimum standard of treatment of aliens.

A determination that there has been a breach of another provision of the NAFTA, or of a
separate international agreement, does not establish that there has been a breach of Article
1105 (1).

In the light of this interpretation, arbitral tribunals have sought to unveil the content of the
customary law minimum standard of treatment. As mentioned in the Neer case, the standard
there was that a State was held to fall below the minimum standard if its treatment to foreigners
amounted to an outrage, to bad faith, to willful neglect of duty, or to an insufficiency of
governmental action so far short of international standards that every reasonable and impartial
man would readily recognize its insufficiency. The following cases ADF and Saluka
Investments BV (The Netherlands) v. The Czech Republic addressed whether this standard
continues to be applicable customary law:

The ADF19 tribunal was called to decide upon performance requirements and other exceptions in
government procurement, as well as on the minimum standard in a regulatory framework. The
ADF case concerned the United States’ “Buy America Requirements” included in statute and
regulations, which provided that only steel products produced and manufactured in the United
States could be used in federal-aided high-way construction projects. This requirement affected
the operations of ADF, a Canadian investor that was awarded a sub-contract for the supply and
delivery of structural steel components for nine bridges of the Springfield Interchange Project in
Northern Virginia, and which sought to carry out fabrication work of U.S. produced steel in its
facilities in Canada.

In its discussion of minimum standard, the tribunal first noted that FTC interpretations were
necessary “for consistency and continuity of interpretation, which multiple ad hoc arbitral
tribunals are not well suited to achieve and maintain”. The tribunal then observed that what
customary law projects is not a static photograph, and that minimum standard in customary law
is constantly in process of development. Next, after extensively quoting Mondev’s reasoning for

19
ADF Group Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/00/1, 9 January, 200
 11

departing from the Neer standard, the ADF tribunal added that “there appears no logical
necessity and no concordant State practice to support the view that the Neer formulation is
automatically extendible to the contemporary context of treatment of foreign investors” by a host
State. The ADF tribunal ultimately dismissed all claims.

Saluka Investments BV (The Netherlands) v. The Czech Republic

Saluka brought a claim against the Czech Republic for the recovery of approximately US$1.4
billions, plus interest and cost, under the BIT between the Netherlands and Czech Republic. The
claim was decided by UNCITRAL arbitration Investicní a Postovní Banka (IPB) was the first of
four large commercial Czech banks to be privatized after the Czech Republic started a
privatization program in the nineties. IPB faced problems of bad debt and needed capital
injection. The investor Nomura did not want to be a strategic investor and had only made a
portfolio investment when it acquired a 46.16% stake in IPB’s equity. It afterward transferred it
to Saluka, a special purpose vehicle. In 1999 the Czech National Bank (CNB), inspected IPB and
concluded that it had serious financial deficiencies. In 2000 the government put IPB under forced
administration with the purpose of its consequent sale to CSOB.

Because of the differences the Czech Republic did under the “Revitalisation Programme”
(assisted the largest banks with the exception of IPB), Saluka considered that the Czech Republic
failed to provide the fair and equitable standard contained in Article 3.1 of the treaty. The
tribunal then had to decide whether, as claimants argue; the standard is a specific and
autonomous treaty standard and should be interpreted broadly as on Pope and Talbot, Inc. v. The
Government of Canada or, as Respondents affirms, the standard laid down in Article 3.1
conforms in effect to the “minimum standard” which forms part of customary international
law.The tribunal held that:

“it appears that the difference between the Treaty standard (referring to the fair and equitable
treatment) laid down in Article 3.1. and the customary minimum standard, when applied to the
specific facts of a case, may well be more apparent than real…”

In addition to this, the tribunal remarks the existence of an international minimum standard of
protection, regardless of the State policy to investments, and a higher protection conceded to
investments in bilateral treaties:
 12

“the customary minimum standard is in any case binding upon a State and provides a minimum
guarantee to foreign investors, even where the State follows a policy that is in principle opposed
to foreign investment; in that context, the minimum standard of “fair and equitable treatment”
may in fact provide no more than the “minimal” protection”

”Bilateral investment treaties, however, are designed to promote foreign direct investment as
between the Contracting Parties; in this context, investors’ protection by the “fair and equitable
treatment” standard is meant to be a guarantee providing a positive incentive for foreign
investors. Consequently, in order to violate the standard, it may be sufficient that States’ conduct
displays a relatively lower degree of inappropriateness”

The tribunal concluded that the fair and equitable standard embodied in Article 3.1 of the Treaty
points to the autonomous character of the standard as a consequence of the omission to any
reference in the treaty to the customary international minimum standard.20

IS THE FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT AS SAME AS

THE INTERNATIONAL MINIMUM STANDARDS
20
Id. Paragraph 294
 13

From the interaction shown above, between these two standards, the question is whether the
international minimum standard is equivalent to the fair and equitable treatment, or do they differ
from each other?

If States and investors believe that the fair and equitable standard is entirely equivalent with the
international minimum standard, they could easily indicate this in their investment instruments;
but most investment instruments do not make an explicit link between the two standards. Hence,
we cannot say that most States and investors believe fair and equitable treatment implies the
same as the international minimum standard.21

Efforts to equate these two standards may bring some difficulties regarding the substantial debate
in international law concerning the international minimum standard. Moreover, considering that
the last has a stronger support among developed countries, a number of developing countries
have traditionally held doubts regarding the pertinence of the international minimum standard to
the customary international law, making it more difficult to assume that these countries will
apply this standard to their investment treaties in cases in which they have not incorporated it
expressly.

A number of sources derived mainly but not exclusively from developed countries, indicate that
these two standards are in fact equivalent. However, in the practice, there have been contrary
conclusions on the relationship between the two. It has been argued, for instance, that it is both
pointless and misleading to equate the two concepts because fair and equitable treatment
envisages conduct “which goes far beyond the minimum standard and affords protection to a
greater extent and according to a much more objective standard than any previously employed
form of words”. By this interpretation, therefore, in ascertaining the content of the fair and
equitable standard, no other form of words is appropriate: for each dispute, the content of the
standard is to be determined by inquiring whether “in all the circumstances the conduct in issue
is fair and equitable or unfair and inequitable”22

These considerations point towards fair and equitable treatment not being synonymous with the
international minimum standard. The two standards may overlap significantly, but the presence
of a provision assuring an international minimum standard does not automatically incorporate for
21
Supra note 56. p.38
22
(Mann, 1990, p.238).
 14

foreign investors fair and equitable treatment in an investment instrument. Although it is believe
that the inverse, if a fair and equitable treatment is demanded, this must be understood on a basis
of minimum standard treatment. As Professor Wallace said “Fair and Equitable Treatment is
utopia on earth, could be everything”23

CONCLUSION:
The Calvo Doctrine the Russian revolution and the Mexican position notwithstanding what had
emerged from the various international disputes about the status of aliens in general was a
widespread sense that the alien is protected against unacceptable measures f the host state of
international law which is independent of those of the host state. The sum of these rules
eventually came to known as international minimum standards. The fundamental reasons that
23
Professor Don Wallace Jr. in his Investor State Dispute Settlement class at Georgetown University Law Center
 15

prompted the evolution and recognition of these rules are reflected in general terms in a
relatively modern decision of various European courts of human rights.

The minimum standard as it emerged historically concerned with the status of the alien in
general, applying to such diverse areas as procedural rights in criminal law, rights before tribunal
in general, rights in matter of civil law and rights in matter of private property held by the
foreigners.

The leading case to this matter was the “Neer vs Mexico”decided in 1926 in which the tribunal
talked about the treatment of the aliens. The tribunal said that in order to constitute international
delinquency minimum standards should be provided an it would be of such nature that every
reasonable and impartial man would readily recognize its sufficiency. All though the above said
case was not related to the investment but this case has resurfaced in decisions of investment
tribunals in past decade.

References:
Books:

1. R. Dolzer and C. Schreuer, Principles of International Investment Law (Oxford, OUP,

2008).
 16

2. M. Sornarajah, The International Law on Foreign Investment (CUP, 2004).

Articles:

1. OECD Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs. Working Papers on International
Investment. Number 2004/3. Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in International
Investment Law. September 2004.
2. Alwyn V. Freeman. The International Responsibility of States for Denial of Justice.
Longmans, Green and Co. Belgium. 1938.
3. International Investment Law and Arbitration: Leading Cases from the ICSID, NAFTA,
Bilateral Treaties and Customary International Law. Cameron May (2005).
4. M. Sornarajah. The International Law on Foreign Investment, (CUP), 1994.
5. The Center for International Environmental Law Issue Brief, International Law on
Investment. August, 2003. www.ciel.org/Publications/investments_10Nov03.pdf
6. Restatement of the Law Third. The American Law Institute. The Foreign Relations Law
of the United States. Volume 2. American Law Institute Publishers, 1987.
7. Thomas E. Carbonneau. Lex Mercatoria and Arbitration. A Discussion of the New Law
Merchant. Juris Publishing, Inc. 1998.
8. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Fair and Equitable Treatment.
UNCTAD Series on issues in international investment agreements. Geneva, 1999.
9. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Dispute Settlement: Investor-
State. UNCTAD Series on issues in international investment agreements. Geneva, 2003.