Journal of Korea Trade

Korea Trade Research Association (한국무역학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The MFN Principle at Peril in Investment Treaties - with Particular References to Ansung Housing and Beijing Urban Construction

  • Received : 2020.01.28
  • Accepted : 2020.04.06
  • Published : 2020.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose - This paper investigates the theories and practices of Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) clauses. The MFN clause became a controversial issue during the past two decades, especially in the context of investment arbitration. This paper aims to clarify a reasonable way to apply MFN clauses. It in particular focuses on the territoriality requirements and the scope of investment activity which are common features included in most of investment treaties. Design/methodology - This paper analyses two investment arbitration cases, Ansung Housing and Beijing Urban Construction. Through the case study, this paper reveals limitations of the currently dominant views on the operation of MFN clauses. It then tries to reconstruct the system of MFN application within the relevant arbitration principles. Findings - Tribunals of recent investment arbitration as represented in the two cases above employed strict literal interpretation of the treaty provisions, especially of the phrase "in its territory". This paper finds a more functional interpretation is appropriate and consistent with theories of public international law and developments of global economy. Originality/value - Existing studies either stuck to literal interpretation or suggested more flexible interpretation of the phrase "in its territory" without full explanation. This paper tries to fill the gap in the existing discussion by analyzing legal foundations and theoretical structure for an effective interpretation of MFN clauses.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by an Inha University Research Grant.

References

  1. Arcuri, A. and F. Violi (2017), "Reconfiguring Territoriality in International Economic Law", Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, 2016, 175-215. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-207-1_8
  2. Batifort, S. and J. B. Heath (2018), "The New Debate on the Interpretation of MFN Clauses in Investment Treaties: Putting the Brakes on Multilateralization", American Journal of International Law (AJIL), 111, 873-913. https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2017.77
  3. Blackaby, N., C. Partasides, M. Hunter and A. Redfern (2009), Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  4. Brownlie, I. (1990), Principles of Public International Law, Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
  5. Buxbaum, H. L. (2009), "Territory, Territoriality, and the Resolution of Jurisdictional Conflict", American Journal of Comparative Law, 57, 631-675. https://doi.org/10.5131/ajcl.2008.0018
  6. ICC (2005), "Jurisdiction and Admissibility". In J. Paulsson (Ed.), Global Reflections on International Law, Commerce and Dispute Resolution, Paris: Author, 601-617.
  7. ILC (1978), "Draft Articles on Most-Favoured-Nation Clauses with Commentaries", Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2, 16-73.
  8. ILC (2015), Final Report: Study Group on the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause (ILC Report, No. A/CN.4/L.852), New York, NY: United Nations.
  9. Maier, C. S. (2016), Once Within Borders - Territories of Power, Wealth, and Belonging since 1500, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  10. Nikiema, S. H. (2017), The Most-Favoured-Nation Clause in Investment Treaties, Manitoba, Canada: International Institute for Sustainable Development.
  11. Oxman, B. H. (1997), "Jurisdiction of States". In R. Bernhardt (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Volume III), Amsterdam: North-Holland, 45-69.
  12. Pauker, S. A. (2018), "Admissibility of Claims in Investment Treaty Arbitration", Arbitration International, 34, 1-78. https://doi.org/10.1093/arbint/aiy009
  13. Perez-Aznar, F. (2017), "The Use of Most-Favoured-Nation Clauses to Import Substantive Treaty Provisions in International Investment Agreements", Journal of International Economic Law, 20, 777-805. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgx034
  14. Public Citizen (2018), Analysis of the NAFTA 2.0 Text Relative to the Essential Changes We Have Demanded to Stop NAFTA's Ongoing Damage (Report), Washington, DC: Author. Available from https://www.citizen.org/wp-content/uploads/nafta_text_analysis_how_the_new_nafta_text_measures_against_the_essential_changes_we_have_demanded_to_stop_naftas_ongoing_damage.pdf
  15. Rudolf, W. (1973) "Report of Professor Rudolf", in Rudolf, W. and W. S. Habscheid (Eds.), Territorial Boundary of the State Law (Territoriale Grenzen der Staatlichen Rechtsetzung), Book 11, Karlsruhe, Germany: C. F. Muller Publishing, 7-45.
  16. Schill, S. W. (2018), "MFN Clauses as Bilateral Commitments to Multilateralism: A Reply to Simon Batifort and J. Benton Heath", AJIL, 111, 914-935. https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2017.94
  17. Soderlund, C. and E. Burova (2018), "Is There Such a Thing as Admissibility in Investment Arbitration?", ICSID Review, 33, 525-559. https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siy009
  18. Symposium on Simon Batifort and J. Benton Heath (2018), "The New Debate on the Interpretation of MFN Clauses in Investment Treaties: Putting the Brakes on Multilateralization", American Journal of International Law Unbound, 112, 38-63.
  19. Thulasidhass, P. R. (2015), "Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment in International Investment Law: Ascertaining the Limits through Interpretative Principles", Amsterdam Law Forum, 7, 3-24. https://doi.org/10.37974/alf.272
  20. Titi, C. (2016), "Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment: Survival Clauses and Reform of International Investment Law", Journal of International Arbitration, 33, 425-440.
  21. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2018), UNCTAD's Reform Package for the International Investment Regime, New York, NY: United Nations.
  22. Ye, H. (2017), Using MFN to Avoid Time-bar Provisions: Are Time-bar Provisions Substantive or Procedural? (Master's Thesis), Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala Universitet Department of Law.
  23. A11Y LTD. v. Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. UNCT/15/1, Jurisdiction (9 February 2017).
  24. Abaclat and Others v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5 (formerly Giovanna a Beccara and Others v. The Argentine Republic), Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (4 August 2011).
  25. Ambiente Ufficio S.p.A. and others v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/9 (formerly Giordano Alpi and others v. Argentine Republic), Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (8 February 2013).
  26. Anglia Auto Accessories Ltd. v. Czech Republic, SCC Case No. V 2014/181, Final Award (10 March 2017).
  27. Ansung Housing Co., Ltd. v. People's Republic of China, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/25, Award (9 March 2017).
  28. Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Congo v. Belgium), ICJ Reports, Judgement of 14 February 2002.
  29. AWG Group Ltd. v. The Argentine Republic, UNCITRAL, Decision on Jurisdiction (3 August 2006).
  30. Beijing Urban Construction Group Co. Ltd. v. Republic of Yemen, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/30, Decision on Jurisdiction (31 May 2017).
  31. Berschader v. Russia, SCC Case No. 080/2004, Award (21 April 2006).
  32. BIVAC v. Paraguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/9, Jurisdiction (29 May 2009).
  33. Daimler v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/1, Award (22 August 2012).
  34. Fedax v. Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/96/3, Jurisdiction (11 July 1997).
  35. Garanti Koza LLP v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/20, Decision on the Objection to Jurisdiction (3 July 2013).
  36. Giovanni Alemanni and Others v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/8, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (17 November 2014).
  37. Hochtief AG v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/31, Jurisdiction (24 October 2011).
  38. ICS Inspection and Control Services Limited v. The Republic of Argentina, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2010-9, Jurisdiction (10 February 2012).
  39. Ickale Insaat Limited Sirketi v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/24, Award (8 March 2016).
  40. Impregilo v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/17, Award (21 June 2011).
  41. Interhandel Case, ICJ Reports 1959.
  42. Ivan Peter Busta and James Peter Busta v. Czech Republic, SCC Case No. V 2015/014, Final Award (10 March 2017).
  43. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening), ICJ Reports, Judgement of 3 February 2012.
  44. Kilic Insaat Ithalat Ihracat Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/1, Award (2 July 2013).
  45. Maffezini v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7, Jurisdiction (25 January 2000).
  46. Muhammet Cap & Sehil Insaat v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/6, Jurisdiction (13 February 2015).
  47. Postova banka and Istrokapital v. Greece, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/8, Award (9 April 2015).
  48. RosInvest v. Russia, SCC Case No. V079/2005, Jurisdiction (1 October, 2007).
  49. SGS v. Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/13, Jurisdiction (6 August 2003).
  50. SGS v. Philippines, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/6, Jurisdiction (22 April 2005).
  51. SGS v. Paraguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/ 07/29, Jurisdiction (12 Feb. 2010).
  52. Siemens v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8, Jurisdiction (3 August 2004).
  53. ST-AD v. Bulgaria, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2011-06, Award on Jurisdiction (18 July 2013).
  54. Status of Eastern Carelia, PCIJ Advisory Opinion Series B/05, (23 July 1923).
  55. Telenor v. Hungary, ICSID Case RB/04/15, Award (13 September 2006).
  56. Venezuela US, S.R.L. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, PCA Case No. 2013-34, Award on Jurisdiction (26 July 2016).
  57. Wintershall v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/14, Award (8 December 2008).