Bilateral Investment Treaties

Bilateral Investment Treaties

Introduction

During the 1990s, one of the quickest developing zones of worldwide law rose out of the sensational multiplication of reciprocal venture arrangements (bilateral investment treaties). More than 3,000 of such bargains are in presence today, with pretty much every State on the planet a gathering to at any rate one bilateral investment treaties. Regardless of which states arrange bilateral investment treaties, arrangements of these settlements are amazingly uniform. By and large, they are focused on an equal assurance and advancement of the venture (Subedi, 2016 p.107). As a result of this went with the way that there is yet, no single complete worldwide bargain to manage the remote venture. Bilateral investment treaties have become the most predominant global vehicle through which outside enterprise is directed. Incomprehensibly, regardless of the enormous and expanding number of bilateral investment treaties finished up, there are indications of developing clumsiness with the present bilateral investment treaties system. In the general population banter about bilateral investment treaties, concerns have been communicated about the potential constraints of the privilege of host states to control in people in general intrigue. Specifically, it has been contended that the supposed Investor-states Disputes Settlements (ISDS) provisions embodied in many bilateral investment treaties which licenses singular financial specialists to sue have states at whatever point new enactment influences their ventures.

The globalized economy of the previous decades has seen streams of capital, individuals and products, and foundations directing these developments. With such portability, there are worries that additions from worldwide administration and a progressively proficient distribution of assets are leveled by lower responsibility to national governments and diminished welfare arrangement, work measures, or human rights. Remote direct venture (FDI) is a crucial monetary stream in the worldwide economy, and speculator rights have been entirely secured since the 1960s by countless respective speculation arrangements (bilateral investment treaties). Some view individual venture arrangements as an improvement apparatus, contending that bilateral investment treaties decrease hazard and, in this way, channel essential funding to developing nations. For sure, late proof shows that countries marking more bilateral investment treaties see a more noteworthy inflow of FDI. However, others dread that the ideal treatment given to remote financial specialists through bilateral investment treaties declines the privileges of different, less ground-breaking, local electorates (Anand, 2016 p.382). Such concerns emerge because, rather than reliable financial specialist security, not very many, assuming any, bilateral investment treaties notice work or human rights. These potential negative externalities of the “expansive and topsy-turvy rights” allowed through bilateral investment treaties got little consideration.

To an incredible degree, creating nations sign bilateral investment treaties to pull in the remote venture and do so necessarily due to focused weights. Late work shows that host states may have not wholly foreseen the helpful impacts of venture arrangements, and as of late, began to push back against BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATIES limitations on residential strategy. Human rights bunches have legitimately charged that the hands of capital bringing in creating nations are tied by speculation bargains, producing significant complaints, and declining governments’ human rights rehearses. For instance, the UK – Colombia BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATISE was marked in 2010; however was just confirmed in 2014. Human rights and hostile to destitution bunches have contended that this BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATIES uncovered the Colombian Government to expensive claims and effects land change programs (Singh, 2016 p.25). Additionally, NGOs3 have misgivings about the continuous exchanges on a US India bilateral investment treaties, including about how the financial specialist state question instrument undermines the residential strategy space and equity framework.

Another purpose behind the worldwide reaction against bilateral investment treaties is that the more significant part of these states finished up these arrangements on the assumption that bilateral investment treaties build the inflow of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). The creators inferred that bilateral investment treaties appear to have little Effect on FDI. These advancements have prompted a worldwide reaction against the ISDS and bilateral investment treaties when all is said in done. For example, Bolivia reviled the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Convention (Schemer, 2016 p.167). Also, there are signals that more bilateral investment treaties would be ended. It is in this manner contended that the present bilateral investment treaties system is described by a recovery of the dead Calvo Doctrine.

There is developing mindfulness in strategy circles that the current bilateral investment treaties system is getting progressively unessential regarding tending to rise monetary, ecological, and formative difficulties, both at national and worldwide levels. States are gradually getting increasingly wary in finishing up bilateral investment treaties. As expressed previously, the successful utilization of the ISDS in bilateral investment treaties that license financial specialists to legitimately make right move against have states before global Bilateral Investment trilateral courts for supposed infringement of settlement arrangements has set off these changes. Because of this, States are step by step moving ceaselessly from the custom methodology of finishing up bilateral investment treaties (Satria, 2011 p.69). For instance, the tobacco monster, Phillip Morris International (PMI) which has its headquarter in Switzerland. In May 2010, Phillip Morris International started an ICSID assertion against the Government of Uruguay under the Switzerland-Uruguay bilateral investment treaties over new guidelines necessitating that 80% of cigarette pack surfaces be given to realistic alerts to show the threats related with smoking.

So also, customarily, it was extremely unprecedented for bilateral investment treaties to order financial specialists to deplete nearby cures before continuing to a worldwide mediation council. Be that as it may, this pattern has changed in ongoing State rehearses. Numerous bilateral investment treaties currently expect financial specialists to debilitate nearby cures before moving to a worldwide assertion court, for example, the ICSID (Sweebe, 2017). For instance, section 18 relating to the 2016 model of India bilateral investment treaties describes to ISDS condition that expects speculators to debilitate the neighborhood cures previously continuing to the worldwide council. It could be contended that the law is currently moving from the International Standard of Treatment of outsiders to a Countrywide Dealing with Aliens. The additional ongoing pattern in State rehearses on bilateral investment treaties has to involve the extent of utilizations as well as the use of the language in settlement exchanges (Rose-Ackerman, 2003 p.587). The old-age bilateral investment treaties contain arrangements that accommodated a vast extent of utilization and a bunch of enigmatically drafted provisions. Be that as it may, bilateral investment treaties haggled as of late help provisos that are increasingly tight and exact insignificance (Vandevelde, 2000 p.469).

There has been a perceptible late pattern in States rehearses away from the run of the mill standard global law standard of treatment of outsiders towards less stringent elucidations of the standard. For instance, bilateral investment treaties drafted dependent on more seasoned variants of the United States model bilateral investment treaties preceding 2004 required each State to give ‘reasonable and evenhanded treatment’ to secured venture. In any case, her 2012 model bilateral investment treaties presently require treatment as per standard worldwide law. Although, this advancement removes the odds that the prerequisite of reasonable and impartial treatment is likely to be translated past what is generally required by standard universal law. Be that as it may, exchange analysts like Nicolette and Surya have contended that Where the Free and Equitable Treatment arrangement is attached to standard worldwide law, the limit for the obligation of rupture relating to it is a lot advanced (Ranjan, 2015 p.51). They noticed that the near case is a decent exercise for such wordings. It is intriguing to take note of that India’s new Indian model bilateral investment treaties don’t contain an explicit free and fair treatment arrangement. In any case, it has a provision permitted ‘Treatment of Investments’ that forces comparative commitments in the States.

Additionally, dialects alluding to ecological concerns were uncommon in bilateral investment treaties deduces during the 1990s. In any case, because of the developing number of Investor-States cases regarding natural matters, numerous states are progressively joining ecological worries in bilateral investment treaties arrangements. The first sign of such language in quite a while was the 1985 China-Singapore bilateral investment treaties. In 2005, over half of recently closed bargains contains arrangements alluding to condition. A critical number of ongoing agreements provide arrangements that block non-prejudicial natural guidelines as a reason for claims, especially of the alleged ‘backhanded’ or crawling confiscation. A large number of the ongoing bilateral investment treaties are overwhelmingly worried about cut-outs to constrain the meaning of backhanded or crawling seizure (Pohl, 2019 p.19). The China-Colombian bilateral investment treaties accommodated a much-communicated condition concern. It gives in addition to other things that non-unfair proportions of a Contracting Party planned and applied for open purposes or social intrigue or with destinations, for example, general wellbeing, security, and condition insurance, don’t establish circuitous seizure. Although, this is a decent advance towards finding some kind of harmony between the privileges of Investors and the ability to direct, regardless, there are imperfections in it. Such wording is as yet dependent upon various understandings. For example, the utilization of words like ‘applied in compliance with common decency’ what comprises great confidence?

China, at that point adopted an alternate strategy in her bilateral investment treaties with Turkey. The China-Turkey bilateral investment treaties currently read as peruses: nothing in this Agreement will be interpreted to anticipate a Contracting Party from receiving, keeping up, or implementing any nondiscriminatory and necessary measures; (a) structured and applied for the insurance of human, creature or vegetation or wellbeing, or the earth; (b) identified with the protection of living or non-living modest typical assets. The issue with this wordings is that unmistakably it is designed according to Article XX of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs. (GATT) which consistently expects states to fulfill the Chapeau first.

What’s more, an ongoing pattern in State rehearses on bilateral investment treaties is has been the joining of human rights issues in reciprocal investment treaties arrangements. Albeit accessible proof recommends that outside financial specialists have not yet looked to challenge government guidelines which are unmistakably human-rights-inspired.38 Nevertheless, there is proof that venture bargain discretion has been compromised against the South African Government in connection to its strategy endeavors to advance more prominent decent racial variety in the executives and proprietorship positions in South Africa. Surely, there is outstanding possibility for outside financial specialists to challenge human rights propelled measures forced by having stated in light of this, States have begun bringing Human rights worries up in bilateral investment treaties arrangement. For instance, the bilateral investment treaties that Austria finished up with Kazakhstan and Tajikistan both allude to human rights in the introduction (Osterwalder, 2018). The last passage of the Austria-Kazakhstan bilateral investment treaties prelude gives in addition to other things as pursues: recognizing that speculation understandings and multilateral concurrences on the security of condition, human rights or work rights are intended to cultivate worldwide supportable improvement and that any potential irregularities there ought to be settled without unwinding of measures of assurance; have concurred as pursues.

The days of bilateral investment treaties in its Current Form

Bilateral Investment treaties are an inexorably utilized approach instrument to support outside direct venture (FDI) inflows into for the most part from a higher pay nation to lower salary states. The mind more substantial part of Bilateral speculation settlements make them thing in like manner, to ensure remote speculators and their ventures by concurring them an extra layer of assurance than presently agreed under the standard global law. The expanded significance of outside direct experiment in recent decades was joined by an ascent in the fame of bilateral investment treaties (Kenneth, 2009). While the quantity of new bilateral investment treaties continuously expanded during the 1990s, their number has as of late stagnated. Bilateral investment treaties have arrived at a defining moment.

As per reports distributed by the International Monetary reserve, five unique nations have ended their arrangements inside somewhere in the range of scarcely any years. Ecuador, Bolivia, South Africa, Indonesia, and India have all ended a noteworthy number of their settlements. Shockingly, one ought to have anticipated a relating decrease of outside direct speculations (FDI) inflow. The surprising rather occurred. Ecuador started to end bilateral investment treaties in 2008. From 2008 to today, in general, FDI stock into Ecuador expanded by 38 percent, from $13 billion to $17 billion.50 Then, Bolivia started ending bilateral investment treaties in 2009, and from that point forward, the nations by and large FDI stock grew 61 percent, from $7.3 billion to $11.8 billion today. So also, South Africa chose in 2010 to end 20 bilateral investment treaties. FDI stock expanded 10 percent since that time, from 1.8 trillion rands to 2.0 trillion rands. Likewise, Indonesia pulled out in 2014 that it would end its bilateral investment treaties, and its general FDI stock expanded by 5 percent, from $228 billion of every 2014 to $240 billion out of 2016 (Joost, 2014 p.375). These couple of insights alone supported why the times of bilateral investment treaties are numbered. States arrange bilateral investment treaties to build the inflow of remote direct speculation.

Nonetheless, both the figure and the experimental writing proposes something else. A few investigations even suggest that bilateral investment treaties repulse outside direct venture. For remote financial specialists and their administrations, one of the extraordinary lacks of standard worldwide law is that it doesn’t manage the cost of a compelling and restricting instrument for the goals of venture questions. One point of the bilateral investment treaties development is to cure this circumstance (Harrison, 2014). To be sure, the latest bilateral investment treaties accommodate two unmistakable question settlement instruments: one for debates between the two contracting states and the other for discussions between a host nation and an oppressed outside financial specialist. Regarding the previous, most bilateral investment treaties give that in case of disagreements about the understanding or utilization of the settlement, the two states concerned will initially look to determine their disparities through exchange and afterward, if that falls flat, through specially appointed intervention.

All in all, honestly, the times of bilateral investment treaties in the structure we realize today are numbered. Just because the quantity of successfully ended bargains surpassed the amount of recently closed settlements and the amount of new arrangements going into power. What’s more, whiles the year 1990 recorded the most elevated number of bargains, and the year 2017 marked the least number since 1983. In any case, this may check a fresh start for the venture network. Such difficulties are reasonable for each framework. Bilateral investment treaties is 59 years today, so it is normal for it to endure. Indeed, even people creatures experience the ill effects of emotional meltdowns after the 50s. Thus, there are potential changes (Hallward, 2014, p.23).

Policy Mechanisms to Attract and Regulate Foreign Investments.

There is expanding mindfulness in arrangement circles that the current bilateral investment treaties system is getting progressively insignificant as far as tending to rise social, ecological, and formative difficulties, both at national and worldwide levels. A critical number of the current bilateral investment treaties have supplied speculators with expansive rights and assurances that are sponsored by reliable question settlement instruments (Voong, 2016 p.433). States, then again, have focused on non-complementary commitments that substantially limit their strategy space and the capacity to manage in general society intrigue. Besides, states are expanding, turning out to be mindful that, bilateral investment treaties don’t satisfy its expressed destinations of pulling in increasingly remote speculation. Slightly, it opens them to universal assertions for the sake of reciprocal investment treaties arrangements (Gordon, 2011). Considering this, this segment proposes some approach systems that would help pull in and Regulate outside venture pushing ahead.

Disregarding the way that, savants have battled that the generation of a world Investment Court would construe a substitution of the present course of action of improvised two-sided Investment trilateral boards with another institutional structure (Gazzini, 2014 p.942). This is because, the World Investment Court would comprise of judges selected by States on a lasting premise, for instance, for a fixed term. Different concerns are that this would require a total redesign of the present system through an organized activity by more significant part of States.

In spite of the absence of evidence of their viability, the bilateral investment treaties development, all in all, might be viewed as a feature of a progressing procedure to make another universal law of outside venture to react to the requests of the new worldwide economy that has so quickly risen inside the most recent couple of years. While the world has built up a moderately detailed legitimate structure for exchange the type of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, it still can’t seem to make a comparable structure for a worldwide venture. Such a multilateral game plan, a General Agreement on Direct International Investment, is numerous years away and might be accomplished through continuous, Bilateral Investment treaties by the Bilateral Investment treaties approach. The arrangements on exchange related venture quantify in the present Uruguay Round of GATT speak to a significant activity for that association, and the outcomes may add to another universal law on outside speculation. The bilateral investment treaties development of the previous thirty years has additionally been a significant advance toward this path (Frenkel, 2017). Although bilateral investment treaties themselves just tie the two nations concerned and are presumably not adequately far-reaching to comprise standard global law, the procedure of study, conference, dialog, and exchange that has been a piece of the bilateral investment treaties development has unquestionably established a framework for the making of a universal speculation structure that may, in the long run, draw in the accord of the countries of the world.

By the by, this speculation court may well be beginning as a plurilateral activity, with a pick in component for those States that will wish to join. It is additionally essential to perceive this would require a multilateral exertion as opposed to the Creation of a world’s speculation Court. The foundation of a standing, unbiased, and free World Investment court would, in the primary example take care of the issues brought about by the ISDS exemplified in many bilateral investment treaties. This loose body would likewise spare Governments, especially in global south from bringing about a large number of dollars for the sake of the purported Model bilateral investment treaties exchanges. All the more importantly, a compelling world Investment Court would not just pull in and control remote speculation, however would likewise realize consistency and expanded financial specialist certainty (Falvey, 2017 p.631). This is because, the ISDS system is exceptionally condemned for the absence of uniformity of decisions. Scholars like Nicolette and Surya have noticed that there have been a few profoundly announced choices which Bilateral Investment treaties the absence of consistency in universal venture mediation.

Without a standing speculation court, States can draw in and control remote direct venture through general exemption conditions. BILATERAL INVESTMENT TREATIEs ought to incorporate arrangements that are outfitted towards practical improvement without settling on the insurance of nature, work standard, and human rights. There ought to be special-case provisions planned for reaffirming and safeguarding the privilege of States to embrace estimates essential to secure the earth, wellbeing, and open wellbeing, human and work measures. Strikingly, the more significant part of the 21st-century model bilateral investment treaties has accommodated such exemptions (Eric, 2003). Although, they differ fundamentally as far as language and wordings.

What’s more, some of them are drafted in non-confining vernaculars. Another viable way to deal with such broad individual cases is to display such arrangements after the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) Article 20 General exemptions. Canada appears to take the lead toward this path. Article 10 (1) of the Canada model bilateral investment treaties which give entomb Alia that nothing in this Agreement will be translated to keep a Party from embracing or authorizing measures necessary: (a) to secure human, creature or vegetation or wellbeing; (b) to guarantee consistency with laws and guidelines that are not conflicting with the arrangements of this Agreement. Even though, this exemptions consistently expect States to fulfill the Chapeau. If not, it would be interpreted as a trick guideline. Be that as it may, is a decent advancement? The main issue is that others may address whether such an arrangement would draw in more considerable speculation to a state.

Another pivotal issue from the viewpoint of the manageability of bilateral investment treaties is fuse restricting corporate social obligation provisions in bilateral investment treaties. Arrangements will better serve the enthusiasm of both the speculator and States if express references are made to corporate social obligation. Help to pull in and manage the remote venture. In the many bilateral investment treaties closed, just an unimportant percent of them contain such references. Indeed, even those bilateral investment treaties that notice corporate social obligations are worded in non-restricting dialects. The Indian model bilateral investment treaties did, yet it was willful. So also, the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement referenced corporate Social capably, yet in non-restricting language too. For example, the Canada Peru gives in addition to other things that each Party ought to empower endeavors working inside its domain or subject to its locale to deliberately consolidate universally perceived principles of corporate social obligation in their inward approaches (David, 2017 p.59). Be that as it may, the gatherings help themselves to remember the significance of corporate social responsibility. It is essential to recognize that such arrangements would help pull in remote speculation as well as direct the conduct of the financial specialist too.

The Effect of bilateral investment treaties on Foreign Investment Transactions

It is typically asserted that bilateral investment treaties, by ensuring certain rights to outside financial specialists, will empower expanded interest in the creating nation by the nationals of the other country. The impact of the settlement is to improve the venture atmosphere in the host nation and along these lines increase specialist financial certainty, factors which probably positively affect the speculation choice (Yackee, 2008). The opportunity to contribute is influenced by an assortment of elements, and it is hard to decide with any accuracy whether the presence of bilateral investment treaties is one of them. Unquestionably, significant ventures have been made when no bilateral investment treaties existed at all between the host nation and the financial specialist’s nation of origin. For instance, somewhere in the range of 1978 and 1989, roughly 350 United States organizations put more than $3.5 billion in China in spite of the way that no bilateral investment treaties existed between the two centuries, and that mutual investment treaties dealings had been delaying for more than five years (Cotulla, 2017). Then again, one doesn’t know whether other ventures would have occurred in the United States and China had marked bilateral investment treaties. So also, there have been situations when experiments have been made in nations where the financial specialist was ignorant of the presence of bilateral investment treaties.

Episodic proof proposes that a couple of home nations may deter, or if nothing else, not energize, their nationals to put resources into remote countries with which they have no settlement. In this manner, marking bilateral investment treaties might be a method for actuating an outside government to help with convincing its nationals in any event to consider interests in a nation with which it has bilateral investment treaties. The bilateral investment development may likewise have the impact of encouraging the section of remote speculation as host nations rethink and eventually modify laws, approaches, and bureaucratic dispositions to fit bargain arrangements. One can say that bilateral investment treaties are one of a few certainty building estimates that can be utilized to improve the host nation’s venture atmosphere. In any event, the marking of bilateral investment treaties by a host nation is a reasonable sign to speculators from a settlement accomplice that their venture is welcome. Attorneys and financial specialists would, in this way be all around encouraged to allude to, and use, relevant bilateral investment treaties in their speculation arrangements with have nation authorities. It might likewise be advantageous to look at all bilateral investment treaties made by a forthcoming host nation since the U.S (Bonnitcha, 2015). Undertaking, through an entirely or somewhat, possessed outside auxiliary, might have the option to exploit bilateral investment treaties between the remote nation where the backup is built up and the potential host nation.

Archived utilization of bilateral investment treaties arrangements to secure speculation has all the earmarks of being slight. Incidentally, courts have summoned the venture arrangements of companionship, trade, and route settlements. Yet, these right choices have ordinarily exuded from the courts of capital-spending out nations, instead of creating countries. There is, in any case, recounted proof to propose that in strategic and bureaucratic practice, the way that a creating country has marked a bilateral investment treaties offers ascend to expanded financial specialist assurance in those states. In this manner, one nation that nationalized remote property in a specific industry seems to have absolved outside speculations secured by bilateral investment treaties. In discretionary or bureaucratic dealings, a financial specialist ensured by a bilateral investment treaties will presumably be in a more grounded position to look for review than something else (Butler, 2017 p.61). Admittedly, the bilateral investment treaties required debate settlement arrangements, and a definitive possibility of obligatory discretion will cause have nation authorities to delay before taking activities toward remote ventures.

As far as concerns them, speculators may have a more prominent conviction that all is good a direct result of the bilateral investment treaties’ contest settlement arrangements and its composed standards. Up to this point, be that as it may, no question administered by bilateral investment treaties has been settled by an intervention. The surmising to be drawn from that reality is either that mediation arrangements are untested or, in this manner questionable, or that they have filled in as a powerful hindrance to self-assertive host government activity (Been, 2003). Additionally, while the characterized, composed arrangements of the bilateral investment treaties may give more noteworthy security to financial specialists than doe’s standard global law, those arrangements, frequently drafted when all is said in done, some of the time unclear language, can do generally fluctuating elucidations.

Conclusion

Bilateral investment treaties have risen as one of the most noteworthy late advancements in universal law today. Two-sided speculation arrangements are understandings between two nations planned for ensuring ventures made by financial specialists of the two countries. One necessary mechanism in many bilateral investment treaties is Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) arrangements that enable financial specialists to start restricting universal discretion against the State facilitating their speculation as per most spectators, and the principal bilateral investment treaties were marked in 1959. From that point forward, there has been an uncommon increment in the quantity of bilateral investment treaties over the world from only 500 during the 1990s to more than 3,324 before the finish of 2016.85 This sensational increment in the number of bilateral investment treaties is joined by an expanded number of global assertion guarantees in which financial specialists try to recoup billions of dollars from Governments for supposed infringement of settlement arrangements. There has been a surprising increment in the quantity of Investor States Disputes Settlements cases from an irrelevant number in the mid-1990s, the absolute number of referred to ISDS cases rose to 767 as toward the start of 2017. 87Argentina alone confronted worldwide legitimate claims of around $16 billion out of 2004, approximately one percent of its gross national item at the time.

These advancements have prompted a few backfires against the ISDS arrangements and bilateral investment treaties when all is said in done. This is proved in the successive end of bilateral investment treaties and criticism of the ISCID convention. Ninety, for instance, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela have condemned the ICSID show and have ended the majority of the bilateral investment treaties they have marked. Thus, South Africa has completed the vast majority of her bilateral investment treaties just as repudiated the ISDS system. A portion of the advocates of bilateral investment treaties, for example, Australia has giving signs. In 2011, Australia expressed that it would not have the ISDS arrangement in its bargains, however, changed this situation in 2013 by revealing it would haggle for ISDS on a case-by-case premise because of a difference in Government. 93 It is in this manner not fantastic that while the quantity of new bilateral investment treaties ceaselessly expanded during the 1990s, their number has as of late stagnated. For the first run-through, the amount of viably ended arrangements surpassed the amount of recently closed bargains. The contentions propounded in this article is that, honestly, the times of bilateral investment treaties are numbered as showed previously (Neumayer, 2005). In any case, this may check a fresh start for the Investment people group. The ongoing advancements in Investment arrangements flag a potential formation of a standing World Investment Court. It, in this manner recommended that, to pull in and direct remote venture. To start with, the making of a world speculation court is the topmost need. Second, general, individual cases that are planned for giving strategy space to have states lastly, the alleged model bilateral investment treaties approach might be valuable.

Reference

Anand P, ‘The 2016 Model Indian Bilateral Investment Treaty: A Critical Deconstruction’ (2017) North-western Journal of In’t Law & Business 38 2)

Been V and Beauvais J, ‘The Global Fifth Amendment? NAFTA’s Investment Protection and the Misguided Quest for an International Regulatory Takings Doctrine’ (2003) 78 NYU Law Reviews 30, 55 3)

Butler N and Subedi S, ‘The Future of International Investment Regulation: Towards a World Investment Organisation?’ (2017) Netherlands International Law Reviews 43–72 4)

Bonnitcha J, ‘trends in investment treaties and their interaction with other legal instruments’ (2015) UNDP 5)

Cotulla L, ‘Business and human rights in investment treaties’ (2017) Human Rights Impact Assessments 6)

David G. and Kathryn G, ‘Investor-state dispute settlement: a scoping paper for the investment policy community’ OECD Working Papers on International Investment (2017)59 available at: accessed 15 December 2018 7)

Eric L and Kevin G, ‘International Human Rights in Bilateral Investment Treaties and in Investment Treaty Arbitration’ A Research paper prepared by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) (2003) 8)

Falvey R and Foster-McGregor N, ‘Heterogeneous effects of bilateral investment treaties’ World Economic Reviews, (2017) 631 9)

Frenkel M, ‘Do Bilateral Investment Treaties Attract Foreign Direct Investment? The Role of International Dispute Settlement Provisions’ (2017) WHU Working paper series < file:///C:/Users/abdul/Downloads/WP-17-08.pdf> assessed 31st December 2018 10)

Gazzini T, ‘Bilateral Investment Treaties and Sustainable Development’ (2014) 15 Journal of World Investment & Trade 929-963 11)

Gordon K and J Pohl, ‘Environmental Concerns in International Investment Agreements: OECD Working Papers on International Investment,’ (2011) OECD Publishing. assessed 14th December 2018

Hallward M,’ ‘Do Bilateral Investment Treaties Attract FDI?’ (2003) Policy Research Working, Paper 3121 para 22-23 13)

Harrison J, ‘The Life and Death of BITs: Legal Issues concerning Survival Clauses and the Termination 14)

Joost P, ‘At the edge of chaos? Foreign investment law as a complex adaptive system, how it emerged and how it can be reformed’ (2014) 29 ICSID Reviews 372–418 15)

Kenneth S and Eric S, ‘The Effects of Treaties on Foreign Direct Investment: Bilateral Investment Treaties, Double Taxation Treaties and Investment Flows’ (Oxford Scholarship online May 2009) < http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/978019538 8534.001.0001/acprof-9780195388534> assessed 30th December 2018 16)

Mann F, ‘British Treaties for the Promotion and Protection of Investments’ (1981) 52 YBI 241,244 17)

Osterwalder N, ‘Harnessing Investment for Sustainable Development: Inclusion of investor obligations and corporate accountability provisions in trade and investment agreements’ IISD Background document for the expert meeting co-hosted by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) January 11–12, 2018 < https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/meterial/harnessing-investmentsustainable-development.pdf> Assessed 2nd January 2019 18)

Pohl J, ’Societal benefits and costs of International Investment Agreements: A critical review of aspects and available empirical evidence’ OECD Working Papers on International Investment (2018) 1 OECD Publishing 19)

Ranjan P and Pushkar A, ‘The 2016 Model Indian Bilateral Investment Treaty: A Critical Deconstruction’ (2017) 1 North-western Journal of International Law and Business, 38 1-53

Rose-Ackerman T, ‘Foreign direct investment and the business environment in developing countries: The impact of bilateral investment treaties’ (2003) WDW 587 21)

Rose-Ackerman T, ‘Bilateral investment treaties: Do they stimulate foreign direct investment’ (2006) Mimeo 22)

Satria A, ‘Social and Environmental Protection in Bilateral Investment Treaties: Foreign Investors’ Perspective’ (2011) 1 Indonesian Laws Reviews 69, 77 23)

Schemer E, ‘An Overview of South Africa’s Bilateral Investment Treaties and Investment Policy’ (2016) 31 Foreign Investment Law Journal 167 24)

Singh K and Ilge B, Rethinking Bilateral Investment Treaties: Critical issues and Policy choices (published by Both ENDS, and SOM, 2016) 25)

Subedi S, International Investment Law: Reconciling Policy and Principle (3rd edition, Hart Publishing 2016) 107 26)

Sweebe Z, ‘shades of green: health, safety, and environmental protections in china’s international investment agreements’ (2017) University of Pennsylvania Journal of Investment Law 17 27)

Vandevelde K, ‘Economics of Bilateral Investment Treaties’ (2000) 41 Harvard International Law Journals 469 28)

Voong T and Mitchell A, ‘Denunciation, Termination and Survival: The Interplay of Treaty Law and International Investment Law ‘(2016) 31:2 ICSID Reviews, Foreign Investment Law Journal 413-433 29)

Yackee J, ‘Conceptual Difficulties in The Empirical Study of Bilateral Investment Treaties’ (2008) 33 Brook Journal of International Law 40

Neumayer, E. and Spess, L., 2005. Do bilateral investment treaties increase foreign direct investment to developing countries?. World development, 33(10), pp.1567-1585.