Bilateral Investment Treaties from the perspective of the Vienna Convention on the Law of treaties : a path towards the "defragmentation" of International Law

Los Tratados Bilaterales de Inversión desde la perspectiva de la Convención de Viena de Derecho de los tratados : un camino hacia la “defragmentación” del Derecho Internacional

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties proposes the mechanism agreed by the States for the interpretation of international treaties. The denominated Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) are a specific example of the International Investment Law. Nevertheless. within this branch of International Law doubts about its correspondence with the application of the “treaty of treaties” still persist and encouraged by the trend mainly promoted by the “practitioners”, arbitrators or representatives of the parties, the way in which different treaties on investment matters have been construed expose the tensions of a fragmented International Law. Who has to interpret them? Under which rules? This article proposes, firstly, to tackle the genesis and evolution of the International Investment Law; secondly, its characterization as an example of the sustantive fragmentation of International Law, in order to address thirdly the interpretation according to the rules of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States as a tool to solve the dilemma described. The conclusion follows the last point, understanding this instrument as the only one among the General International Law that advocates for a harmonious interpretation and a systematic integration. Consequently, it would provide an increasing legal certainty -a favorable scenario for investors- and a greater respect for the will of the States that created the international norms in dispute.  

1. Born, G. (2015). Should Investment Treaties Have Their Own Rules of Interpretation? Disponible en: http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2015/02/03/should-investment-treaties-have-their-own-rules-of-interpretation/
2. Cremades, B. (2004). Disputes Arising Out of Foreign Direct Investment in Latin America: A New Look at the Calvo Doctrine and Other Jurisdictional Issues Texto. Dispute Resolution Journal, 59(2), 1–9.
3. Koskenniemi, M. (2006a). Fragmentation of Internacional Law: Difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of International Law. Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission (Vol. A/CN.4/L.6). Disponible en https://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_l682.pdf
4. Koskenniemi, M. (2006b). Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties arising from the diversifiation and expansion of International Law (Vol. A/CN.4/L.6). Nueva York. Disponible en: https://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_l682.pdf
5. Laird, I. (2014). Is the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Dead in BIT Arbitration?. Disponible en https://oxia.ouplaw.com/page/475
6. Lee, J. (2015). Resolving concerns of treaty shopping in international investment arbitration. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 6(2), 355–379. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idv011
7. Muchlinski, P., Ortino, F., & Schreuer, C. (2008). The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law. The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199231386.001.0001
8. Nilsson, A. O. (2013). Inconsistent Awards in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Is an Appeals Court Needed? Journal of International Arbitration, 30(5), 561–579.
9. Petersmann, E.U. (2006). Justice as conflict resolution: Proliferation, fragmentation, and decentralization of dispute settlement in international trade. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, 27, 273–300.
10. Potestà, M. (2013). Legitimate expectations in investment treaty law: Understanding the roots and the limits of a controversial concept. ICSID Review, 28(1), 88–122. https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/sis034
11. Rappaport, A. (1975). A History of American Diplomacy. Nueva York: Macmillan.
12. Salacuse, J. (2010). The emerging global regime for investment. Harvard International Law Journal, 51(2), 427–473.
13. Schermers, H. & Blokker, N. (1995).
14. Shaw, M. N. (2003). International law, fifth edition. International Law, Fifth Edition. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139051903
15. Shea, D. (1955). The Calvo Clause: A problem of inter-American and international law and diplomacy. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
16. Simma, B. (2009). Universality of international law from the perspective of a practitioner. European Journal of International Law, 20(2), 265–297. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chp028
17. Sourgens, F. (2017). Supernational Law. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 50(1), 155–216. Disponible en http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=123462654&lang=ja&site=ehost-live
18. Sullivan, J. W. S. N. P. (2009). Do BITs Really Work?: An Evaluation of Bilateral Investment Treaties and their Grand Bargain. In The effect of treaties on foreign direct investment: bilateral investment treaties, double taxation treaties and investment flows (pp. 1–66). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof
19. Summers, L. (1972). Arbitration and Latin America. California Western International Law Journal, 3(1), 7–17.
20. van Aaken, A. (2008). Fragmentation of International Law: The Case of International Investment Law. Finnish Yearbook of International Law, 17, 91–130. Disponible en https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1097529
21. Walker Jr, H. (. (1957). Modern treaties of friendship, commerce and navigation. Minnesota Law Review, 42, 805–840.
22. Weeramantry, J. R. (2012). Treaty interpretation in investment arbitration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23. Weiler, T. (2005). International Law and Arbitration: Leading Cases from the ICSID, NAFTA, Bilateral Treaties and Customary International Law. Nueva York: Cameron May.
24. Wellhausen, R. L. (2016). Recent trends in investor-state dispute settlement. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 7(1), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idv038
25. Werner, W., De Hoon, M., & Galán, A. (2017). The law of international lawyers: Reading Martti Koskenniemi. The Law of International Lawyers: Reading Martti Koskenniemi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108147620
26. Whiteman, M. (1967). Digest of International Law (No. III). Washington DC.
27. Wythes, A. (2010). Investor-state arbitrations: Can the fair and equitable treatment clause consider international human rights obligations? Leiden Journal of International Law, 23(1), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156509990409
28. Achmea B.VS. vs. The Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2008-13 (formerly Eureko B.VS. vs. The Slovak Republic), decisión sobre jurisdicción del 26 de octubre del 2010. Disponible en https://www.italaw.com/cases/documents/418
29. AES Summit Generation Limited and AES-Tisza Erömü Kft vs. The Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22, laudo del 23 de septiembre del 2010. Disponible en https://www.italaw.com/cases/193
30. Aguas del Tunari, S.A. vs. Republic of Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/3, decisión sobre la jurisdicción del 21 de octubre del 2005. Disponible en https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement/cases/74/aguas-del-tunari-v-bolivia
31. Compañia del Desarrollo de Santa Elena S.A. vs. Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB/96/1, laudo del 17 de febrero del 2000. Disponible en https://www.italaw.com/cases/documents/3414
32. El Paso Energy International Company v. The Argentine Republic, laudo del 31 de octubre del 2011. Disponible en https://www.italaw.com/cases/documents/383
33. Pac Rim Cayman LLC vs. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/12, laudo del 14 de octubre del 2016. Disponible en https://www.italaw.com/cases/783
34. Parkerings-Compagniet AS v. Republic of Lithuania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8, laudo del 11 de septiembre del 2007. Disponible en https://www.italaw.com/cases/812
35. Philip Morris Asia Limited vs. The Commonwealth of Australia, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2012-12, laudo del 17 de diciembre del 2015. Disponible en https://www.italaw.com/cases/851
36. Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A. vs. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, laudo del 8 de julio del 2016. Disponible en https://www.italaw.com/cases/460
37. Robert Azinian, Kenneth Davitian, & Ellen Baca v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/97/2, laudo del 1 de noviembre del 1999. Disponible en https://www.italaw.com/cases/114
38. Rumeli Telekom A.S. and Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/16, laudo del 29 de julio del 2008. Disponible en https://www.italaw.com/cases/942
39. Saluka Investments B.V. v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, laudo parcial del 17 de marzo del 2006. Disponible en https://www.italaw.com/cases/961
40. Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited vs. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/84/3, laudo del 20 de mayo de 1992. Disponible en https://www.italaw.com/cases/3300
41. Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/2, laudo del 29 de mayo del 2003. Disponible en https://www.italaw.com/cases/1087
42. UP (formerly Le Chèque Déjeuner) and C.D Holding Internationale vs. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/35, decisión sobre jurisdicción del 3 de marzo del 2016. Disponible en https://www.italaw.com/cases/documents/6903