A Critique of the Concept of Legitimate Expectations of Investors in Contrast with the Legitimate Expectations of Host States in International Investment Law

Document Type : Scientific Research

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Department of Private and Islamic Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. (orcid: 0000-0001-5436-1344)

2 Master's Student in Financial Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. (orcid: 0000-0002-9404-9133)

3 Associate Professor, Department of Private and Islamic Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. (orcid: 0000-0002-0057-7534)

Abstract

Legitimate expectations is a concept or doctrine that is usually invoked by investors inlawsuits against the host state in courts and arbitration tribunals for breach of commitments(by the host state of capital)thathave disrupted their investments;although these claims are not essentially based on explicit written agreements.What the concept of legitimate expectations entails is not very clear, and arbitration tribunals also differ in their practice due to the fluidity of the concept.It should be said that legitimate expectations have been mainly used as a component (or one of the essential elements)of the standard of fair and equitable treatment(FET)although some have argued that it may have become an independent doctrine or possibly a general principle of international law.The inclusion of this concept in the national or constitutional law of countries has certainly provided more protection and guarantee for investors,which is often to the detriment of the host countries of capital.Specifically,host developing countries have done and continue to do so.These countries sometimes found themselves in conflict with the extensive expectations of investors that they did not expect.Despite this, the legal basis for the application of this concept in international law has not been examined accurately.This research examines the concept of legitimate expectations and its meaning and content, its legal and legal basis in international investment law,the disadvantages it has for host states,how to limit the application(and potential impact)of this concept by host states and examines the possibility of creating legal and legitimate expectations required from investors in favour of host countries and their citizens.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

غمامی، مجید؛ یادگاری، فهیمه. (۱۳۹۸). حقوق سرمایه‌گذاری بین‌المللی: مفهوم‌شناسی سرمایه‌گذار و سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی. تهران: شرکت سهامی انتشار.
Arif v Republic of Moldova, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/23, Award of 8 April 2013, para 536.
Brower, C. H. II. (2001-2002). Investor-state disputes under NAFTA: The empire strikes back. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 40(1), 43-88.
Carlos, J., & González, M. (2017). The convergence of recent international investment awards and case law on the principle of legitimate expectations: Towards common criteria regarding fair and equitable treatment? European Law Review, 42(3), 402-417.
Chaisse, J., & Ng, S. R. (2018). The doctrine of legitimate expectations: Comparing international law and common law in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Law Journal, 48(1), 79-81.
CMS Gas Transmission Co. V. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Annulment Decision of Sep. 25, 2007, para 89.
Continental Casualty Company v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/9, Award (2008).
Dolzer, R. (2005). Fair and equitable treatment: A key standard in investment treaties. International Lawyer, 39(1), 87-106.
Dolzer, R., & Schreuer, C. (2012). Principles of international investment law (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
EDF (Services) Limited v Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/13, Award Merits, 8 October 2009, para 219.
Electrabel S.A. v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Award of 25 November 2015.
Gallagher, K. P., & Birch, M. B. L. (2006). Do investment agreements attract investment? Evidence from
Latin America. Journal of World Investment and Trade, 7(6), 961-974.
Ghamami, M., & Yadegari, F. (2019). International investment law: Conceptualization of investor and foreign investment. Tehran: Enteshar Co.[In Persian].
Gold Reserve Inc. V. Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/09/1, Award, September 22, 2014.
International Institute for Sustainable Development. (2012). SADC Model BIT Template. [1].
International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation. (2006). “International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v. United Mexican States, NAFTA Arbitration under UNCITRAL, Award of 26 January 2006, para 37.” UNCITRAL, Retrieved from [https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0437.pdf].
Laryea, E. T. (2021). Legitimate expectations in investment treaty: Concept and scope of application. In J. Chaisse, L. Choukroune, & S. Jusoh (Eds.), Handbook of international investment law and policy (pp. 97-120). Springer.
Levine, M. A. J. (2020). Emerging practice on investor diligence: Jurisdiction admissibility, and merits. In J. Chaisse, L. Choukroune, & S. Jusoh (Eds.), Handbook of international investment law and policy (pp. 1-30). Springer.
Micula, J., Micula, V., European Food S.A., Starmill S.R.L., & Multipack S. R.L. (2014). Joan Micula, Viorel Micula, S.C. European Food S.A., S.C. Starmill S.R.L. and S.C. Multipack S. R.L. v. Romania ICSID Case No.
ARB/05/20, Award, 11 December 2013, para 667. ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal, 29(1), 231-240.
Miles, K. (2013). The origins of international investment law: Empire, environment and the safeguarding of capital. Cambridge University Press.
Monebhurrun, N. (2016). The concept of legitimate expectations in investment treaty law: A normative framework. Journal of World Investment and Trade, 17(4), 551-562.
Morocco and Nigeria. (2016). Agreement between the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco and the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments. [1].
MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. And MTD Chile S.A. v. Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7, Decision on Application for Annulment, 21 Mar. 2007.
Nganjo-Hodu, Y., & Nwapi, C. (Eds.). (2016). Rethinking the role of African national courts in arbitration. Kluwer Law International.
Nolte, G. (1994). General principles of German and European administrative law: a comparison in historical perspective. Mod Law Rev 57:191, 195.
Novenergia II Energy & Environment (SCA) (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), SICAR v. Spain, SCC Case No. V2015/063, Final Award, 15 Feb. 2018.
Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v Chile), ICJ, Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Daudet, 1 October 2018. 2.
Odumosu-Ayanu, I. T. (2014). Governments, investors and local communities: Analysis of a multi-actor investment contract framework. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 15, 473-474.
OECD. (2004). Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in International Investment Law. (OECD Working Papers Series on International Investment 2004/3). [1].
Postestà, M. (2013). Legitimate expectations in investment treaty law: Understanding the roots and the .limits of a controversial concept. ICSID Review,, 88-90, (1) 28.
Postestă, M. F. (2017). The doctrine of legitimate expectations in international investment law. Revista Română de Drept European, 2(3), 88-122.
PSEG Global Inc. & anor. V. Turkey, ICSID Case No ARB/02/5, Award of 19 January 2007, paras 246-55, at 64-6.
Salam, N., Dissenting Opinion. Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile), International Court of Justice, Judgment (2018).
Saluka Investments B.V. v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award (2006).
Sauvant, K. P., & Ünüvar, G. (2016). Can host countries have legitimate expectations? Columbia FDI Perspectives, (183), 1.
Schreuer C (2007) Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET): interactions with other standards. Transnatl Dispute Manag 4(5), at 1-2.
Schreuer, C. (2008). Consent to arbitration. In P. Muchlinski, F. Ortino, & C. Schreuer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international investment law (pp. 831-837). Oxford University Press.
Schwarze, J. (1992). European administrative law. Sweet & Maxwell.
Snodgrass, E. (2006). Protecting investors’ legitimate expectations: Recognizing and delimiting a general principle. ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal, 21(1), 1-58.
Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. and Vivendi Universal, S.A. v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, Decision on Liability, 30 Jul. 2010.
Tecmed v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/2, Award of 29 May 2003, para. 154.
Tecmed v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/2, Award of May 29, 2003, para. 173.
Tudor, I. (2008). The fair and equitable
treatment standard in the international law of foreign investment. Oxford University Press.
UNCTAD. (2012). Fair and Equitable Treatment, UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II. United Nations, New York. [1].
Wongkaew, T. (2019). Protection of legitimate expectations in investment treaty arbitration: A theory of detrimental reliance. Cambridge University Press.
Civil Law Knowledge
Volume 12, Issue 24 - Serial Number 24
January 2024
Pages 121-136

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics