Abstract
Abstract
What role should concerns about distributive justice play in international investment law? This paper argues that answers to fundamental and contestable questions of social and global distributive justice are a necessary, if implicit, premise of international investment law. In particular, they shape our views on the purpose of investment law, and in turn determine the scope of authority that investment law can claim, and that states should accord it. The implausibility of achieving international consensus on these questions constitutes a substantial objection to the harmonization of investment law or the consistent operation of a multilateral investment court.
Subject
Law,Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous),Development
Reference60 articles.
1. Agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada (USMCA) 2018.
2. Aisbett, A. and L. Poulsen, Relative Treatment of Aliens: Firm-level Evidence from Developing Countries, University of Oxford, Global Economic Governance Programme, Working Paper No. 122 (2016).
3. Aisbett, E. and J. Bonnitcha, A Pareto-Improving compensation Rule for Investment Treaties, 24 Journal of International Investment Law, no. 1 (2021), 181-202.
4. Barry, C., and L. Valentini, Egalitarian Challenges to Global Egalitarianism: A Critique, 35 Review of International Studies, no. 3 (2009).
5. Berge, T. L. and A. Berger, Do Investor-State Dispute Settlement Cases Influence Domestic Environmental Regulation? The Role of Respondent State Bureaucratic Capacity, 12 Journal of International Dispute Settlement, no. 1 (2021).