Abstract
AbstractThis article argues that State autonomy in setting the level of protection for permissible regulatory aims can be better operationalised in the investment treaty regime. The article draws on comparative insights from WTO law, where it is established that WTO members have the right to determine the level of protection for permissible regulatory aims, although significant disciplines are placed on the means used to achieve those aims. It is then argued that investment treaties are, properly interpreted, consistent with the idea that States retain autonomy to determine the level of protection for permissible regulatory aims. Finally, the article proposes removing from the fair and equitable treatment and indirect expropriation standards proportionality balancing stricto sensu, as this undermines State autonomy in setting the level of protection. Overall, this article argues for a partial reorientation of investment law, in which non-discriminatory measures that pursue a permissible regulatory aim, including at a particular level, should not amount to a breach of a treaty where a State uses the means that involve the least possible restriction of the competing interests protected by relevant investment treaty obligations.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Law,Political Science and International Relations
Reference10 articles.
1. Defining Indirect Expropriation: The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Approach and the (Elusive) Search for “Greater Certainty”;Ortino;LIEI,2016
2. Autonomy in Setting Appropriate Level of Protection under the WTO Law: Rhetoric or Reality?;Du;JIEL,2010
3. CETA and the External Autonomy of the EU Legal Order: Risk Regulation as a Test;Leonelli;LIEI,2020
4. The CETA Opinion of the European Court of Justice and its Implications—Not that Selfish After All
5. ADJUDGING THE EXCEPTIONAL AT INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW: SECURITY, PUBLIC ORDER AND FINANCIAL CRISIS
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献