Investment Law before Arbitration

Jarrod Hepburn, Martins Paparinskis, Lauge N Skovgaard Poulsen and Michael Waibel ()

Journal of International Economic Law, vol. 23, issue 4, 929-947

Abstract: Investment law was not always about investor–state arbitration. Based on British and German archival materials from the Cold War, this paper shows how aims and priorities in the investment treaty regime changed over time. We find important differences in the role and relative importance of different legal rules then and now. Most notably, national treatment and free transfer clauses were key in early investment law, whereas fair and equitable treatment was regarded as relatively unimportant. At the same time, early drafters did anticipate some of the most contentious issues in modern investment law, including treaty shopping, shareholder protection, and the ‘no greater rights’ proviso.

References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jiel/jgaa037 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:jieclw:v:23:y::i:4:p:929-947.

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://academic.oup.com/journals

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of International Economic Law is currently edited by Kathleen Claussen, Sergio Puig and Michael Waibel

More articles in Journal of International Economic Law from Oxford University Press Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().