Margins of Wrongfulness in Arbitration: Measuring the Tinker in Eiser v. Spain

Apr 11, 2024 | HILJ-HIALSA International Arbitration Collaboration, Online Scholarship

Galo Márquez*

The saga of Spanish investment arbitrations born out of Spain’s decision to disapply incentives in the renewable sector in the face of a financial crisis continues to generate awards on quantum and liability. The recent decision in Eiser v. Spain is one of many that has contributed to a pool of inconsistent arbitral awards. Given the increasing number of decisions, it is not surprising that arbitral tribunals have reached divergent decisions as to the wrongfulness of Spain’s measures. In his Dissent on Liability and Quantum, Prof. Philippe Sands affirms that “[n]o doubt, reasonable folk will question the wisdom of creating a system that allowed so many competing and contradictory awards to flower, and introduce the changes that seem so necessary” (¶ 1). This article addresses some of the inconsistencies arising from how arbitral tribunals have recognized that a state may make regulatory changes. Still, this recognition has not meaningfully impacted the damages awarded to investors.

Nor have the competing views of arbitral tribunals resulted in a uniform application of the law of damages in international arbitration. Typically, when tribunals determine that a state’s measure violates an investment treaty, they award damages for injury attributable to any part of the measure. By reviewing the decision in Eiser v. Spain, this article suggests a different approach. It argues that states should only be liable for the portion of damages attributable to the difference between the injury caused by the measure actually imposed, and the hypothetical injury that would have been caused by a lawful alternative measure. I will refer to this concept as the “Margin of Wrongfulness.”

It must be mentioned that this article builds upon the work of the Academic Forum on Investor-State Dispute Settlement (“ISDS”) before the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Working Group III (“UNCITRAL”) on matters related to damages. The author is an appointed Member of the Academic Forum on ISDS and a representative observer before Working Group II on Arbitration and Dispute Resolution. However, the views expressed here are mine alone. The benefit of this article is twofold. First, it demonstrates an inconsistency in the way that arbitral tribunals have awarded damages, which the ISDS community has sparingly addressed. Second, by reviewing over a few dozen awards, the article identifies that the concept of ‘legitimate expectations’ in international investment law cannot continue developing as it has in the last few decades without a shift in how damages are awarded.

I. Introduction to the Spanish financial crisis

The Eiser v. Spain case is an old tale with a new twist. Like many other countries, Spain introduced at the end of the 90s a package of regulatory amendments and financial incentives to promote renewable energy in the country. Spain sought to promote a specific type of solar power through state subsidies. The new regulatory regime was an attempt to realize the spirit of the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change, the 1994 Energy Charter Treaty, and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, as well as the 2001 European Union policy for reducing greenhouse gasses by means of developing renewable energy in the region.

Starting in 1998, Spain issued a series of decrees to promote renewable energy by means of a guarantee for long-term supply of energy (Eiser, ¶¶ 105-107). In the long term, however, these incentives were not sustainable. Spain was not left alone in the crusade to advance renewable energy throughout the 90s. In the first weeks of 1991, the Committee on Science and Technology of the European Parliament made an aggressive call to move towards renewable energy on the basis of the results of the Brundtland report—document recounting the world’s critical environmental problems. In the Committee’s view, “[e]very effort should be made to develop the potential for renewable energy which could form the foundation of the global energy structure during the 21^st century” (p. 2, ¶ 5).

Answering this call, Spain issued Royal Decree 661/2007. The International Energy Agency viewed the Decree as seeking “[t]o contribute to Spain’s efforts to achieve its 2010 national target for the promotion of electricity from renewable energy under EC Directive 2001/77/CE.” More than an effort, several investors—including Eiser (¶¶ 357-35)—argued that Decree 661/2007 was a public policy creating an attractive environment for investment (Charanne v. Spain, ¶ 515).

This Decree was later retracted by Spain, causing significant harm to energy projects. The rationale behind a state’s incapacity to unreasonably and unfairly backtrack from a commitment is quite logical. In the same way that a person would not purchase a car for a price other than the one advertised, investors expect to receive the benefit of protective guarantees or commitments that the government has made to them. UNCTAD estimates that the Spanish Decree has been at the heart of over 40 investment arbitrations. This  number keeps growing as investors submit new ISDS cases arising from Spain’s retreat from its regulatory commitments to the energy sector (See, WOC v. Spain).

A few years into the application of Decree 661/2007, the Tribunal in Eiser recounts that Spain became concerned due to a “tariff deficit.” The tariff deficit is generally understood as “[t]he financial gap between the costs of subsidies paid to renewable energy producers and revenues derived from energy sales to consumers” (¶ 124). To combat this deficit, in December 2012, the Spanish Parliament imposed a 7% tax on the total value of the energy fed into the national grid. This tax eliminated the subsidies for renewable energy. This mechanism was followed by several other decrees that blunted the financial incentives and subsidies for foreign investors. In June 2014, the government dealt the final blow to Decree RD 661/2007 through a ‘ministerial order’ setting up a whole new regime for existing power plants (the “Disputed Measure”).

The Eiser case arose from a so-called ‘failed’ investment in the solar power sector in Spain (¶¶ 94-95). During the arbitration, Eiser valued its investment through the Discounted Cash Flow (“DCF”) method at €124.3 million (¶ 136). The relevance of damages in investment arbitration is a growing concern in the field. Certain circles claim that arbitral tribunals are awarding increasingly larger claims in favor of the investor. On this, the International Institute for Sustainable Development mentions that its “[r]esearch has found over 50 known cases in which an investor–state tribunal has awarded a foreign investor over USD 100 million in compensation. In at least eight claims, the award reached over USD 1 billion” (¶ 14).

The energy generation mechanism promoted under Decree 661/2007 was allegedly categorized as a renewable source. The new policies materialized in Decree RD 661/2007. The Arbitral Tribunal considered that the Decree contained a myriad of key elements, including: (i) a guaranteed “priority of dispatch” into Spain’s grid subject to certain conditions; and (ii) it allowed energy producers to adopt different tariffs for production in accordance with the specific characteristics of each project (¶ 112).

Eiser brought an investment arbitration under the Energy Charter Treaty as the general partner of a limited partnership, claiming that it invested in reliance on Royal Decree 661/2007 and its stabilization clause¾which restricted Spain from amending its regulatory framework (¶¶ 357-358). Eiser’s business model depends on identifying low-risk investments in public infrastructure.

The State’s decision to retract Decree 661/2007 had a devastating effect on several companies. Although many foreign investors had access to bilateral investment treaties or the Energy Charter Treaty, locals recount that Spain’s decision to retroactively backtrack from the Decree 661/2007 (the Disputed Measures) “[l]ed to […] the total ruin of 62 000 families […] and that their opportunities to file claims before the Spanish Government have been restricted, given that they did not have access to more impartial, international courts.” This was not the case for Eiser, which enjoyed its position as a United Kingdom incorporated company with the capacity to bring an investment arbitration against Spain.

II. The Tribunal’s Award

Against this backdrop, the Eiser Tribunal was tasked with reviewing if the Disputed Measures breached the fair and equitable treatment (“FET”) standard. Embarking on this task, the Arbitral Tribunal had to address the State’s capacity to regulate¾a heavily disputed point in international investment law (Isolux v. Spain, ¶¶ 409-426; Novenergia II v. Spain, ¶ 542-697). Although the nuances to identify a breach of legitimate expectations may be contested, arbitral tribunals have generally considered the following points (¶¶ 369-372):

• Whether the investor’s expectations were legitimate, reasonable or fair, and not based on subjective considerations.
• The reliance of the investor on such expectations when making its an investment.
• The State’s unilateral conduct to the detriment of the legitimate expectation.
• The existence of a damage to the investor.

Following the steps of Parkerings v. Lithuania, the Tribunal in Eiser departed from the premise that “[a]bsent explicit undertakings directly extended to investors and guaranteeing that States will not change their laws or regulations, investment treaties do not eliminate States’ right to modify their regulatory regimes to meet evolving circumstances and public needs” (¶ 369). Accordingly, FET itself does not paralyze the regulatory powers of the governments.

III. Overlapping principles for determining the margin of wrongfulness

An award on quantum must flow from a prior determination of liability, granted through the same award or in a prior stage. Arbitrators sometimes split their decisions on liability and quantum into different awards, but these components may very well be included in the same award. Several breaches have been claimed in the Spanish arbitrations, but a notable one is the myriad of claims concerning the FET provision. Tribunals have considered that FET may spin off in several protections, including a violation of legitimate expectations, lack of transparency, lack of due process, and arbitrariness (Electrabel v. Hungary I, ¶ 7.74.; PV Investors v. Spain II, ¶ 565; RREEF v. Spain II, ¶ 260; Operafund v. Spain, ¶ 524).

EDF v. Romania, an important case on the analysis of a claimant’s legitimate expectations, explained that a mere regulatory instability does not amount to a breach of a FET provision (¶ 217):

The idea that legitimate expectations, and therefore FET, imply the stability of the legal and business framework, may not be correct if stated in an overly-broad and unqualified formulation. The FET might then mean the virtual freezing of the legal regulation of economic activities, in contrast with the State’s normal regulatory power and the evolutionary character of economic life.

The Eiser Tribunal considered that Spain’s withdrawal of Decree 661/2007 amounted to a breach of the FET standard and the investor’s legitimate expectations. The Tribunal notably awarded full compensation for all losses to the project attributable to Spain’s retraction of Decree 661/2007. By applying a Margin of Wrongfulness, the Tribunal should have discounted from the award losses attributable to the portion of Spain’s measure that would not have amounted to an arbitrary abrogation of Decree 661/2007. In other words, if not all amendments to the regulatory framework are abusive, then the financial gap between the measure that Spain could have taken without breaching FET and the measure that, if applied, would be illegal constitutes the Margin of Wrongfulness.

Reduction of damages in findings where a government disregards an investor’s legitimate expectations is not uncommon. In MTD v. Chile, the Arbitral Tribunal found a breach to the FET standard by considering that Chile had induced a legitimate expectation that a real estate project would be feasible, even when the acquired land could not be developed for commercial purposes (¶ 217). In what has been called a Solomonic decision (Potestà, pp. 38-39), the Tribunal reduced by 50% the damages awarded to the investor due to its failure to conduct an independent assessment of the land.

As such, not all damages need to be compensated. The Margin of Wrongfulness would imply the existence of an ‘unjustified damage’ standard (Muhammad, p. 108) and not a mere reduction in the value of the investor’s investment (Wöss, ¶ 9-10). The Eiser Tribunal unfortunately missed this aspect. Incoherently, it considered that states are not confined to a straitjacket when amending prior legislation, without analyzing the resulting effect on damage quantum. The Eiser Tribunal is not alone in this omission. In the Renergy case, the Tribunal, by majority, invoked “[w]ell-established arbitral case-law” holding “that even in the absence of any specific commitment, Article 10(1) ECT does protect investors against legislative changes that exceed a (wide) acceptable margin” (¶ 642). The recognition of an exceeding acceptable margin might justify the existence of a Margin of Wrongfulness.

The Eiser case is also enlightening as to the impact that a fact witness might have on damages. In most awards, the decision on quantum is driven by the technical viewpoints of experts. In Eiser, the Tribunal reflected that during the arbitration hearing, representatives of the investor opined on the weight that the Disputed Measure had on the investment:

In response to the Tribunal’s question at the Hearing, Mr. Meissner, a founding partner of Eiser, drew a distinction between the changes in Spain’s regulatory regime and other regulatory situations where regulators might “tinker a little bit with the returns.” In contrast, he deposed that “here we had a complete value destruction. We lost all value in this particular project.”

The factual witness’ statement suggests that “tinker[ing] a little bit with the returns”—i.e., the Margin of Wrongfulness—would be acceptable. This implies an additional layer of analysis that exceeds the scope of this article, where the Margin of Wrongfulness might also be justified since an investor is expected to value its investment considering the risks of the project. This is relevant, because under several methods to quantify damages in arbitration a discount rate needs to be applied to the future cash flows that an investor might expect. The ICCA Task Force on Damages considers than an investor’s “[u]nbiased cash flows are expected (average) cash flows—not the cash flows that investors may hope for if everything goes well”.

The Margin of Wrongfulness does put into question some of the premises on which the law of state reparation has been built. Through state responsibility doctrine, investors expect to receive compensation after a violation of international law, which “[s]hould reflect all financially assessable damages” (Marboe, ¶ 3.289). This principle is derived from the acclaimed Factory at Chorzów case, where the Permanent Court of International Justice settled that “[r]eparation must, as far as possible, wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and reestablish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed” (Chorzów, PCIJ 1927, p. 47). The decision in Chorzów has become a cornerstone of the law on damages and is widely cited by tribunals, including in the Eiser case (Eiser, ¶ 421). The Margin of Wrongfulness brings to light some potential deficiencies in the development of damages in ISDS since the Chorzów case.

While the Margin of Wrongfulness questions the legality of the Disputed Measure, it could also be applied by questioning the legitimate expectation of the investor to receive damages. Reparation as understood in Chorzów is built on two premises: (i) the existence of an illegal act, and (ii) the reestablishment of the situation had the act never been committed (Amoco v. Iran, ¶ 191-195). The first premise is compatible with the Margin of Wrongfulness since it implicitly recognizes that damages cannot be awarded for a lawful act, subject to certain nuances on the type of breach committed (e.g., lawful expropriation still requires compensation). The second premise, however, is more questionable. Compensation should restore the injured party not to their pre-breach position, but to the position they would have arrived at had a ‘lawful’ measure been enacted. Restoring the injured party to the pre-breach position presumes that the State’s measure is unlawful in its entirety—but this may not necessarily be true. Arguably, the Tribunal’s recognition of the Margin of Wrongfulness and the Chorzów case invites discussion on how the premises of international damages should be reconsidered or disregarded by future arbitrators in cases such as Eiser v. Spain.

If the Margin of Wrongfulness is accepted as a legal premise then the arbitrators would need to identify the lawful-scenario of the State’s measure. This would require tribunals to heavily engage in hypothetical factual and financial situations, which ISDS tribunals are familiar with. Most investment arbitrations necessitate that arbitrators identify a “but-for” scenario, derived from the principle of causation in international damages. According to the Brattle Group, one of the most active quantum experts in ISDS cases, “[c]ausation requires the careful construction of a counterfactual or ‘but-for’ world that eliminates only the conduct at issue but retains all relevant features of the actual world. The construction of the but-for world is necessarily hypothetical and must remain internally consistent”.

Assessing the Margin of Wrongfulness by considering a potential hypothetical scenario is then inherent to the ordinary course of damages identification conducted by tribunals. This alternative factual situations are also grounded as a matter of law. In the 1987 Amoco decision before the Iran-US Claims Tribunal, Judge Bower separately opined that once liability is found with a degree of certainty, then quantification may be performed with “[t]he best available evidence, even though this process be inherently speculative” (n. 142, ¶ 26). An alternative evaluation of the Margin of Wrongfulness would then be compatible with the perspective taken by some stakeholders.

IV. Conclusion

Eiser v. Spain underscores the intricate nature of investment disputes and the importance of balancing a state’s regulatory authority with investor protections. Recognizing the Margin of Wrongfulness and considering how this concept impacts damages may contribute to a more nuanced approach in future arbitration cases, fostering a fair and equitable resolution for all parties involved. It would also incentivize uniformity in cases where a state, such as Spain, is faced with a wave of investment claims. Moreover, achieving certainty as to the standard on which an investment tribunal should award damages might also function as a prevent mechanism of control for States when enacting amendments to their international commitments.

*Galo Márquez is an Associate in the International Arbitration practice at Creel, García-Cuellar, Aiza y Enríquez, and a Member of the Academic Forum on ISDS before UNCITRAL. He is also a Business Law Professor at Tec de Monterrey.

Cover image credit 

The Civil Liability of Arbitrators: A Transition from Absolute to Qualified Immunity in the United States

Apr 11, 2024 | HILJ-HIALSA International Arbitration Collaboration, Online Scholarship

José Ramón Villarreal Martínez*

I. Introduction

Several jurisdictions have recorded a rise in lawsuits against international arbitrators and arbitral institutions in national courts (p.13).^[1] These cases are occasionally unfounded and may be initiated by disgruntled parties who are dissatisfied with the outcome of an award. They may attempt to file their claims as breaches of public policy or acts of bad faith. This trend has caused a reputational crisis for international arbitration.

The issue is significant because the UNCITRAL Model Law does not specifically cover the matter of arbitrator liability. As a result, each jurisdiction has taken a different approach addressing this issue. In common law countries,^[2] arbitrators are granted the same immunity as judges.

In contrast, in jurisdictions that follow a civil law tradition, the role of the arbitrator is considered sui generis. This is because the arbitrator is seen as both a professional service provider and as someone who performs a jurisdictional function akin to a judge. As a result, the arbitrator has certain contractual rights and obligations towards the parties involved. Additionally, the arbitrators are protected by a system of qualified immunity, meaning that they can only be held liable in serious cases, such as when there is gross negligence, fraud, or bad faith.

Nevertheless, even within common law jurisdictions, there is a lack of consistency in the degree of immunity granted. For instance, in the U.S., the arbitrator enjoys absolute immunity, thereby shielding them from civil responsibility claims, even in instances involving fraud, carelessness, or bad faith. In contrast, in England, the arbitrator’s immunity is not absolute: it does not apply if the arbitrator acts in bad faith.

The problem gained significance after a recent news event where the Paris Court of Appeals annulled an award after it was discovered that an arbitrator had publicly acknowledged a personal acquaintance with one of the lawyers involved in the arbitration process, in a eulogy he published in the prestigious French publication Dalloz. The annulment occurred because of a breach of disclosure, which led to concerns about the arbitrator’s impartiality and independence. In qualified immunity jurisdictions,^[3] the violation of contractual obligations (failure to deliver a timely award, breaches of the duty of disclosure, and excluding an arbitrator from the deliberations) has been ground to impose liability on the arbitrator.^[4]

In contrast, in Grupo Unidos por el Canal S.A. et al. v. Autoridad del Canal de Panama, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, while analyzing the possibility to vacate an award due to an alleged breach of the duty of disclosure by the arbitrators, stated that “[it] is little wonder, and of little concern, that elite members of the small international arbitration community cross paths in their work . . .  [w]e refuse to grant vacatur simply because these people worked together elsewhere.”

An argument can be made that absolute immunity is a potential solution to avoid frivolous claims from being brought against arbitrators. However, this legal doctrine fails to provide arbitrators with the motivation to perform their duties diligently and cautiously. This has resulted in arbitrators avoiding liability, even in cases where they have acted negligently, to the detriment of the parties and the reputation of arbitration.

From my perspective, the United States must shift from absolute to qualified immunity. This move is crucial because it safeguards the arbitrator’s position in making decisions and offers a recourse for parties involved in situations when the arbitrator acts dishonestly, engages in fraudulent behavior, or displays gross negligence. This transition would establish a liability framework that protects the arbitrator’s judicial function and, at the same time, protects parties against arbitrators’ wrongdoing.

The experience in jurisdictions that have implemented qualified immunity shows that only a few successful cases where arbitrators have been held accountable have been reported. For this reason, an acknowledgment of some level of liability of arbitrators contributes to the high standards of quality that are expected from an arbitration procedure.

II. Arbitrator Liability Regimes

The doctrine of judicial immunity, which originated in England in the 17th century in the cases of Floyd v. Barker and The Marshalsea, has been adopted by common law jurisdictions. However, the degree of immunity adopted by each of them is different.

The doctrine of judicial immunity states that judges are not legally liable for any potential harm resulting from their judgments. The purpose of this doctrine is to uphold the reliability of the judicial system by allowing judges to render decisions without undue pressure by the parties. In the U.S., arbitrators are granted absolute immunity; in England, this immunity allows an exception in cases of bad faith.

In contrast, civil law countries acknowledge that arbitrators carry out their role through a contract, functioning as professional service providers. To safeguard the arbitrator, these jurisdictions have established a sui generis approach^[5] that acknowledges both the judicial role of the arbitrator and his contractual duties.

The sui generis approach has established a form of qualified immunity, whereby the arbitrator is protected from liability for his jurisdictional role, while also safeguarding the parties involved from any unjustified infringements that arbitrators may commit, which could be considered as contractual violations.

III. The Liability of Arbitrators in the U.S.

Within legal systems based on common law, the principle of judicial immunity extends to arbitrators and other individuals who carry out adjudicatory duties. In the U.S., the doctrine of absolute immunity for arbitrators was initially acknowledged in Jones v Brown and further affirmed by the Supreme Court in Butz v Economou. This doctrine provides arbitrators with absolute immunity from legal claims, even in situations of extreme carelessness, and intentional dishonesty.

While the rationale for granting absolute immunity to arbitrators is based on their adjudicatory role, it is indisputable that there are more disparities than similarities between judges and arbitrators, as Pierre Lalive suggests:

One should hesitate to assimilate the position of the arbitrator to that of a judge. In any case, the reasons seem obvious to exclude an assimilation, and even an analogy, between a judge and arbitrator. First a judge is in no way chosen by the agreement of the parties (…) Secondly, when exercising their judicial function, State judges exercise power authority conferred by the State and in its own name.

To sum up, the differences between the function, activity, position and status of a judge on the one hand, and those of an arbitrator on the other, are so great that no sufficient analogy can be drawn between the two which can possibly justify the immunity of the arbitrator.

Consequently, arbitrators bear a closer resemblance to professional service providers rather than judges. For this reason, an absolute degree of immunity fails to motivate arbitrators to adhere to the utmost standards of care and thoroughness.

The absolute immunity approach is problematic for its failure to acknowledge the contractual nature of the arbitrator’s role. Also, it disregards that professionals from analogous fields may be held accountable for civil liability if they incur in a breach of contract.

As Lorena Malintoppi declares:

There is no question that arbitrators and arbitral institutions should be held liable if they commit gross negligence, or act in bad faith. Needless to say, arbitrators are bound to act fairly, to respect due process and the integrity of the proceedings, to ensure the efficiency of the process, and avoid delays. It is also universally accepted that arbitrators have the duty to be impartial and independent and to disclose for the duration of the arbitral proceedings any facts or circumstances that may put into question their capacity to decide a dispute independently and impartially.

Furthermore, “[n]ot only does absolute immunity yield bad results as a matter of policy, but the doctrine also rests on shaky legal foundations . . . [d]espite its dubiousness, the doctrine or arbitral immunity has gone largely unquestioned.” Notwithstanding these concerns, most courts in the U.S. have blindly adhered to it.

From my perspective, it is necessary for the U.S. to transition from the absolute immunity doctrine to qualified immunity. Under this approach, the arbitrator would be allowed absolute immunity for his adjudicatory role but would also be considered a professional service provider who may be held accountable for negligence, bad faith, or misconduct.

IV. The Transition to Qualified Immunity

Although the idea of absolute immunity of arbitrators has been widely accepted in the U.S., the California Court of Appeal in Baar v Tigerman deviated from this doctrine and refused to apply it to an arbitrator, who had failed to deliver a timely award.

While the absolute immunity doctrine is unquestioningly implemented in the U.S., this was the first instance where a court specifically highlighted that arbitrators are immune from liability in their jurisdictional role, and that the refusal to issue an award is separate from the decision-making process. While American case law has firmly established the application of the absolute immunity doctrine for arbitrators, this precedent has sparked research and debate over the possibility to transition from absolute to qualified immunity, a discussion that has been abandoned in recent years.

In addition, debate over arbitrators’ civil liability is crucial for effective arbitration, since absolute immunity may hinder diligence and good faith. It is also a bad policy to shield people who willfully engage in bad faith or gross negligence, such as not delivering a timely award or disclosing conflicts of interest. As Susan Frank suggests, “[o]verly broad immunity fails to create an incentive for arbitrators to be responsible for their actions, to the parties who are paying fees, or to the integrity of the international arbitration system.”

For that reason, other common law countries such as England have transitioned from the absolute immunity doctrine towards a qualified approach, by recognizing in Section 29 (1) of the Arbitration Act of 1996 that “[a]n arbitrator is not liable for anything done or omitted in the discharge or purported discharge of his functions as arbitrator unless the act or omission is shown to have been in bad faith.” Also, in England, an arbitrator is immune in all the activities that involve a judicial function; however, “this immunity . . . [does not] have anything like the same force when applied to professional men when they are not fulfilling a judicial function.”

Although absolute immunity is conceded to arbitrators as a public policy measure, absolute immunity should not protect arbitrators when they voluntarily engage in bad faith or other misconduct. The reason for concern lies not only in its impact on the arbitration’s outcome, but also in its detrimental effect on the reputation of arbitration as a viable alternative to court litigation.

V. Reasons to Advocate for Qualified Immunity

Even though other common law jurisdictions have transitioned to qualified immunity, I view Baar v Tigerman as a precedent that has the potential to ignite the discussion on qualified immunity. This is because qualified immunity acknowledges the contractual nature of an arbitrator’s appointment, wherein the arbitrator assumes rights and responsibilities by consenting to deliver a fair and enforceable award. Additionally, qualified immunity also safeguards arbitrators when they carry out judicial duties, while ensuring that they are held responsible for their lack of care in fulfilling their contractual obligations.

There is a concern that if qualified immunity is adopted as a matter of public policy, because arbitrators, unlike judges, are vulnerable to “(1) unhappy parties [that] might threaten arbitrators, or (2) arbitrators might not make principled decisions if they are concerned about being sued,” nevertheless, these policy justifications are insufficient to support absolute immunity; however, there is evidence in that qualified immunity will not threat the impartiality or independence of arbitrators, since “the number of successful cases brought against arbitrators and institutions is limited. A French study (…) identified five cases since 1804 where arbitrators were found liable by the French courts: one for untimely resignation, twice for lack of independence and impartiality, and twice for excessive delays.”

In England, since the Arbitration Act of 1996 “there have been no reported English cases which have interpreted the bad faith requirement in Section 29 . . . Bad faith is a deliberately high threshold, and this carve-out seeks to strike the balance between immunity and permissible recourse for parties in respect of egregious arbitrator behaviour.”

Thus, based on the experience of France and England, it can be inferred that qualified immunity does not pose a risk to the impartiality and independence of arbitrators; rather, it supports these qualities because it imposes a “balance that addresses the courts’ dual concerns: protecting the public from possible arbitrator abuse and providing arbitrators with immunity to ensure independent decision making . . . [q]ualified immunity would hold arbitrators accountable when arbitrator.”

VI. Conclusion

The advantage of transitioning from absolute to qualified immunity is that the latter recognizes the sui generis legal relationship that exists between the arbitrator and the parties, where the arbitrator is chosen by a contract to perform an adjudicatory function. In addition, qualified immunity safeguards arbitrators when they carry out judicial duties, while also ensuring that they are held responsible for any wrongdoing committed in bad faith or negligence.

A flaw of the absolute immunity approach is that it ignores that the parties, when they chose an arbitrator, have a reasonable expectation that the arbitrator will remain impartial, independent and that he will fulfil his duties (contractual and adjudicatory) in good faith. Moreover, “their acceptance of the arbitral risk did not cover the case of fraud, of corruption, nor (it would seem), cases of gross and inexcusable negligence. But it did cover, or include the possibility of mistakes in law and legal procedure . . . there is no justification for the immunity of the arbitrators, especially when it is based on the misconceived assimilation to the status of judges.”

Another critique of absolute immunity is that it grants protection to arbitrators based on a misunderstood policy argument to protect them from undue pressure from the parties, and to provide them legal certainty that they will be immune from civil liability claims. Even when the reason behind this argument is true, and that it is undeniable that without some degree of immunity fewer professionals would accept to be appointed as an arbitrator, there is no justification to shield arbitrators in cases of bad faith or gross negligence.

As Dario Alessi suggests:

No law of contract would allow the gross unfairness of exempting a party to a contract from liability because of some policy argument. In particular, the independence of arbitrators may not be obtained at the expense of fairness, producing impunity for breach of obligations that the arbitrators have freely assumed. (…) The unpleasant effects of liability of arbitrators which may occur, such as a risk of vexatious litigation, collateral disputes or harassing lawsuits, cannot as such justify the denial of the right to enforce the promises of arbitrators.

In addition, it is also a good policy to provide the parties of an arbitration a remedy in case that the arbitrator acts in bad faith (such as deliberatively not disclosing conflicts of interest) or in cases of fraud or gross negligence. At the international stage the trend is to improve the current standards about impartiality and independence applicable to arbitrators, evidence of this tendency is the recent publication of the IBA Guidelines of Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration 2024, that was updated to incorporate “the best current international practice . . . [t]he General Standards and the Application Lists are based upon statutes, practices, and case law and other decisions in a cross-section of jurisdictions, and upon the judgment and experience of the main participants in international arbitration.”

While international arbitration is imposing stricter standards to arbitrators, the U.S. lags behind the international trend by granting explicitly immunity to arbitrators that fail to disclose conflicts of interests, as it is recognized in Section 14 of the Uniform Arbitration Act. There current approach in the U.S. towards the liability of the arbitrator fails to  “balance the various interests of parties, counsel, arbitrators, and arbitration institutions, all of whom have a responsibility for ensuring the integrity, reputation, and efficiency of international arbitration.”

To promote the adoption of qualified immunity in the U.S., I consider it necessary to adopt qualified immunity through legislation at state level, and to implement it in the Uniform Arbitration Act, since it does not seem likely^[6] that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case that modifies the existing status quo.^[7] As M. Rasmussen says, “because large sophisticated parties would not forego their access to national courts without carefully exploring the advantages and disadvantages of the process, they must perceive that the advantages of arbitration outweigh the disadvantages.”

In addition, the transition to “contractual liability, would increase transparency, accountability, independence, impartiality, and integrity in the arbitral process. Henceforth, international arbitration would enjoy greater recognition and public confidence,” a transition to qualified immunity will help arbitration to overcome its actual reputational crisis.

*Facultad Libre de Derecho de Monterrey (LLB), Escuela Libre de Derecho (LLM), University of Southern California, Gould School of Law (LLM), Harvard Extension School (ALM Government candidate). The author specializes in civil, commercial litigation, and commercial arbitration in Mexico. I’m grateful to Roberto Cuchí Olabuenaga for his comments in early drafts, and to the members of the editorial board of the HILJ-HIALSA for their work in preparing this piece for publication. All errors are my own.

Cover image credit 

In Defence of the Impartiality of Barristers and Door Tenants in ISDS: A Call for Departure from Hrvatska Elektroprivreda d.d. v. Republic of Slovenia

Mar 29, 2024 | HILJ-HIALSA International Arbitration Collaboration, Online Scholarship

*Batuhan Betin

To venture so brazenly as to critique an order promulgated by the most distinguished of tribunals, comprised of Jan Paulsson, Charles N. Brower, and David A. R. Williams QC (as he was then), presiding, may be comparable to an act of sacrilege. Alas, heresy is precisely what the tribunal’s Order, dated May 6^th, 2008, in Hrvatska Elektroprivreda d.d. v. Republic of Slovenia provokes. In classrooms, misinformed articulations of the case garner polarizing responses from students. It prompts those educated in the institutions of the British Isles (and equally, the Commonwealth) to react viscerally, raising their hands in hopes of being called upon to clarify the particularities of the seemingly alien system of barristers’ chambers—much to the amusement of their contemporaries hailing from “enlightened” civil law jurisdictions who stubbornly refuse to distinguish barristers from the lawyers of their native lands.

Despite its notoriety, the case has attracted limited academic commentary.

At the crux of Hrvatska Elektroprivreda d.d. v. Republic of Slovenia was a list communicated on April 25^th, 2008, tabulating the members of the Respondent’s representatives who would be attending the  inaugural arbitral hearing scheduled a fortnight from then (¶ 3). Amongst the constituents of the list was Mr. David Mildon QC (as he was then) (¶ 3). Mr. Mildon KC (as he is now) was, and still is, a barrister operating out of Essex Court Chambers, in London (¶ 3). Mr. Williams KC (as he is now) was, at the time, a “door tenant” operating out of the very same set of chambers (¶ 3). The Claimant’s representatives declared that they had not been aware of Mr. Mildon KC’s retainer before the above-mentioned letter (¶¶ 4-5). They promptly requested disclosure of Mr. Mildon KC’s affiliations with the presiding arbitrator (¶ 5), and subsequently petitioned for Mr. Mildon KC to be removed on grounds that Mr. Williams KC could not ‘be relied upon to “judge fairly”’ (¶ 15).

The tribunal evaluated the interrelationship between Mr. Mildon KC and Mr. Williams KC and found that there was justifiable “apprehension of partiality” (¶ 31).  It ordered that “Mr. David Mildon QC may not participate further as counsel in this case” (¶ Ruling). The Tribunal’s decision to order the removal of Mr. Mildon KC was inspired by a medley of considerations. The seemingly most decisive and foundational consideration was the Tribunal’s finding that there was a justifiable “apprehension of partiality” because “the London Chambers system is wholly foreign to” the Claimant (¶ 31). Admittedly, this was bolstered by the tardy timing of the disclosure of Mr. Mildon KC’s retainer (only two weeks prior to the first hearing). Without reserving a firm position as to whether this case was wrongly decided, this article seeks to challenge the precedential value of this Order vis-à-vis future cases where members of the same chambers are appointed as arbitrators and counsel. Even the most authoritative of arbitral treatises, much (presumably) to their editors’ chagrin, cautiously cite this Order as a persuasive authority that the presence of both members serves as a basis for a serious risk of impropriety (Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration (7th Edition), ¶ 4.138).

This article seeks to deconstruct two critical features of the Order. First, it shall seek to prove that, in hindsight, the Tribunal applied an erroneous subjective standard in discerning whether there was a risk of an appearance of partiality in contradiction to Article 14(1) of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States. Secondly, it advocates that the Tribunal could have more precisely characterized and investigated the interrelationship between Mr. Mildon KC and Mr. Williams KC. In particular, it seeks to demonstrate that the position of “door tenant” may be distinguished from that of a traditionally tenanted member of chambers. Consequently, the particularities of the former may mandate that in future disputes, tribunals should be cautious when applying principles generally applicable to “inter-barrister” relationships mutatis mutandis to “barrister-door tenant” relationships. To this extent, it seeks to discourage blanket recourse to the present Order.

The Tribunal applied erroneous standards in assessing the appearance of partiality. As previously mentioned, it articulated firstly, and seemingly decisively, that the Claimant had a justifiable “apprehension of partiality” because “the London Chambers system is wholly foreign to” them (¶ 31) (emphasis added). This assessment is problematic in that it endorses a subjective evaluation of the arbitrator’s partiality. It essentially adopts the position articulated by the Claimant’s representatives, that whereas the interrelationship “may not be cause for concern in London . . . [v]iewed from the Claimant’s cultural perspective, such concerns are justified” (¶ 10) (emphasis added). However, the prevailing view amongst ICSID tribunals today is that the independence of an arbitrator must be assessed, objectively, on the basis of “whether a reasonable third party, with knowledge of all the facts, would consider that there were reasonable grounds for doubting that an arbitrator possessed the requisite qualities of independence and impartiality” (Schreuer’s Commentary to the ICSID Convention p.1570 (emphasis added); see also Suez and Vivendi v Argentina ¶ 78; EDF v Argentina ¶¶ 109-111). A negative formulation of the test can also be articulated as follows: “a reasonable and informed third party would find it highly likely that the arbitrator’ lacked independence and impartiality” (p.1591; see also Caratube and Hourani v Kazakhstan ¶ 90). The Tribunal deviates from objectivity in that it assesses partiality exclusively from the subjective eyes of the particular Claimant to the dispute, as opposed to the objective lenses of the reasonable third party.

The Tribunal also failed to consider whether the Claimant could have become familiar with this purportedly ‘wholly foreign’ system through knowledge of all the relevant facts. Indeed, this is perplexing given that the Tribunal unequivocally acknowledged earlier in the Order that “[b]arristers are sole practitioners . . . [t]heir Chambers are not law firms” (¶ 17) (emphasis added). Whereas the Tribunal did caveat this statement by cautioning that “th[e] practice [of barristers] is not universally understood,” (¶ 18) it nonetheless tacitly acknowledged how readily accessible this information was. For instance, it pointed to the website of Essex Court Chambers in which unambiguous wording declared, “Chambers is not a firm, nor are members partners or employees. Rather, Chambers contains the separate, self-contained offices of individual barristers each self-employed and working separately” (¶ 17) (emphasis added).

Nowadays there is even greater transparency regarding this phenomenon. The Bar Council of England and Wales’ 2014 Information Note, and its recent 2022 Brochure, underscore that “barristers practicing from traditional sets of chambers are self-employed and are not [emphasis added] in partnership,” and “[b]arristers in the same chambers are fully independent of each other,” respectively. Similar disclaimers are customarily promulgated on the websites of Chambers. In the increasingly globalized world of arbitration, where the participation of barristers is ever-increasing, there is no sound reason precluding the representatives of opposing parties from explaining the realities of this system to their clients.

The tribunal also sought to caveat its earlier statement on the basis that the practice was not “universally agreed” (¶ 18). This proposition is hardly palatable. The independence of barristers is one of the Ten Core Duties promulgated by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) (the body responsible for the ethical regulation of the profession). It is imbued in various rules codified in the readily and publicly accessible BSB Code of Conduct, which, inter alia, underscores that “[m]embers of chambers are not in partnership but are independent of one another and are not responsible for the conduct of other members” (BSB Handbook v. 4.7, gC131). Even the failure to explain to “unsophisticated lay clients [emphasis added]” that “members of the chamber are, in fact, self-employed individuals who are not responsible for one another’s work,” is itself considered a breach of this Code of Conduct (gC56) (emphasis added). Consequently, any arbitrary attempt to doubt the legitimacy of this inviolable and fundamental principle must be readily rejected by future tribunals.

The Tribunal ought to have more precisely characterized the interrelationship between “door tenants” and barristers.

Even the most widely cited of treatises characterize the present matter as a conflict of interest between two barristers who are members of the same chambers. However, Mr. Williams KC was not a traditional member of Essex Court Chambers, nor did he practice as a litigator therein. In relation to Essex Court Chambers, his capacity was that of a “door tenant” (¶ 3). He appears to have retained his practicing certificate from the Bar of New Zealand where he was a traditional tenant of Bankside Chambers. In the absence of knowledge as to the extent and nature of his relationship with the English set, this article does not, per se, reserve a position as to whether the Tribunal erred in treating Mr. Williams KC akin to a traditional member of chambers. Indeed, as elaborated in detail below, there may be circumstances where such treatment may be justified.

The purpose of this Part is to acknowledge that, and identify why, the Tribunal conflated the roles/capacities of traditional members of chambers and that of their door tenants. It seeks then to dissuade other tribunals from blindly conflating the two, in future disputes, in prospective reliance of the current Order.

The Tribunal’s reluctance to distinguish between traditional members of chambers and door tenants should be attributed to the Background Information section of the 2004 IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration.  Therein, it is asserted (without much elaboration) that for all relevant intents and purposes, the term “members of chambers” shall, because it is “proper,” include door tenants (pp.456-457). However, the Background Information fails to provide any reason as to why the conflation is necessary or proper.

In practice, the relationship of a door tenant vis-à-vis a traditional member operating out of a set of chambers is not, per se, similar to the latter’s relationship with their contemporaries. One set of construction law barristers distinguishes the former as follows: “A number of individuals who are classed as ‘door tenants’ of Chambers also use the clerking and administrative services of ACL. Door tenants are not members, but the courtesy of displaying their name at the entrance to Chambers has been extended to them” (emphasis added).

Door tenants will likely have other permanent occupations. They may be career academics; they may be “affiliated to, and practice out of, another chamber”; they may even have vocations as lawyers employed full-time in traditional law firms operating out of “foreign” jurisdictions. The roles of a door tenant may also be vastly different vis-à-vis traditional members. Some may perform purely consultative functions. Whereas, admittedly, others will take on casework. One regional set of chambers describes the function of their door tenants as follows: “door tenants . . . are available . . . as advisers and consultants and they take on casework which is particular to their field of expertise.” Evidently, one must not blindly conflate the two. Assessment must be made on a case-by-case basis, having regard to the specific nature and extent of the door tenant’s affiliation. Otherwise, one risks arbitrarily mischaracterizing the probability of partiality.

In finding a justifiable appearance of partiality, the Tribunal placed great emphasis on the basis that the promotional materials disseminated by English chambers created a real sense of partnership and collective association amongst their traditional members (¶¶ 17-18). To this end, the Tribunal opined, it was appropriate to treat barristers, in respect of their perception by litigants, akin to solicitors employed in traditional law firms (¶ 19). However, surely, this litmus test can have a countervailing effect. The proactive efforts by chambers to distinguish between permanent members and door tenants (as exemplified for instance by the abovementioned quote from Atkin Chambers) creates a line of delimitation between the two types of tenants. It distances the latter from the former and conveys an unambiguous message that the character of the latter’s affiliation with chambers is likely to be fundamentally different from that of the former.

This is not to say that a “barrister-door tenant” relationship may never warrant disclosure. For instance, where a career academic (Professor A), who is also a door tenant, receives extensive appointments via chambers, their relationship vis-à-vis an ordinary tenanted member may be more akin to a traditional “barrister-barrister” relationship. There, mutatis mutandis application of principles governing the latter may be entirely warranted. However, it is submitted, that due regard must also be had to the secondary nature of a door tenant’s relationship to chambers. Traditionally, a barrister’s principal, if not exclusive, line of business is his self-employed vocation as a litigator, who operates out of the relevant set of chambers. On the contrary, a door tenant has a principal employer or vocation (which may be their primary source of material income). If the same hypothetical Professor A was instead a “hobby arbitrator,” instructed in less than half a handful of cases per annum, it would surely be less persuasive to treat them as if they were any other tenanted barrister.

The failure to distinguish door tenants from traditional barristers also results in certain perplexing outcomes under the 2014 IBA Guidelines on Conflict of Interests in International Arbitration. Professor A who is a door tenant at Chambers B, but a tenured member of the faculty at University C, would be expected to disclose their relationship with Counsel Y who is a junior tenant at Chambers B (¶ 3.3.2). Nonetheless, they would be exempt from disclosing their relationship with Counsel X who is also a tenured member of the faculty at University C (¶ 4.3.3). In light of Professor A’s financial independence from Counsel Y, it is unclear why the risk of bias in favor of Counsel Y is deemed inherently higher than that vis-à-vis Counsel X. Surely, in this hypothetical, the risk of bias should be greater vis-à-vis Counsel X, as a favorable award could bolster the reputation of the faculty, which may in turn indirectly benefit Professor A.

In the modern age, where information is publicly and readily accessible, no reasonable observer armed with the requisite information pertaining to the ethical regulation of barristers should have a good reason for believing that a door tenant is likely to be partial towards counsel hailing from a shared set of chambers by that connection alone. Hrvatska Elektroprivreda d.d. v. Republic of Slovenia must not be interpreted as promulgating a presumption applicable indiscriminately, and capable of producing dispositive outcomes without consideration of the specificities of each prospective conflict. This case also illustrates the desirability of expanding the 2014 IBA Guidelines on Conflict of Interests in International Arbitration such as to provide greater elucidation as to the susceptibility of door tenants (specifically) towards certain biases, with special attention being held to the secondary nature of their vocational relationship with the set. Future tribunals should and must not rely on the present Order as legitimizing the indiscriminate conflation of the two, potentially vastly different, roles.

Skepticism vis-à-vis the Order has started to emerge outside of the investment arbitration context. In 2012, the London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”) Court engaged in perhaps the most “sober” interpretation of the Order. In its Challenge Decision No. LCIA81116 the Court unequivocally found that the mere fact that counsel and arbitrator operate out of the same set of chambers cannot serve as “a [decisive] basis to impose upon him an obligation to disclose the activities of other barristers in his chambers; therefore, non-disclosure of such activities does not give rise to ‘justifiable doubts’” (¶48). It rejected any contention that the collective marketing or promotion of members of chambers could ever usurp this presumption (¶47).  Nonetheless, it cautioned, that the presumption of impartiality amongst barristers is neither inviolable nor irrefutable. On each occasion, it is paramount that one conducts a “fact-based enquiry” into whether that particular relationship, between those two members of the same set of chambers, meets the requisite threshold for an appearance of partiality (¶48). This is a most welcome development. Admittedly, this skepticism may stem from the reality that the LCIA is an inherently English institution. The LCIA Court is constituted predominately of English and common law qualified practitioners (or of those intimately familiar with the English legal system). Nonetheless, the author hopes to see the LCIA Court’s sobering approach proliferate and prevail amongst its more transnational investment arbitration contemporaries.

*Batuhan Betin holds an LL.M from Queen Mary University of London where he graduated first overall in his cohort. He extends his sincerest gratitude to his good friend Ms. María Rosario Tejada for bringing the HILJ-HIALSA Collaboration on International Arbitration to his attention.

Cover image credit

Navigating the International Investment Maze: Dissecting Imbalances, Ditching BITs, and Charting a Course Towards Sustainable Solutions

Mar 25, 2024 | HILJ-HIALSA International Arbitration Collaboration, Online Scholarship

Abdelhameed Dairy*

Introduction

The paper critically assesses the contemporary challenges facing the international investment regime, concluding that urgent reform is needed. It argues for abandoning Bilateral Investment Treaties (“BITs”) as the prevailing tools. The first part of this article characterizes the regime as an “imbalanced bargain” and highlights the regime’s inability to achieve objectives, leading to regulatory chill and hindering sustainable development goals. The second and third parts of the article propose a novel reform approach centered on the doctrine of acquired rights within a domestic legal framework, offering a comprehensive solution to existing challenges. The researcher advocates for terminating BITs, emphasizing the need for transformative legal adjustments to address the regime’s shortcomings. The methodological approach aligns with Sauvant’s emphasis on understanding the regime’s purpose as a foundation for meaningful reform discussions.

I. Background and Objectives

The global response to enhancing protection for foreign investors, framed as a “Grand Bargain,” has been subject to critical examination (Kaushal 2009; Salacuse and Sullivan 2005). Asha Kaushal revisits the history of the foreign investment regime to illuminate the present backlash against the regime, shedding light on its historical underpinnings. Kaushal’s findings underscore the tensions inherent in the BIT architecture, revealing a disconnect between the intended benefits of BITs and their actual impact on foreign investment flows (Kaushal 2009, p. 492-496).  While these treaties were originally envisioned as a means to attract investment by trading regulatory sovereignty, recent studies suggest that they may not significantly influence investment patterns. Moreover, Kaushal argues that the real bargain underlying BITs involves developing countries relinquishing sovereignty in exchange for enhanced protection of foreign property and contract rights (Kaushal 2009, p. 495).  This nuanced understanding of the BIT regime challenges traditional binary structures and highlights internal contradictions within the investment arbitration framework. Jeswald Salacuse and Nicholas Sullivan, in their evaluation of bilateral investment treaties, question the efficacy of the grand bargain inherent in these treaties (Salacuse and Sullivan 2005, p.77). The perceived imbalance in this arrangement stems from three key factors: states’ choice to enter into investment treaties in a “blind bargain” without full certainty as to their effects, provision of ‘more than just” protection for investments, and restrictions on the State’s right to regulate.

A. A Blind Bargain: A Historical Perspective

The historical evolution of international investment law, rooted in the assumption that BITs would spur economic development through increased foreign direct investments, is increasingly questionable (Kenneth Vandevelde 2009, p.21; Hallward-Driemeier 2003). The lack of empirical evidence supporting this assumption (Dolzer and Schreuer 2012, p. 23; Salacuse and Sullivan 2005, p.17) transforms entering the commitment to BITs into a speculative gamble. The early 1990s marked a shift toward neoliberal economic policies and the establishment of BITs, guided by the belief that they would foster economic development (UNCTAD 2006, p. 2, 6).

However, the paper contends that this anticipated correlation between BITs and economic development lacks empirical support. Hence, it characterizes the treaties as “blind bargains”. The paper also aligns with the view that while investment protection is an important objective, its direct translation to promotion and liberalization is not always guaranteed (UNCTAD 2003, p. 89).

B. More than Extra Protection

The surge in costly arbitration claims against host states, exceeding initial expectations, forms the second facet of the imbalanced bargain. This rise in claims, attributable to the expansive scope of BITs and their broad definitions of investments—such as in Joy Mining v Egypt (para. 45)—prompts a critical examination. Significantly, the origins of BITs are also implicated, with some arguing (Miles 2010) that the focus on investors’ interests may have led to the neglect of the host state’s interests. The unique privilege granted to foreign investors to initiate legal proceedings against host states is explored, emphasizing the need to redefine investments for better precision.

Upon revisiting the shared objectives of the regime and exploring its history, it is apparent that BITs were embraced with a specific goal: advancing the economic development of host states. This distinguishes BITs from human rights conventions. BITs focus on safeguarding investors’ property (Dolzer and Schreuer 2012, p. 60). The deliberate choice of developing countries to limit BITs to future investments highlights their core aim of promoting future Foreign Direct Investment (“FDI”), which contributes significantly to economic development Salacuse and Sullivan 2005, p. 80). Unfortunately, the lack of a precise objective definition in BITs’ preambles often leads to the inadvertent inclusion of potentially detrimental investments (UNCTAD 2011, pp. 1-13). This drafting oversight may stem from the novelty of this legal field, as acknowledged in the ICSID Convention (Mihaly International Corp. v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, para. 33).

As we consider the focus of the next chapter of investment protection, a crucial question arises: is the optimal avenue for developing investment law through BITs or domestic law? Host states have, over time, attempted a political approach to rebalance the “bargain” by modifying definitions in BITs (Kenneth Vandevelde 2009, pp. 186-187). Arbitral tribunals, adopting a legal approach, refine their interpretation of “investment”. This approach is exemplified in the Fedax v. Venezuela case which employs a “criteria approach” to define investments and establish prerequisites for protected investments. The Salini v. Morocco case, known for creating the “Salini Test”, sets criteria for an investment’s eligibility. However, a recent divergence of opinion among tribunals, particularly regarding the development clause, indicates ongoing debate. (Victor Pey Casado and President Allende Foundation v. Republic of Chile, L.E.S.I. S.p.A. and ASTALDI S.p.A. v. République Algérienne Démocratique et Populaire; Inmaris Perestroika Sailing Maritime Services GmbH and Others v. Ukraine). The development clause, often included in investment agreements and BITs, aims to ensure that foreign investment is not protected unless it contributes positively to the economic, social, and environmental development of the host country.

In summary, host states, aiming to foster economic development, have provided additional protection for foreign investments through BITs. Despite efforts to rebalance the “bargain”, harmful investments still receive extensive protection, challenging sustainable development goals. To address this, a proposed solution involves establishing a “sustainable foreign direct investment definition” which excludes detrimental investments from BIT protection. Our proposal of domestic law solutions—explored later—offers a more effective mechanism for excluding harmful investments.

C. The State’s Right to Regulate

The third element of the “imbalanced bargain” focuses on the constriction of the state’s right to regulate by BITs. While protecting foreign investors from unfair measures is acknowledged, our suggestion delves into the challenge of distinguishing between opportunistic and bona fide regulatory measures. The legitimacy crisis surrounding the regime, and particularly the threat of regulatory chill, is discussed. These concerns arise from the difficulty in balancing the protection of foreign investors with the state’s regulatory autonomy, leading to potential reluctance in enacting or enforcing regulations perceived as necessary for public welfare.

This paper advocates for the termination of BITs, emphasizing that they have failed in achieving their objectives. The imminent termination of BITs is evidenced by states initiating the process in response to the prevailing legitimacy crisis. This proposal advocates a shift from international to domestic law, offering a pragmatic solution to core issues, and preserving international arbitration but introducing a doctrinal gateway for consistency.

II. The Doctrine of Acquired Rights

Our proposal advocating domestic law as an alternative to BITs is based on the doctrine of acquired rights. The concept of acquired rights is a legal principle that protects rights which have already been acquired or established by individuals or entities under the law. It is a pivotal element within our suggested domestic investment law.

A. International Doctrinal Confirmation

Anticipating criticism about the shift from international (BITs) to national (domestic law), we address the key question of state succession’s impact on “acquired rights”. Affirmed by international tribunals, this principle, rooted in public international and municipal law, gained legitimacy in the landmark Saudi Arabia and Aramco case (see also Golâenberq; Permanent Court of International Justice). The doctrine of acquired rights was historically controversial because newly independent Global South states perceived it to threaten their sovereignty. However, this controversy largely evaporated in the early 1990s as developing and developed countries came into agreement over the importance of  Hence, I argue for a revival of the acquired rights doctrine. Apart from the historical controversies on the application of this doctrine in the international sphere and considering that in our proposal the disputes between host states and investors shall be settled through international arbitrators, the international formal recognition of the doctrine is attached to its importance in the field of investment law and confers upon its legitimacy in content and principle.

B. The Content of the Doctrine

The doctrine of acquired rights typically prevents governments or other parties from retroactively changing laws or regulations in a way that would deprive individuals or entities of rights they have already obtained. Initially, the doctrine was a safeguard against state interference with property rights, and has international recognition. Our proposed National Foreign Investment Law (“NFIL”) safeguards FDIs against post-investment regulatory changes. The scope of acquired rights within the NFIL is limited to rights explicitly acquired through it. We propose a definition encompassing tangible and intangible rights, aligned with NFIL standards. As compared to stabilization clauses, NFILs better ensure alignment with host state constitutional principles.

C. Acquired Rights and Sustainable Development in National Foreign Investment Law (“NFIL”)

In our proposed NFIL, the concept of “right” within “acquired rights” is pivotal. Valid legal rules establishing rights would seamlessly align with sustainable development goals due to the hierarchy of norms. The NFIL, being more adaptable than BITs, would be crafted to appeal to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) by incorporating constitutional principles. To exemplify, if principles like environmental protection are embedded in the host state’s constitution, any investor rights conflicting with these principles would be null and unconstitutional. This aligns investor interests with the host state’s constitutional values, increasing predictability for investors and fostering sustainable and responsible FDIs. As a result, the proposed regime aims to contribute to sustainable development goals by advocating for sustainable FDI rather than merely more FDI. Moreover, it has been noted that it is more beneficial for investors to conduct economic policies that reconcile with their stakeholders’ interests and hence avoid criticism of societies and NGOs.

In defining “acquired” within “acquired rights”, the distinction between pre-establishment and post-establishment rights is crucial. Our proposal addresses concerns around pre-establishment rights. We suggest that NFIL should refrain from granting such rights. Host states not obligated to admit foreign investments (Droit international économique. Dalloz 2003, pp. 361-365), gain more control over FDI inflow without compromising fairness. The absence of pre-establishment rights in NFIL avoids an overly liberalizing perception and allows states to tailor liberalization levels to their policy stances.

D. Stabilization Clauses and the Doctrine of Acquired Rights

Our proposal centers on activating the doctrine of acquired rights in the NFIL, akin to stabilization clauses but with notable distinctions. Stabilization clauses, often criticized for hindering sustainable development, freeze a broad scope of regulations (and sometimes freeze the whole legal framework) at the time of the investment. In contrast, our concept of acquired rights focuses on freezing specific regulations and offers more precise control. The proposed “right” concept, mandating alignment with constitutional principles, echoes suggested remedies for stabilization clause shortcomings related to environmental and social considerations.

In essence, our NFIL approach strikes a balance: it promotes sustainable FDI by aligning investor rights with host state values, avoids broad pre-establishment rights, and offers a nuanced alternative to stabilization clauses.

III. Domestic Law as an Alternative and a Solution

Following the examination in Part I, this Part questions the relevance of BITs and explores domestic law as an alternative. It proposes two remedies for investor disputes: an Investor-State Dispute Settlement (“ISDS”) clause within the NFIL and the theory of acquired rights. Domestic law, viewed through the lens of other legal frameworks like labor law, offers a stable source for managing host state-investor relationships. The chapter underscores the equivalence of domestic law to BITs’ goals and its effectiveness as a superior instrument.

A. Investor Remedies in Domestic Law

Our suggestion of a NFIL proposes incorporating an ISDS clause into the NFIL and utilizing the theory of acquired rights. It contends that domestic law can offer a stable legal framework, addressing investor concerns and facilitating long-term relationships between investors and host states. The next section challenges the notion that domestic law lacks stability and emphasizes the importance of aligning investor interests with host state constitutional principles.

B. Serving the Same Objectives

Comparing domestic law to BITs, our proposed NFIL represents a credible legal framework, providing stability, predictability, and precise obligations. The NFIL with ISDS clauses contributes to investment liberalization by supplanting the Most Favored Nation (“MFN”) treatment (in principle) with a standardized legal framework. The NFIL, characterized by its legal structure comprising general and abstract rules, encompasses all foreign investors within a unified legal framework. Consequently, it supplants the MFN standard of protection by incorporating all foreign investors falling under the definition of investment in the relevant NFIL, irrespective of the BITs their home country has established with the host state.

In the pursuit of a solution to balance investor protection and regulatory flexibility, the next section focuses on the role of domestic law. Our approach suggests a distinction between investors’ rights and privileges while maintaining the state’s right to regulate.

C. The State’s Right to Regulate

The suggested NFIL would offer a framework to differentiate between compensable and non-compensable measures. A NFIL should define investors’ rights and privileges at the time of investment, ensuring that acquired rights remain unchanged, while privileges, such as the renewal application for operating a hazardous waste landfill, may be subject to legitimate regulatory changes.

Regarding general regulatory measures, the NFIL allows states to enact measures for public interest reasons without arbitration concerns provided they do not infringe on acquired rights. This grants host states the flexibility to adjust policies for future investors without being bound by previous investors’ rights.

Privileges obtained by investors can be modified for public interest, yet opportunistic changes may lead to compensation claims. The NFIL’s meticulous drafting is essential to clearly define the scope of acquired rights, minimizing potential debates.

D. Achieving a Multilateral Agreement on Investment (“MAI”)

Our proposed NFIL serves as a potential solution for achieving a MAI by fostering consensus on standards of protection. By allowing states to freely compete within their domestic laws, regulatory competition emerges. This competition encourages jurisdictions to attract FDI by adopting protective frameworks in their NFIL.

The concept of “regulatory competition” within domestic law enables states to compete for FDI with shared objectives, such as protecting, attracting, and liberalizing investment. Countries could compete to attract FDIs by incorporating an extensive Fair and Equitable Treatment standard of protection in their NFIL. This form of competition through domestic law has been witnessed previously, such as in tax law competitions enacting lower minimum wages for employees compared to other countries,  or enhancing flexibility in the labor market.

Some may argue that this competition results in a “race to the bottom” on environmental standards. However, as well as a “Delaware effect”—a race to the bottom with regard to lax restrictions—competition might alternatively result in a “California effect” —a race to the top with regard to restrictions on corporations.

Eventually, regulatory competition will reveal which tools work better to achieve the common objectives, as with different approaches competing through the NIFL, some will witness failure and others will witness success in attracting investment.  As a result, states with approaches that have failed will tend to duplicate the approaches that have succeeded until we attain a consensus on at least fundamental substantive content, and hence regulatory competition will pave the way to attain a MAI on the substantive level.

In summary, the proposed domestic law approach offers a balanced mechanism, allowing states to regulate for the public interest while maintaining a competitive environment for attracting FDI. This perspective aligns with the principles of regulatory competition and has the potential to pave the way for a multilateral consensus on investment standards.

Conclusion

The international investment law framework, aimed at promoting FDI and ensuring its protection, faces a crisis due to insufficient empirical support, unintended extra protection through BITs, and concerns about encroachment on host states’ regulatory rights.

In light of these challenges, terminating BITs is essential.  Domestic law is a superior tool. Domestic law can achieve common goals, remove constraints on regulatory capacity, and align with global sustainable development objectives. It also serves as a crucial step towards a multinational investment agreement, providing a standardized legal framework for international investment law.

*Abdelhameed Dairy is a seasoned legal professional with expertise in case management, legal research, and client relations.

Cover image credit