European Yearbook

of International
Economic Law
Katia Fach Gómez
Anastasios Gourgourinis
Catharine Titi
Editors

Special Issue:
International Investment Law
and Competition Law

123
European Yearbook of International
Economic Law

Special Issue

Series Editors
Marc Bungenberg, Saarbrücken, Germany
Markus Krajewski, Erlangen, Germany
Christian J. Tams, Glasgow, UK
Jörg Philipp Terhechte, Lüneburg, Germany
Andreas R. Ziegler, Lausanne, Switzerland
The European Yearbook of International Economic Law (EYIEL) is an annual
publication in International Economic Law, a field increasingly emancipating itself
from Public International Law scholarship and evolving into a fully-fledged aca-
demic discipline in its own right. With the yearbook, the editors and publisher intend
to make a significant contribution to the development of this “new” discipline and
provide an international reference source of the highest possible quality. The EYIEL
covers all areas of IEL, in particular WTO Law, External Trade Law for major
trading countries, important Regional Economic Integration agreements, Interna-
tional Competition Law, International Investment Regulation, International Mone-
tary Law, International Intellectual Property Protection and International Tax Law.
In addition to the regular annual volumes, EYIEL Special Issues routinely address
specific current topics in International Economic Law.

More information about this subseries at http://www.springer.com/series/8848

Katia Fach Gómez • Anastasios Gourgourinis •
Catharine Titi
Editors

International Investment Law

and Competition Law
Editors
Katia Fach Gómez Anastasios Gourgourinis
Law School Athens Public International Law Center
University of Zaragoza National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
Zaragoza, Spain Athens, Greece

Catharine Titi
French National Centre for Scientific
Research (CNRS)-CERSA
University Paris II Panthéon-Assas
Paris, France

ISSN 2364-8392 ISSN 2364-8406 (electronic)

European Yearbook of International Economic Law
ISSN 2510-6880 ISSN 2510-6899 (electronic)
Special Issue
ISBN 978-3-030-33915-9 ISBN 978-3-030-33916-6 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33916-6

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the
material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Editorial

This special issue brings together a selection of chapters that were presented and
discussed at the Colloquium on “International Investment Law and Competition
Law”, which took place at the University of Zaragoza (Spain) on 27 and
28 September 2018.1 Although international investment law and competition law
coexist regularly in international praxis, scholarly analysis has largely treated them
as parallel universes, and as a result their actual and potential overlap was not
sufficiently explored. This edited book International Investment Law and Competi-
tion Law aims to redress this issue by focusing on the commonalities and synergies
between the two legal fields, thus encouraging a scholarly debate that lays the
foundations for future interdisciplinary legal studies.
The book opens with a chapter authored by Friedl Weiss and entitled “Quest for a
Sustainable International Investment Regime: Leveling Up Through Competition
(Policy) Rules?”. The chapter corresponds to the Colloquium’s Opening Keynote
Lecture. In it, the author explores the functioning of trade, investment and compe-
tition law and the interface between them, both at the national and international level.
He documents international cooperation in competition policy and the failed
attempts to negotiate multilateral rules in trade and investment law and argues in
favour of a multilateral system in order to redress inequalities on a worldwide scale.
Marc Bungenberg and Fabian Blandfort co-author a chapter on “International
Investment Law and Public Procurement: An Overview”. The authors ask the
question of whether international investment law can serve as a gap-filling regime

1
This Colloquium was generously sponsored by both the Department of Innovation, Research and
University of the Aragon Government (ORDEN IIU/1000/2018, de 30 de mayo, por la que se
convocan subvenciones para la realización en Aragón, durante el año 2018, de eventos y actividades
de promoción, divulgación y difusión de la ciencia, la investigación, el desarrollo tecnológico y la
innovación) and the Vice-rectorade of Scientific Policy of the University of Zaragoza
(Convocatorias de Ayudas a la organización de congresos de carácter científico). In addition, the
Colloquium received financial support from an important number of local and national sponsoring
institutions, all of them mentioned in the conference programme and on the registration website.

v
vi Editorial

to protect foreign tenderers against harmful state conduct during procurement pro-
ceedings. The chapter therefore examines whether international investment agree-
ments (IIAs) are applicable to the procurement process and whether a tender and
pre-award expenditures qualify as protected investments. After observing that the
question is neither adequately regulated in IIAs nor has arbitral practice developed a
concrete approach, the authors consider that while successful bidders can claim
compensation for damages arising from the pre-award phase, the protection of
unsuccessful bidders must be answered in a differentiated manner depending on
whether the award procedure is open or pre-elective. Assuming that international
investment law is applicable, the authors conclude that the ordinary business risks of
being part of a tender procedure should be taken into account when assessing
liability.
Lukas Vanhonnaeker canvasses the “Impacts of Local Equity Requirements on
Competition”. Local equity requirements tend to oblige foreign investors to join
forces with a local partner in order to access the national market while preventing
them from acquiring a majority stake in the local entity. The chapter explains the
notion of local equity requirements and gives an overview of their historical and
ideological underpinnings and context. Ultimately, the chapter analyses the
far-reaching and potentially harmful impact of local equity requirements on the
competitive state of markets.
Phil Baumann addresses the topic “When State Enterprises Have Deeper Pockets:
Ensuring Competitive Neutrality in Cross-Border M&A”. The author argues that
state enterprises may have undue competitive advantages over their private compet-
itors, which may result in market inefficiencies, and that the current legal framework
does not address this concern adequately. In order to overcome this unsatisfactory
status quo, the chapter critically discusses viable approaches to securing competitive
neutrality in cross-border mergers and acquisitions and ultimately a level playing
field.
Gustavo Prieto’s chapter on “The Review of National Competition Authorities’
Acts in Investment Arbitration: Setting Limits to ‘Economic Lawfare’ in the 21st
Century” looks into what would constitute an appropriate standard of review for
investment arbitrators when evaluating the lawfulness of acts of national competition
authorities in the context of the contemporary notion of “economic lawfare”. The
author argues in favour of a three-principle standard of review, taking into account
arbitrariness, denial of justice and proportionality, in order to take account of current
standards of treatment contained in IIAs.
Belen Olmos Giupponi’s addresses the question “Are Market Competition and
Investment Protection Incompatible in the EU Energy Sector?”. Her contribution
underscores recent developments in the European Union’s investment policy and
unveils the intricacies of the EU state aid regime. At the centre of her critical analysis
lies the legal nature of the Energy Charter Treaty as an international investment
agreement. Whereas the Commission’s role in international investment law has
increased over the last few years, the author considers that internal obstacles operate
as a resistance to the implementation of an authentic EU investment policy. The
chapter draws on a joint examination of the evolution of case law of arbitral
Editorial vii

investment tribunals, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the
European Commission’s position on intra-EU investment treaty and state aid in the
energy sector.
Karsten Nowrot and Emily Sipiorski co-author a chapter entitled “Stipulating
Investors’ Obligations in Investment Agreements as a Suitable Regulatory Approach
to Prevent and Remedy Anti-Competitive Behaviour?”. The authors assess the
feasibility and potential benefits of introducing investor obligations in IIAs targeting
anti-competitive behaviour by foreign investors. While similarities between the
policy goals of competition law and international investment law argue in favour
of a potential “cooperation” between the two regimes, the chapter also stresses the
difficulties in ensuring the respect of such obligations once inserted in IIAs.
Elena Belova pens the following chapter entitled “Investors’ Anti-Competitive
Behaviour and Illegal Investments in Investment Treaty Arbitration”. The chapter
discusses the legal consequences of investors’ anti-competitive behaviour in the
context of investment treaty arbitration and argues that anti-competitive strategies
may lead to breaches not only of competition law but also of a variety of host state
laws and regulations. The author advocates the adoption of a functional definition of
anti-competitive actions that taint investments with illegality and explores ways in
which such investments may be excluded from IIA protection.
Paschalis Paschalidis considers “The Impact of EU State Aid Law on Interna-
tional Investment Law and Arbitration”. The author focuses on the manner in which
legitimate expectations have been applied by arbitral tribunals in relation to state aid
measures and examines whether award of damages to foreign investors can consti-
tute unlawful state aid. He studies in particular whether arbitral awards can constitute
an economic advantage and whether they are attributable to the member state
involved. The chapter further considers the fate of arbitral awards granting damages
to investors in relation to state aid and studies the remedies available to member
states against such awards.
Millán Requena Casanova’s chapter addresses “The Complex Relationship
between Competition Law and Investment Arbitration after Achmea: The
Novenergía v. Spain Case”. Within the framework of the investor-state arbitrations
initiated against Spain under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), this chapter focuses
on the Novenergía arbitration, highlighting the difficult relationship between com-
petition law and investment arbitration in intra-EU investment disputes. After
analysing Spain’s position in Novenergía, the author reflects on new issues that
the Judgements rendered in Achmea and Micula may open. He further highlights the
difficulties that investors attempting to obtain recognition and enforcement of the
awards issued in the renewable energy arbitrations against Spain may encounter.
In “Using GATS Article II to Resort to Investment Arbitration”, Sébastien
Manciaux focuses on a recent arbitration, the Menzies v. Senegal case. In Menzies
v. Senegal, an investor from Luxembourg attempted to establish the jurisdiction of
an investment tribunal by combining the most-favoured-nation clause provided in
Article II of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATS) and the investor-
state arbitration clause contained in a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) between the
host state and a third country. The author critically discusses this case in order to
viii Editorial

shed some light on the links between the law of the World Trade Organization
(WTO), seen as global competition law, and international investment law.
The chapter co-authored by Krystle M. Baptista and Bianca M. McDonnell on
“The Use of Evidence Obtained through a State’s Special Antitrust Powers in
Investment Arbitration” explores the use of evidence obtained by states in invest-
ment arbitration. The authors consider whether a state may use information it obtains
through the special powers of supervision, investigation and seizure granted to its
antitrust agency in order to defend itself against an investment arbitration. They
argue that such a use of a state’s special powers would constitute a misuse of power
under domestic law and a violation of due process in investment arbitration and that,
as a consequence, states should resort instead to document production.
Putting the finishing touches to this book, Thomas Cottier discusses “Competi-
tion and Investment: The Case for 21st Century WTO Law”. This chapter corre-
sponds to the Colloquium’s Concluding Keynote Lecture. The author addresses the
close relationship between trade regulation, competition and investment law. He
argues in favour of integrating these three areas within WTO law, thus returning to
conceptual foundations laid out in the Havana Charter. Global value chains and an
increasing need to address behind-the-border issues call for enhanced common and
approximated rules in international economic law and, according to the author,
reveal the need for an integrated dispute settlement system within the WTO covering
trade, investment and competition law issues.
The editors would like to thank Munia El Harti Alonso and Vanessa Manzin for
their editorial assistance with some aspects of this volume.

Zaragoza, Spain Katia Fach Gómez

Athens, Greece Anastasios Gourgourinis
Paris, France Catharine Titi
Contents

Quest for a Sustainable International Investment Regime: Leveling

Up Through Competition (Policy) Rules? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Friedl Weiss
International Investment Law and Public Procurement:
An Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Marc Bungenberg and Fabian Blandfort
The Impacts of Local Equity Requirements on Competition . . . . . . . . . . 51
Lukas Vanhonnaeker
When State Enterprises Have Deeper Pockets: Ensuring Competitive
Neutrality in Cross-Border M&A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Phil Baumann
The Review of National Competition Authorities’ Acts in Investment
Arbitration: Setting Limits to ‘Economic Lawfare’ in the
21st Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
José Gustavo Prieto Muñoz
Are Market Competition and Investment Protection Incompatible
in the EU Energy Sector? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Belen Olmos Giupponi
Stipulating Investors’ Obligations in Investment Agreements
as a Suitable Regulatory Approach to Prevent and Remedy
Anti-Competitive Behaviour? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Karsten Nowrot and Emily Sipiorski
Anti-competitive Investor Behaviour and Illegal Investments
in Investment Treaty Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Elena Belova

ix
x Contents

The Impact of EU State Aid Law on International Investment Law

and Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Paschalis Paschalidis
The Complex Relationship Between Competition Law and Investment
Arbitration After Achmea: The Novenergía v. Spain Case . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Millán Requena Casanova
Using GATS Article II to Resort to Investment Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . 223
Sébastien Manciaux
The Use of Evidence Obtained Through a State’s Special Antitrust
Powers in Investment Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
Krystle M. Baptista and Bianca M. McDonnell
Competition and Investment: The Case for 21st Century WTO Law . . . 261
Thomas Cottier
Quest for a Sustainable International
Investment Regime: Leveling Up Through
Competition (Policy) Rules?

Friedl Weiss

Contents
1 Browsing Documents for “Competition” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 By Way of Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3 Linkages and Fissures: Interactions of Trade, Investment, Competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1 Sketching Antecedents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2 Trade-Investment “Interface Economics” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3 Role of Competition in Trade & FDI Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4 International Cooperation in the Field of Competition Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.1 Proposals for Multilateral Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2 Failed Attempts to Establish Multilateral Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5 Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Abstract Competition (policy) rules are ubiquitous as well as an essential element

of the legal and institutional framework for the global economy. It is widely
recognized that, linked to inclusive and sustainable development, they can best
harness foreign direct investment (FDI)’s potential benefits as drivers of economic
transformation. Against the background of politically regressive skepticism and
growing protectionist retreat from the institutionalized and rule-based liberal practice
initiated after the Second World War, this article seeks to retrace the role, utility,
design, and interface of the legal regimes governing trade, investment and compe-
tition, at the national level and as main pillars and governance ideas of global
economic law. It also documents international cooperation in the field of competition
policy, as well as proposals for and failed attempts to establish multilateral rules, for
trade and FDI. The article concludes with a plea for such rules in an effort to redress
existing worldwide inequalities.

F. Weiss (*)
Department of European, International and Comparative Law, Faculty of Law, University of
Vienna, Vienna, Austria
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 1

K. Fach Gómez et al. (eds.), International Investment Law and Competition Law,
European Yearbook of International Economic Law,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33916-6_1
2 F. Weiss

1 Browsing Documents for “Competition”

Competition has weakened, is a common lament. Markets have become more

concentrated as firms prefer to merge than to compete, forming monopolies which
limit production and restrain their investment to keep prices and profits high.
Evidence of some of the pernicious consequences of less competition include
markups associated with less investment in physical capital and a smaller share of
economic value created being paid to workers, eroding their purchasing power.
These, in a nutshell, are the key findings of a couple of recent International Monetary
Fund (IMF) studies.1 Conversely several “industrialized” economies experience
de-industrialization, de-unionization and rising global competition for the export
of industrial goods, factors which contribute to higher levels of income inequality.
Yet, a recent World Trade Organization (WTO) Staff Working Paper tersely asserts
that “competition policy, today, is an essential element of the legal and institutional
framework for the global economy”.2
The inaugural issue of the World Bank Group’s Global Investment Competitive-
ness Report 2017/20183 presents analytical insights and empirical evidence on
foreign direct investment (FDI) drivers and contributions to economic transforma-
tion. It is focused on developing countries (DCs) given their growing role as both
sources and recipients of FDI, and explores how policy makers and local companies
can best harness FDI’s potential benefits for inclusive and sustainable development.4
Moreover, work undertaken by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD), the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
(UNCTAD), the World Bank and at the WTO has identified overarching links
between competition policy and development, including an economy’s ability to
attract and maximise the benefits of investment.5 More generally, the World

1
The rise of corporate market power and its macroeconomic effects. International Monetary Fund,
World Economic Outlook, April 2019, www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2019/03/28/
world-economic-outlook-april-2019, pp. 55–76.
Díez FJ, Leigh D, Tambunlertchai S, Global Market Power and its Macroeconomic Implications.
International Monetary Fund, WP/18/137, 15 June 2018, www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/
2018/06/15/Global-Market-Power-and-its-Macroeconomic-Implications-45975, pp. 3–5.
2
Anderson RD, Kovacic WE, Müller AC, Sporysheva N, Competition Policy, Trade and the Global
Economy: Existing WTO Elements, Commitments in Regional Trade Agreements, Current Chal-
lenges and Issues for Reflection. WTO, ERSD-2018-12, 21 October 2018, www.wto.org/english/
res_e/reser_e/ersd201812_e.htm, p. 1.
3
Foreign Investor Perspectives and Policy Implications. World Bank Group, Global Investment
Competitiveness Report 2017/2018, 2018, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/
28493.
4
“Competition” does not feature in the most recent advanced unedited version of the Report of the
Committee for Development Policy of the United Nations’ ECOSOC on its 21st session, E/2019/
33, 11–15 March 2019, https://undocs.org/en/E/2019/33.
5
Conference on Investment for Development: Making it Happen. OECD, 25–27 October 2005,
www.oecd.org/investment/investmentfordevelopment/
conferenceoninvestmentfordevelopmentmakingithappen.htm.
Quest for a Sustainable International Investment Regime: Leveling Up. . . 3

Economic Forum’s contemporaneous Global Competitiveness Report 2017–2018,

concludes that goods market efficiency and thus business productivity, depends on
healthy market competition, both domestic and foreign, as important drivers of
market efficiency, so that the most efficient firms, producing goods demanded by
the market, are those that thrive.6
For many DCs, the World Bank’s Report claims, FDI has become the largest
source of external finance, surpassing official development assistance (ODA), remit-
tances, or portfolio investment flows. But the financing required to achieve the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) remains prohibitively large and largely
unmet by current FDI inflows. To maximize the development impact of FDI and
thus help meet the SDGs, private investment will have to expand into areas where it
has not yet ventured, notwithstanding the associated risks. The Report also recalls
that the benefits of FDI extend well beyond attracting needed capital. FDI also
confers technical know-how, managerial and organizational skills, and access to
foreign markets and has a significant potential to transform economies through
innovation, enhancing productivity, and creating better-paying and more stable
jobs in host countries. Importantly, foreign investors are becoming increasingly
prominent players in delivering global public goods, addressing climate change,
improving labor conditions, setting global industry standards, and delivering infra-
structure to local communities and more generally, in increasing competitiveness
and stability. Despite abundant evidence on the development benefits of FDI, the
global economic outlook remains uncertain, clouded by risks of trade and investment
protectionism—whether in form of investment screening,7 strategic industrial poli-
cies8—and geopolitical risk.

6
Schwab K, The Global Competitiveness Report 2017–2018. World Economic Forum, 2017, www.
weforum.org/reports/the-global-competitiveness-report-2017-2018, p. 318. The idea of “market
efficiency” underlies EU competition law, a regulatory system ensuring that competition in the
internal market is not distorted (Protocol No. 27 to the Lisbon Treaty) and which aims at “effective”
(or workable) rather than perfect competition, designed to protect not only the immediate interests
of individual competitors or consumers but also to protect the structure of the market and thus
competition as such: ECJ Case C-8/08, T-Mobile, June 4, 2009.
7
In its briefing on “FDI screening. A Debate in light of China-EU FDI flows”, of 17 May 2017 the
EP pointed to screening mechanisms operated by Australia, Canada, Japan and the USA and that
their deterrence effect on Chinese investors in a growing protectionist climate is likely to have an
impact on the EU, Grieger G, PE 603.941, www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?
reference¼EPRS_BRI%282017%29603941.
8
See e.g. “A Franco-German Manifesto for a European industrial policy fit for the 21st Century” of
19 February 2019: recognizing that “competition rules are essential”, but also calling for a necessary
adaptation of the Merger Control Regulation 139/2004 and current merger guidelines so that
European companies are enabled to “successfully compete on the world stage”, Bundesministerium
für Wirtschaft und Energie, Ministère de l’Économie et des Finances, Paris, www.gouvernement.fr/
en/a-franco-german-manifesto-for-a-european-industrial-policy-fit-for-the-21st-century; this mani-
festo echoes of course Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber’s “The American Challenge”, today, prob-
ably rebranded “The Chinese Challenge”. See Servan-Schreiber (1967).
4 F. Weiss

2 By Way of Introduction

Adam Smith, remembered as the proverbial father of economics, lived at a time of

great change, when the industrial revolution got under way, while people began to
question the authority of religion. To him both free trade and free thinking were
forces for good.9 Yet both are still ideologically though perhaps not theoretically
embattled. Smith also praised the virtues of competition as a way to ensure both
allocative and productive efficiency.
Today, once again, we witness great change—political, societal, economic—and
the surge and spread of multiple discontents in civil societies. Uncannily, like in the
days of Adam Smith, people also question the authority of established scientific
certainties underpinning contemporary socio-economic governance systems and
practices. People’s belief in the ability of managed or heavily guided capitalism10
based on these to deliver economic welfare and sustainable development has become
brittle. Science itself has become suspect; and the stories that experts tell about
scientific discoveries, whether readily embraced, anxiously hedged against, or
rejected, are ultimately subject to the scrutiny of fickle markets and increasingly
irascible public opinion.
Amongst many challenges facing designers of policies as well as regulatory
regimes today two are rarely mentioned at all: their weakened ability or willingness,
both to eschew the temptations to yield to populist or group-specific demands for all
kinds of protection—mostly against import competition—and, proverbially, to learn
from egregious past policy mistakes, notably the Great Depression, shattering many
people’s faith in unmanaged capitalism.
Fortunately, however, proven scientific insights or even certainties tend to be
resilient, not up for grabs as it were, by willful manipulation and exploitable populist
prejudice or merely whimsical esoteric obscurantism.
Can the same be claimed to hold for the prevalent science of socioeconomic
political economy, such as it is, supporting the legal regimes governing trade,
investment and competition, the main pillars of global economic law? Role, utility
and design of each of these governance ideas and implementing rules, once thought
settled, i.e. accepted, have slipped again into the mode of politically regressive
skepticism, even retreat.11

9
Adam Smith, An enlightened life, book review, The Economist, July 28th 2018, p. 64f, www.
economist.com/books-and-arts/2018/07/26/rescuing-adam-smith-from-myth-and-
misrepresentation.
10
Friedrich Hayek: intellectual godfather of free-market Thatcherism v. John Maynard Keynes as
the patron saint of heavily guided capitalism; Was he a liberal?, The Economist, 18th August 2018,
p. 54f. www.economist.com/schools-brief/2018/08/18/was-john-maynard-keynes-a-liberal.
11
See e.g. the US Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act 2018, giving the Committee
on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) greater authority to examine deals where
foreign investors gain control of critical infrastructure or technology or of personal data.
Quest for a Sustainable International Investment Regime: Leveling Up. . . 5

3 Linkages and Fissures: Interactions of Trade, Investment,

Competition

3.1 Sketching Antecedents

Recent scholarly preoccupation with the International Law Commission (ILC)’s

report on the fragmentation of international law,12 triggered, somewhat surprisingly,
intense discussions of strategies and policies of reconceptualization of coherence in
international economic law.13 How come? Had the separate institutionalized tenets
of the New Post Second World War Order been overlooked, simply forgotten,
deemed obsolete, one might ask? After all, with the exception of the comprehensive
mandate under the abortive Havana Charter of 1948, stewardship and administration
of specific rules for the conduct of international economic relations had been
entrusted to separate intergovernmental institutions of limited jurisdictional scope.
It is also noteworthy that initial imperfections of rule-based governance systems
and/or their rejection for political or ideological reasons (Havana Charter) and
incremental misalignment with newly emerging and diversified interests and regu-
latory needs—General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)/WTO producer
bias14 (favouring producers in rich countries) and lack of competition culture
v. health and welfare of consumers (though Technical Barriers to Trade & Sanitary
and Phytosanitary measures are more sensitive to social concerns)—further
compounded existing inadequacies, thereby boosting calls for supplementary or
updated rules. Still, in order to overcome such fragmentation and the resulting
overlap and potential conflict in policy-making and standard-setting, scholars and
institutions attempted to piece together seemingly disparate concerns within and
between organizations through a variety of devices including interlinkages of com-
plementary aspects of economic policymaking,15 their “constitutionalization”,16

12
Koskenniemi M, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties arising from the Diversification
and Expansion of International Law. United Nations, A/CN.4/L682, 13 April 2006, http://legal.un.
org/docs/?symbol¼A/CN.4/L.682, p. 8.
13
See e.g. the Ministerial Declaration on the Contribution of the World Trade Organization to
Achieving Greater Coherence in Global Economic Policymaking adopted by the Trade Negotia-
tions Committee on 15 December 1993, www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/32-dchor_e.htm.
14
The protection of foreign consumer interests by trade negotiators demanding access to foreign
markets was indirect and likewise driven by producer interests (export industries), Petersmann EU,
Preparing the Doha Development Round: Challenges to the Legitimacy and Efficiency of the World
Trading System. European University Institute, May 2004, http://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/
2531, p. 14.
15
See e.g. the Ministerial Declaration on the Contribution of the World Trade Organization to
Achieving Greater Coherence in Global Economic Policymaking adopted by the Trade Negotia-
tions Committee on 15 December 1993, www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/32-dchor_e.htm.
Also para. 36 of the Doha WTO Ministerial Declaration of 20 November 2001 on a mandate for
a Working Group on trade, debt and finance, WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1, www.wto.org/english/thewto_
e/minist_e/min01_e/mindecl_e.htm.
16
Kingsbury et al. (2005).
6 F. Weiss

integration, reconciliation through “balancing”17 or “spill-over” adjudicative inter-

pretation or bridging conceptual innovation, to name but the most common. How-
ever, none of these papering-over- the-cracks or gap-filling efforts could conceal the
fact that more standard setting is needed to keep up with the pace of changes in the
global economy.18
“Wettbewerb ist eine staatliche Veranstaltung”, principally a domestic function,
legal scholars once proclaimed.19 Indeed, it is enforced at the national level by
national authorities. This holds true since Roman legislators first sought to control
price fluctuations and unfair trade practices, Medieval kings cracked down on
monopolies and the English common law doctrine of restraint of trade evolved as
the precursor to modern competition law, notably the US antitrust statutes.20 Mul-
tilateral cooperation in competition policy remains limited, much of it in bilateral
arrangements. Increasingly, though the focus has moved to international competition
enforcement in a globalized economy, despite setbacks and unsuccessful efforts to
establish a general agreement on competition policy through multilateral standard
setting.21 Clearly, competition today is everywhere,22 transparent and impartial
competition law enforcement a pervasively international phenomenon.23 However,
despite an enormous amount of cross-fertilization, harmonizing different competi-
tion laws continues to present a major challenge due to rooted differences in
countries’ preferences indicative of a low feasibility of convergence.24

17
See Knill et al. (2008).
18
International/global economic law is the ideal habitat for scientific (comparative) interdisciplin-
arity, there being no room for pure theorists: (international) lawyers, political scientists and
(political) economists, once reciprocally regarded as “invasive species”, extend their prowess to
each others domains.
19
Hopt (1985), Meessen (2004), p. 228.
20
The Sherman Act of 1890 is the oldest antitrust law of the US making it illegal for competitors to
make agreements with each other that would limit competition; The Clayton Act of 1914 helps
American consumers by stopping mergers or acquisitions that are likely to stifle competition; the
Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC) of 1914 gave a new federal agency authority to investigate
and stop unfair methods of competition and deceptive practices; and the 1982 Foreign Trade
Antitrust Improvements Act extends US jurisdiction to restraints overseas that have a “direct,
substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect” on US imports or domestic commerce, or on the
export commerce of US exporters; see Address by Wood DP (former Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, Antitrust Division, US Department of Justice), The Internationalization of Antitrust Law:
Options for the Future, DePaul Law Review Symposium on Cultural Conceptions of Competition:
Antitrust in the 1990s, 3 February 1995, www.justice.gov/atr/speech/internationalization-antitrust-
law-options-future.
21
Cf. Chapter V of the Havana Charter on restrictive business practices.
22
Sauvant (2016), p. 9.
23
Anderson RD, Kovacic WE, Müller AC, Sporysheva N, Competition Policy, Trade and the
Global Economy: Existing WTO Elements, Commitments in Regional Trade Agreements, Current
Challenges and Issues for Reflection. WTO, ERSD-2018-12, 21 October 2018, www.wto.org/
english/res_e/reser_e/ersd201812_e.htm, pp. 37, 53.
24
Richardson et al. (1998), pp. 375, 376. See also the discussion of the historical arguments for and
against a WTO multilateral agreement on competition policy, in Kennedy (2001), p. 610; and by
Stiglitz (2000), pp. 31–60.
Quest for a Sustainable International Investment Regime: Leveling Up. . . 7

3.2 Trade-Investment “Interface Economics”

Much has been written about the relationship between investment and trade, or the
lack thereof.25 Less about the role of competition regarding both of them26 and about
the erstwhile study of them in WTO Working Groups.27 Generally, though there is
growing awareness of the links between FDI policy, trade policy and competition
policy as a means of maintaining contestable and competitive markets.28 The link,
more specifically, between investment and competition is regarded one of the most
important relationships to examine in economics.29 For more than two centuries
economists have had conflicting views on the question which market structures
create the most favourable environment for economic growth, particularly whether
the presence of large firms capable of extensive investment should be promoted or
discouraged to protect small firms and preserve competition.
The fundamental purpose of bilateral investment treaties (BITs) remains to
encourage FDI flows between pairs of countries. However, empirical evidence that
BITs are effective is ambiguous. Yet the numbers of BITs and other international
investment agreements (IIAs) and preferential trade agreements (PTAs) with invest-
ment provisions continue to grow, as ever more host DCs apparently race to accept
stricter bilateral and plurilateral FDI-related provisions, notably with regard to
investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) and pre-establishment national treatment
of foreign investors.30 While the argument is not new, strands in economic literature
have advanced different theories explaining the phenomenon.31

25
Lal Das B, Dangers of Negotiating Investment and Competition Rules in the WTO. Third World
Network (TWN), 16 TWN Trade & Development Series, 2001.
26
See, however, the essays of The Weimar Symposium of October 1998 on “The Competition Law
of Deregulation” in vol.23 Fordham International Law Journal 2000.
27
See, e.g. the 1997 Report to the General Council of the Working Group on the Interaction between
Trade and Competition Policy, especially Item III of the Work Programme for Meetings at Annex
2 which includes “the relationship between investment and competition policy”, Working Group on
the Interaction between Trade and Competition Policy – Report (1997) to the General Council.
WTO, WT/WGTCP/1, 28 November 1997, https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_
S009-DP.aspx?language¼E&CatalogueIdList¼43538,42759,58169,18158,45943,19500,33826&
CurrentCatalogueIdIndex¼6&FullTextHash¼&HasEnglishRecord¼True&
HasFrenchRecord¼True&HasSpanishRecord¼True, p. 4.
28
Roffe (1999), p. 145.
29
Mathis J, Sand-Zantman W, Competition and Investment: What do we know from the literature?.
Institut d’Economie Industrielle, March 2014, http://idei.fr/sites/default/files/medias/doc/by/sand_
zantman/Competition_and_Investment.pdf.
30
Kingsbury et al. (2005).
31
Allee and Peinhardt refer to legal scholars who have singled out ISDS clauses in BITs; Simmons
concurs, adding that host DCs are more likely to agree to strict ISDS provisions in harder economic
times; Baldwin points to DC’s concern about trade diversion when their competitors engage in
closer economic integration; Lupu and Poast corroborate that host countries conclude BITs with
specific source countries in order to divert FDI away from competing hosts of FDI by this specific
source country.
8 F. Weiss

3.3 Role of Competition in Trade & FDI Policy

The vigorous debate about the balance between investor protection and the right to
regulate in over 3000 existing investment treaties concerns mainly four areas: types
of regulation potentially at issue in investment treaty claims by covered investors;
types and levels of investor protection; the degree of impact of treaties on regulation;
and the processes and institutions that may be involved in balancing interests in
investor protection and the right to regulate.32 As is well known, critics of the alleged
impact of treaties on the right to regulate include the international law scholar
Koskenniemi33 and the Nobel-prize winning economist Stiglitz, who even suggested
that FDI treaty provisions are no longer designed to protect property rights in
exchange for FDI but have instead become a weapon to fight regulation, to impede
health, environmental, safety, and even financial regulation.34 Cases and claims such
as Vattenfall35 are used to illustrate how the right to regulate in key areas is now
excessively subject to the rulings of arbitrators in ISDS. Defenders contend that the
right to regulate can be exercised to the detriment of investor rights and that existing
treaties protect covered investors from government misrule and can have a positive
impact on the quality of government regulation. It has been argued, and disputed by
others, that some extended versions of fair and equitable treatment (FET) which
encompass issues of stability of regulation and due process can make positive
contributions to governance and the rule of law, policy goals largely absent from
early treaty policy.36 Governments strive to create an environment which is attractive
to investors, both foreign and domestic, while identifying and eliminating unwanted
and to reduce unnecessary barriers to entry. Barriers, structural and behavioral,

32
Gaukrodger D, The balance between investor protection and the right to regulate in investment
treaties: A scoping paper. OECD, OECD Working Papers on International Investment 2017/02,
24 February 2017, www.oecd-ilibrary.org/finance-and-investment/the-balance-between-investor-
protection-and-the-right-to-regulate-in-investment-treaties_82786801-en, p. 3.
33
In his view, “essentially, it’s a transfer of power from public authorities to an arbitration body,
where a handful of people would be able to rule whether a country can enact a law or not and how
the law must be interpreted.”
34
[“. . .investors who want to protect themselves can buy insurance from the Multilateral Investment
Guarantee Agency, a World Bank Affiliate (the US and other governments provide similar
insurance)”], cited by Gaukrodger D, The balance between investor protection and the right to
regulate in investment treaties: A scoping paper. OECD, OECD Working Papers on International
Investment 2017/02, 24 February 2017, www.oecd-ilibrary.org/finance-and-investment/the-bal
ance-between-investor-protection-and-the-right-to-regulate-in-investment-treaties_
82786801-en, p. 6.
35
Vattenfall against Germany under the Energy Charter Treaty, Vattenfall AB and others v. Federal
Republic of Germany, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12, https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Pages/cases/
casedetail.aspx?CaseNo¼ARB%2f12%2f12.
36
Gaukrodger D, The balance between investor protection and the right to regulate in investment
treaties: A scoping paper. OECD, OECD Working Papers on International Investment 2017/02,
24 February 2017, www.oecd-ilibrary.org/finance-and-investment/the-balance-between-investor-
protection-and-the-right-to-regulate-in-investment-treaties_82786801-en, p. 11.
Quest for a Sustainable International Investment Regime: Leveling Up. . . 9

consist in a wide array of factors which discourage investment. The subject is broad,
ranging across practically the entire range of government regulatory activity. Does it
include competition laws, though? It has been reported that this may not be enough
and that even relatively open trade and investment regimes, whether in developed
countries or DCs, need to complement them with the implementation and active
enforcement of competition laws.37
One of the challenges faced by governments has been to sort out, between various
structural and behavioral market barriers, those that do not unduly harm competition
and those that can and should be eliminated.38

3.3.1 Brief Recap 1: Evolution of Liberating Rules for the Global

Marketplace

GATT originally focused on direct barriers to trade, tariffs and quotas, although it
had also modest provisions addressing non-trade barriers (NTBs),39 and in succes-
sive rounds of tariff negotiations achieved ever-greater tariff cuts. Increasingly
NTBs required serious attention and took center stage in the Uruguay Round.40
“Each step along this road – from high to lower tariffs, from tariffs in any form to
other direct trade restrictions (such as quotas), from direct restrictions to innumerable
trade barriers (NBs), and finally government policies that affect the international
trading system (such as intellectual property rules and investment regimes) – has had
one thing in common: they all dealt with governmental rules and regulations.”41
However, do antitrust rules contribute to the problem of private restraints affecting
international trade and investment?
At a time of mounting social and environmental challenges, all countries recog-
nize that economic growth for sustainable development is imperative and that they
need to mobilize, even compete for investment as a primary driver of such growth
and to ensure that it contributes to sustainable development.42 As a result, the

37
Study on Issues Relating to a Possible Multilateral Framework on Competition Policy. WTO,
T/WGTCP/W/228, 19 May 2003, www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/comp_e/wgtcp_docs_e.htm.
38
Gaukrodger D, The balance between investor protection and the right to regulate in investment
treaties: A scoping paper. OECD, OECD Working Papers on International Investment 2017/02,
24 February 2017, www.oecd-ilibrary.org/finance-and-investment/the-balance-between-investor-
protection-and-the-right-to-regulate-in-investment-treaties_82786801-en, op. cit., fn.4, p. 5.
39
E.g. on discriminatory customs valuation, government procurement practices and subsidies.
40
See the Anti-Dumping Codes of the Kennedy and Tokyo Rounds, www.wto.org/english/docs_e/
legal_e/prewto_legal_e.htm.
41
Address by Wood DP (former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, US
Department of Justice), The Internationalization of Antitrust Law: Options for the Future, DePaul
Law Review Symposium on Cultural Conceptions of Competition: Antitrust in the 1990s,
3 February 1995, www.justice.gov/atr/speech/internationalization-antitrust-law-options-future.
42
Zhan J, G20 Guiding Principles for Global Investment Policymaking: A Facilitator’s Perspective.
The E15 Initiative, December 2016, http://e15initiative.org/publications/g20-guiding-principles-
for-global-investment-policymaking-a-facilitators-perspective/.
10 F. Weiss

defining characteristic of national FDI policies has been investors. As was pointed
out by the eminent scholar Sauvant, “95% of all FDI policy changes around the
world during the 1990s involved the liberalization of national investment regimes or
otherwise facilitating inward FDI”. Typically, he noted, governments have reduced
entry barriers, especially by opening up sectors to foreign investors, but also by
facilitating the operations of such investors in their countries, and by offering various
kinds of incentives. Investment promotion agencies (IPAs) established in virtually
every country complement such policy measures and are mandated to attract invest-
ment by foreign investors in competition with other IPAs,43 sometimes to match or
even surpass offers by competing countries to compensate44 for adverse geography,
small size, or distance to markets, in order to remain attractive for foreign investors.
This kind of competition has evolved over time. In a first generation of invest-
ment promotion, countries simply opened up to FDI, by liberalizing their FDI
regimes. In a second generation of investment promotion, countries generally
advertised being open for FDI. In a third generation, IPAs focused on targeting
foreign investors fitting their development priorities, such as transfer of technology
and the establishment of innovative capacities including research and development
(R&D) facilities. All the while competition among IPAs to attract FDI has become
more sophisticated, for instance by paying more attention to policy advocacy and
focusing more on after-investment services. As national FDI regulatory frameworks
have become similar worldwide, investment promotion gains in importance.
Nonetheless, investment policymaking is manifestly faced with a dilemma, as
there appears to be a dichotomy between simultaneous moves to liberalize and
promote investment and to regulate and restrict it.45 Evidently, national policies
toward FDI have become more nuanced as is reflected in the increasing share of
national policy measures that make the investment climate less welcoming. While
recent national investment policy measures mostly favoured liberalization and
promotion,46 regulatory or restrictive measures such as strengthened review mech-
anisms for incoming FDI, have been on the rise,47 as have concerns that some of

43
Some 10,000 such agencies operate at national, sub-national even city levels.
44
IBRD, Foreign Investor Perspectives and Policy Implications. World Bank Group, Global
Investment Competitiveness Report 2017/2018, 2018, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/han
dle/10986/28493, p. 6ff.
45
Zhan J, G20 Guiding Principles for Global Investment Policymaking: A Facilitator’s Perspective.
The E15 Initiative, December 2016, http://e15initiative.org/publications/g20-guiding-principles-
for-global-investment-policymaking-a-facilitators-perspective/, p. 1.
46
Investment facilitation and promotion do not feature in 90% of existing IIAs, only in some of the
most recent treaties, Zhan J, G20 Guiding Principles for Global Investment Policymaking: A
Facilitator’s Perspective. The E15 Initiative, December 2016, http://e15initiative.org/publications/
g20-guiding-principles-for-global-investment-policymaking-a-facilitators-perspective/, p. 6.
47
Industrial policies, tighter screening/monitoring procedures, closer scrutiny of cross-border
M&As. Restrictive administrative measures often apply to extractive industries and infrastructure
or are based on national security considerations, Zhan J, G20 Guiding Principles for Global
Investment Policymaking: A Facilitator’s Perspective. The E15 Initiative, December 2016, http://
e15initiative.org/publications/g20-guiding-principles-for-global-investment-policymaking-a-
Quest for a Sustainable International Investment Regime: Leveling Up. . . 11

these measures may be taken for protectionist purposes. “While red tape has not
replaced red carpet for incoming FDI, governments are taking a more differentiated
approach towards such investment.”48 More broadly, government expectations
concerning inward FDI are changing. “After all, for them such investment is just a
tool to contribute to economic growth and development of their countries. This
influences not only their attitude towards the benefit of mergers and acquisitions
(M&As), but governments are now beginning actively to encourage more sustain-
able FDI, investment that makes a maximum contribution to the economic, social
and environmental development of host countries.”49 In short, sustainable FDI for
sustainable development. Ultimately, this may give rise to a fourth generation of
investment promotion, i.e. efforts to attract sustainable FDI, concerned with the
quality of investment not simply its quantity. “At the same time, governments are
paying more attention to competing objectives, especially national interests, essen-
tial security, the promotion of national champions and the protection of certain
national industries.”50

3.3.2 Brief Recap 2: Competition, Competition Policy, Competition Law

Competition, the process of rivalry between firms striving to gain sales and make
profits is the central driving force behind the operation of markets and fosters
innovation, productivity and growth, all of which create wealth and reduce pov-
erty.51 Competition guarantees, more than other market structures, where the con-
sumers’ needs are best satisfied and minimizes the rents left to the firms, providing
consumers with the entire surplus created by trade. The main objective of competi-
tion law is to preserve and promote competition as a means to ensure the effective
allocation of resources in an economy, resulting in the best possible choice of
quality, the lowest prices and adequate supplies for consumers. In addition many
competition laws make reference to other related objectives, such as controlling the
concentration of economic power, stimulating innovation, supporting SMEs and
encouraging regional integration.52
According to this approach, the state (or existing competition authorities) should
both help small firms to survive and prevent the development of dominant firms, in

facilitators-perspective/, p. 1.; Chapter IV, Investment and New Industrial policies, World Invest-
ment Report 2018, UNCTAD, https://unctad.org/en/pages/PublicationWebflyer.aspx?
publicationid¼2130.
48
Sauvant (2016), p. 9.
49
Sauvant (2016), p. 9.
50
Sauvant (2016), p. 9.
51
Godfrey N, Why is Competition Important for Growth and Poverty Reduction?. OECD, OECD
Global Forum on International Investment, March 2008, www.oecd.org/investment/globalforum/
session13competitionpolicy.htm, p. 3.
52
See generally Wagner-von Papp (2009).
12 F. Weiss

order to promote the greatest number of firms on the market.53 This vision was
developed at Harvard and is known as the structure-conduct-performance paradigm
(SCP), but was viewed critically by Hayek of the Austrian school claiming that the
competitive process not the number of firms per se is the most important aspect of
competition; and by Schumpeter who deemed concentrated, in particular monopo-
listic market structures in many situations optimal.54 Clearly, various traditions and
studies suggest that one can look at this issues from different perspectives. Yet the
most “natural” one amounts to searching for the market structure most likely to
foster investment.55 Be that as it may, but effective and fair competition is not
automatic. It can be harmed and weakened both by inappropriate government
policies and legislation and by anti-competitive conduct of firms,56 both of which
can distort trade and investment flows. Competition policy includes the full range of
governmental measures to suppress or deter anti-competitive behavior the combined
effect of which promote the efficient and competitive operation of markets (which is
itself influenced by many factors) including, but not limited to, the enforcement of
competition law per se.57 It deals with anti-competitive or restrictive business
practices of companies which reduce the efficiency of the market mechanisms
thereby diminishing opportunities for innovation and growth and making consumers
worse off.58 It is aimed at preventing firms from forming cartels or monopolies and
from abusing a dominant market position and at ensuring that mergers and

53
Mathis J, Sand-Zantman W, Competition and Investment: What do we know from the literature?.
Institut d’Economie Industrielle, March 2014, http://idei.fr/sites/default/files/medias/doc/by/sand_
zantman/Competition_and_Investment.pdf, p. 3.
54
Mathis J, Sand-Zantman W, Competition and Investment: What do we know from the literature?.
Institut d’Economie Industrielle, March 2014, http://idei.fr/sites/default/files/medias/doc/by/sand_
zantman/Competition_and_Investment.pdf, p. 4.
55
Mathis J, Sand-Zantman W, Competition and Investment: What do we know from the literature?.
Institut d’Economie Industrielle, March 2014, http://idei.fr/sites/default/files/medias/doc/by/sand_
zantman/Competition_and_Investment.pdf, p. 4.
56
US antitrust laws are there to protect US consumers, US businesses, and US markets, see Address
by Wood DP (former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, US Department of
Justice), The Internationalization of Antitrust Law: Options for the Future, DePaul Law Review
Symposium on Cultural Conceptions of Competition: Antitrust in the 1990s, 3 February 1995,
www.justice.gov/atr/speech/internationalization-antitrust-law-options-future.
57
Anderson RD, Kovacic WE, Müller AC, Sporysheva N, Competition Policy, Trade and the
Global Economy: Existing WTO Elements, Commitments in Regional Trade Agreements, Current
Challenges and Issues for Reflection. WTO, ERSD-2018-12, 21 October 2018, www.wto.org/
english/res_e/reser_e/ersd201812_e.htm, p. 5.
58
Markets are often dominated by big business with close ties to government, and more effective
competition reduces opportunities for corruption and creates more space for entrepreneurs and
SMEs to grow, Godfrey N, Why is Competition Important for Growth and Poverty Reduction?.
OECD, OECD Global Forum on International Investment, March 2008, www.oecd.org/investment/
globalforum/session13competitionpolicy.htm, p. 4.
Quest for a Sustainable International Investment Regime: Leveling Up. . . 13

acquisitions are subjected to proper scrutiny.59 An effective competition policy

should safeguard the rights of entrepreneurs to enter and leave markets.

3.3.3 Competition, Competition Law, Competition Policy and FDI

There are two confronting views on the link between competition and investment.
On the one hand, conventional arguments extol the virtues of competition in
ensuring both allocative and productive efficiencies (Smithian view) and also pro-
viding firms with the incentives to invest in innovation to escape from competition
(pre-innovation incentives). On the other hand, the tradition stemming from
Schumpeter puts monopoly rents at the heart of the innovative process (post-
innovation incentives). The main interface between competition law and FDI occurs
when a foreign affiliate is established by means of a significant merger, acquisition or
joint venture.
Competition law is concerned with FDI not only at the entry stage but also post-
establishment since it may result in anti-competitive behavior. In fact, even in a
national framework in which trade and investment are fully liberalized, the possi-
bility of anti-competitive practices justifies competition laws. In other words, the
removal of international barriers to trade and investment would not by itself ensure
competitive behavior in all instances. Therefore, while the initial FDI may not raise
concerns from a competition point of view, or may even be beneficial in itself, it
could, nevertheless raise competition problems in the longer term. Nonetheless,
competition authorities may also have to deal with direct investments by foreign
government-controlled investors, which could be of several types: state-owned
enterprises (SOEs), pension funds or other state-controlled entities such as sovereign
wealth funds (SWFs). Whether a company is foreign or domestic matters little to
competition authorities, except inasmuch as it raises issues of jurisdiction.60 But
officials will be interested in determining the exact nature of a foreign government-
controlled investor, both with respect to their impact on competition and to enforce-
ment actions. These characteristics will interact with recipient country competition
laws in complex ways to determine whether and which actions might be taken by
competition authorities.61

59
Paasman BR, Multilateral rules on competition policy: an overview of the debate. International
Trade Unit, Division of Trade and Development Finance, CEPAL, Santiago, December 1999,
https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/4369/1/S9890697_en.pdf, p. 5.
60
When asserting anti-trust jurisdiction, most OECD countries require that illegal conduct has some
anti-competitive effect within the country: “effects doctrine”.
61
Antonio Capobianco, Competition Law and Foreign-Government Controlled Investors, Nineth
OECD Freedom of Investment Roundtables, Investment Division, Directorate for Financial and
Enterprise Affairs, January 2009; www.oecd.org/daf/inv/investment-policy/41976200.pdf; built on
the OECD’s Guidelines on Corporate Governance of State-Owned Enterprises, some OECD
countries have also introduced competitive neutrality arrangements to mitigate or eliminate com-
petitive advantages of SOEs, see Anderson RD, Kovacic WE, Müller AC, Sporysheva N,
14 F. Weiss

An important effect of FDI liberalization has been greatly to reduce the role of
traditional mechanisms used by host countries, especially DCs, such as screening at
the time of entry.62 The central assumption underlying these controls was that FDI
should only be allowed if it is beneficial to the host economy and subject to approval
of host governments. The opening of countries across the world to FDI and increas-
ing competition to attract it have challenged the ability to apply such controls. Thus,
the priority has become ensuring and increasing inward FDI flows, efficiency gains
for the host economy and, ultimately, a positive impact on welfare.
Competition policy can in this respect be an essential component of the process of
liberalization, notably to ensure that markets are kept as open as possible to new
entrants, both foreign and local, and that firms do not frustrate this by engaging in
anti-competitive practices. In this manner, a strong competition law and enforcement
can provide reassurance that FDI liberalization will not leave a government power-
less against anti-competitive transactions.63
The remaining question resurfaces, however, whether the international commu-
nity requires a strengthened framework of regulatory arrangements governing
restrictive business practices, in an era of deep integration and globalization of
markets and structures of production. This has, in turn, aroused renewed interest in
exploring options for strengthening international cooperation in competition policy.
Indeed, it is widely recognized that the liberalization of FDI policies could promote
competition among firms provided that, as legal obstacles to market entry are
reduced, they are not replaced by anti-competitive practices by international
firms.64 The internationalization of competition issues has given rise to trade ten-
sions which stem from a perception that countries are not enforcing their competition
laws.65

Competition Policy, Trade and the Global Economy: Existing WTO Elements, Commitments in
Regional Trade Agreements, Current Challenges and Issues for Reflection. WTO, ERSD-2018-12,
21 October 2018, www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd201812_e.htm, p. 52.
62
Entry barriers can be classified in 3 groups. 1. Regulatory, imposed by government policies
(including investment licensing, tariff and non-tariff measures, antidumping); 2. Structural, barriers
due solely to conditions outside the control of market participants, e.g. costs of production (when
firms must attain a minimum size to have average cost as low as possible. If the minimum efficient
scale is so large that only one firm of that size can serve the entire market, there will be a monopoly,
which often occurs with public utilities such as distribution of water, electricity, gas; 3. Behavioral,
abuse of dominant position where “relatively large” firms engage in anti-competitive conduct by
preventing entry or forcing exit of competitors through various kinds of monopolistic conduct
including predatory pricing and market foreclosure (horizontal: barriers imposed through collabo-
rating actions by firms that sell in the same market, often referred to as “naked” restraints of trade,
cartel behavior, or collusion, e.g. price-fixing, bid rigging, allocation of territories or customers,
output restriction agreements; vertical: restrictions imposed through restrictive contractual agree-
ments between supplier and purchasers/retailers, both in up-and downstream markets, e.g. resale
price maintenance.
63
Roffe (1999), p. 146.
64
Roffe (1999), p. 147.
65
Janow (2005), p. 491.
Quest for a Sustainable International Investment Regime: Leveling Up. . . 15

4 International Cooperation in the Field of Competition

Policy

4.1 Proposals for Multilateral Rules

Proposals to control restrictive business practices by private enterprises date back to

Chapter V of the Havana Charter and to the initial GATT negotiations on the subject
in the 1960s. The abortive Havana Charter dealt with such practices affecting
international trade which restrain competition, limit access to markets or foster
monopolistic control in a surprisingly comprehensive manner.66 Generally, GATT/
WTO agreements focus of course on governmental measures and action and do not
regulate anti-competitive practices by firms. Some of them, however, are relevant for
competition policy, in as much as they deal with practices of enterprises that may
distort or impede international trade and the actions that governments are allowed or
required to take to regulate or remedy such practices.67 Some core GATT provisions,
particularly those of national treatment (Article III), most-favoured-nation treatment
(Article I) and transparency (Article X) are also inherently essential for impartial
competition regimes. Indeed one of the earliest GATT cases involved a discrimina-
tory Italian domestic credit scheme which applied only to purchasers of domestically
produced tractors.68 Moreover, in several WTO cases differential taxation of
imported alcohol was found to be “directly competitive or substitutable” to like
domestic products, in violation of Article III GATT.69 Provisions of some specific

66
Nine articles (46–54) of the Charter deal with competition issues; Art. 50(1) referred to practices
such as: price-fixing, discriminating against particular enterprises, limiting production or fixing
production quotas, preventing by agreement the development or application of technology or
inventions, extending the use of intellectual property rights etc. Final Act and Related Documents,
UN documents E/Conf 2/78, www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/havana_e.pdf.
67
Art. VI GATT; several WTO agreements prohibit “less favorable treatment” to imported relative
to domestic “like” products and services: Arts III:4 GATT; 2.1 TBT; XVII GATS; the Appellate
Body examines whether a measure results in a modification of the conditions of competition
between them: AB Report, US-Clove Cigarettes (Panel Report, United States—Measures Affecting
the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes, WT/DS406/R, adopted 24 April 2012, as modified by
Appellate Body Report WT/DS406/AB/R), para. 87; AB Report, US-COOL (Panel Reports, United
States—Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) Requirements, WT/DS384/R/WT/DS386/R,
circulated to WTO Members 18 November 2011), para. 267; and related case law directly address
private parties’ restrictive business practices: TBT, AGP, Articles VIII, IX GATS, Article
9 TRIMS, Articles 8, 31, 40 TRIPS, cf. Roffe (1999), p. 149; Kennedy (2001), p. 12, 602.
68
GATT Panel Report, Italian Discrimination Against Imported Agricultural Machinery, L/833,
adopted 23 October 1958, BISD 7S/60.
69
Japan—Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS8, 10, 11/AB/R (1996); Korea-Taxes on Alco-
holic Beverages, WT/DS75,84/AB/R (1999); Chile-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS87,110/
AB/R (1999).
16 F. Weiss

WTO agreements too contain principles supportive of an effective competition

policy regime.70
Despite the failure to reach consensus on multilateral competition rules, there are
evidently complementarities between trade liberalization and the suppression of anti-
competitive practices or arrangements: Both private and state-designed arrange-
ments are apt to undermine gains from trade liberalization in many ways, namely
rising living standards, sustainable development and growth, through trade and
international investment.71
The rationale for multilateral rules on competition policy in bilateral and multi-
lateral trade agreements can be summarized as follows: first, such agreements may
effectively prevent businesses from distorting competition through exports; sec-
ondly, they can prevent companies from erecting new trade and investment barriers
after theses have been reduced or abolished in the liberalization and integration
processes; and thirdly, an international agreement on competition could replace anti-
dumping legislation which is often misused with protectionist intent. After many
other protective measures have been outlawed in various trade negotiating rounds,
however, governments may be tempted to allow restrictive business practices or to
not enforce existing competition rules or only leniently, which may lead to extra
profit for domestic industry and a transfer of welfare into the country. According to
game theory, however, the best situation for world welfare is that in which both
countries adopt strict legislation.72 Furthermore, because territorial jurisdiction and
relevant market are no longer identical, a multilateral agreement on competition
policy is necessary to avoid associated jurisdictional problems. “Relevant market”,
i.e. the geographical arena in which companies compete on more or less equal costs
and terms, is a central concept in the theory on competition policy. For most
companies the relevant market used to coincide with a country’s national

70
Provisions of the WTO Basic Telecommunications Services Agreement, known as the Fourth
Protocol to the GATS, stipulate competitive safeguards to prevent major suppliers from engaging in
anticompetitive conduct; Art. VIII:1, and VIII:2 of the GATS provide that monopoly service
providers must not act inconsistently with the national treatment obligation of Art. XVII GATS
or with their scheduled commitments; and require WTO Members to ensure that domestic monop-
olies do not abuse their monopoly positions. Art. 9 TRIMs requires the Council for Trade in Goods
to review the operation and to propose possible amendments to it including provisions on compe-
tition policy by the end of 1999; the proscription approach in these agreements differs from that in
the TRIPS agreement which imposes affirmative obligations to introduce intellectual property laws
and to provide for minimum levels of protection and for their effective enforcement.
71
See preambles of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the WTO and of the Agreement on
Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMS); commitments to competition policy also feature in
WTO Accession Protocols and in the work of the WTO’s Trade Policy Review Body (TPRB); see
also treatment of competition issues relating to State trading enterprises (STEs), dual pricing
practices and government procurement in WTO Accession Protocols, Marhold and Weiss (2018).
Kireyev and Osakwe (2018), pp. 299–319.
72
Paasman BR, Multilateral rules on competition policy: an overview of the debate. International
Trade Unit, Division of Trade and Development Finance, CEPAL, Santiago, December 1999,
https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/4369/1/S9890697_en.pdf, p. 26.
Quest for a Sustainable International Investment Regime: Leveling Up. . . 17

boundaries, before it shifted to regional and global markets giving rise to several
potential sources of conflict.73

4.2 Failed Attempts to Establish Multilateral Rules

Most countries agree that a strong relationship exists between trade and competition,
and that a fundamental purpose of the WTO system is to open markets to fresh
competition.
However, countries diverge on the merits, potential modalities, and even the
necessity of adopting competition law in the WTO. Different approaches in early
state practice dealing with international competition problems74 and all attempts in
almost seven decades to establish strong multilateral rules on competition have
failed. The story of the reasons for these failures has been retold many times.75
Suffice it to recall that these failures are primarily attributable to opposition from the
United States where businesses were afraid that enforcement in other countries
would be less stringent than in the United States, leading to a comparative disad-
vantage.76 By contrast, the EU has strongly advocated the integration of competition
policies into international institutions. DCs on the other hand resolutely oppose an
international competition regime in the framework of the WTO, concerned that its
rules will constrain their ability to utilize infant industry policies, social policies and
other development tools.77 While WTO negotiations on an international competition
regime have stalled, some countries have addressed competition policy issues in
their bilateral or regional agreements.
These attempts include the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises
adopted in 1976 as updated in 2011 as well as, more pertinently, the Recommenda-
tion of the OECD Council concerning International cooperation on Competition
Investigations and Proceedings.78 In 1980 the UN General Assembly adopted

73
Paasman lists: 1. Difficulty of enforcing laws against foreign-based companies; 2. Cross-border
mergers and acquisitions; 3. Extraterritoriality; 4. Anti-competitive behavior of state-owned com-
panies, Paasman BR, Multilateral rules on competition policy: an overview of the debate. Interna-
tional Trade Unit, Division of Trade and Development Finance, CEPAL, Santiago, December 1999,
https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/4369/1/S9890697_en.pdf, pp. 29–30.
74
Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, The Need for Integrating Trade and Competition Rules in the WTO
World Trade and Legal System 7, Occasional Paper, The Graduate Institute of International Studies,
Geneva, WTO Series No. 3 (1996).
75
Weiss (1999), passim.
76
Paasman BR, Multilateral rules on competition policy: an overview of the debate. International
Trade Unit, Division of Trade and Development Finance, CEPAL, Santiago, December 1999,
https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/4369/1/S9890697_en.pdf, p. 5.
77
Janow (2005), p. 31.
78
Recommendation concerning International Co-operation on Competition Investigations and Pro-
ceedings. OECD, C(2014)108 – C/M(2014)10, 16 September 2014, www.oecd.org/competition/
international-coop-competition-2014-recommendation.htm.
18 F. Weiss

UNCTAD’s Set of Multilaterally Agreed Equitable Principles and Rules for the
Control of Restrictive Business Practices.79 Sectoral and regional liberalization
agreements also include competition policy provisions, though few are as strong
as those in the EU.
In chapter 15 of the NAFTA, members agreed to maintain national measures to
prohibit anti-competitive behavior by firms, but not on mutually agreed competition
rules. Likewise, the Energy Charter Treaty calls for the adoption of competition laws
and policies, and for cooperation on exchange of information and consultation
among signatory countries. The competition law and policy group (CLPG) of the
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation promotes understanding of regional competi-
tion laws and policies, examines their impacts on trade and investment flows, and
identifies areas for technical cooperation and capacity building among member
economies.80
Certain provisions in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement
(CETA) as well as other free trade agreements (FTAs) and regional trade agreements
(RTAs) prohibit and sanction practices which distort competition and trade,81
specifically in investment chapters.82 In practice approaches differ.83 However,
recent FTAs such as the Comprehensive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

79
General Assembly resolution 35/63, Restrictive Business Practices, A/RES/35/63 (5 December
1980), www.un.org/documents/ga/res/35/a35r63e.pdf.
80
At CPLG’s annual meetings member economies update each other about their respective com-
petition policies and laws, including recent cases and discuss challenges to competition policy and
advocacy efforts.
81
Of the total of 280 RTAs notified to the WTO, 155 have chapters or provisions on competition
policy, cf. Appendix Table 1. The Treatment of Competition Policy in RTAs: Basic Coverage of
Agreements with Dedicated Chapters, Anderson RD, Kovacic WE, Müller AC, Sporysheva N,
Competition Policy, Trade and the Global Economy: Existing WTO Elements, Commitments in
Regional Trade Agreements, Current Challenges and Issues for Reflection. WTO, ERSD-2018-12,
21 October 2018, www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd201812_e.htm, p. 28ff.
82
For a detailed discussion of regional approaches to addressing competition policy in RTAs see
Anderson RD, Kovacic WE, Müller AC, Sporysheva N, Competition Policy, Trade and the Global
Economy: Existing WTO Elements, Commitments in Regional Trade Agreements, Current Chal-
lenges and Issues for Reflection. WTO, ERSD-2018-12, 21 October 2018, www.wto.org/english/
res_e/reser_e/ersd201812_e.htm.
83
Provisions based on the NAFTA model require both the adoption or maintenance of “competition
laws that prescribe anticompetitive business conducts” and the taking of “appropriate action with
respect to such conduct”; most of those in RTAs involving EU or EFTA countries contain an
obligation to adopt or maintain competition laws which also “effectively address anticompetitive
practices”; only about 34% of RTAs with dedicated provisions provide for RTA dispute settlement,
most merely for consultations, Anderson RD, Kovacic WE, Müller AC, Sporysheva N, Competi-
tion Policy, Trade and the Global Economy: Existing WTO Elements, Commitments in Regional
Trade Agreements, Current Challenges and Issues for Reflection. WTO, ERSD-2018-12,
21 October 2018, www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd201812_e.htm, pp. 31, 33.
Quest for a Sustainable International Investment Regime: Leveling Up. . . 19

(CPTPP)84 and the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement (JAEPA)85

contain different chapters, on investment and competition policy, without addressing
links or overlaps, let alone conflict86 between them. This perhaps explains the
relative scarcity of academic interest in discussion of the relationship between
competition law and investment law.87 It has been said on the other hand, that
when it comes to investment attraction, the role of competition need not be gener-
alized: while it is desirable to introduce competition in all sectors of the economy, it
is arguably equally important to note that there are sectors that are more conducive to
investment under monopolistic conditions than under competition.88 In short, the
importance of competition policy for trade liberalization and market integration is
recognized in a diverse set of economies worldwide.89

4.2.1 FDI and Competition Policy at the WTO

Clearly, competition law and policy are centrally concerned with the exclusionary
conduct of corporations which restrict markets and raise costs to consumers. In
contrast, trade policy is centrally concerned with governmental measures which
restrict foreign access to markets and discriminate against foreign market partici-
pants. The effect of both are the same, however, since firms, governments or some
combination of the two can impose anticompetitive or exclusionary restraints on
trade. Trade and competition policies are two methods of addressing such
problems.90
In theory, economists have argued insistently, trade, investment and competition
policies share goals and objectives, they ought to work in harmony, “teaming rules
against private anti-competitive behavior with rules on the elimination of govern-
ment barriers to international trade and investment.”91 Clearly, the objectives of a

84
Chapter 16 on Competition Policy, Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific
Partnership (CPTPP, 2018), upon withdrawal of the US.
85
Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement (2014) contains chapters on investment (but
not on ISDS) and on competition and consumer protection, albeit from the perspective of SOEs.
86
Arts 1, 2(2) and note attached to the latter of the U.S. 2012 Model BIT acknowledges that SOEs
often gain special privileges, thought to mean that the US approves certain instances of differential
treatment between foreign and domestic investors, Dai T, Discriminatory Application of Compe-
tition Law and International Investment Agreements. RIETI, 15-E-125, November 2015, www.
rieti.go.jp/en/publications/summary/15110008.html, p. 6.
87
Even the comprehensive “International Investment Law. A Handbook”, by Bungenberg et al.
(2015), does not feature a single entry in its index on “competition” eo nomine.
88
Dube C, The Relationship between Competition and Investment. CUTS Centre for Competition,
Investment & Economic Regulation, #3/2009, 2009, http://www.cuts-ccier.org/pdf/The_Relation
ship_between_Competition_and_Investment.pdf, p. 3.
89
At least 135 countries are now considered equipped with active competition regimes, Kovacic and
Lopez-Galdos (2016), p. 86.
90
Janow (2005), p. 489.
91
Kennedy (2001), p. 585.
20 F. Weiss

liberal trade policy closely match and complement those of competition policy, both
striving to eliminate or reduce market distortions and barriers to market entry. The
two policies are thus mutually reinforcing. Yet, there are also areas of overlap and
divergence, even contradiction, in emphasis and application. For instance, trade
policy features trade promotion and trade protection in form of trade remedy laws
(e.g. safeguards-, antidumping- and countervailing duty laws) including, for exam-
ple, legal tests for injury which differ from those under e.g. US antitrust law.92
Multilateral trade liberalization is designed to increase aggregate world wealth and
global productive efficiency. Competition policy is focused on national concerns,
enhancing national consumer or total welfare (consumer plus producer welfare) not
that of foreign consumers and producers,93 so that the welfare of the latter, i.e. in the
country of importation may be sacrificed for the benefit of producers in the country
of exportation.94 Competition policy can also clash with the market access goal of
trade policy—an international perspective built on reciprocity and mutually benefi-
cial concessions on market access—to the extent that it fails to regulate, condones or
actively encourages anti-competitive business practices such as export or import
cartels. If competition policy allows or tolerates such anti-competitive behavior, by
foreclosing market access to exporters it undermines trade policy, eroding the benefit
of negotiated market access bargains as well as the support of exporters for a liberal
trade policy.95
Nonetheless, even after the deletion of competition policy from the Doha Round
agenda of multilateral negotiations at the Cancun Ministerial Conference 2003,96
anticompetitive practices—murky cartels and cross-border mergers and acquisitions
(M&As) often escaping the scope of national regimes - raised concerns about
possible negative impacts.97 While the multilateral system of the WTO is bogged
down with regard to competition issues,98 various FTAs, PTAs and RTAs continue

92
Janow (2005), p. 488.
93
Export cartels are authorized under the competition laws of many countries.
94
Kennedy (2001), p. 592.
95
Hudec (1999), pp. 79, 83, cited by Kennedy (2001), p. 593.
96
Para. 25 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration defined the focus of future work of the Working
Group on the Interaction between Trade and Competition Policy (WGTCP) launched at the
Singapore WTO Ministerial Conference 1996; Fox (2003), p. 911.
97
For a summary of the pros and cons of linking competition policy to the WTO see Janow (2005),
pp. 506–508.
98
The WTO is also lagging behind PTAs in addressing issues of the digital economy, see Joint
statement of 76 WTO Members of 25 January 2019 launching negotiations on trade-related aspects
of electronic commerce, Joint Statement on Electronic Commerce, WTO, WT/L/1056, 25 January
2019, https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language¼E&
CatalogueIdList
¼251085,251084,251083,251082,251086,251022,251023,251024,251025,251037&
CurrentCatalogueIdIndex¼4&FullTextHash¼371857150&HasEnglishRecord¼True&
HasFrenchRecord¼False&HasSpanishRecord¼False.
Quest for a Sustainable International Investment Regime: Leveling Up. . . 21

or begin to embrace them.99 At the same time, the EU is called upon to elaborate a
more ambitious European industrial strategy with clear objectives for 2030 entailing
changes to existing European competition rules to ensure that European companies
can actually grow and effectively compete globally.100

4.2.2 FDI and Competition Policy in National Law

For a long time it has been confirmed—in literature and by International Organiza-
tions forming the “Geneva-Paris consensus”, as it were101—that the effects of
investment are beneficial for investor country and host country alike. Since national
laws and regulations that discriminate against FDI distort international trade in much
the same way as do tariffs, quotas, and other NTBs, national laws have been changed
to attract FDI by creating a more favourable environment for FDI. Evidently, a
liberal investment policy can simultaneously promote competition and trade in the
host country market, and perhaps in the global market as well.102 Indeed, liberal
trade, investment and competition policies can and should be mutually
reinforcing.103

5 Concluding Remarks

The G20 Guiding Principles for Global Investment Policymaking identify four
building blocks of investment policy and treaty making: establishment, protection
and treatment, promotion and facilitation, and dispute settlement. The Principles also

99
For a discussion of competition policy provisions in ASEAN blocwide and regional agreements
see Banda OGD, Whalley J, Beyond Goods and Services: Competition Policy, Investment, Mutual
Recognition, Movement of Persons, and Broader Cooperation Provisions of Recent FTAs involving
ASEAN Countries. NBER, Working Paper 11,232, March 2005, www.nber.org/papers/w11232.
100
See “A Franco-German Manifesto for a European industrial policy fit for the 21st Century”,
Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie, Ministère de l’Économie et des Finances, Paris,
www.gouvernement.fr/en/a-franco-german-manifesto-for-a-european-industrial-policy-fit-for-the-
21st-century.
101
OECD, WTO, UNCTAD.
102
Kennedy (2001), p. 599.
103
See the Korean Communication submitted to the WTO Working Group on Trade and Invest-
ment: “One can generalize that trade policy determines the relevant market for competition policy,
and investment policy determines the relevant players in the market. Therefore, investment policy
cannot attain its competition objective unless the effect of trade policy in determining the relevant
market is carefully considered”, Working Group on the Interaction between Trade and Competition
Policy—Working Group on the Relationship between Trade and Investment—Communication
from the Republic of Korea—Relationship between Investment and Competition Policy, WTO,
WT/WGTCP/W/109; WT/WGTI/W57, 22 October 1998, https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_
Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language¼E&CatalogueIdList¼37675,38270,24496,22122&
CurrentCatalogueIdIndex¼1&FullTextHash¼&HasEnglishRecord¼True&
HasFrenchRecord¼True&HasSpanishRecord¼True, p. 6.
22 F. Weiss

seek to strike a balance between the rights and obligations of firms and states,
between liberalization and regulation and between the strategic interests of host
and home countries.104 Together with the rise of proportionality review in investor-
State Arbitration—seen by some as “Governance”105 and as the “most astounding
success in international law over the past decades” by others106—they might be
considered as evidence of an emerging world-wide consensus in constitutional
matters.107
The tools for strengthening, reforming, perhaps saving liberal practice in the
global political economy in a sustainable manner are in place, possibly with the
assistance of reinforced legal cosmopolitanism. To that end, it has been plausibly
argued, that the time has perhaps come for a resumption of work on the relationship
of competition policy to the multilateral trading system in the WTO108 and to build
on, reinforce and carry forward work done by the OECD, UNCTAD and in the
International Competition Network (ICN) on forms of international cooperation.
While the contemporary environment may be more promising than it was at the
beginning of the century to ensure an appropriately transparent and
non-discriminatory framework for the application of competition policy in today’s
global economy,109 additional contextual challenges which were not then prominent
may also need to be tackled.
Indeed, issues closely related to competition policy such as trade, FDI, the free
movement of goods, services and capital, intellectual property (IP) protection, and
industrial policies, adopted or proposed, must also be taken into account in any
future multilateral decision-making. Regardless of whether pathologies in the world
economic system are primarily the result of dysfunctional decision-making by states,
or of inadequate responses to the welfare interests of their populations, only a
purposefully integrated and sustainable approach to competition law and policy in
trade and investment relations, one rooted in human and environmental rights, can

104
G20 represents more than two-thirds of global FDI, Zhan J, G20 Guiding Principles for Global
Investment Policymaking: A Facilitator’s Perspective. The E15 Initiative, December 2016, http://
e15initiative.org/publications/g20-guiding-principles-for-global-investment-policymaking-a-facili
tators-perspective/, p. 3.
105
Kingsbury and Schill (2010).
106
Wälde (2009), pp. 514, 543.
107
Schneidermann (2016), p. 23.
108
WTO Working Group on the Interaction between Trade and Competition Policy 1997–2003,
www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/comp_e/wgtcp_docs_e.htm. Anderson RD, Kovacic WE, Müller
AC, Sporysheva N, Competition Policy, Trade and the Global Economy: Existing WTO Elements,
Commitments in Regional Trade Agreements, Current Challenges and Issues for Reflection. WTO,
ERSD-2018-12, 21 October 2018, www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd201812_e.htm,
pp. 58, 60.
109
Anderson RD, Kovacic WE, Müller AC, Sporysheva N, Competition Policy, Trade and the
Global Economy: Existing WTO Elements, Commitments in Regional Trade Agreements, Current
Challenges and Issues for Reflection. WTO, ERSD-2018-12, 21 October 2018, www.wto.org/
english/res_e/reser_e/ersd201812_e.htm, p. 55.
Quest for a Sustainable International Investment Regime: Leveling Up. . . 23

reinvigorate the world economic system and make a measurable contribution to

greater global distributive justice.
If policymakers do not put them to beneficial use for mankind as a whole, “the
foreign proletariat”, better known as the Third World, an enormous mass of people
without even a bare living income will sooner or later tire of waiting to see vast
inequalities redressed. If they are failed, they could bring civilizations, and civiliza-
tion, to an end.110

References

Braudel F (1995) A history of civilizations. Penguin Books, London

Bungenberg M et al. (eds) (2015) International investment law. A handbook. C.H. Beck/Hart/
Nomos, Munich/Oxford/Baden-Baden
Fox EM (2003) International antitrust and the Doha Dome. Va J Int Law 43:911
Hopt KJ (1985) Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen und Verrechtlichung. In: Kübler F
(ed) Verrechtlichung von Wirtschaft, Arbeit und sozialer Solidäritat: Vergleichende Analysen,
2nd edn. Suhrkamp Verlag, Berlin, pp 229–287
Hudec RE (1999) A WTO perspective on private anti-competitive behavior in world markets. New
Eng Law Rev 34:97–100
Janow ME (2005) Trade and competition policy. In: Macrory PFJ, Appleton AE, Plummer MG
(eds) The World Trade Organization: legal, economic and political analysis, vol. 2. Springer,
New York, pp 487–510
Kennedy KC (2001) Foreign direct investment and competition policy at the World Trade Orga-
nization. George Wash Int Law Rev 33(3/4):585–650
Kingsbury B, Schill SW (2010) Public law concepts to balance investors’ rights with state
regulatory actions in the public interest—the concept of proportionality. In: Schill SW
(ed) International investment law and comparative public law. Oxford University Press,
New York
Kingsbury B, Krisch N, Stewart RB (2005) The emergence of global administrative law. Law
Contemp Probl 68(3):15–62
Kireyev A, Osakwe C (eds) (2018) Trade multilateralism in the twenty-first century: building the
upper floors of the trading system through WTO accessions. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge
Knill C, Tosun And J, Heichel S (2008) Balancing competitiveness and conditionality: environ-
mental policy-making in low-regulation countries. J Eur Publ Policy 15(7):1019–1040. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13501760802310512
Kovacic WE, Lopez-Galdos M (2016) Lifecycles of competition systems: explaining variation in
the implementation of new regimes. Law Contemp Probl 79(4):85–122
Marhold A, Weiss F (2018) Energy and fossil fuels as a topic of WTO accession protocols. In:
Bungenberg M et al (eds) European Yearbook of International Economic Law, vol 9. Springer,
Cham, pp 61–80
Meessen KM (2004) Competition in the Doha round of WTO negotiations. In: Schrijver NJ, Weiss
F (eds) International law and sustainable development: principles and practice. Martinus Nijhoff
Publishers/Brill Academic Publishers, Leiden, pp 217–230
Richardson JD, Fox EM, Rill J (1998) Multilateralizing conventions [with comments and discus-
sion]. Brookings Trade Forum 1998:335–394

110
Braudel (1995), p. 21.
24 F. Weiss

Roffe P (1999) Transfer of technology and competition policy in the context of a possible
multilateral investment agreement. In: Picciotto S, Mayne R (eds) Regulating international
business—beyond liberalization. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 142–160
Sauvant KP (2016) National FDI policy competition and the changing international investment
regime. In: Oppong RF, Agyebeng WK (eds) A commitment to law: essays in honor of Nana
Dr. Samuel Kwadwo Boaten Asante. Wildy, Simmonds & Hill Publications, London, pp
136–150
Schneidermann D (2016) Global constitutionalism and international economic law: the case of
international investment law. In: Bungenberg M, Herrmann C, Krajewski M, Terhechte JP (eds)
European Yearbook of International Economic Law, vol 7. Springer, Cham, pp 23–43
Servan-Schreiber JJ (1967) The American challenge. Scribner, New York
Stiglitz J (2000) Addressing developing country priorities and needs in the millennium round. In:
Porter RB, Sauvé P (eds) Seattle, the WTO, and the future of the multilateral trading system.
Harvard University and John F. Kennedy School of Government, Boston, pp 31–60
Wagner-von Papp F (2009) Internationales Wettbewerbsrecht. In: Tietje C (Hrsg) Internationales
Wirtschaftsrecht, 2nd edn. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 455–513
Wälde TW (2009) Improving the mechanisms for treaty negotiation and investment disputes:
competition and choice as the path to quality and legitimacy. In: Sauvant KP (ed) Yearbook
on International Investment Law & Policy, 2008–2009. Oxford University Press, New York, pp
505–584
Weiss F (1999) From world trade to world competition law. Fordham Int Law J 23(6):S250–S273

Friedl Weiss is a graduate of the Universities of Vienna, Brussels and Cambridge. Formerly
lecturer in law at LSE and Professor of International Economic Law and International Organisations
at the University of Amsterdam and Professor of European Union Law at the University of Vienna.
He held Visiting Professorships at several universities including Louvain-la-Neuve, Panthéon-
Assas Paris II, HEI Geneva, Bocconi Milano, Bratislava, Minnesota, Tulane, Wuhan and Tianjin.
He has been legal adviser in the EFTA Secretariat and legal consultant in GATT. He has provided
contract research and expert advisory services for various UN bodies, the EU and institutions of
several countries. He has published articles and books focused on EU and international
(economic) law.
International Investment Law and Public
Procurement: An Overview

Marc Bungenberg and Fabian Blandfort

Contents
1 Introduction: Public Procurement Law as Competition Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2 The Main Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3 Public Procurement and the Investment Treaty Protection of Foreign Investors . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.1 The Scope of Application of International Investment Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.2 Explicit Treaty Provisions on Public Procurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.3 The Notion of Investment in the Context of Public Procurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4 Application of Investment Treaties to the Different Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.1 Measures Affecting Tenderers During the Procurement Proceeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.2 Measures Affecting Tenderers During the Procurement Proceeding: “Protection”
of Successful Tenderers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.3 Measures Affecting Tenderers During the Procurement Process: “Protection”
of Unsuccessful Tenderers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5 Overview of the Relevant Standards of Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.1 Transparency and Due Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.2 Discriminatory State Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
6 Summary and Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Abstract Public procurement law inter alia provides a means to foster competition
in the purchasing of goods and services by governments. For tenderers incurring
significant expenditures during the procurement procedure, legal remedies are of
vital importance. Since these are not equally guaranteed by all states, the issue occurs
as to whether international investment law can serve as a gap-filling regime to
protect foreign tenderers against harmful state conduct during procurement pro-
ceedings. The chapter therefore examines the applicability of international invest-
ment agreements (IIAs) to the procurement procedure and, hence, the qualification
of a tender and the pre-award expenditure as protected investments. However, the
question is neither regulated adequately in most IIAs, nor has a definite approach

M. Bungenberg (*) · F. Blandfort

Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 25

K. Fach Gómez et al. (eds.), International Investment Law and Competition Law,
European Yearbook of International Economic Law,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33916-6_2
26 M. Bungenberg and F. Blandfort

developed in arbitral practice so far. While successful bidders can claim compensa-
tion for damages arising from the pre-award phase, the protection of unsuccessful
bidders must be answered in a differentiated manner. The chapter argues that a
distinction has to be made between an open and a pre-elective award procedure. In
the latter case, the host state invites the foreign tenderer to participate in the procure-
ment proceeding and thus provides the consent to admit the investment in its territory.
Moreover, foreign tenders increase competition within the award procedure, fostering
competition in the host state’s procurement market. Assuming that the IIA is appli-
cable, the chapter argues that the ordinary business risks of participating in a tender
procedure can be sufficiently taken into account when assessing liability.

1 Introduction: Public Procurement Law as Competition

Law

In the European Union (EU), antitrust and merger control rules and public procure-
ment law complement each other,1 being committed to the Union’s general objec-
tives, thus, inter alia to an effective competition in a “social market economy”.
Moreover, EU public procurement law is largely defined by reciprocal market access
in the internal market and is intended to foster competition as a public institution.2
The regulatory framework governing public procurement, therefore, has also been
described as “public competition law”.3
Public procurement and competition law in this sense are interrelated in multiple
aspects. Due to its purchasing power, the state can influence and disturb market
competition. Furthermore, when purchasing, “the state” can take advantage of
competitive effects on the supply side leading to lower costs for goods and services
of similar or better quality purchased by the procuring state (entity). This at least is
the general assumption in this field. The term “public procurement law” in a broad
sense refers to any acquisition of goods and services directly or indirectly by public
authorities. Thus, the (public) procurement market, in addition to the private market,
is of particular importance for a state’s economy4; the average percentage of general
government procurement amounts to around 13% of the national gross domestic
product (GDP) within the member states of the Organisation for Economic
Co-Operation and Development (OECD).5 Because of this purchasing power, the

1
Kennedy-Loest et al. (2011), p. 78.
2
Dreher et al. (2015), para. 6.
3
Bovis (2015), para. 1.42.
4
Bovis (2015), paras 1.22 et seq. Critically on the term “public market” see Sánchez Graells (2011),
pp. 35 et seq.
5
OECD statistics 2017, https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?QueryId¼78413# (30.01.2019).
International Investment Law and Public Procurement: An Overview 27

public authorities can influence and disturb market competition,6 awarding contracts
on different non-micro-economic criteria. The conceivable political interference in
the procurement procedure cannot be underestimated, especially since the state is not
subject to the same budget restrictions as private purchasers.
The awarding of public procurement contracts based on the lowest offer reflects
price competition in the sense of neo-classical economic theory relying on self-
regulating markets. The main criterion of price competition to promote economic
efficiency inevitably results in the requirement to generate competition between the
different bidders.7 Furthermore, in specific sectors the purchasing state might even
have a “monopoly”. In those economic sectors procurement law and procedures
implementing non-discrimination and transparency requirements might directly
serve as a means of avoiding the abuse of a dominant position by the state
authorities.
The decisive factors for an efficient implementation of competition are transpar-
ency and non-discrimination. Furthermore, especially effective legal remedies
enable losing bidders to obtain a review of tendering procedures leading to an
award and enable the public to monitor the procurement procedure as a whole.8
As the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) states, the “principles of
equal treatment and non-discrimination imply, in particular, a duty of transparency”
allowing judicial review of measures taken by public bodies during the procurement
process by the Member States’ courts.9 In European public procurement law, judicial
redress is mainly ensured by means of primary legal protection. Claims for com-
pensation on a secondary level are also considered and have to be guaranteed.10 A
reason for losing tenderers to raise claims for reliance damages might, inter alia, arise
from the potential costs, duration and uncertainties of the review procedure as a
means of primary legal protection.11
However, only a few jurisdictions worldwide do provide for effective and
adequate means for judicial review in procurement matters comparable to those in
the EU and other members of the Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA).12
Especially countries that have rich reserves of raw materials and natural resources
are regularly characterised by low rule of law standards. Due to often only limited
legal remedies available for foreign investors tendering in a host state’s procurement

6
Behrens (2017), para. 1713.
7
Bungenberg (2007), p. 178; Snider Smith (2008), pp. 110 et seq.
8
From a European perspective, see Bovis (2015), paras 5.01 et seq. and 12.01 et seq. Specifically on
the legal remedies, see Shirvani (2016), pp. 59 et seq. On the US reforms, highlighting competition
and transparency as the two major aspects, see Snider Smith (2008), pp. 110 et seq.
9
CJEU, case C-458/03, Parking Brixen, ECLI:EU:C:2005:605, paras 49 et seq.
10
As for the EU, see e.g. Article 2(1) lit. d of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992, OJ
L 76 of 23.3.1992, p. 14.
11
See Burgi (2018), p. 248.
12
See inter alia Reich (1999), pp. 133 et seq. On the GPA in general Matsushita et al. (2015),
pp. 675 et seq.
28 M. Bungenberg and F. Blandfort

market, the question arises to what extend international investment law, and partic-
ularly investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), can serve as a gap-filling instrument
providing substantial standards of protection against arbitrary, discriminatory or
non-transparent procurement proceedings. However, it has not been clarified
whether investment law can be effectively applied in public procurement. Therefore,
the present paper aims to assess the applicability of international investment agree-
ments (IIAs) to state measures in procurement procedures (Sect. 3 and 4) after a brief
illustration of potential scenarios in which investment protection can become rele-
vant to foreign tenderers (Sect. 2). Finally, the authors take a look at the potentially
violated standards of protection (Sect. 5).

2 The Main Scenarios

For the realisation of large-scale public infrastructure projects states frequently

utilise forms of a public-private partnership (PPP), typically through the awarding
of a contract at the end of a public procurement proceeding. Common contract types
of a PPP are inter alia design-build-finance-operate (DBFO), build-transfer-operate
(BTO), build-operate-transfer (BOT) and build-own-operate (BOO) contracts.13
Furthermore, public procurement principles gain relevance to awarding service
contracts or concession agreements e.g. in the raw materials exploitation sector.
The principles of transparency and competitiveness as well as accountability
mentioned above have a particularly high importance with regard to PPPs.14 In
order to prepare for a tender regarding for instance the construction of public
infrastructures or energy supply facilities, investors generally have to go through a
long process. Pre-award expenditures includes risk assessments, negotiations, fea-
sibility studies and the preparation of a tender for the public procurement procedure
itself.15 Indeed, tenderers incur significant expenses even before the contract is
awarded, in particular for the internal decision as to whether to participate in the
public procurement procedure and subsequently for the preparation of the tender.16
The activities and the costs in the pre-awarding phase increase proportionally to the
complexity and scale of the relevant procurement project, especially with regard
to large-scale public infrastructure projects, raw materials exploitation and the
construction of extraction or energy supply facilities. Therefore, an investor has to

13
Yescombe (2007), pp. 11 et seq.
14
Bovis (2015), paras 13.76 et seq.
15
See inter alia Hamida (2005), p. 50 et seq; Yescombe (2002), p. 257. With regard to the
construction industry Metje (2008), pp. 29 et seq.
16
On the procurement process and the different phases from an economic point of view see
Yescombe (2007), pp. 74 et seq.
International Investment Law and Public Procurement: An Overview 29

calculate the expenditure also with regard to the length of the bidding and develop-
ment process, including the costs for its development staff and for external
advisers.17 For instance, the pre-award expenditure for the negotiations of a later
not-concluded BOT contract in the arbitration Mihaly v. Sri Lanka18 amounted to
almost US$ 6 million.19
Hence, there are different scenarios in which investment treaty claims might be
raised with regard to national procurement proceedings. Firstly, the rights of a
successful foreign tenderer who has been awarded the contract may be infringed
either within the procurement procedure or subsequently, during the execution of the
project. Secondly, during the award procedure, a violation of the foreign investor’s
rights might occur, in particular through the application of discriminatory or
non-transparent award criteria resulting in a dismissal of the foreigner’s tender.
Here again, a distinction can be made between cases in which the foreign investor
was already aware of the for example discriminatory conduct in the award procedure
in advance and cases in which it was not apparent that the host state would prefer
domestic tenderers or apply other discriminatory or non-transparent criteria in the
award procedure.
Economic activities in the preliminary stages of the actual execution of the
investment are only protected by the treaty if those pre-awarding expenditures can
be qualified as investments that fall within the scope of application. The decisive
factor for the legal protection of foreign investors under international investment law
in each of the scenarios is, thus, in particular the notion of investment.

3 Public Procurement and the Investment Treaty

Protection of Foreign Investors

The treaty protection of foreign investors against harmful state conduct within
procurement procedures essentially depends on whether the mentioned expenditures
qualify as investments. Therefore, following an analysis of specific provisions in
IIAs on public procurement (Sect. 3.1), the scope of application of IIAs and the
notion of investment according to arbitral jurisprudence have to be assessed (Sect.
3.2), taking into consideration specific IIA provisions or investment chapters on
public procurement. The findings shall subsequently be applied to the main scenarios
outlined above (Sect. 3.3).

17
Yescombe (2007), p. 107.
18
Mihaly International Corporation v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case
No. ARB/00/2.
19
Williams (2008), p. 881.
30 M. Bungenberg and F. Blandfort

3.1 The Scope of Application of International Investment

Agreements

The differentiation between the pre-establishment phase governing the market

access and the post-establishment phase regarding the treatment of existing invest-
ments is of considerable importance for the protection of foreign investors during the
award procedure. The decision to admit a specific foreign investment to the domestic
market is of a highly political nature and is traditionally regulated differently in IIAs,
especially in a transatlantic comparison. While the EU and its Member States merely
lay down so-called soft obligations for market access, the United States, Canada and
Japan are implementing stronger market access rights for foreign investors.20
Besides most of the EU’s member states’ BITs, the CETA and the EU-Singapore
Investment Protection Agreement also provide, in principle, solely for a post-
establishment protection of foreign investments. Likewise, the Energy Charter
Treaty (ECT)21 states rather soft-law obligations for the pre-establishment phase.22
According to Article 10(1) of the ECT, “[e]ach Contracting Party shall, in accor-
dance with the provisions of this Treaty, encourage and create stable, equitable,
favourable and transparent conditions for Investors of other Contracting Parties to
make Investments in its Area”. The contracting parties “shall endeavour to accord”
foreign investors treatment no less favourable than that accorded to nationals or to
investors of any other contracting or third state, pursuant to Article 10(2) and (3) of
the ECT. Article 1(6)(f) of the ECT defines (established) investments inter alia as
“any right conferred by law or contract”. However, those expenditures before the
granting of the contract, such as studies, negotiations, prefeasibility and risk assess-
ments are not “conferred by contract”.23
The question therefore remains as to whether the participation in a tender can be
seen as a post-establishment activity. It is, thus, decisive at which stage of a public
procurement procedure an investment begins to exist, leading to the applicability of
the standards of protection of the post-establishment phase.

3.2 Explicit Treaty Provisions on Public Procurement

Irrespective of the general notion of investment, the IIA might contain specific pro-
visions on government procurement and the applicability of the standards of protec-
tion or the ISDS mechanism on state measures during and prior to the award decision.
Traditionally, IIAs do not exclude public procurement from their scope of
application. There are, however, some recently concluded treaties providing specific

20
Dolzer and Schreuer (2012), p. 89. See also Schill (2017), pp. 16 et seq.
21
The Energy Charter Treaty, UNTS 2080, p. 95.
22
See Wälde (1996), pp. 277 et seq.
23
Wälde (1996), p. 280.
International Investment Law and Public Procurement: An Overview 31

exemptions. According to Article 2.1.3(a) of chapter two of the EU-Singapore

Investment Protection Agreement, the provision on national treatment shall not
apply to “the procurement by governmental agencies of goods and services pur-
chased for governmental purposes and not with a view to commercial resale or with a
view to use in the supply of goods or the supply of services for commercial sale”.
Moreover, Article 8.15.5(a) of the CETA states that neither the market access
provision of Article 8.4 nor the non-discrimination rules of the most-favoured-nation
(MFN) treatment (Article 8.6) and national treatment (Article 8.7) apply to “pro-
curement by a Party of a good or service purchased for governmental purposes and
not with a view to commercial resale or with a view to use in the supply of a good or
service for commercial sale, whether or not that procurement is “covered procure-
ment” within the meaning of [the chapter on government procurement]”.24
The same approach can be found in Article 1108(7)(a) of the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),25 which, however, leaves the relationship of
Chapter 11 to Chapter 10 of the NAFTA uncertain in several respects.26 Further-
more, the new US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) states comparable exemp-
tions in Article 14.12.5 (a) regarding inter alia the national treatment and the most-
favoured-nation treatment, as well as a clause in Article 14.10.3 (a) with respect to
performance requirements.27 An even more far-reaching provision has been
implemented in Article 5.2 (b) of Chapter XX of the EU-Mexico Free Trade
Agreement (FTA), which excludes government procurement from the whole of
Section A on the liberalisation of investments.28
A different clause on the interrelation between investment protection and the
government procurement chapter can be found in Article 2.1.6 of the not yet ratified
EU-Vietnam Investment Protection Agreement, which states that inter alia the
national treatment and the most-favoured nation treatment do neither limit the
obligations of the parties according to the chapter on government procurement nor
do they “impose any additional obligation with respect to government procure-
ment”.29 Moreover, those state measures which are in compliance with the pro-
visions on government procurement of the EU-Vietnam FTA “shall not be
considered as a breach” of the provisions inter alia on the treatment of investments.
The aforementioned agreements therefore already reflect an increased sensitivity
of the treaty makers to the interrelation between international investment law
and public procurement law and procedure. However, in the absence of specific

24
Text available at http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ceta/ceta-chapter-by-chapter/.
25
See also the additional exemptions with regard to the performance requirements according to
Article 1106 of the NAFTA and Article 1108(8)(b) of the NAFTA.
26
Bjorklund (2013), p. 490. See on public procurement under NAFTA in general Reich (1999),
pp. 261 et seq.
27
Text available at https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/united-states-mexico-
canada-agreement/agreement-between.
28
Text available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id¼1833.
29
Text available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id¼1437.
32 M. Bungenberg and F. Blandfort

exemptions, state acts in relation to public procurement are likely to fall within the
scope of application of most IIAs in force. Furthermore, it can be argued that ISDS in
general seems possible and is accepted in the event of a violation of procurement
principles, and it is only excluded when the procurement procedures as well as
exceptions from the scope of application laid down in the specific chapters are
respected.

3.3 The Notion of Investment in the Context of Public

Procurement

The term “investment” is decisive both for the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal and
the applicability of the standards of protection. With regard to the applicability of
IIAs in the context of public procurement the key question is whether the mere (and
probably unsuccessful) participation in a public procurement process can already be
seen as an investment. The notion of investment obviously is essential and academic
literature and investment arbitration alike have tried to find a satisfactory definition
for some time.30 However, treaty practice and arbitral jurisprudence lack a common
interpretation.
With regard to the ICSID Convention, significant difficulties arise out of the fact
that Article 25(1) of the Convention does not provide a definition. Rather, it only
limits the jurisdiction of the Centre “to any legal dispute arising directly out of an
investment” without any specifications.31 In IIAs different approaches with regard to
the definition of investment have evolved, either providing a broad asset-based
definition or a rather restrictive closed-list concept.32 According to Article 1(6) of
the Energy Charter Treaty, investment “means every kind of asset, owned or
controlled directly or indirectly by an Investor”. It therefore encompasses a very
broad notion of the term. In a similar vein, the German Model BIT of 2009 states in
Article 1(1) that the term “comprises every kind of asset which is directly or
indirectly invested by investors”.
However, this extensive definition in some agreements is limited by further
requirements, such as in the US Model BIT of 2012, stating in its Article 1 that
the term investment “means every asset that an investor owns or controls, directly or
indirectly, that has the characteristics of an investment, including such characteristics
as the commitment of capital or other resources, the expectation of gain or profit, or
the assumption of risk.” An even more restrictive approach is found in Article 1139
of NAFTA and Article 14.1 of the USMCA, providing an exhaustive list of possible
forms of investments and excluding various others explicitly. The same approach
was implemented in Article 1 of the Canadian Model BIT of 2004.

30
See e.g. Bischoff and Happ (2015), para.1; Rubins (2004), p. 283.
31
See Schlemmer (2008), pp. 62 et seq.; Schreuer et al. (2009), Article 25 paras 113 et seq.
32
Bischoff and Happ (2015), paras 8 et seq.; Vandevelde (2010), pp. 122 et seq.
International Investment Law and Public Procurement: An Overview 33

Concerning the notion of investment according to Article 25(1) of the ICSID

Convention, the tribunal in Salini v. Morocco held that “[t]he doctrine generally
considers that investment infers: contributions, a certain duration of performance of
the contract and a participation in the risks of the transaction [. . .]. In reading the
Convention’s preamble, one may add the contribution to the economic development
of the host State of the investment as an additional condition.”33 These five criteria of
the latter so-called Salini test had already been previously defined by the arbitral
tribunal in Fedax v. Venezuela.34 However, the Salini test is not applied equally by
all ICSID-tribunals, which sometimes either do consider the five criteria insufficient
or unnecessary.35 Some tribunals, thus, deemed only the criteria of duration, profit
and the involvement of risk relevant,36 whereas others requested additional require-
ments.37 It is, however, widely accepted that not only the parties’ consent, but also at
least some of the objective criteria mentioned must be taken into account when
assessing whether an investment in the sense of Article 25(1) of the ICSID Conven-
tion exists.38 Therefore, a uniform concept of the notion of investment cannot be
applied in the following. For the purpose of this paper, the analysis will take the
Salini criteria and arbitration under the ICSID Convention as a starting point.

4 Application of Investment Treaties to the Different

Scenarios

Measures affecting the pure execution of the procurement project are obviously
covered by the scope of application of IIAs in general. At the end of a successful
participation in the procurement procedure regularly lies the execution phase of the
investment project. If the respective investor reaches this phase and his rights are
infringed, the various standards of protection apply since, at that time, an investment
undoubtedly already exists. The award at the end of the procurement proceeding

33
Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco, Decision on Jurisdiction
of 23 July 2001, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4, para. 52. See also Consortium R.F.C.C. v. Kingdom of
Morocco, Decision on Jurisdiction of 16 July 2001, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/6, Rn. 60.
34
FEDAX N.V. v. The Republic of Venezuela, Decision on Jurisdiction of 11 July 1997, ICSID
Case No. ARB/96/3, para. 43.
35
Bischoff and Happ (2015), para. 35. On the criteria see Schreuer et al. (2009), Article 25 paras 154
et seq.
36
See Saba Fakes v. Republic of Turkey, Award of 14 July 2010, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/20, para.
110; Consortium Groupement L.E.S.I. - DIPENTA v. People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria,
Award of 10 January 2005, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/8, para. II.13(iv).
37
For instance, the tribunal in Phoenix Action Ltd v. Czech Republic, Award of 15 April 2009,
ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, para. 100, is limiting the notion to bona fide investments.
38
See e.g. Autopista Concesionada de Venezuela, C.A. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,
Decision on Jurisdiction of 27 September 2001, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/5, para. 97.
34 M. Bungenberg and F. Blandfort

coincides with the state’s offer to conclude the contract.39 The binding contract itself
between the host state and the investor certainly constitutes an investment within the
meaning of the IIA and the ICSID Convention.40 Therefore, the respective assets
within the sense of the definition of investment depend on the subject of the
procurement procedure. The asset may be either, in case of a long-term service
contract, the investor-state contract or concession as such or, in case of a large-scale
BOT-project, the ownership of the infrastructure or power plant constructed. Thus,
an infrastructure project expropriated before keys are handed over as well as an
interference with a concession or service contract for the exploitation of raw
materials can cause the host state’s liability under IIAs.
However, according to the foregoing, two potential scenarios arise in which the
application of international investment law to state measures related to the procure-
ment procedure have to be considered. These will be discussed in the following.

4.1 Measures Affecting Tenderers During the Procurement

Proceeding

Here, the question arises of whether not only interference with the executed invest-
ment itself, but also those state measures affecting the tenderer during the procure-
ment procedure can be claimed as IIA violations in ISDS. With regard to the purpose
of the ICSID Convention and the respective IIA, there is indeed an undeniable
interest on the part of the foreign investor in its expenditures being covered by the
scope of application of the agreements. Furthermore, legal protection of the devel-
opment phase would foster the investment treaties’ objective to promote and encour-
age foreign investments.41

4.2 Measures Affecting Tenderers During the Procurement

Proceeding: “Protection” of Successful Tenderers

Arbitral decisions have recognised that once the investment is executed and a
violation of an IIA standard of protection occurs, compensation can be claimed
under an IIA also for expenditures inter alia within the procurement procedure. The
subsequent liquidation of such costs is of particular importance if the host state

39
As for German procurement law see Burgi (2018), p. 220.
40
See for Article 25 ICSID Convention Schreuer et al. (2009), Art. 25, para. 180. Regarding
contract awarded after a procurement proceeding see Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade
S.p.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco, Decision on Jurisdiction of 23 July 2001, ICSID Case
No. ARB/00/4, para. 58.
41
On the concerns see also Robinson (2004), p. 265.
International Investment Law and Public Procurement: An Overview 35

concludes a contract with the foreign investor at the end of the award procedure,
which then fails in the executive phase. Indeed, the tribunal in Malicorp v. Egypt
held:
In the case of a contract, it has been rightly held42 that the costs incurred during negotiations
with a view to concluding a contract do not constitute an investment if in the end the State
finally refuses to sign it [. . .]. The situation in the present case is different since the Contract
was indeed signed [. . .]. It is true that Malicorp does not appear to have performed many
services in connection with it. Nonetheless, the fact of being bound by that Contract implied
an obligation to make major contributions in the future. That commitment constitutes the
investment; it entails the promise to make contributions in the future for the performance of
which that party is henceforth contractually bound. In other words, the protection here
extends to deprivation of the revenue the investor had a right to expect in consideration for
contributions that it had not yet made, but which it had contractually committed to make
subsequently.43

In a similar vein, the tribunal in PSEG v. Turkey emphasised:

A contract is a contract. The Concession Contract exists, is valid and is legally binding. This
conclusion is sufficient to establish that the Tribunal has jurisdiction on the basis of an
investment having been made in the form of a Concession Contract.44

Therefore, the tribunal rejected the respondent’s argument, according to which,

since no mining was undertaken and no plants were built, there would be nothing to
compensate for. Rather, the arbitrators stated:
This, however, is not a reason sufficient in itself to rule out the existence of damages subject
to compensation. An investment can take many forms before actually reaching the construc-
tion stage, including most notably the cost of negotiations and other preparatory work
leading to the materialization of the Project, even in connection with pre-investment
expenditures, particularly when, like in this case, there is a valid and binding Contract
duly executed between the parties.45

The arbitration proceedings in Jan de Nul and and Dredging International

v. Egypt46 were also influenced by circumstances of the procurement procedure
itself. The investor had concluded a contract with the host state’s authorities to
undertake dredging services in several southern stretches of the Suez Canal. How-
ever, the execution of the project caused damages to the investor due to allegedly
incorrect information that the state authorities had given during the procurement

42
Footnote added by the authors; it is referred to Schreuer, ICSID-Commentary, Article 25.
43
Malicorp Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Award of 7 February 2011, ICSID Case
No. ARB/08/18, para. 113.
44
PSEG Global Inc. and Konya Ilgin Elektrik Üretim ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Republic of
Turkey, Decision on Jurisdiction of 4 June 2004, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/5, para. 104.
45
PSEG Global Inc. and Konya Ilgin Elektrik Üretim ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Republic of
Turkey, Award of 19 January 2007, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/5, para. 304.
46
Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case
No. ARB/04/13.
36 M. Bungenberg and F. Blandfort

proceedings.47 Since there was a binding state contract between the disputing
parties, the tribunal held that it was not necessary to evaluate whether in the
construction industry an investment exists beginning with the investor making
expenditures when preparing the offer and deciding whether to participate in the
procurement process or not.48 Rather, “the duration of the operation was sufficient
for it to qualify as an investment within the meaning of Article 25 of the ICSID
Convention, even starting from the execution of the Contract”.49 However, due to a
lack of evidence, the claims were later dismissed on the merits. Nevertheless, the
tribunal did not answer the question whether or not the pre-award phase as such is
covered by the notion investment.
Thus, according to the case law, expenditures for the preparation of an offer can
be liquidated if a binding contract has been concluded, thus, an investment exists.
However, solely after the contract has been awarded at the end of the procurement
process an investment has been explicitly recognised as such by arbitral tribunals.
Here, the expenditures become relevant in assessing the damage.50

4.3 Measures Affecting Tenderers During the Procurement

Process: “Protection” of Unsuccessful Tenderers

It remains questionable whether the expenditures of the procurement procedure and

the preparation of an unsuccessful tender, can be regarded as an investment if no
binding contract is awarded. The qualification of development expenditures as
elements of the overall investment does not prejudice the assessment of whether
such costs constitute an autonomous investment. The latter question has not been
negatively answered either in Jan de Nul and and Dredging International v. Egypt51
or in PSEG v. Turkey52; on the contrary, the above cited paragraphs (“An investment
can take many forms before actually reaching the construction stage, including most
notably the cost of negotiations and other preparatory work leading to the material-
ization of the Project, even in connection with pre-investment expenditures, [. . .]”53)

47
Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Decision on
Jurisdiction of 16 June 2006, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13, para. 14.
48
Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Decision on
Jurisdiction of 16 June 2006, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13, paras 94 et seq.
49
Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Decision on
Jurisdiction of 16 June 2006, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13, para. 95.
50
Schreuer et al. (2009), Article 25 para. 180; Bischoff and Happ (2015), paras 110 et seq.
51
Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Decision on
Jurisdiction of 16 June 2006, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13, paras 94 et seq.
52
PSEG Global Inc. and Konya Ilgin Elektrik Üretim ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Republic of
Turkey, Award of 19 January 2007, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/5, para. 304.
53
PSEG Global Inc. and Konya Ilgin Elektrik Üretim ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Republic of
Turkey, Award of 19 January 2007, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/5, para. 304.
International Investment Law and Public Procurement: An Overview 37

as well as clarifications in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement

(CETA) between the EU and Canada and other recent agreements indicate that a
protection of unsuccessful bidders seems also possible. Finally, the tribunal in
Malicorp v. Egypt ruled on the qualification of negotiation expenses solely in an
obiter dictum and did not have to decide the issue for the merits of the case.54

4.3.1 Protection of Foreign Investors Tendering in a Procurement

Proceeding

With regard to the qualification of the preparation of an offer as an investment

irrespective of the closure of a binding contract the tribunal in Lemire v. Ukraine
held:
Pre-investment activities are those which precede the actual investment. Whether
pre-investment activities merit treaty protection is debatable. But it is irrelevant for the
purpose of adjudicating Claimant’s claims in this arbitration [. . .].55

The question was not decisive in Lamire, Jan de Nul or PSEG. In contrast to these
cases, no binding contract was concluded in Mihaly v. Sri Lanka, since Sri Lanka
only issued several letters of intent. Therefore, the tribunal stated
The Claimant has not succeeded in furnishing any evidence of treaty interpretation or
practice of States, let alone that of developing countries or Sri Lanka for that matter, to the
effect that pre-investment and development expenditures in the circumstances of the present
case could automatically be admitted as “investment” in the absence of the consent of the
host State to the implementation of the project. [. . .] The Tribunal is consequently unable to
accept as a valid denomination of “investment”, the unilateral or internal characterization of
certain expenditures by the Claimant in preparation for a project of investment.56

The decisive factor for the arbitral tribunal’s assessment was therefore the lack of
consensus of the host state, as expressed in a binding contract at the end of a
procurement procedure. It should be noted that the arbitral tribunal rejected the
existence of an investment even though there were several letters of intent issued by
the government of Sri Lanka. According to the tribunal, a mere participation in the
procurement procedure cannot, a fortiori, result in the requisite expenditures being
qualified as an investment. Although signing the unanimous award, arbitrator David
Suratgar issued an individual concurring opinion highlighting the need for greater
transparency in the procurement process in the pre-execution phase due to the high

54
Malicorp Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Award of 7 February 2011, ICSID Case
No. ARB/08/18, para. 113.
55
Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability of 14 January 2010,
ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18, para. 89.
56
Mihaly International Corporation v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, Award of
15 March 2002, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/2, paras 60 et seq.
38 M. Bungenberg and F. Blandfort

expenditure and risks associated with large-scale BOT-infrastructure projects.57 He

therefore concluded:
If private foreign investors are to be encouraged to pursue transparency in seeking such BOT
opportunities the international community must address the lessons of this case. Expenditure
incurred by successful bidders do indeed produce “economic value” as specified by Article
1 of [the BIT] and the protection mechanism developed under the aegis of the World Bank in
the form of the ICSID Convention should be available to those who are encouraged to
embark on such expensive exercises.58

Suratgar refers to several documents supporting a theoretical and abstract possi-

bility for such expenditures to qualify as an investment.59 Indeed, the World Bank
Report on Submission and Evaluation of Proposals for Private Power Generation
Projects in Developing Countries of September 1994 emphasises that the project
capital costs of a power plant “comprise all project development and construction
costs, including but not limited to prefeasibility, engineering, legal, and auditing
services.”60 Hence, it is arguable that those expenditures may qualify as an invest-
ment. Moreover, Suratgar refers to the broad interpretation of eligible investments
with regard to investment guarantees and insurances.61 Finally, one can criticise the
fact that letters of intent which open up the procurement market or are rendered
within the negotiation phase are not seen as a consensus in this regard or at least as
leading to responsibilities of the procuring state for his procuring bodies.
Another award based on facts relating to procurement has been rendered in
Zhinvali Development Ltd v. Georgia.62 Here the tribunal, relying on the award in
Mihaly v. Sri Lanka, held that since no contract was signed and no consent between
the parties was reached as to whether the negotiation expenditures constituted an
investment it had no jurisdiction under the ICSID Convention.63 However, the
award only related to the enterprise’s costs arising from rather informal contract
negotiations and not to the tendering in a formal public procurement award proce-
dure. Indeed, the reason for stopping negotiations with the foreign investor was that

57
Mihaly International Corporation v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, Concurring
Opinion by Mr. David Suratgar of 7 March 2002, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/2. See Hornick (2003),
pp. 192 et seq.
58
Mihaly International Corporation v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, Concurring
Opinion by Mr. David Suratgar of 7 March 2002, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/2, para. 10.
59
Mihaly International Corporation v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, Concurring
Opinion by Mr. David Suratgar of 7 March 2002, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/2, para. 6.
60
Submission and evaluation of proposals for private power generation projects in developing
countries, World Bank Discussion Papers No. 250 of September 1994, p. 14, http://documents.
worldbank.org/curated/en/353541468782149070/pdf/multi-page.pdf (1.2.2019).
61
Mihaly International Corporation v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, Concurring
Opinion by Mr. David Suratgar of 7 March 2002, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/2, para. 6.
62
Zhinvali Development Ltd v. Georgia, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/1, unpublished. A summary is
provided by Happ and Rubins (2009), pp. 8 et seq. See also Schreuer et al. (2009), Article 25 para.
178, and Hamida (2005), pp. 67 et seq.
63
Happ and Rubins (2009), p. 9.
International Investment Law and Public Procurement: An Overview 39

after long negotiations between the investor and the host state, the World Bank
intervened and demanded that Georgia establish a competitive and transparent
bidding process for the project.64 Therefore, a distinction should be made, on the
one hand, between mere contract negotiations and, on the other, a tendering in a
(ostensibly) transparent and non-discriminatory procurement proceeding.
Although the awards rendered so far do not support the assumption that the
expenditures related to the preparation of an offer already constitute an investment
within the meaning of Article 25(1) of the ICSID Convention so long as no binding
state contract has been concluded,65 they do not preclude it either.
Based on the Salini criteria, the answer to the question ultimately depends on
whether or not there is a strict distinction between the procurement procedure up to
the point in time when the award decision is taken and/or the contract is concluded
on the one hand and a post-award or contract conclusion performance. The achieve-
ment of a regular profit depends on the discretionary decision of the procurement
authority, since returns can only be achieved if the contract is finally awarded. But
since the expectation of a regular profit and a long-term relationship is considered to
be sufficient, also according to Salini, an investment does exist.66 Furthermore, the
investor has the expectation that the procurement proceeding is conducted in good
faith and that no discrimination occurs between the different tenderers. Foreign
investors, however, are aware of the business risk which is inherent in the partici-
pation in a public procurement procedure.
There are attempts to restrict the notion of investment through the requirement of
a contribution to the host state’s economy.67 Here, the interrelation between public
procurement law and “competition” emphasised above has to be considered, as well.
Indeed, having regard to the purpose of international investment law which is to
encourage foreign investment and thus the host state’s economy and welfare, one
can endorse a protection of investors during the procurement proceeding. Competi-
tion is essential for the functioning of a market economy. Foreign tenderers certainly
foster competition within public procurement as a major sector of economy by
simply participating in the procurement procedure. Therefore, the protection of
invested costs for the participation in the procurement proceeding is not only
beneficial for the foreign investors but also contributes to a functioning market
economy with an efficient and functioning procurement mechanism based on com-
petition principles. Such a procurement mechanism will foster the public welfare of
the respective host state. Hence, even on the (criticised) assumption that an invest-
ment has to contribute to the host state’s economy, expenditures during the tendering

64
Hamida (2005), p. 68.
65
See Johannsen (2009), p. 32.
66
Schreuer et al. (2009), Article 25, para. 153.
67
Consortium R.F.C.C. v. Kingdom of Morocco, Decision on Jurisdiction of 16 July 2001, ICSID
Case No. ARB/00/6, para. 65; Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. Kingdom of
Morocco, Decision on Jurisdiction of 23 July 2001, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/4, para. 52. On the
debate see inter alia Bischoff and Happ (2015), para. 39.
40 M. Bungenberg and F. Blandfort

procedure can be considered as a protected investment, since the respective offers

make an essential contribution to competition within the bidding process and
therefore to the economy of the host state.
From a public international law perspective, the host state is not obliged to grant
foreign tenderers access to a procurement proceeding so long as no such commit-
ment has been made.68 Indeed, multiple public procurement regimes and markets are
not at all open to enterprises from third countries.69 Therefore, the admission of a
foreign enterprise to a tendering proceeding could as a sovereign act of the state
provide for the required consent between investor and host state.
As pointed out in Malicorp v. Egypt,70 the investor’s commitment constitutes an
investment. Generally, in public procurement the submitted offer is the commitment;
already the participation in the procurement procedure implies obligations for the
enterprise submitting the offer. For instance, in German public procurement law, a
binding offer cannot be withdrawn by the bidder pursuant to the German Civil Code
(BGB).71 The state authorities only have to give their unilateral approval within a
certain time frame, once the offer has been submitted.
Nevertheless, it is doubtful whether the expenditures for a tender can be qualified
as an investment in the case of an open award procedure, in which the number of
potential bidders is not limited and therefore no admission to participate in the
procurement process by state authorities is required. However, in a public procure-
ment procedure by invitation the respective tenderer is specifically and individually
requested to submit an offer. Here, the invitation by the host state can be seen as an
offer to reach a consent with the foreign tenderer and investor that finally leads to a
contract. Furthermore, it can be taken into account whether the tenderer is bound by
its submitted offer, as mentioned earlier. In this case also the procuring state would
have to be considered bound by pre-contractual obligations. For instance, according
to sections 180 and 181 of the German Competition Act (GWB), the tenderer can
claim inter alia reliance damages if the state has violated a provision protecting its
rights. Moreover, obligations before the signature of a contract are also recognised in
the lex mercatoria.72 In sum, pre-contractual obligations bind the participating
enterprises and the state authorities alike, once a binding offer is submitted.

68
On the access of investments in the natural resources exploitation field see Bungenberg (2015),
pp. 129 et seq.
69
See because of this the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council
on the access of third-country goods and services to the Union’s internal market in public
procurement and procedures supporting negotiations on access of Union goods and services to
the public procurement markets of third countries, COM(2016) 34 final.
70
Malicorp Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Award of 7 February 2011, ICSID Case
No. ARB/08/18, para. 113.
71
Burgi (2018), p. 220.
72
See with regard to the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of
Goods (CISG), 1489 UNTS 3, Schütz (1996), pp. 173 et seq.
International Investment Law and Public Procurement: An Overview 41

In Mihaly v. Sri Lanka the host state had invited five investors out of around
twenty-five interested applicants to enter into negotiations.73 Nevertheless the tribu-
nal did not deem the phase before the award of the contract sufficient to constitute
consent, although the state had carried out a preselection. The ruling in Mihaly v. Sri
Lanka was, however, based to a large degree on the facts of the case, since the host
state “clearly signalled, in the various documents which are relied upon by the
Claimant, that it was not until the execution of a contract that it was willing to
accept that contractual relations had been entered into and that an investment had
been made.”74 In the absence of such an explicit reservation on the part of the host
state’s authorities, the admission of the tenderer to the procurement proceeding could
arguably be sufficient to also constitute consent. Moreover, the tribunal only
emphasised that there was no evidence for pre-investment expenditures “automati-
cally”75 amounting to an investment and hence giving rise to the tribunal’s jurisdic-
tion.76 The abstract possibility for such expenditures to constitute a covered
investment was, thus, deliberately not excluded by the arbitral tribunal, irrespective
the fact that no binding precedents exist in international investment arbitration, in
any case.77
Therefore, even in the absence of a binding contract, claims of the investor
against the host state could be raised due to the existence of an investment.78 If the
host state acted in bad faith during the contract negotiations and the signature of the
contract therefore failed, claims for reliance damages might be given, qualifing as a
claim for money and, thus, a protected asset.79 These considerations should also be
applicable to misconduct by the host state during the procurement procedure.
However, the respective IIA certainly has to include claims for money within its
definition of investment.
Therefore, as an interim conclusion, the decisive criterion cannot (solely) be
whether a contract was finally concluded but whether there was a (binding) (also
pre-contractual) commitment or obligation by especially the foreign enterprise.
Moreover, it is argued that the protection of those expenditures would cause
sensitive issues such as bribery or corruption to fall under the jurisdiction of an
ICSID arbitral tribunal, which, however, would not be competent to assess such
questions.80 However, the abstract risk that such issues fall under the jurisdiction of

73
Mihaly International Corporation v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, Award of
15 March 2002, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/2, para. 39.
74
Mihaly International Corporation v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, Award of
15 March 2002, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/2, para. 51.
75
Mihaly International Corporation v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, Award of
15 March 2002, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/2, para. 60.
76
See also Hamida (2005), p. 63.
77
On this Bungenberg and Titi (2015), paras 2 et seq.
78
See with a similar result Yala (2005), pp. 122 et seq.; Bischoff and Happ (2015), para. 112.
79
Yala (2005), p. 123; Bischoff and Happ (2015), para. 112.
80
See Johannsen (2009), p. 32; Hamida (2005), p. 51; Hornick (2003), p. 192.
42 M. Bungenberg and F. Blandfort

the arbitral tribunal cannot inevitably prejudge the qualification of a tender and
related expenditures as investments. Furthermore, corruption practices by the bidder
could lead to an outright denial of protection under an IIA since in this case the
investment would not be in conformity with the host state’s law.
Besides, the mere qualification of those expenditures as an investment does not
predetermine the level of protection granted by substantive treaty standards. The
ordinary business risk of participating in a procurement proceeding can and indeed
has to be taken into account with regard to the assessment of whether a violation of a
standard of protection actually has occurred, limiting the factual level of protection.
The mere reference to the possibly high number of treaty claims arising out of award
procedures81 is therefore not convincing. Hence, an assessment of the issue at stake
should also take into account the substantive treaty standards and their level or
protection with regard to public procurement proceedings. Considering the inherent
business risks and uncertainties of tendering, only under specific circumstances a
violation of an IIA could be assumed.

4.3.2 Protection of Foreign Shareholders of a Domestic Subsidiary

Tendering in a Procurement Proceeding

Reference has already been made to the Lemire v. Ukraine arbitration, in which the
tribunal emphasised that the shareholding in a subsidiary which was involved in the
procurement proceedings was sufficient to constitute an investment even in the
absence of an awarded contract.82 In a similar vein, the tribunal in Emmis
v. Hungary considered the shares in a Hungarian broadcasting corporation to be a
covered investment.83 However, in the latter proceeding the respondent had not
contested the existence of an investment as such. Nevertheless, it can be assumed
that, in principle, the investor’s shares in a domestic subsidiary are considered to be a
covered investment. Thus, potential infringements of the subsidiary’s rights as the
investor’s assets during the procurement proceeding could give rise to a claim under
an IIA.
The option for foreign tenderers to sue the host state for alleged violations within
the public procurement proceedings through shareholdings in a subsidiary has
caused criticism.84 This approach would circumvent the differentiation between
the pre-establishment and the post-establishment phase and, thus, undermine the
requirement of the host state’s admission. For instance, arbitrator Jürgen Voss

81
Hornick (2003), pp. 192 et seq.
82
Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability of 14 January 2010,
ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18, para. 55.
83
Emmis International Holding, B.V., Emmis Radio Operating, B.V., MEM Magyar Electronic
Media Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. v. Hungary, Award of 16 April 2014, ICSID Case
No. ARB/12/2, para. 155.
84
See on the criticism Fischer (2018), p. 121.
International Investment Law and Public Procurement: An Overview 43

argued in his dissenting opinion in Lemire v. Ukraine that the protection of foreign
investors would be improperly strengthened compared to domestic tenderers.85 An
assessment of this critique, however, cannot succeed without taking a position on the
fundamental question of a possible privileged treatment of foreign investors by
international investment law as a whole. The question of legitimacy, indeed, shall
not be raised here. Therefore, it can be stated, relying on awards rendered, that an IIA
can be applied to state measures within a procurement procedure if the foreign
investor is involved in the tendering via a domestic subsidiary.

5 Overview of the Relevant Standards of Protection

Given that the agreement can be applied, the question emerges as to which standards
of protection might be violated by host state conduct during the procurement
proceeding. Possible acts of infringement relate in particular to a lack of transpar-
ency in the award procedure or a deliberate or arbitrary discrimination and/or
violation of the national treatment or the MFN standards when comparing foreign
investors with domestic tenderers.

5.1 Transparency and Due Process

A main element of a competitive procurement proceeding is transparency which, as

stated by arbitrator Suratgar in Mihaly v. Sri Lanka,86 is also a major achievement
that could be guaranteed through the protection of pre-award expenditures under an
IIA and the respective ISDS forum.
Whereas some tribunals refer to transparency as a host state’s obligation to obey
the representations made by its authorities,87 others emphasise procedural elements,
such as inter alia public hearings or access to documents.88 However, such obliga-
tions are mainly assigned to the category of due process both by arbitral tribunals and
in academic literature. Tribunals have stated that the fair and equitable treatment
(FET) standard entails the obligation to afford due process and thus a transparent

85
Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine, Dissenting Opinion of Arbitrator Voss of 1 March 2011,
ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18, paras 121 et seq.
86
Mihaly International Corporation v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, Concurring
Opinion by Mr. David Suratgar of 7 March 2002, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/2, para. 10.
87
Metalclad Corporation v. The United Mexican States, Award of 30 August 2000, ICSID Case
No. ARB(AF)/97/1, paras 76 et seq.
88
Merrill & Ring Forestry L.P. v. The Government of Canada, Award of 31 March 2010, ICSID
Case No. UNCT/07/1, para. 231; Siemens A.G. v. The Argentine Republic, Award of 6 February
2007, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8, para. 308. The importance of transparency is emphasized by
Schreuer (2005), p. 374.
44 M. Bungenberg and F. Blandfort

administrative procedure.89 The tribunal in Al-Bahloul v. Tajikistan held that some

of the facets of due process are “[t]he obligation to notify an investor of hearings and
not to decide about a claim in his absence or in gross violation of procedural rules.
Breaches may also exist if the procedure is delayed, if the Government influences
administrative or court procedures, or if the composition of courts responsible for a
certain procedure is altered.”90 The tribunal in Jan de Nul and Dredging Interna-
tional v. Egypt also stated, referring to the award in Waste Management v. Mexico,91
that FET could be denied inter alia in the event of “a complete lack of transparency
and candour in an administrative process.”92 The tribunal assessed whether the host
state had violated the FET standard through a “wilful withholding of vital informa-
tion” constituting a fraud during the negotiation phase.93 Hence, the tribunal held
that it “needs to first establish whether there was a fraud” and if so “it will then have
to examine if the [national court judgment] was improper because it did not redress
it.”94
However, tribunals have raised a rather high threshold before a host state violates
the obligation to afford due process and take into account whether other discrimi-
natory state conduct has occurred.95 A denial of due process is therefore likely to be
dismissed as long as the host state does not act in an obviously non-transparent
manner and contrary to the principle of good faith. However, an infringement of the
FET standard might be considered with regard to the protection of legitimate
expectations concerning the validity of the award criteria. If it was not apparent to
the foreign investor that domestic tenderers are unduly favoured, contrary to the
published awarding criteria, it seems at least arguable that there has been a breach of
the obligation not to frustrate investor’s legitimate expectations. The decisive issue
would, thus, be the qualification of the published award criteria as a potential basis
for legitimate expectations, which in general, indeed, is controversial.96 However, an

89
Metalclad v. Mexico, Award of 25 August 2000, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1, para. 91:
“Moreover, the permit was denied at a meeting of the Municipal Town Council of which [the
claimant] received no notice, to which it received no invitation, and at which it was given no
opportunity to appear.” See also Middle East Cement v. Egypt, Award of 12 March 2002, ICSID
Case No. ARB/99/6, para. 143.
90
Mohammad Ammar Al-Bahloul v. The Republic of Tajikistan, Award of 2 September 2009, SCC
Case No. 064/2008, para. 221. On the obligations see also Dolzer (2013), pp. 29 et seq.; Schill
(2006), pp. 24 et seq.
91
Waste Management v. United Mexican States (II), Award of 30 April 2004, ICSID Case No. ARB
(AF)/00/3, para. 98.
92
Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Award of
6 November 2008, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13, para. 187.
93
Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Award of
6 November 2008, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13, para. 210.
94
Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Award of
6 November 2008, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/13, para. 207.
95
See e.g. Kläger (2011), p. 227.
96
Kläger (2011), pp. 175 et seq.; Schill (2006), pp. 15 et seq.
International Investment Law and Public Procurement: An Overview 45

infringement is more likely to arise through the concurrence of various elements

which separately would not suffice.97
In Lemire v. Ukraine, the tribunal held that significant shortcomings in the
procedure for the issuance of radio frequencies “facilitated arbitrary or discrimina-
tory decision taking” by the tendering authorities violating the FET standard of the
applicable BIT in several respects.98 In any event, considering the high threshold for
a breach, it cannot be assumed that in all cases when there is a violation of the
transparency requirements under public procurement law principles, an infringement
of the FET standard should also be presumed.

5.2 Discriminatory State Measures

With regard to discriminatory behaviour, a distinction can be made between a

discrimination apparent and known to the investor already before the offer was
made and a discrimination which only becomes public after the procurement con-
tract has been concluded or the tender has been made. As stated above, arbitrary and
discriminatory state conduct has to be considered within the assessment of whether a
non-transparent procurement proceeding constitutes a breach of FET.
However, an infringement exclusively on grounds of nationality is excluded a
priori if the respective IIA states that the national and MFN treatment standards do
not apply to public procurement.99 A discrimination against foreign tenderers,
indeed, is more likely to be a relevant criterion for a breach of the FET standard or
the standard against arbitrary or discriminatory measures.100 In this regard, arbitrator
Voss emphasised in his dissenting opinion in Lemire v. Ukraine that the FET
standard has to be applied restrictively to tenders.101 The majority ruling, however,
was deemed appropriate in the literature with regard to the flexible approach with a
proportionality analysis.102 An application of the FET standard also to procurement
procedures can therefore lead to appropriate rulings if sufficient consideration is
given to the specific circumstances, in particular to the inherent risks involved even
in a properly conducted procurement procedure. In sum, only manifest and obvious
breaches of the principles of transparency and non-discrimination, in particular in
their cumulation, are likely to merit a breach of the FET Standard.

97
See with regard to legitimate expectations Dolzer (2013), pp. 26 et seq.
98
Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability of 14 January 2010,
ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18, paras 419 et seq.
99
See supra Sec. 3.2.
100
On the interaction of FET with the standard against unreasonable or discriminatory measures, see
also Schreuer (2007), pp. 4 et seq.
101
Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine, Dissenting Opinion of Arbitrator Voss of 1 March 2011,
ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18, para. 128.
102
Jacob and Schill (2015), paras 97 et seq.; Fischer (2018), p. 255.
46 M. Bungenberg and F. Blandfort

6 Summary and Outlook

Public procurement law can qualify as a means to foster and ensure competition with
regards to the purchasing of goods and services by governments of market economy
states. In order to ensure efficient competition among bidders, legal remedies are
particularly indispensable. However, these are not provided equally by all states.
Since tenderers incur significant expenditures during the procurement procedure, the
issue arises as to whether international investment law can serve as a gap-filling
regime to provide legal protection with regard to harmful state conduct during
procurement proceedings. In particular in those states which do not ensure sufficient
legal remedies against discriminatory and non-transparent award procedures, IIA
protection benefits both foreign investors and a functioning market economy in the
host states.
However, the interrelation between government procurement and investment
protection is not regulated adequately in most IIAs, although more detailed pro-
visions are implemented in recently negotiated treaties, especially by the EU.
Relying on the common treaty practice, expenditures by successful foreign tenderers
become a component of the overall investment. Hence, also damages resulting from
state conduct during the procurement procedure can be liquidated, as recognised by
arbitral tribunals. In contrast, the protection of expenditures by unsuccessful
tenderers is more controversial. Ultimately, the possibility of such protection
depends on the notion of investment. Since there is no binding precedent in
investment treaty arbitration, based on the existing arbitral awards, no definite
assessment can yet be made as to whether and under which conditions pre-award
expenditures can be recognised as an independent investment.103
The question whether expenditures for a tendering procedure can qualify as
protected investments under IIAs and the ICSID Convention has not been answered
by arbitral tribunals so far. Although jurisdiction has been denied by some tribunals
due to the fact that after long-term negotiations the state finally failed to sign the
contract and no consent was reached, these awards are without prejudice to the
assessment. Besides the absence of a rule of precedent in investment treaty arbitra-
tion, the tribunals explicitly have not opposed the abstract possibility of tendering
expenditures qualifying as investments.
Rather, the decisive factor is the requirement of the host state’s consent to admit
the investment in its territory. The admission of a tenderer in a procurement
procedure can, indeed, provide for the necessary consent, since the sovereign state
is not obliged to grant it from a public international law perspective. However, a
distinction should be made between open procurement proceedings and those by
invitation. In the latter case, the host state explicitly invites the foreign tenderer and
hence admits the offer as an investment in its territory. Besides, it seems relevant to

103
See also Bischoff and Happ (2015), para. 112. Critically Schreuer et al. (2009), Article 25 para.
181; Fischer (2018), pp. 114 et seq.
International Investment Law and Public Procurement: An Overview 47

assess, if the tenderer is bound by the offer submitted leading to pre-contractual

obligations of the investor and the host state alike.
Moreover, the various tenders increase competition within the award procedure.
This is a major requirement for well-functioning and efficient government procure-
ment. Therefore, foreign tenderers contribute significantly to the host state’s econ-
omy and public welfare by fostering competition. This demonstrates that the host
state can indeed also benefit from the protection of foreign investors during the
award procedure. From the foreign investor’s perspective, the vital interest in a treaty
protection is also evident since regularly high expenditures arise during the prepa-
ration phase of the tender.
Finally, the argument of too much litigation in the case of the protection of
foreign bidders through IIAs against harmful state conduct during the award proce-
dure cannot be decisive. Since tenderers should be aware of the inherent risk of a
procurement procedure, only obviously discriminatory or non-transparent state
conduct could merit a treaty claim. It also seems contradictory to refuse protection
or to grant it depending on whether the tenderer in question was later awarded the
contract; the criterion could be whether or not the tenderer has already entered into
binding obligations. Indeed, it is recognised that a successful tenderer can also
liquidate those damages arising out of harmful state conduct before the contract is
finally awarded. Also, the protection under the IIA cannot depend on whether the
foreign tenderer participates indirectly in the award procedure through a local
subsidiary.

References

Behrens P (2017) Europäisches Marktöffnungs- und Wettbewerbsrecht: Eine systematische

Darstellung der Wirtschafts- und Wettbewerbsverfassung der EU. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg
Bischoff J, Happ R (2015) The notion of investment. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S,
Reinisch A (eds) International investment law: a handbook. C.H. Beck, Hart, Nomos, Baden-
Baden, pp 495–544
Bjorklund A (2013) NAFTA chapter 11. In: Brown C (ed) Commentaries on selected model
investment treaties. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 465–533
Bovis C (2015) The law of EU public procurement, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Bungenberg M (2007) Vergaberecht im Wettbewerb der Systeme: Eine rechtsebenenübergreifende
Analyse des Vergaberechts. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Bungenberg M (2015) Evolution of investment law protection as part of a general system of
national resources sovereignty (and management)? In: Bungenberg M, Hobe S (eds) Permanent
sovereignty over natural resources. Springer, Heidelberg
Bungenberg M, Titi C (2015) Precedents in international investment law. In: Bungenberg M,
Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law: a handbook. C.H. Beck,
Hart, Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 1505–1516
Burgi M (2018) Vergaberecht: Systematische Darstellung für Praxis und Ausbildung, 2nd edn.
C.H. Beck, Munich
Dolzer R (2013) Fair and equitable treatment: today’s contours. Santa Clara J Int Law 12:7–33
Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University
Press, Oxford
48 M. Bungenberg and F. Blandfort

Dreher M, Hoffmann J, Kling M (2015) Das sekundäre Binnenmarktrecht der öffentlichen

Auftragsvergabe. In: Hatje A, Müller-Graff P-C (eds) Enzyklopädie Europarecht. Band 4:
Europäisches Wirtschaftsordnungsrecht. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 1015–1088
Fischer S (2018) Vergabeverfahren im Investitionsschutzrecht: Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede
der Standards des Investitions- und Vergaberechts. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Hamida W (2005) The Mihaly v. Sri Lanka case: some thoughts relating to the status of
pre-investment expenditures. In: Weiler T (ed) International investment law and arbitration:
leading cases from the ICSID, NAFTA, bilateral treaties and customary international law.
Cameron May, London, pp 47–76
Happ R, Rubins N (2009) Digest of ICSID awards and decisions 2003–2007. Oxford University
Press, Oxford
Hornick R (2003) The Mihaly arbitration: pre-investment expenditure as a basis for ICSID
jurisdiction. J Int Arbitr 20:189–197
Jacob M, Schill S (2015) Fair and equitable treatment: content, practice, method. In:
Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law: a handbook.
C.H. Beck, Hart, Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 700–763
Johannsen S (2009) Der Investitionsbegriff nach Art. 25 Abs. 1 der ICSID-Konvention. In: Tietje C,
Kraft G (eds) Beiträge zum Transnationalen Wirtschaftsrecht Heft 87
Kennedy-Loest C, Thomas C, Farley M (2011) EU public procurement and competition law: the yin
and yang of the legal world? Compet Law Int 7:77–82
Kläger R (2011) ‘Fair and equitable treatment’ in international investment law. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge
Matsushita M, Schoenbaum T, Mavroidis P, Hahn M (2015) The World Trade Organization: law,
practice, and policy, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Metje T (2008) Der Investitionsschutz im internationalen Anlagenbau: Eine Untersuchung unter
besonderer Berücksichtigung internationaler BOT-Projekte. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Reich A (1999) International public procurement law: the evolution of international regimes on
public purchasing. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Robinson J (2004) ICSID cases on its jurisdiction: a serious problem for public/private partnerships
for infrastructure in developing countries. Int Bus Lawyer 32:263–265
Rubins N (2004) The notion of ‘investment’ in international investment arbitration. In: Horn N
(ed) Arbitrating foreign investment disputes: procedural and substantive legal aspects. Kluwer
Law International, The Hague, pp 283–324
Sánchez Graells A (2011) Public procurement and the EU competition rules. Hart Publishing,
Oxford
Schill S (2006) Fair and equitable treatment under investment treaties as an embodiment of the rule
of law. IILJ Working Paper 2006/6
Schill S (2017) The impact of international investment law on public contracts. ACIL Research
Paper 2017-07
Schlemmer E (2008) Investment, investor, nationality, and shareholders. In: Muchlinski P,
Ortino F, Schreuer C (eds) The Oxford handbook of international investment law. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, pp 49–88
Schreuer C (2005) Fair and equitable treatment in arbitral practice. Journal of World Investment and
Trade 6:357–386
Schreuer C (2007) Fair and equitable treatment (FET): interactions with other standards. TDM 4(5)
Schreuer C, Malintoppi L, Reinisch A, Sinclair A (2009) The ICSID convention: a commentary,
2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Schütz M (1996) UN-Kaufrecht und Culpa in Contrahendo. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main
Shirvani F (2016) Optimierung des Rechtsschutzes im Vergaberecht. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Snider Smith J (2008) Competition and transparency: what works for public procurement reform.
Public Contract Law J 38:85–129
Vandevelde K (2010) Bilateral investment treaties: history, policy, and interpretation. Oxford
University Press, Oxford
International Investment Law and Public Procurement: An Overview 49

Wälde T (1996) International investment under the 1994 Energy Charter Treaty. In: Wälde T
(ed) The Energy Charter Treaty: an East-West gateway for investment & trade. Kluwer Law
International, The Hague, pp 251–320
Williams D (2008) Jurisdiction and admissibility. In: Muchlinski P, Ortino F, Schreuer C (eds) The
Oxford handbook of international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp
868–931
Yala F (2005) The notion of “investment” in ICSID case law: a drifting jurisdictional requirement?
Some “un-conventional” thoughts on Salini, SGS and Mihaly. J Int Arbitr 22:105–126
Yescombe E (2002) Principles of project finance. Academic Press, Boston and Amsterdam
Yescombe E (2007) Public-private partnerships: principles of policy and finance. Elsevier, Bur-
lington and Oxford

Marc Bungenberg is Director of the Europa-Institut and a professor of public law, European law
and public international law at Saarland University in Germany and (permanent) visiting professor
at the University of Lausanne (Switzerland). Marc received his doctorate in law from the University
of Hannover and wrote his habilitation treatise at the Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena. He holds
an LL.M. from Lausanne University. His main fields of research are European (common commer-
cial policy, public procurement and state aid law) and international economic law, particularly
international investment and WTO law. His working languages are German, English and French.

Fabian Blandfort is a research assistant and Ph.D. candidate at the Chair for public law, European
law and public international law of Professor Marc Bungenberg at Saarland University in Germany.
He completed his law degree at Saarland University (First State Exam) at the top of his class,
specialising in European Union and public international law as well as human rights protection law.
His main fields of research are international investment law and European Union law. His working
languages are German, English and French.
The Impacts of Local Equity Requirements
on Competition

Lukas Vanhonnaeker

Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2 Local Equity Requirements Defined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3 Local Equity Requirements in Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.1 The Historical and Ideological Origins of Local Equity Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.2 The Modern Justifications for Local Equity Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4 The Impacts of Local Equity Requirements on the Competitive State of Domestic
Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.1 Preserving Monopolies: A Hidden Justification for Local Equity Requirements? . . . . 62
4.2 Local Equity Requirements and Joint Ventures: Between Pro- and Anti-competition . . . 63
5 Concluding Remarks and the Way Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Abstract In international investment law, local equity requirements are often pro-
vided in domestic investment laws and compel foreign investors to enter the market
of the host state by joining forces with a local partner. Further, local equity
requirements generally guarantee that control over the domestic entity rests with
the local partner by prohibiting foreign investors from acquiring a majority stake in
the local entity. In past eras with priority given to state planning, such requirements
were explained by the dominance of the state in all aspects of the domestic economy.
In the current era of privatization, they have been justified on different grounds.
However, one key element that is often absent from the debate surrounding local
equity requirements is their far-reaching, and possibly negative, impacts on the
competitive state of markets.

L. Vanhonnaeker (*)
McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 51

K. Fach Gómez et al. (eds.), International Investment Law and Competition Law,
European Yearbook of International Economic Law,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33916-6_3
52 L. Vanhonnaeker

1 Introduction

Local equity requirements, also known as “joint venture requirements”, are a well
know concept in international trade and investment law and they require foreign
investors to acquire domestic equity in order to enter a host market. Such require-
ments generally provide that the foreign investor cannot hold a majority stake in a
domestic company in order to guarantee that control of the economic operations rests
with the host state or the local partner.
Local equity requirements can have far-reaching consequences for the competi-
tive state of a given market. In particular, they can have anti-competitive impacts as a
result of the limits they impose on the entry of foreign investors in host state markets
and because they lead to the creation of joint ventures. Local equity requirements
necessarily entail the creation of such vehicles to conduct economic operations
which themselves can impact negatively the competitive state of markets.
This chapter sheds light on the far-reaching consequences of international invest-
ment law’s local equity requirements for the competitive state of markets. First, it
analyses the notion of local equity requirement. Second, it identifies and explains the
main justifications for such requirements: the historical and ideological underpin-
nings of local equity requirements as well as the more recent arguments that have
been used for their inclusion in domestic investment laws. Finally, it analyses the
impacts of local equity requirements on the competitive state of markets.

2 Local Equity Requirements Defined

Local equity requirements refer to the obligation for foreign investors investing in a
country to partner with a local corporation, whether private or public, i.e. a state-
owned enterprise (SOE). Local equity requirements, which can be imposed as a
condition for the admission of a given foreign investment, are generally provided in
domestic foreign investment laws that identify the sectors of the economy to which
these requirements apply and establish the maximum percentage of permissible
foreign participation in a project. Local equity requirements aim to ensure that
control of the investment rests with a local partner, whether a local private actor or
the state itself. That is why domestic investment laws generally provide that foreign
investors can only acquire less than 50% of equity in a local company. Such
requirements, which regulate the entry and movement of capital into a country, are
generally provided in domestic “investment laws”1 which are sometimes known as

1
See e.g. the Turkish Foreign Direct Investment Law, Law no. 4875, 5 June 2003, published in the
official Gazette of 17 June 2003. Domestic investment laws are also sometimes known as invest-
ment promotion statutes (see e.g. the Ghana Investment Promotion Centre Act 2013 (Act 865)) or
foreign investment codes (see e.g. the Senegalese Loi n 2004-06 du 6 février 2004 portant Code des
investissements, modifiée par la loi n 2012-32 du 31 décembre 2012).
The Impacts of Local Equity Requirements on Competition 53

“joint venture laws” because they force foreign investors to enter into such
structures.
Local equity requirements are not per se illegal and do not need to be justified by
the host state. The sovereignty of states dictates that they have complete control over
the entry and movement of capital within their territory.2 Constraints on the sover-
eign power of states to impose limitations on the entry of foreign investments such as
local equity requirements can, however, derive from international obligations bind-
ing upon host states. For instance, in the services sector, Article XVI(2)(e)-(f) of the
General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) provides that:
In sectors where market-access commitments are undertaken, the measures which a Member
shall not maintain or adopt either on the basis of a regional subdivision or on the basis of its
entire territory, unless otherwise specified in its Schedule, are defined as:
[. . .]
(e) measures which restrict or require specific types of legal entity or joint venture
through which a service supplier may supply a service; and
(f) limitations on the participation of foreign capital in terms of maximum percentage
limit on foreign shareholding or the total value of individual or aggregate foreign
investment.3

In the context of international investment law, the draft Multilateral Agreement

on Investment (MAI), in contrast with the World Trade Organization’s (WTO)
Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMS) agreement,4 provided for the prohi-
bition of joint venture requirements.5 Current investment treaty practice, in an effort
to promote foreign direct investment (FDI),6 is following a similar path. For
instance, Article 8.4(1) of the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic
and Trade Agreement (CETA)7 provides that

2
Salacuse (2013), pp. 75–88. See also de Mestral (2015), p. 685.
3
General Agreement on Trade in Services, 15 April 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the
World Trade Organization, Annex 1B, 1869 UNTS 183, 33 ILM 1167 (1994). See also De Meester
and Coppens (2013), p. 105 and WTO DSB, China-Measures Affecting Trading Rights and
Distribution Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products, Report of
the Panel, 12 August 2009, WT/DS363/R, paras 7.1376 and 7.1388.
4
Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures, 15 April 1994, Marrakesh Agreement
Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1A, 1868 UNTS 186.
5
Multilateral Agreement on Investment, Draft Consolidated Text, 22 April 1998, DAFFE/MAI(98)/
REV1, Article III(1)(k)–(l).
6
For instance, the scope of investment protections provided in international investment agreements
sometimes extends to the pre-establishment phase in order to facilitate the entry of FDI on host state
markets. However, the extension of investment protections to the pre-establishment phase does not
grant unfettered market access as host states remain free to restrict access by foreign investors to
specific sectors of the economy. If an international investment agreement provides for
pre-establishment national treatment and most-favoured-nation, for example, host states can only
do so without discriminating on the basis of nationality.
7
Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), signed
30 October 2016, entered into force 21 September 2017 (Investment chapter not yet entered into
force).
54 L. Vanhonnaeker

A Party shall not adopt or maintain with respect to market access through establishment by
an investor of the other Party, on the basis of its entire territory or on the basis of the territory
of a national, provincial, territorial, regional or local level of government, a measure that:
a. imposes limitations on:
[. . .]
iv. the participation of foreign capital in terms of maximum percentage limit on foreign
shareholding or the total value of individual or aggregate foreign investment; or
v. the total number of natural persons that may be employed in a particular sector or that
an enterprise may employ and who are necessary for, and directly related to, the performance
of economic activity in the form of numerical quotas or the requirement of an economic
needs test; or
b. restricts or requires specific types of legal entity or joint venture through which an
enterprise may carry out an economic activity.

It is worth noting, however, that many of the international agreements that

prohibit local equity requirements also provide exceptions or reservations to such
a prohibition.8 Such exceptions ensure host states remain able to exercise their
sovereign right to regulate and control the entry of investments in sectors such as
the exploitation of natural resources or with respect to their national security.9
Local equity requirements are generally imposed in specific sectors although they
can cover many parts of the domestic economy. While they are generally imposed in
strategic industries and sectors related to national security, the parts of the economy
that are subject to such requirements greatly vary. For instance, local equity require-
ments are often found in the air transportation sector, in the telecommunication
sector, the energy sector or in sectors entailing the exploitation of natural resources.
Sometimes, such requirements are also imposed in the media sector.10

8
See e.g. article XIV of the General Agreement on Trade in Services, 15 April 1994, Marrakesh
Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1B, 1869 UNTS 183, 33 ILM 1167
(1994) and Section E of the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agree-
ment (CETA), signed 30 October 2016, entered into force 21 September 2017 (Investment chapter
not yet entered into force).
9
General Assembly Resolution 1803 (XVII) of 14 December 1962, “Permanent sovereignty over
natural resources”, para. 5:
The free and beneficial exercise of the sovereignty of peoples and nations over their natural
resources must be furthered by the mutual respect of States based on their sovereign equality.
See also Article 8.4 (2) of the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade
Agreement (CETA), signed 30 October 2016, entered into force 21 September 2017 (Investment
chapter not yet entered into force);
For greater certainty, the following are consistent with paragraph 1:
[. . .]
d. a measure seeking to ensure the conservation and protection of natural resources and
the environment, including a limitation on the availability, number and scope of concessions
granted, and the imposition of a moratorium or ban;
[. . .]
10
See e.g. Mexican Foreign Investment Law, Published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on
27 December 1993, last amended on 11 August 2014, Article 7; République de Guinée, Assemblée
Nationale, Loi L/2015/N 008/AN Portant Code des Investissements de la République de Guinée,
The Impacts of Local Equity Requirements on Competition 55

As explained above, the key rationale of local equity requirements is to ensure

that control of the economic operation rests with the state or the local partner. Thus,
the question of the ownership of the local company is not as important as the
effective control over that entity, especially since control and titles of ownership
of the locally incorporated entity are not always inextricably linked.11 For instance,
the issuance of non-voting shares or the spreading of ownership among shareholders
can allow retaining effective control over a corporation despite strictly speaking
holding minority stakes in the entity.12 The realization of the importance of the
function of ownership (control) over titles of ownership (shares) can be witnessed in
some domestic investment laws imposing joint venture requirements. For instance,
after listing the local equity requirements applicable in some sectors of the economy,
the last paragraph of Article 7 of the 1993 Mexican Foreign Investment Law
provides that:
[. . .] foreign investment participation limits in the activities and companies mentioned in this
article may not be surpassed directly nor through trusts, contracts, partnerships or by-law
agreements, pyramiding schemes or other mechanisms granting any control or a higher
participation than the one established. (emphasis added).13

Another example can be found in Article 6 of the 2015 Guinean Investment Code
which provides:
Natural or legal persons of foreign nationality cannot hold, directly or through Guinean
companies, more than 40% of the shares of companies operating in Guinea in the following
sectors:
– the publication of newspapers or periodicals of general or political information;
– the broadcasting of television or radio programs.
The effective management of the companies referred to in the preceding paragraph is
ensured by natural persons of Guinean nationality residing in Guinea. (emphasis added).14

Although local equity requirements aim to ensure that the control of the economic
operation rests with the host state or the local partner, the reasons why host states
want to maintain a tight grip on the economic operations taking place within their
territory is not always clear. Indeed, even if the first appearances of such require-
ments in domestic laws can be explained by historical and ideological factors, their
preservation in more recent domestic investment codes can be justified by different
reasons.

Article 6; No. 4 Decree of the National Development and Reform Commission and the Ministry of
Commerce of the People’s Republic of China, http://www.fdi.gov.cn/1800000121_39_4851_0_7.
html.
11
Wallace (2002), p. 314.
12
See United Nations (1973), pp. 12–13.
13
Mexican Foreign Investment Law, Published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on
27 December 1993, last amended on 11 August 2014, Article 7 [official translation].
14
République de Guinée, Assemblée Nationale, Loi L/2015/N 008/AN Portant Code des
Investissements de la République de Guinée, Article 6 [unofficial translation].
56 L. Vanhonnaeker

3 Local Equity Requirements in Context

3.1 The Historical and Ideological Origins of Local Equity

Requirements

Local equity requirements can be explained by historical and ideological factors. On

the one hand, the appearance of such requirements in many developing countries that
were once under colonial rule goes hand in hand with the decolonization process of
the 1960s. On the other hand, in Eastern European countries, local equity require-
ments enabled communist states to “marry socialist ideology with the admission of
foreign investment on the ground that ultimate control over the investment remained
with the state”.15 This pattern remained dominant in these states even after the fall of
communism and spread to communist Asian states, such as China, where local
equity requirements remain an important means through which FDI is regulated.16
In both newly independent countries and socialist states, the core elements that
led to a broader inclusion of local equity requirements in domestic investment laws
are similar. Indeed, willing to reaffirm their sovereignty, newly independent coun-
tries nationalized as many sectors of their economies as possible by extending their
public sectors and creating SOEs to carry a vast array of economic activities under
their control, including manufacturing, transportation, insurance and retail sales.
This period marked the apogee of the fundamental belief that economic development
could not take place unless the state started planning and directing economic and
social life.17 The core idea that state planning was essential in order to allow
economic development to take place18 is also the root of socialist ideologies,

15
Sornarajah (2010), p. 106.
16
The Catalogue of Industries for Guiding Foreign Investment (No. 4 Decree of the National
Development and Reform Commission and the Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic
of China, http://www.fdi.gov.cn/1800000121_39_4851_0_7.html) was revised in 2017 and pro-
vides for the industries in which FDI is encouraged and in which special management measures
apply. It lists 35 industries in which FDI can either take place through: a corporation with a Chinese
party as the controlling shareholder; a Sino-foreign equity or contractual joint venture; or a Sino-
foreign contractual educational institution with a Chinese party as the leader (the Catalogue
specifies the following: “‘With the Chinese party as the leader’ refers to the principal or person
primarily in charge of administration shall have Chinese nationality, and the number of Chinese
members of the board of governors, the board of director or joint administrative committee of a
Sino-foreign contractual educational institution shall be not less than 50%”).
17
See International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (1997), pp. 1–2; Salacuse (2013),
p. 60; Mason (1958), p. x. See also e.g. Article 166(1) of the 1982 Constitution of Turkey
(Constitution of the Republic of Turkey, 7 November 1982):
The planning of economic, social and cultural development, in particular the speedy,
balanced, and harmonious development of industry and agriculture throughout the country,
and the efficient use of national resources on the basis of detailed analysis and assessment
and the establishment of the necessary organisation for this purpose are the duty of the State.
18
Lewis (1969), pp. 12–14.
The Impacts of Local Equity Requirements on Competition 57

which explains why SOEs were—and to some extent still are—the principal vehicle
through which communist states engaged in international trade and why local equity
requirements became the norm in eastern European countries.19
However, the influence of the state in economic affairs was not limited to a
planning role. In addition to government policies and actions intended to shape and
control the economy, the states themselves also often became the main economic
actors in the economy’s main sectors. This was the result of the belief that the state
was responsible for generating economic development but also that the private sector
was unable to enhance economic development as a consequence of limited financial
resources and technical expertise and because it was perceived to be unresponsive to
state needs.20 This interventionist policy materialized through the gradual expansion
of public sectors, through the creation of state enterprises to conduct economic
activities in key sectors and the prohibition of foreign investors to enter these
markets. In addition, the expansion of the public sector necessarily meant heavily
regulating and restricting the activities of the private sector.21 Rather quickly, private
companies, whether domestic or foreign, could only carry out their activities after
having obtained the authorization of the government which allowed the latter to
“direct the private sector toward the achievement of predetermined developmental
goals”.22
Countries that were once under colonial power sought to achieve both political
and economic independence. With respect to foreign investors specifically, many
countries adopted in the 1960s and 1970s “self reliance” policies which translated
into the promotion of import-substitution industries (limitations on the import of
foreign goods),23 the expropriation of existing foreign investments24 and restrictions
on the inflow of FDI. The policies that were adopted by newly independent countries
were characterized by an unprecedented degree of hostility towards foreign investors
and had critical impacts on national legal frameworks.25 In particular, in addition to
the nationalization of foreign enterprises and prohibitions for foreign investors to
enter some markets, local equity requirements started to make their general appear-
ance in regulatory frameworks through the enactment of foreign investment codes.
Numerous countries now required foreign investors to operate via joint ventures with
a local partner or the state itself in order to penetrate host state markets.
However, the state planning model and the policy of self-reliance adopted by
many newly independent countries rapidly became unsustainable. Indeed, the state

19
Sornarajah (2010), p. 63.
20
Mason (1958), p. 43.
21
For accounts of this dynamic in different countries see e.g. Edwards (1995), p. 173 and Salacuse
(1980), p. 321.
22
Salacuse (2013), p. 62.
23
For an account of this dynamic in African countries, see e.g. Akiwumi (1975) and Sebalu
(1972), p. 360.
24
UNCTAD (1993), p. 17 and Piper (1979).
25
See Salacuse (2013), pp. 63–66.
58 L. Vanhonnaeker

planning model was based on the premise that development is a purely economic
phenomenon and that in order to bring about economic growth, it would suffice to
elevate the state as the ultimate regulator and actor in the domestic economy. The
inefficiency of the state planning model and the realization that development cannot
only be defined or measured in terms of economic growth and wealth but that it is
also about the equitable distribution of the fruits of economic growth (such that it
entails institutional, political and social dimensions) led to the privatization move-
ment.26 This process started to take root in the mid-1980s and can be explained by
several reasons. It rapidly became evident that the state planning model did not work
and that it did not enable states to reach development as initially understood. Instead
of leading to economic growth, state planning paralyzed domestic economies which
were unable to function as a consequence of important debts and the constant
injection of government subsidies into markets to support inefficient state enter-
prises. The general consensus was decisive: the state cannot do everything.27
Privatization thus appeared to be the solution to many of the problems faced by
countries that had adopted the state planning model. In particular, it allowed
achieving relief of government budget deficits by getting rid of unprofitable SOEs,
reducing indebtedness.28 In addition, by allowing privately owned and operated
companies to enter the market, privatization induced and stimulated competition in
domestic markets.
The rise of the privatization model was also encouraged by the new economic
policies that emerged on the international level and enshrined in the Washington
Consensus.29 The emphasis was now on the liberalization of economic activities, the
opening of borders to trade and investments as well as the privatization of state
corporations. The state planning model was also losing traction in Eastern Europe
with the end of communism and the collapse of the Soviet Union, “depriv[ing] many
developing countries of sources of moral and material support”30 for state planning
and intervention policies.
Accordingly, with the realization of the failures of state planning and of the
benefits of trade and investment liberalization, the wind of privatization, fast-paced
and massive,31 blew throughout the globe and triggered a plethora of changes in
legal regimes. States started to increasingly rely on markets and switched from
public to private ordering. Another consequence of the shift in models from state
planning to privatization was a movement of both deregulation (to free economies

26
Corbridge (1995), p. 4.
27
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (1997), p. 23.
28
OECD (2003), p. 22.
29
The 1989 Washington Consensus between the World Bank, the IMF and the US Treasury focused
on policies for developing states’ economic development and stabilization as well as on fiscal
austerity, privatization and market liberalization and the promotion of foreign direct investment
together with the enforcement of property rights. On the Washington Consensus, see generally
Williamson (1990) and Stiglitz (2003).
30
Salacuse (2013), p. 66.
31
World Bank (1996), p. 11; Salacuse (2013), p. 68.
The Impacts of Local Equity Requirements on Competition 59

from the grip of governments) and reregulation (to ensure that private actors and
especially foreign multinational corporations entering domestic markets would abide
by a regulatory framework).32 Finally, the privatization model was characterized by
the opening of economies to foreign investors. This was not only a consequence of
the privatization movement but it was seen as a necessity in order to answer the
substantial deficit accumulated by states that crippled economies under the
unsustainable state planning model. The consequences of privatization were thus
substantial and led to an important increase in FDI flows.33
Despite this radical change in policy from state planning to privatization, one rule
justified under the old ideology remained largely unchallenged: local equity require-
ments imposed on foreign investors. Indeed, this rule that was developed in a
specific context (i.e. the era of state planning and intervention) was maintained
and given a new meaning in the era of the privatized economy.

3.2 The Modern Justifications for Local Equity Requirements

Decades after the privatization movement replaced the state planning model, local
equity requirements are still found in many domestic laws. The justification for such
requirements under the state planning model was clear: the state is the main regulator
and actor in the economy. However, the privatization model, being characterized by
the disinvolvement of the state from economic affairs, prompted new justifications
for local equity requirements.
The survival of local equity requirements is, in fact, explained by how privatiza-
tion itself took place. Indeed, privatization does not necessarily mean the absolute
and unconditional transfer of the economic sphere in the hands of the private sector.
In particular, although material privatization entails the transfer of both functions
and assets into the private sector,34 privatization can also be formal (which involves
the transformation of a public company into a private one with the state being the
sole shareholder)35 or functional (which entails entrusting the private sector with the
operation of a given company (transfer of functions) but keeping the company’s
assets in the hands of the state (i.e. public-private partnerships)).36 With respect to
FDI, privatization often meant selling or transferring state assets to private foreign
investors.37

32
This process also guaranteed that private actors operating key functions of public services would
continue to provide said services at a fair price while maintaining quality. For other types of
regulatory changes entailed by the new model, see Salacuse (2013), pp. 71–73.
33
See UNCTAD (2010), p. 16 (Table I.5).
34
Weber and Alfen (2010), p. 60.
35
Weber and Alfen (2010), p. 57.
36
Weber and Alfen (2010), p. 59.
37
Hemming and Mansoor (1987), p. 6.
60 L. Vanhonnaeker

Privatization thus created many new opportunities for foreign investors that were
allowed to enter foreign markets, for example by acquiring shares in existing state-
owned corporations. In a way, therefore, domestic investment laws providing for
privatization programs can be “seen as yet another method of encouraging direct
foreign investment and the national legislation governing the process as a specialized
investment promotion statute”.38
However, this dynamic, and especially the mechanisms of formal and functional
privatization, illustrates that although states were willing to engage in the process of
privatization, it would have to be on their own terms. That is why one of the means39
by which sectors of the economy were privatized was through the introduction of
private capital in existing structures in order to avoid having to sell state enterprises.
In addition, the privatization of the economy was quickly coupled with the enact-
ment of post-privatization control devices aimed at ensuring that at least minimum
control over the activities of private actors would remain with the state. The interplay
between privatization and post-privatization measures illustrates the careful balance
that many states attempt to achieve through their domestic investment laws: the
promotion of FDI and control over foreign investments. Accordingly, domestic
investment laws are a good indicator of the policies pursued by states: an emphasis
on post-privatization control devices often depicts the sceptical nature of states with
respect to the benefits of FDI while an emphasis on the promotion and encourage-
ment of FDI in domestic laws generally illustrates the positive stance of host states
towards FDI and the will to signal a favourable and safe (i.e. certain and predicable)
investment climate for foreign investors. Similar to the policies pursued by states, the
proper equilibrium between privatization and post-privatization control devices
changes over the course of time.40
As a post-privatization control device directed at foreign investors, local equity
requirements have been—and still are—provided in numerous domestic laws. Two
main categories of local equity requirements can be distinguished: the requirement to
enter into a joint venture with the state or a state agency and the requirement to enter
into a joint venture with a local partner which is not necessarily the state or a state
agency. With respect to the former, such requirements are nowadays often justified
on grounds of national or economic security and the protection of key national
interests, i.e. to avoid seeing key economic sectors falling under the control of
foreigners.41 The notion of “national security” is, however, protean, which can be

38
Salacuse (2013), p. 111.
39
For other types of privatization transactions such as the public offering and private sale of shares,
the sale of state assets, the reorganization of state enterprises into component parts, management and
employee buyouts or leases and concessions and management contracts, see Salacuse (2013),
pp. 118–120 and OECD (2010).
40
In this regard, although some periods were characterized by an emphasis on the encouragement of
FDI, other periods were defined by an increase in means of restriction and control of FDI. See
generally Sauvant (2011).
41
See UNCTAD (2003), pp. 6–9.
The Impacts of Local Equity Requirements on Competition 61

one explanation why different countries impose local equity requirements in differ-
ent sectors.
With respect to local equity requirements mandating foreign investors to pene-
trate a host state market through a joint venture with a private local partner, they have
often been justified on the basis of “indigenisation” policies which aim at guarantee-
ing the participation of local populations in the economy of the host state.42 Local
equity requirements have also been justified on the ground that they maximize the
investment’s potential in terms of host state development by allowing for a more
efficient transfer of management skills and technology to that host state.43 In
addition, they enable the development of domestic human capital44 and lead to faster
and easier access to the local market for foreign investors. This last set of justifica-
tions suggests that local equity requirements can have positive impacts on the
competitive state of a market by allowing the easier entrance on domestic markets
and faster acclimatization by foreign investors with the domestic state of play as well
as by facilitating transfers of technology. Nevertheless, competition is rarely explic-
itly discussed in the context of local equity requirements despite the far-reaching
impacts of such requirements on the competitive state of domestic markets.

4 The Impacts of Local Equity Requirements

on the Competitive State of Domestic Markets

Local equity requirements were once justified by the need to ensure the dominant
role of the state in all aspects of the economy in order to promote development.
Today, they are justified by the necessity to protect national security but also in terms
of facilitating transfers of technology and management skills within the host country.
In addition, they are explained by the increased likelihood that the project will be
managed in accordance with national interests or by “indigenisation” considerations
comprising the need to include local populations and disadvantaged groups in the
functioning of the local economy. Although such justifications are legitimate, they

42
In Malaysia, for instance, as part of the country’s 1970s “New Economic Policy”, preference was
given to Bumiputra (indigenous people) which required specific shareholding arrangements to
ensure the participation of local populations in the domestic economy (see e.g. Milne 1976;
Thillainathan and Cheong 2016). The same process took place in African countries such as in
Nigeria that adopted indigenisation measures to ensure the divestment of foreign companies’ shares
into local hands (see e.g. Beveridge 1991, p. 302; Tobi 1991; Osunbor 1988) and South Africa (see
Section 2 of the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Amendment Act, 2013, Act
No. 46 of 2013, Government Gazette Republic of South Africa, Vol. 583, 27 January 2014,
No. 37271) and Zimbabwe (see Section 3(1) of the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment
Act, 2007, Act 14/2007).
43
Another positive aspect of local equity requirements mandating the creation of joint ventures for
the host state is that they ensure that a smaller portion of the profits generated by the economic
operation will be repatriated to the investor’s home state.
44
Blomström et al. (2000), p. 30.
62 L. Vanhonnaeker

are not always realistic or materialized. More importantly, however, one aspect of
local equity requirements that is often absent from the debate is their potentially
damaging and far-reaching impacts on the competitive state of a given market.

4.1 Preserving Monopolies: A Hidden Justification for Local

Equity Requirements?

Local equity requirements might pursue legitimate objectives, even in the era of
privatization. Nevertheless, pursuing legitimate goals, such as guaranteeing the
participation of local populations in the economy of the host state, does not mean
that local equity requirements cannot also have detrimental effects on economies. In
particular, local equity requirements can negatively impact the competitive state of
markets, often to the advantage of host states or local private actors. Indeed, opening
sectors of the economy which are dominated by SOEs to foreign investors inevitably
changes the status quo by introducing an element of competition on the market.45
The end of a monopoly means the end of the ultimate control over a sector and,
perhaps more importantly, the sharing of profits.
Local equity requirements allow states, however, to maintain their legal monop-
olies in diverse sectors of the economy even in the era of privatization. In essence,
even though new actors (foreign investors) enter the host state’s market, they do not
enter the market as new competitors but join forces with existing SOEs. Although
this can favour both host states (which can maintain their monopoly) and foreign
investors (which are “assured a share of the monopoly profits and a ready source of
supply of products or resources”46), it is at the expense of consumers which remain
trapped in a monopolistic market. The same is often true with respect to joint
ventures with local partners which are not attached to the state. In such instances,
local equity requirements can serve the goal of protecting or strengthening the
interests of some national elites on domestic markets rather than pursuing the
broader aim of benefiting the public interest.47
The economic objective of preserving or strengthening monopolies or oligopolies
on domestic markets is never stated explicitly. Yet, despite local equity requirements
sometimes being justified on the basis of legitimate reasons, divergent state practice
with respect to the sectors in which local equity requirements are imposed seems to
indicate that the anti-competitive justification of local requirements might be more
important than it appears at first sight.48 This applies even through imposing such
requirements to pursue anti-competitive goals is counter-intuitive in the era of

45
Sornarajah (2010), p. 64.
46
Sornarajah (2010), p. 64. In addition, the local partner can act as an effective mediator with the
local government.
47
Salacuse (2013), p. 94.
48
Salacuse (2013), p. 92.
The Impacts of Local Equity Requirements on Competition 63

privatization that took place after the realization of the failures of the state planning
model. In particular one of the reasons for privatization was the realization of the
benefits of increased competition.49 As observed above, however, while fostering a
competitive market was one of the main objectives pursued by many states following
the failures of state planning, it would have to be on their own terms. In addition to
the possible anti-competitive goals that can be pursued by host states through the
imposition of local equity requirements, such requirements can also entail inherent
(i.e. regardless of the motives for which states impose them) anti-competitive
characteristics by forcing the creation of joint ventures between foreign investors
and a local partner in order for the former to penetrate host state markets.

4.2 Local Equity Requirements and Joint

Ventures: Between Pro- and Anti-competition

Local equity requirements necessarily entail the creation of a joint venture between
the foreign investor and the local partner. This is partly why “[t]he joint venture has
become the most important vehicle for foreign investment in recent times across the
world”.50 The joint venture is a complex instrument, especially when it is the vehicle
for competitors’ collaboration, which can have both positive and negative impacts
on the competitive state of markets. In the specific context of international invest-
ment law, when they are created as a consequence of local equity requirements, they
entail specific considerations.

4.2.1 The Anti-competitive Effects of Joint Ventures Established

Through Local Equity Requirements

Setting-up a joint venture pursuant to local equity requirements directly impacts the
competitive state of a given market as a consequence of the sole fact that such
collaborations necessarily imply that from two competitors on the market, there is
only one left: the joint venture.51 That is why joint ventures are generally associated
with anti-competitive effects.52 The anti-competitive impacts of joint ventures can be

49
Salacuse (2013), pp. 113–114.
50
Sornarajah (2010), p. 115.
51
Pitofsky (1986), p. 1608.
52
The US Supreme Court, for instance, made it clear that the first concern raised by joint ventures is
their potential anti-competitive effects: “[o]verall, the same considerations apply to joint ventures as
to merger, for each instance we are but expounding a national policy enunciated by the Congress to
preserve and promote a free competitive economy” (United States v. Penn Olin Chemical Co.,
378 US 158, 1964, p. 171). The EU also regulates joint ventures through its competition laws. See
Council Regulation (EC) 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the Control of Concentrations Between
Undertakings, OJ 2004, L 24/1 and Commission Notice Guidelines on the Applicability of Article
64 L. Vanhonnaeker

especially important in contractual joint ventures that entail only a minimum amount
or no integration at all and that can thus be analysed as “naked” cartels.53 However,
integrated joint ventures (or “equity joint ventures”) created through shared equity in
a common entity can also negatively impact the competitive state of the market.54
The anti-competitive impacts of establishing a joint venture emerge either
between the joint venture partners or between the joint venture and its parent
companies. Between the partners, a reduction of potential competition materializes
by the effect the joint venture has to unite the interests of both (or more) parties into
the sole interests of the joint venture.55 Between the parent companies and the joint
venture, potential competition “may be inhibited if the existence of the joint venture
reduces the incentive for each to enter the other’s market”.56 Although joint venture
agreements generally include non-compete provisions to prohibit both partners from
entering into a competitive relationship either among them or with the joint ven-
ture,57 local equity requirements provide yet an additional legal guarantee that this
cannot happen in the context of international investment law.58
Joint ventures can be analysed as vehicles to reinforce cartel-like strategies by
restricting market entry or access to an essential requirement to enter a given market.
In particular, joint ventures can greatly affect competition if a given collaboration
owns or develops an asset or facility that is necessary to remain competitive in a

101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to Horizontal Co-operation Agree-
ments, OJ 2011, C11/1.
53
Naked agreements often refer to agreements between competitors aiming at fixing prices or to
engage in other market policies that have direct effects on the market’s structure.
54
In particular, in case of a high degree of integration, the operation can be seen as “a full merger
between two or more companies” (Pitofsky 1986, p. 1605). These joint ventures will thus be
analysed under the rules applied to mergers.
55
This effect of setting-up a joint venture represents an advantage of equity-based collaborations
compared to purely contractual projects in light of the dangers of uncertainty and appropriability
hazards affecting most collaborations.
56
Brodley (1982), p. 1531.
57
For example, in the case of the joint venture between Brunswick and Yamaha the United States
Court of Appeals, Eight Circuit, stated that “there was an agreement between Brunswick and
Yamaha to limit competition between themselves in certain ‘non-exclusive markets,’ for the most
part in Europe and South America. In essence the parties agreed not to seek out the other’s dealers in
these markets, but rather to concentrate their competitive efforts against other manufacturers. This is
merely an agreement between horizontal competitors to direct their efforts elsewhere”. (Yamaha
Motors Co v. FTC, 657 F 2d 971, 981 (8th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 50 USLW 3799 (US 4 April
1982)). In addition to non-compete provisions, joint venture agreements also often contain ancillary
restrictions involving purchase and supply arrangements as well as intellectual property licences.
Under competition laws, it is often required that such arrangements restricting competition must
“truly contribute (that is, are ‘ancillary’) to the organization or further the purpose of the joint
venture, and are not broader in scope than necessary” (Pitofsky 1986, p. 1611).
58
It is noteworthy that foreign investors have attempted to avoid local equity requirements by
engaging in illegal activities involving holding shares through a nominee to meet the requirements
of local participation. See Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. The Republic of the
Philippines, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/25, Award, 16 August 2007.
The Impacts of Local Equity Requirements on Competition 65

specific market. By giving a significant competitive advantage to the members of the

joint venture, the partners have the power to preserve the market for themselves,
rendering their competitors unable to develop their activities, operate or expand on
the same market successfully. Such anti-competitive behaviours are more likely to
arise in cases where the partners are competitors with important market power (for
example in terms of input or know-how) and which, by unifying their forces into a
single structure, create a joint venture with monopolistic characteristics. With respect
to local equity requirements, this characteristic will almost always be met, especially
when the market is dominated by a state-owned enterprise. In such instances, local
equity requirements do not create a joint venture with monopolistic characteristics
but rather reinforce an existing monopoly. This is also true where local equity
requirements allow partnering with a local private actor in which case the require-
ments can aim to protect local champions.
In the light of the anti-competitive effects that joint ventures can have on a given
market, it is sometimes argued at the formation stage of the joint venture that the
impacts of the contemplated vehicle on the competitive state of a given market are
only theoretical. It has also been contended that without the creation of the joint
venture, the parents would not be able to enter the market and that it is thus
preferable in terms of competition to create the joint venture rather than not.59 Others
have opined that without the joint venture, it would be less likely that the parent
companies would enter the market.60 It has also been explained that the entry of at
least one of the parties is more likely in the absence of a joint venture.61 Finally, it
has been argued that if the different economic actors are willing to enter the market
independently, it would take more time since they need to be self-financed and
acquire the necessary resources (for example, technology and equipment), and that it

59
Beside representing an access to additional resources—often taking the form of extra capital that
is invested in the project by the other partner(s)—joint ventures also provide an access to comple-
mentary resources which are sometimes critical to enable the entry on a given market. These
complementary resources can vary in type: material (for example, specific machinery) or immaterial
(for example, intellectual property rights which often play an important role in R&D joint ventures)
and will often be indispensable for the development of new products. One example which illustrates
this indispensable element of complementarity can be found in the childhood vaccine industry in
which to produce a “multi-valent” vaccine multiple vaccines protected by patents owned by
different companies had to be combined. In order to develop the “multi-valent” vaccine, the
different patent holders created a joint venture (see Kattan 1993, p. 940). This complementarity
provided by joint ventures is very important: while “it is increasingly necessary to specialize within
certain areas, [m]ost firms do not have the resources to become experts in all of the technologies
required of an effective competitor” (Piraino 1994, p. 887). In this context, joint ventures offer the
possibility for competitors to benefit from their respective specialized assets and knowledge in order
to be more efficient on the market. For example, General Motors (GM), through its joint venture
with Toyota, became more efficient by learning manufacturing techniques, which ultimately led
GM to produce a new compact car (see Piraino 1994, pp. 887–888).
60
See Sherman and Willet (1967), pp. 400–403.
61
See generally Goldberg and Moirao (1973).
66 L. Vanhonnaeker

would thus “reduc[e] the benefits of new entry”62 particularly in comparison with
their immediate entry in the market by way of a joint venture.
Many of these considerations are not, arguably, applicable with respect to joint
ventures created as a consequence of local equity requirements. Indeed, foreign
investors deciding to invest abroad are generally already well established in their
home countries. Furthermore, foreign investments are increasingly undertaken by
multinational corporations63 that have both the necessary financial capacity,
resources and expertise in conducting commercial operations to penetrate a
market alone. For the same reasons, not entering into a joint venture should not
significantly delay such foreign investors from entering the market of a host state. It
has been argued that without the joint venture it would be less likely that the parent
companies would enter the market or, alternatively, that the entry of at least one of
the parties is more likely in the absence of a joint venture. However, since the
entrance of a foreign investor into a host market with local equity requirements will
generally involve partnering with a domestic actor (whether public or private)
already operating in that given market, these arguments do not apply.

4.2.2 The Pro-competitive Effects of Joint Ventures Established

Through Local Equity Requirements

Despite the strong collusive and anti-competitive effects inherent to joint ventures,
these collaborations also have pro-competitive impacts that are materialized in terms
of economic efficiency64 and which are put forward to justify local equity require-
ments. In particular, one of the major advantages the joint venture structure provides
to the partners is its intrinsic reduction of risks. Indeed, in the sectors of the economy
where the costs associated with some products is extremely high, few firms dare
enter the market alone, especially if it is a foreign market.65 In this context, entering
into a joint venture allows the participants to share the investment of capital in the
project.66 In addition, the competitors involved in the joint venture lose all incentives
to act opportunistically as the setting-up of a joint venture involves the creation of a

62
Brodley (1982), p. 1532.
63
UNCTAD (2018), pp. 2 ff.
64
It is worth observing that besides showing strong pro-competitive aspects, joint ventures some-
times have no anti-competitive effects at all on the market. Such is the case, for example, of joint
ventures “set up to reap important economies of scale through common production of inputs
accounting for a minor portion of the parent’s total costs” (OECD 2000, p. 9).
65
This is especially true when the commercial operation involves the development of a new
technology. For an extensive study of the competitive effects and the antitrust treatment of R&D
joint ventures, see generally Grossman and Shapiro (1986).
66
Sometimes, however, the contributions of the partners will not be similar. In the joint venture that
took place between Danone and the Wahaha Group in 1996 for example, Danone was the only one
to invest money in the joint venture while its Chinese partner, Wahaha, only transferred its
trademark (see generally Dickinson and Harris 2008).
The Impacts of Local Equity Requirements on Competition 67

common interest in the shared structure and the success of its activities.67
Establishing a joint venture thus gets rid of the “free riding” problem and drastically
reduces transaction costs that take the form of opportunism and problems of
appropriability hazards to which collaborations are particularly vulnerable as a
consequence of their inherent high degree of unpredictability.68 Equity-based joint
ventures, in particular, answer such risks in two ways. First, the collaborators’
contributions taking the form of equity in the joint venture, it is in both their interests
to protect the joint venture’s own interest, thus creating a “mutual hostage posi-
tion”69 as “the ongoing returns to each partner are based on the profits of the venture
as a whole (usually with distributions in proportion of equity shares), so that the
incentives of the ‘parent’ firms are more closely aligned than in the case of an arms-
length transaction”.70 In addition, creating a joint venture eliminates risks of a
duplication of activities, which often occurs in technology-intensive sectors. By
joining their forces and working together on a same project, the collaborators will
thus not only be more efficient, but they will also be avoiding the “shameful and
needless duplication of effort”.71
Ultimately, the economic efficiencies generated by joint ventures and their
pro-competitive effects are a direct consequence of the economies of scale created
by the pooling of resources. For instance, it allows the parent companies to reduce
costs of production or to benefit from a more efficient distribution network. Such
economic efficiency can also benefit the consumers if it translates into a lower selling
price on the market. Furthermore, for investments involving advanced technologies,
the creation of a joint venture can lead to the promotion of innovation and to the
introduction of more substitutable goods on a given market, making the market “self-

67
Oxley (1997), p. 390. See also Hagedoorn et al. (2005), p. 176 (equity sharing is “expected to
align the motivation of the partners, creating mutual interests, which reduces the possibilities for
opportunistic behaviour by partners”).
68
This is especially true in the case of R&D collaborations where “it is by definition impossible to
contractually specify all concrete results” in advance (Hagedoorn et al. 2005, p. 176).
69
Kogut (1988), p. 321.
70
Oxley (1997), p. 390. This equity-sharing model also has the advantages of having a dissuasive
effect on the parties to over evaluate their own assets when entering the joint venture. Indeed, these
assets often serve as a basis to evaluate the respective shares of the parties in the jointly owned
structure and each partner is thus likely to be careful when valuating the shares of the other party
(ies) as the degree of control over the joint venture is generally proportional to the amount of shares
owned in the shared company. Setting-up a joint—equity-based—structure will also have the
advantage, compared to purely contractual collaborations, to provide the parties with an efficient
control over the joint venture’s activities through a hierarchical type of governance in order to face
the uncertainty often associated with collaborations. Indeed, an equity-based structure allows the
parties to, “[t]hrough the board of directors, [. . .] monitor the use of contributed assets, the
development of new assets, and the overall returns from the cooperative effort” (Pisano 1989,
p. 112), which is particularly useful for resolving issues which were not anticipated at the formation
stage of the joint venture or when facing a deadlock during the life of the joint venture.
71
Jorde and Teece (1989), p. 538, fn. 28 (quoting William Norris, CEO of Central Data
Corporation).
68 L. Vanhonnaeker

encouraging as the presence of those substitutable goods results in more incentives

to innovate (i.e. to distinguish)”.72
However, in order for a joint venture to deploy its pro-competitive effects through
enhanced economic efficiency, the joint venture must be—at least partially—inte-
grated: it is commonly accepted that “[a] cooperative arrangement among compet-
itors is only capable of generating efficiencies when the parties have achieved a true
integration of resources”.73 Only then, the pro-competitive aspects of joint ventures
will be able to outweigh their anti-competitive features. Indeed, if the joint venture
does not entail at least a minimum amount of integration and rather limits itself to a
coordination of parallel activities, it would in fact be an “empty shell” whose
carapace would consist in sole agreements concerning prices, production of goods
or division of territories. This type of collaboration represents “one of the essential
features of a successful cartel”74 which results in a limited inter-partners efficiency,
having negative impacts on the rest of the market and especially on consumers.
With respect to joint ventures created pursuant to local equity requirements, the
extent to which these collaborations deploy pro-competitive effects on the market is
limited. Indeed, economic efficiency arises when two partners bring their resources
and know-how together in order to engage in a common adventure. There must be
chemistry or, at least, a common will to do things together as well as a minimum of
trust. Although the condition of having, at a minimum, a partially integrated joint
venture will often be met even if the joint venture is created pursuant to a local equity
requirement, the fact that they are forced collaborations severely reduces their
pro-competitive potential.75 Whereas a joint venture should bring together two
partners pursuing a similar goal, foreign investors will usually not share the same
objectives as their local partner, especially if it is a state-owned entity. Whereas
foreign investors will often be driven by the prospect of rapid profit, SOEs will
generally contemplate economic objectives of development on the long-term.
Accordingly, “[t]he synergy that is essential for the success of the joint venture
will be lacking in such an association and the potential for conflict is great”.76

72
Billiet (2009), p. 8.
73
Piraino (1994), p. 885.
74
Piraino (1994), p. 884.
75
See Salacuse (2013), p. 97:
Strong arguments exist that these restrictions raise the cost of private capital to the host
country and may prevent it from using the investment received to maximum advantage. For
example, there is evidence that foreign investors in joint ventures tend to transfer less
advanced technology to joint ventures than to wholly owned subsidiaries which give them
a greater ability to protect their technology from appropriation by local partners and others.
Also, in such imposed joint ventures, the investor’s commitment to the future development
of the project may be less than optimal; consequently, it may focus on gaining revenues
through its contractual arrangements with the project (for example as a supplier of technol-
ogy) rather than as a project owner.
76
Sornarajah (2010), p. 64.
The Impacts of Local Equity Requirements on Competition 69

Both partners to a joint venture must be able to have a say in the conduct of their
joint operations. However, local equity requirements generally insure that the major-
ity of the shares and, more importantly, that the control of the joint venture, rests
with the local partner.77 In addition, even if foreign investors might give priority to
maintaining a dominant position in a given market, and thus be more inclined to
subject themselves to the will of their local partner, the host state can at any time
decide to favour the local partner by enacting laws that would disregard the interests
of the foreign investor.78 The foreign investor has limited recourse to remedies in
such an instance, especially if it wants to preserve a good relation with the state.
Local equity requirements can thus severely impact the project’s potential for
growth, either because of a lack of trust in the local partner, because of the
local partner’s lack of resources or expertise or because the state is only interested
in what is brought to the joint venture by the foreign investor. Consequently,
joint ventures created pursuant to local equity requirements are less prone to deploy -
pro-competitive effects which can alleviate their inherent anti-competitive
characteristics.

5 Concluding Remarks and the Way Forward

Local equity requirements are not a new phenomenon in international investment

law. Such requirements, initially justified on historical and ideological grounds when
state planning was prioritized, have remained an essential component of domestic
investment laws albeit justified on different grounds in the era of privatization.
Although some justifications, such as the protection of national and economic
security or indigenisation policies, are legitimate, another objective that can some-
times be pursued by local equity requirements is to restrict the competitive state of a
given market through the preservation of monopolies or oligopolies.
Indeed, by keeping control over foreign investments, host states safeguard their
ability to protect domestic interest groups from competition by foreign investors or
even to keep intact their own monopoly. Furthermore, investors willing to be at the
mercy of host state decisions when entering into a joint venture with an SOE or with
a private local partner can also benefit from such anti-competitive behaviour as, by
doing so, they can enter a domestic oligopolistic or monopolistic market and benefit
from this position.
Regardless of the justifications put forward for local equity requirements, the
latter inevitably impact the competitive state of markets through the creation of joint
ventures. While joint ventures do not necessarily have anti-competitive effects and
can, in fact, be beneficial to competition on a given market, when such collaborations
are forced through local equity requirements, the pro-competitive effects of joint

77
Sornarajah (2010), p. 64.
78
Sornarajah (2010), p. 65.
70 L. Vanhonnaeker

venture are unlikely to outweigh their anti-competitive impacts. Indeed, if “[g]oing it

alone’ is no longer an option for many [. . .] businesses”,79 forced joint ventures are
not the most optimal avenue either.
The desirability of local equity requirements in the era of privatization thus
deserves serious consideration, especially in light of the fact that the legitimate
objectives they sometimes pursue can be achieved by other means with less dam-
aging impacts on the competitive state of markets. For instance, host states could
provide incentives to foreign investors to include local populations in their commer-
cial operations undertaken in the host state. Another such way, which warrants
further investigation, consists in broader use of screening mechanisms. The screen-
ing of foreign investment is dealt with by administrative agencies that may require a
feasibility study highlighting the benefits that a given investment entails for the local
economy. Screening mechanisms also allow states to identify the dangers that may
be associated with an investment for the local economy. In particular, screening
mechanisms can allow states to refuse the entry of an investment to protect given
segments of the economy, such as low-technology or labour-intensive sectors, as
well as specific industries which raise national security concerns. With respect to
competition, screening mechanisms such as those applicable in the EU through
competition laws can be used to ensure that large foreign investors do not penetrate
a market and drive out smaller local firms by abusing their dominant position.
Although screening mechanisms and requirements raise some issues of their own,
such as with respect to non-discrimination applied on a pre-establishment basis, this
method of keeping some control over inward flows of FDI should be considered to a
broader extent by host states.

79
Piraino (1994), p. 873. This is especially true for smaller businesses: not only will these smaller
market actors benefit from the above-mentioned advantages but in addition, through joint venturing,
these smaller firms become able to “achieve the types of economies of scale usually available only
to larger businesses” (Piraino 1994, p. 886). In this perspective, a small business becomes able to
compete with larger companies by proposing lower prices to consumers and to achieve the same
production efficiency as their larger competitors. See Northwest Wholesale Stationers,
Inc. v. Pacific Stationary & Printing Co., 472 US 284, 1985. These efficiencies, which are beneficial
both for the collaborators and the consumers have been recognised by the US Supreme Court in the
Pacific Stationary case. Indeed, the Court stated that “[t]he arrangement [at issue] permits the
participating retailers to achieve economies of scale in both the purchase and warehousing of
wholesale supplies, and also ensures ready access to a stock of goods that might otherwise be
unavailable on short notice. The cost of savings and order-filling guarantees enable smaller retailers
to reduce prices and maintain their retail stock so as to compete more effectively with bigger
retailers” (p. 295) or to engage in large advertising and promotion campaigns “by collectively
amassing a sufficient share of the market to make name brand promotion economical” (Kattan 1993,
p. 939).
The Impacts of Local Equity Requirements on Competition 71

References

Akiwumi AM (1975) Plea for the harmonization of African investment laws. J Afr Law 19
(1–2):134–153
Beveridge FC (1991) Taking control of foreign investment: a case study of indigenisation in
Nigeria. Int Comp Law Q 40(2):302–333
Billiet P (2009) Situating cooperative R&D joint ventures between the need to innovate and
innovation-related competition rules. Eur J Law Reform 11(1):1–34
Blomström M, Kokko A, Zejan M (2000) Foreign direct investment: firm and host country
strategies. Palgrave Macmillan, London
Brodley JF (1982) Joint ventures and antitrust policy. Harv Law Rev 95(7):1521–1590
Corbridge S (1995) Development studies: a reader. E. Arnold, London
De Meester B, Coppens D (2013) Mode 3 of the GATS: a model for disciplining measures affecting
investment flows? In: Drabek Z, Mavroidis P (eds) Regulation of foreign investment: challenges
to international harmonization. World Scientific Publishing Company, Singapore, pp 99–151
de Mestral A (2015) Pre-entry obligations under international law. In: Bungenberg M et al (eds)
International investment law: a handbook. C.H. BECK – Hart – Nomos, München, Oxford,
Baden-Baden, pp 685–699
Dickinson SM, Harris DP (2008) Danone v. Wahaha: lessons for joint ventures in China. https://
www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/international-law/b/commentry/posts/dickinson-and-har
ris-on-danone-v.-wahaha_3a00_-lessons-for-joint-ventures-in-china
Edwards S (1995) Crisis and reform in Latin America: from despair to hope. Oxford University
Press, Oxford
Goldberg V, Moirao S (1973) Limit pricing and potential competition. J Polit Econ 81
(6):1460–1466
Grossman GM, Shapiro C (1986) Research joint ventures: an antitrust analysis. J Law Econ Organ 2
(2):315–337
Hagedoorn J, Cloodt D, van Kranenburg H (2005) Intellectual property rights and the governance of
international R&D partnerships. J Int Bus Stud 36(2):175–186
Hemming R, Mansoor A (1987) Privatization and public enterprises. IMF Working Paper No 87/9
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (1997) World development report 1997 –
the state in a changing world. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Jorde TM, Teece DJ (1989) Acceptable cooperation among competitors in the face of growing
international competition. Antitrust Law J 58(2):529–556
Kattan J (1993) Antitrust analysis of technology joint ventures: allocative efficiency and the rewards
of innovation. Antitrust Law J 61(3):937–973
Kogut B (1988) Joint ventures: theoretical and empirical perspectives. Strateg Manag J 9
(4):319–332
Lewis WA (1969) The principles of economic planning: a study prepared for the Fabian Society.
Allen & Unwin, London
Mason ES (1958) Economic planning in underdeveloped areas: government and business. Fordham
University Press, New York
Milne RS (1976) The politics of Malaysia’s New Economic Policy. Pac Aff 49(2):235–262
OECD (2000) Competition issues in joint ventures, Series Roundtables on Competition Policy.
http://www.oecd.org/
OECD (2003) Privatising state-owned enterprises: an overview of policies and practices in OECD
countries. OECD, Paris
OECD (2010) Privatisation in the 21st century: summary of recent experiences. OECD, Paris
Osunbor OA (1988) Nigeria’s investment laws on the State’s control of multinationals. ICSID
Rev – Foreign Invest Law J 3(1):38–78
Oxley JE (1997) Appropriability hazards and governance in strategic alliances: a transaction cost
approach. J Law Econ Organ 13(2):387–409
Piper DC (1979) New directions in the protection of American-owned property abroad. Int Trade
Law J 4(2):315–348
72 L. Vanhonnaeker

Piraino TA (1994) Reconciling competition and cooperation: a new antitrust standard for joint
ventures. William Mary Law Rev 35(3):871–941
Pisano GP (1989) Using equity participation to support exchange: evidence from the biotechnology
industry. J Law Econ Organ 5(1):109–126
Pitofsky R (1986) A framework for antitrust analysis of joint ventures. Georgetown Law J 74
(6):1605–1624
Salacuse JW (1980) Back to contract: implications of peace and openness for Egypt’s legal system.
Am J Comp Law 28(2):315–333
Salacuse JW (2013) The three laws of international investment: national, contractual, and interna-
tional frameworks for foreign capital. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Sauvant KP (2011) The regulatory framework for investment: where are we headed? In:
Ramamurti R, Hashai N (eds) The future of foreign direct investment and the multinational
enterprise. Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp 407–433
Sebalu P (1972) The East African Community. J Afr Law 16(3):345–363
Sherman R, Willet TD (1967) Potential entrants discourage entry. J Polit Econ 75(4):400–403
Sornarajah M (2010) The international law on foreign investment. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge
Stiglitz JE (2003) Globalization and its discontents. W.W. Norton & Company, New York
Thillainathan R, Cheong K-C (2016) Malaysia’s new economic policy, growth and distribution:
revisiting the debate. Malays J Econ Stud 53(1):51–68
Tobi N (1991) Legal aspects of foreign investments and financing of energy products in Nigeria.
Dalhousie Law J 14(1):5–23
UNCTAD (1993) World investment report 1993: transnational corporations and integrated inter-
national production. United Nations, New York
UNCTAD (2003) Foreign direct investment and performance requirements: new evidence from
selected countries. United Nations, New York
UNCTAD (2010) World investment report 2010: investing in a low-carbon economy. United
Nations, New York
UNCTAD (2018) World investment report 2018: investment and new industrial policies. United
Nations, New York
United Nations (1973) Multinational corporations in world development. United Nations,
New York
Wallace CD (2002) The multinational enterprise and legal control: host State sovereignty in an era
of economic globalization. Martinus Nijhoff, New York
Weber B, Alfen HW (2010) Infrastructure as an asset class: investment strategies, project finance
and PPP. Wiley, Chichester
Williamson J (1990) What Washington means by policy reform. In: Williamson J (ed) Latin
American adjustment: how much has happened? Peterson Institute for International Economics,
Washington DC, pp 7–20
World Bank (1996) World Bank annual report 1996. The World Bank, Washington DC

Lukas Vanhonnaeker is a post-doctoral fellow at McGill University, Faculty of Law where he is

conducting research in the field of international economic law with an emphasis on international
investment law and arbitration, international trade law and international aspects of corporate law.
Dr. Vanhonnaeker completed his bilingual (French/English) bachelor’s degree in law at the
Facultés Universitaires Saint-Louis (Brussels, Belgium) in 2010 and his master’s degree in law at
the Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium, in 2012. He received his LL.M. in international
business law from the Free University of Brussels in 2013 and he also holds an LLM (2014) and a
PhD (2018) from McGill University.
When State Enterprises Have Deeper
Pockets: Ensuring Competitive Neutrality
in Cross-Border M&A

Phil Baumann

Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
2 The Issue of Competitive Neutrality in IM&A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
2.1 The ChemChina-Syngenta Transaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
2.2 Economic Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
2.3 The Role of Chinese State Enterprises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
2.4 Empirical Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
3 Competitive Neutrality in IM&A Under the Current Investment and Competition Law
Regime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
3.1 International Investment Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
3.2 Domestic Investment Screening Regimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
3.3 Competition Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4 How to Ensure Competitive Neutrality in IM&A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Abstract State enterprises (SEs) are playing an increasingly important role in cross-
border mergers and acquisitions (M&A). Due to their special relationship with the
government, SEs often have undue competitive advantages over their private com-
petitors. SEs may leverage these undue competitive advantages in cross-border
M&A to outbid private investors. This results in an inefficient allocation of produc-
tion resources and prevents private competitors from reaching their full potential of
economic efficiency. Although this problem is accentuated in the context of Chinese
SEs, it is also of general importance, as SEs in numerous countries benefit from
undue competitive advantages. However, the current national competition laws,
international investment agreements (IIAs) and domestic investment screening
regimes inadequately address this concern. In particular, international investment
agreements traditionally focus on investor protection and less on achieving

P. Baumann (*)
Center for Public Economic Law, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Winterthur,
Switzerland
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 73

K. Fach Gómez et al. (eds.), International Investment Law and Competition Law,
European Yearbook of International Economic Law,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33916-6_4
74 P. Baumann

competitive neutrality. Even the provisions on competitive neutrality contained in

recently concluded international investment and trade agreements do not apply to
cross-border M&A. Investment screening regimes, on the other hand, primarily
assess foreign acquisitions with regard to national security. Merger control under
competition law also has a limited focus. It deals with the impact of M&A on the
relevant markets and does not assess whether the acquisition itself is in accordance
with the principle of competitive neutrality. Regulatory reform proposals in this
regard are largely missing. A three-pillar approach, focusing on international invest-
ment principles, international investment agreements and domestic investment
screening and competition law regimes, may prove useful for further regulatory
attempts to ensure competitive neutrality in cross-border M&A.

1 Introduction

State enterprises (SEs)1—enterprises that are either state-owned, state-controlled or

whose commercial operations are de facto state-controlled or state-influenced—are
playing an increasingly significant role in the global economy.2 This development
has been reflected by the increasing share of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) among
the world’s largest companies, the rising level of outward investments by SOE, the
growing participation of SOEs in international trade and the amount of disputes
involving SOEs under European Union (EU) and World Trade Organization (WTO)
rules as well as bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and national competition laws.3 A
main driver in this rapid internationalization of SEs has been international mergers
and acquisitions (IM&A).4 Whereas fully SOEs attributed only 0.9% of total IM&A
value in 1996, this number increased significantly to 7% in 2013.5 IM&A by SOEs
peaked 2009 in the aftermath of the financial crisis and although, it subsequently
decreased, it continued to grow much faster than overall IM&A in the following

1
As pointed out by Kowalski and Rabaioli (2017), p. 7, the definitions used of state enterprises,
state-owned enterprises, state-controlled or state-influenced enterprises vary in the different legal
and policy contexts in which they are used. Following Kowalski and Rabaioli (2017), the term SE in
this chapter does not only apply to situations where there is a de jure ownership or control by a state,
but also to enterprises whose commercial operations are de facto either influenced or controlled by a
state. By using this rather broad definition, it is more likely that all relevant constellations are
captured. It should be noted however, that many studies focused on state-owned enterprises (SOEs),
which is the reason why this term is used when referring to the respective studies.
2
Biau et al. (2016), p. 1; Christiansen and Kim (2014), p. 8, with reference to several OECD studies
measuring the prominence of SOEs among the world’s largest enterprises.
3
Kowalski and Rabaioli (2017), pp. 8 et seq.
4
Biau et al. (2016), p. 2; see also UNCTAD (2017), p. 38.
5
OECD (2016), p. 50.
When State Enterprises Have Deeper Pockets: Ensuring Competitive. . . 75

years.6 SOEs from emerging economies were mainly responsible for this develop-
ment. In 2013, China alone accounted for approximately 50% of all IM&A by
SOEs.7
The increasing importance of SEs in IM&A has raised certain concerns, which
can be roughly divided into two categories.8 First, in comparison to private entities,
SEs usually have different guiding objectives and governance structures. It is alleged
that SEs are not making acquisitions based on commercial considerations but on
policy objectives defined by their home state such as espionage, sabotage, critical
infrastructure or natural resources control.9 Governments thus fear that if industries
of strategic importance fall under foreign control, the foreign government might use
this control to attack the host state.10 How to address these security concerns
appropriately, without discriminating against foreign direct investment (FDI) is
currently intensively discussed at the policy level.11 However, this chapter will
address these national security concerns only in passing, when looking at different
national investment screening regimes.
Rather, this chapter is devoted to an issue related to the following second category
of concerns. SEs often have inherent, merely government created, undue competitive
advantages that are not available to their privately-owned competitors.12 For
instance, these advantages can take the form of preferential financing from state-
backed institutions, preferential regulatory treatment, or a privileged market position
conferred by the government. In order to avoid market distortions, policymakers at
the international and domestic level aim to ensure a level playing field between SEs
and private entities.13 These efforts are commonly referred to as the concept of
“competitive neutrality” which requires that no entity operating in an economic
market is subject to undue competitive advantages or disadvantages.14 Whereas
certain jurisdictions have implemented effective domestic competitive neutrality

6
Biau et al. (2016), p. 2; OECD (2016), p. 50.
7
Kowalski and Rabaioli (2017), p. 9; see also Gökgür (2011), p. 1, pointing out that emerging
market economies are increasingly encouraging their SEs to become multinational enterprises.
8
See OECD (2016), pp. 52 et seq.; see also Chaisse (2016a), pp. 239 et seq. These two categories
are, however, related to each other and cannot be clearly separated.
9
See for an overview of this kind of concerns OECD (2016), pp. 59 et seq.
10
Chaisse (2016b), p. 586.
11
See e.g. The Economist, How to safeguard national security without scaring off investment,
11 August 2018, https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/08/11/how-to-safeguard-national-secu
rity-without-scaring-off-investment.
12
Willemyns (2016), p. 659; see Capobianco and Christiansen (2011), pp. 5 et seq. For a detailed
assessment of competitive advantages by SOEs; see also already Nielsen (1981), pp. 57 et seq.
13
Yun (2016), p. 22.
14
OECD (2012), p. 9; see further Sauvant et al. (2014), pp. 97 et seq. For a concise description of
competitive neutrality distinguishing between competitive neutrality at the domestic level (i.e.,
equal treatment of public and private entities within the same regulatory environment) and at the
international level (i.e. in an economic market no entity provides over undue competitive
advantages).
76 P. Baumann

frameworks, the relatively recent efforts to ensure competitive neutrality in the

international context remain exceptionally challenging.15
In this regard, this chapter tries to shed some light on one competitive neutrality
issue that has so far only received limited attention by policy makers and academic
literature. Generally, on the IM&A market target companies are purchased by the
bidder who is willing to offer the largest premium over the target’s stock price.16
However, by leveraging undue competitive advantages, SEs seeking to take over
firms abroad may be in a better buyer position than their private competitors. In
particular, SEs often have access to low-cost state-backed financing enabling them to
outbid private investors in IM&A transactions. This may lead to distortions in
investment and cause economic welfare losses. Against the background of SEs’
growing involvement in IM&A, it seems thus important to gain a deeper under-
standing of this issue, analyze how it is currently dealt with and to assess future
policy options.
The first section of this chapter will use the recent ChemChina-Syngenta merger
as an example to illustrate how undue competitive advantages by SEs may influence
IM&A transactions. It is followed by a brief general theoretical and empirical
analysis of this issue. The second section then assesses to what extent international
investment law, domestic investment screening regimes and competition law con-
tribute to competitive neutrality in IM&A. It notes that this issue remains largely
unaddressed by international investment law and domestic investment screening
laws and that competition law can only prevent to a limited degree the use of undue
competitive advantages by SEs in IM&A. The chapter concludes by discussing
different possible approaches to ensuring a level playing field in IM&A in the future.

2 The Issue of Competitive Neutrality in IM&A

2.1 The ChemChina-Syngenta Transaction

In 2017, the China National Chemical Corporation (ChemChina) completed its $43
billion takeover of the Swiss agrochemical company Syngenta. ChemChina is fully
owned by the Chinese Central Government and overseen by The State-owned Asset
Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council (SASAC), a
government agency that acts both as holding company and as a supervisory author-
ity.17 Shortly before the takeover ChemChina had become China’s largest chemical

15
Capobianco and Christiansen (2011), pp. 14 et seq.; see OECD (2016), pp. 151 et seq. For a
description of the competitive neutrality frameworks in the EU and Australia.; see further Sauvant
et al. (2014), p. 98 for a description of the challenges and policy options.
16
Gordon and Milhaupt (2018), p. 2.
17
Milhaupt and Zheng (2015), pp. 676 and 710.
When State Enterprises Have Deeper Pockets: Ensuring Competitive. . . 77

company.18 The transaction attracted worldwide attention, not only because of its
size and its multijurisdictional focus but also as it represented the largest foreign
acquisition by a Chinese company, public or private, to date.19 Just 2 years before,
Syngenta had fended off successfully a takeover proposal by its American rival
Monsanto, by raising regulatory concerns and by claiming that the offer significantly
undervalued the Swiss firm.20 In comparison to the Monsanto offer, which provided
for a 50% of the takeover price to be settled with own shares; ChemChina acquired
all Syngenta shares in cash.21
At the time of the transaction, ChemChina was in a poor financial shape. It had
neither generated profits nor sufficient free cash flows to make such a huge transac-
tion and had high levels of debt on its balance sheet.22 The question thus arises how
it was financially capable to support this acquisition and this method of payment.23
While ChemChina was quick to arrange for huge bridge loans to acquire the
Syngenta shares, the long-term financing of the transaction remained unclear for
quite some time, leading even to speculations of direct aid by the Chinese state.24
Eventually, while ChemChina supplied (for Western standards) little equity, Chinese
state-owned or state-controlled financial institutions provided for the bulk of the
funding by purchasing $18 billion in perpetual bonds (a hybrid financial instrument)

18
Collier (2018), pp. 12 et seq.
19
Collier (2018), pp. 12 et seq.; Financial Times, ChemChina edges closer to sealing Syngenta deal,
31 May 2017, https://www.ft.com/content/2dc58756-45dd-11e7-8519-9f94ee97d996.
20
Reuters, Syngenta rejects $45 billion Monsanto takeover offer, 8 May 2015, https://www.reuters.
com/article/us-syngenta-m-a-monsanto-reject/syngenta-rejects-45-billion-monsanto-takeover-
offer-idUSKBN0NT0JM20150508.
21
Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Wie chinesisch wird die Schweizer Syngenta?, 5 April 2017, https://www.
nzz.ch/wirtschaft/fragen-und-antworten-zur-uebernahme-durch-chem-china-wie-chinesisch-wird-
syngenta-ld.155475?reduced¼true. According to this report, the different deal structure seems to be
one of the main reasons why the board of directors of Syngenta agreed to the deal with ChemChina
and opposed the Monsanto-offer.
22
Collier (2018), pp. 89 et seq.; see also New York Times, To Pay for Syngenta, ChemChina Looks
to Beijing for Help, 26 May 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/business/dealbook/to-
pay-for-syngenta-chemchina-looks-to-beijing-for-help.html.
23
Collier (2018), pp. 89 et seq., pointing out that ChemChina’s profit ratios were either negative or
below average in the years before the Syngenta-Deal.
24
Financial Times, Beijing rules out direct aid of ChemChina’s $44bn Syngenta purchase,
28 September 2017, https://www.ft.com/content/4a449fc4-a411-11e7-9e4f-7f5e6a7c98a2.
78 P. Baumann

from ChemChina.25 The cost of this perpetual debt was not disclosed and it even
remained unclear if regular interest payments were to be expected.26
The information available does not allow to unambiguously assess whether the
financing granted to ChemChina by the Chinese state banks was at market condi-
tions. However, the characteristics of the transaction give legitimate cause for
speculation that a SE with weak financials was only able to conclude a significant
cross-border acquisition by means of preferential financing provided by state-owned
banks. This is all the more remarkable given that the transaction was subject to
detailed regulatory review.27

2.2 Economic Implications

The ChemChina-Syngenta example illustrates how SEs may leverage their undue
competitive advantages in IM&A. However, one might question—and in fact some
do—why this should even be an issue. In order to answer this question, the economic
implications of such behavior need to be assessed.
IM&A can increase economic efficiency as merging companies achieve econo-
mies of scale and scope and thus improve productivity.28 In addition, IM&A
transaction enable management innovation, the purchase of weak firms and moving
capital from declining to growth sectors. Further, available evidence suggests that
IM&A creates a more competitive business environment in the host state thereby
leading to a more efficient use of resources in the host economy and higher
productivity of domestically owned companies.29

25
Financial Times, ChemChina edges closer to sealing Syngenta deal, 31 May 2017, https://www.
ft.com/content/2dc58756-45dd-11e7-8519-9f94ee97d996; New York Times, To Pay for Syngenta,
ChemChina Looks to Beijing for Help, 26 May 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/
business/dealbook/to-pay-for-syngenta-chemchina-looks-to-beijing-for-help.html. The Chinese
financial institutions were Bank of China ($10 bn), China Reform Holdings ($7 bn) and China
Reform and Industrial Bank ($1 bn). As a foreign bank, Morgan Stanly bought $2 bn in convertible
preference shares.
26
New York Times, To Pay for Syngenta, ChemChina Looks to Beijing for Help, 26 May 2017,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/business/dealbook/to-pay-for-syngenta-chemchina-looks-
to-beijing-for-help.html. According to Lin and Milhaupt (2017), pp. 24 et seq., due to the absence of
default, SOEs in China not only benefit from preferential access to bank loans from the state-owned
banking sector but also from preferential access to low-cost capital provided by the bond market.
27
The ChemChina-Syngenta deal was reviewed by 13 regulatory authorities. Among others, it was
subject to EU and U.S. antitrust approval and was assessed by the Committee on Foreign
Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and the Swiss Takeover Board (see Neue Zürcher Zeitung,
Syngenta auf der Zielgeraden, 8 February 2017, https://www.nzz.ch/wirtschaft/vor-chem-china-
uebernahme-syngenta-mit-gewinnrueckgang-ld.144271).
28
Jones and Davies (2014), pp. 453 et seq. With further references.
29
OECD (2007), pp. 68 et seq.
When State Enterprises Have Deeper Pockets: Ensuring Competitive. . . 79

However, these positive effects only hold true if the IM&A market is not
distorted. In a competitive market for corporate assets, the price for foreign assets
acquired reflects the discounted present value of the assets when used in an efficient
and profit-maximizing way.30 Therefore, the asset will be awarded to the investor
who can make the most efficient use of it and thus generate the greatest profit, as he
will offer the highest price. If in this process SEs provide over an undue competitive
advantage over conventional acquirers, the allocation mechanism is likely to be
distorted.31 The price offered by the SEs for the assets will be inflated by undue
competitive advantage (for example, the cheaper financing). If this inflated price is
high enough, private investors who could potentially use the assets more efficiently
are outbid and thus crowded out of the IM&A market by SEs. This results in an
inefficient allocation of resources and prevents private competitors from reaching
their full potential of economic efficiency.32 Consequently, both allocative and
productive efficiency decrease, leading to welfare losses.33
Some observers, however, do not consider the crowding out of private investors
by SEs to be an issue of severe concern. According to their reasoning, it is even for
the benefit of shareholders of the acquired companies in host economies as they
receive an above market premium from the overpaying SEs.34 Further, they argue
that governments face financial limits to their ability to support SEs. Therefore, SEs
will have to re-sell acquired assets eventually, if they are not able to run them
efficiently. At this point, efficient private investors will be able to re-enter the
market.35 This argumentation does not seem to adequately address the concerns
described above. First, it does not take negative welfare effects to society into
account, which are caused by the inefficient allocation of resources and the resulting
productive inefficiencies. Secondly, it fails to recognize the dynamics of competi-
tion. Private competitors may not be in a position to hold out until SEs exit the
respective market again. Rather, if the asset to be acquired is essential for future
company growth, private entities may be forced out of business if they are outbid by
inflated SEs’ takeover offers. Leaving this issue unaddressed is thus not an option.36
Finally, it should be mentioned that a rather new line of research is evolving about
the distortion of competitive neutrality in outward FDI by home country measures
(HCM).37 HCM are advantages granted by the home country government that are

30
Globermann (2015), p. 1.
31
Gordon and Milhaupt (2018), p. 36.
32
Gordon and Milhaupt (2018), p. 36.
33
Geddes (2004), p. 29.
34
Globermann (2015), p. 2.
35
Globermann (2015), p. 2.
36
See also Nakagawa (2012), p. 2. According to Healey (2015), p. 12, in Australia, entry in newer
markets by SEs had the capacity to take business away from private competitors that were more
efficient if issues of competitive neutrality were left unaddressed.
37
Sauvant et al. (2014), pp. 4 et seq.
80 P. Baumann

specifically meant to facilitate, support or promote outward FDI.38 In this chapter,

however, the cause of concern is the undue advantages of SEs, regardless whether
these advantages were provided in connection with outward FDI or are completely
unrelated to it. The scope is therefore broader, whereas HCM may be considered as a
subset of such general undue advantages.

2.3 The Role of Chinese State Enterprises

Chinese SEs are of particular interest in this context, since, as mentioned above, they
have become an increasingly important player in outbound IM&A transactions.39 In
2016, for example, Chinese companies invested $92 billion in cross-border acqui-
sitions, corresponding to 10% of the worldwide total and clearly outspending the
United States of America (USA) with $78 billion.40 According to one estimate,
Chinese SOEs were responsible for 64% of total Chinese investment in Europe and
North America in 2017.41 It is further argued that due to extensive government
involvement in the economy and financial system, Chinese SEs often enjoy undue
competitive advantages, which have been instrumental in easing the costs of their
acquisitions abroad.42 In particular, it is reported that Chinese SEs are granted cheap
loans by state-owned banks, receive tax privileges, and benefit from privileged
market access.43 Such privileged access to finance allows Chinese SEs to make
generous offers, when bidding for foreign acquisitions.
Although, the issue of competitive neutrality in IM&A is accentuated with regard
to Chinese SEs it should be noted that it is not merely a China-related problem. SEs
in many jurisdictions benefit from undue competitive advantages, which can be
leveraged in outbound IM&A deals.44 In Switzerland for example, both the tele-
communication company Swisscom, which belongs to 51% to the Swiss state, and
the fully state-owned postal service provider “Die Schweizerische Post AG”
received substantially higher credit ratings than they would have been awarded

38
Sauvant et al. (2014), pp. 11 et seq.
39
Gordon and Milhaupt (2018), pp. 9 et seq.; see generally for the rise of China’s outward FDI
Sauvant and Nolan (2015), pp. 893 et seq.
40
UNCTAD (2017), p. 231; Gordon and Milhaupt (2018), p. 3.
41
Baker McKenzie, Rising tension, assessing China’s FDI drop in Europe and North America,
2018, https://www.bakermckenzie.com/en/insight/publications/2018/04/rising-tension-china-fdi.
According to UNCTAD (2018), pp. 6 and 85, recently, Chinese investment in Europe and North
America has dropped, which is partly attributed to growing regulatory scrutiny towards Chinese
investment in these regions and Chinese policies clamping down on outward investments.
42
Briguet (2018), p. 852; Guo and Clougherty (2015), p. 144; Milhaupt and Zheng (2015), p. 707.
43
Guo and Clougherty (2015), pp. 144 et seq.
44
Nielsen (1981), pp. 58 et seq.
When State Enterprises Have Deeper Pockets: Ensuring Competitive. . . 81

without the assumption of implicit government support.45 As a higher rating trans-

lates into lower borrowing costs, both Swiss SEs might have used this advantage for
their acquisitions of target companies abroad. SEs in numerous countries enjoy this
financial advantage of perceived government guarantees.46

2.4 Empirical Evidence

Whereas the theoretical concept of the use of undue competitive advantages by SEs
is intuitive and anecdotal evidence to support it seems readily available, the picture
becomes more nuanced when the available IM&A data is assessed. This is demon-
strated by the most frequently raised distortion of competition: preferential financing
for SEs.
The first starting point to determine whether SEs benefit from preferential financ-
ing in IM&A is to analyze the premiums paid by SEs in their acquisitions. It is
argued that using the discounted cash flow analysis as valuation method, SEs with
lower cost of capital can attribute a higher present value to future free cash flows due
to a lower discount rate.47 More generally, all other things being equal, if a SE has
lower capital costs, it has more resources available to pay for an acquisition.
Therefore, one would expect that SEs offer higher prices than their private compet-
itors for target companies in IM&A. Analyses conducted by the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in this respect show that com-
pared to privately owned companies, SOEs pay on average substantially more for the
acquisition of smaller stakes in their targets. However, SOEs generally do not seem
to pay higher premiums for targets than their private competitors.48 In contrast,
studies concerning IM&A by Chinese SOEs observe that Chinese SOEs symptom-
atically pay relatively high acquisition premiums.49
The modality of payment and financing chosen by SEs is another indication that
SEs use their preferential access to capital in IM&A transactions. Generally, firms
have three available options for financing IM&A: assets—including cash—debt and
equity. Shareholders of potential targets always prefer cash over equity as payment,
as the latter contains the risk of dilution. Firms will move from cash to debt and

45
Credit Opinion by Moody’s, 7 April 2017, https://www.swisscom.ch/content/dam/swisscom/de/
about/investoren/fremdkapital/2017/moody-s_credit-opinion20170407.pdf.res/moody-s_credit-
opinion20170407.pdf; Credit Rating by Standard and Poors, 19 December 2016, https://
geschaeftsbericht.post.ch/app/themes/post-gb/downloads/de/DE_Post_S&P_Ratingreport_2016.
pdf.
46
Christiansen and Kim (2014), p. 17.
47
OECD (2016), p. 55.
48
OECD (2016), p. 59.
49
Guo and Clougherty (2015), p. 148 with further references. For instance, Guo and Clougherty
(2015), p. 148, found that Chinese SOEs engaging in North American acquisitions pay premiums of
96% whereas the average premiums paid for US targets are in the range of 30–50%.
82 P. Baumann

finally equity the more they are faced with capital constraints. SEs benefiting from
preferential financing would thus be expected to finance larger proportions of their
M&A-deals with cash than their private competitors would do. Pursuant to IM&A
analyses, this seems to be exactly the case. SEs finance their deals by using a higher
percentage of cash and internal funds and employing less debt and far less equity
than private companies do. However, the lower use of equity may also be a result of
their state-ownership.50
Finally, the interest rates paid by SEs can be assessed to evaluate whether SEs
benefit from cheaper finance than private competitors. A study comparing per
approximation the interest rates paid by SEs and private companies in the airline,
electricity, mining, oil and gas and telecom sectors found the evidence to be
inconclusive.51 Against the background of these somewhat inconsistent findings it
has been pointed out that further analyses based on micro-level lending data is
required to conclusively assess the extent of financial advantages enjoyed by SEs
in IM&A transactions.52 Without intending to anticipate these future studies, it
would seem odd if the preferential access to financing for SEs that has been
identified in many jurisdictions, did not also affect IM&A.

3 Competitive Neutrality in IM&A Under the Current

Investment and Competition Law Regime

In contrast to cross-border trade, there is no explicit international governance regime

for IM&A.53 Rather, the current international framework governing SE investments
is highly fragmented and consists of a wide range of national and international
regulations.54 For this reason, in this chapter it will not be possible to make an
in-depth assessment of all the relevant legal fields that IM&A transactions touch
on. However, the subsequent part aims to give an overview of how international

50
OECD (2016), pp. 55 et seq.
51
Christiansen and Kim (2014), p. 22.
52
OECD (2016), p. 51.
53
Gordon and Milhaupt (2018), p. 2; see Nakagawa (2012), pp. 3 et seq., for an assessment of how
undue competitive advantages of SEs are addressed under the multilateral rules of trade, empha-
sizing that WTO law does not secure a level playing field between SEs and private entities in
investment markets; see also OECD (2016), pp. 83 et seq. and 156, pointing out that trade regulators
are generally well equipped to deal with undue advantages of SEs in the global trading system; see
further Wu (2016), pp. 302 et seq., describing with reference to recent WTO case law, that
preferential loans provided by state-owned banks are considered to be subsidies subject to
WTO-rules if such state-owned banks exercise governmental functions.
54
See for instance Chaisse (2016a), p. 247, stating that foreign direct investment is also covered
through the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) commercial presence mode of supply.
However, with regard to the issue at hand it seems unlikely that the basic principles and general
obligations of the GATS will have a disciplinary effect.
When State Enterprises Have Deeper Pockets: Ensuring Competitive. . . 83

investment law, domestic investment screening regimes and competition law deal
with this issue.

3.1 International Investment Law

In recent decades, international investment law has mainly developed around inter-
national investment agreements (IIAs).55 Two major types of IIAs are to be distin-
guished: bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and multilateral preferential trade and
investment agreements.56 Traditionally, the aim of BITs is to grant certain rights to
and ensure protection of foreign investors. Considerations regarding competitive
conditions and ensuring a level playing field are not their primary purpose.57
Coming from this perspective it is not surprising that only few BITs address the
issue of uneven competition between SEs and private companies at all. While some
of these BITs contain specific provisions that aim to ensure fair competition between
SEs and private companies, others even explicitly refer to the principle of compet-
itive neutrality.58 However, the scope of such provisions is mostly limited to
ensuring that private investments are on an equal footing with SEs when competing
with them in one of the parties’ markets.59 This is usually expressed by obligations to
treat (foreign) private companies equally with (domestic) SEs.60 In contrast, there are
no requirements that SEs should not enjoy undue competitive advantages in foreign
investment.
Beyond BITs, multilateral preferential trade and investment agreements are of
growing importance for the international investment agenda.61 Both, the recently
concluded Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership
(CPTPP) and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) contain
sections dealing with international investment and address issues regarding SOEs
and competitive neutrality. The CPTPP is the first international agreement that went
into force with a comprehensive chapter concerning SOEs.62 The chapter contains

55
Subedi (2016), p. 8.
56
Chaisse (2016b), p. 604, for a description of these two types.
57
Kowalski and Rabaioli (2017), p. 26; Sauvant (2018), p. 7.
58
Shima (2015), p. 15.
59
An illustrative example for such a provision is Article II.7 of the US-Senegal BIT (1983): “The
Parties recognize that, consistent with paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, conditions of competitive
equality should be maintained where investments owned or controlled by a Party or its agencies or
instrumentalities are in competition, within the territory of such Party, with privately owned or
controlled investments of national or companies of the other Party.” See also Article II.5 of the
US-Bangladesh BIT (1986).
60
See the examples given by Shima (2015), pp. 15 et seq.
61
OECD (2016), p. 80.
62
Matsushita (2017), p. 188. In comparison to the initial Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)
the chapter on SOEs has not been altered in the CPTPP.
84 P. Baumann

several rules on SOEs, which the contracting parties are obliged to comply with.
These rules shall ensure that SOEs that have undue competitive advantages do not
impede trade and investment activities by other companies.63 In particular, the
contracting parties have to ensure that SOEs act in accordance with commercial
considerations.64 Pursuant to Article 17.1 CPTPP, commercial considerations mean
factors such as price, quality, availability, marketability, transportation, etc. that a
privately owned enterprise in the relevant business or industry would normally take
into account when taking a commercial decision. However, this obligation applies
only to SOE’s purchases or sales of goods or services but not with respect to their
cross-border investments.65
Further, the CPTPP raises the issue of non-commercial assistance provided to
SOEs. According to the definition in Article 17.1 CPTPP, such non-commercial
assistance includes for example loans and infrastructure that are provided to SOEs on
better terms than those commercially available to such SOEs.66 While the CPTPP
does not generally prohibit the (direct or indirect) provision of non-commercial
assistance to SOEs, such assistance shall not cause adverse effects to the interests
of other parties. Again, however, this obligation only applies to commercial assis-
tance provided with regard to the production and sale of goods and the supply of
services.67 Commercial assistance provided to SOEs in connection with their out-
ward investments does not fall under the scope of this provision.
The CETA seems to follow this pattern. It also provides over an obligation to act
in accordance with commercial considerations, which is once more limited to the
purchase and sale of goods.68 Consequently, although the CPTPP and the CETA
deal more comprehensively with SEs and competitive neutrality, they fall short
when it comes to ensuring competitive neutrality in the context of IM&A.
Finally, the international investment regime is increasingly influenced by
non-binding international investment frameworks.69 Given their non-binding nature,
they may address competitive neutrality issues in IM&A more comprehensively.
Indeed, the Sovereign Wealth Funds: Generally Accepted Principles and Practices
(GAPP), usually referred to as the Santiago Principles, contain some provisions that
might be helpful in this regard.70 For example, the GAPP require funding transpar-
ency and stipulate that investment decisions by sovereign wealth funds (SWFs)

63
Matsushita (2017), p. 190.
64
I.e. Article 17.4(1)(a) CPTPP; see further Matsushita (2017), pp. 190 and 193; Yun (2016),
pp. 8 et seq.
65
Kawase and Ambashi (2017), p. 19.
66
Fleury and Marcoux (2016), pp. 459 et seq. and Yun (2016), pp. 10 et seq., for a discussion of
non-commercial assistance under the CPTPP.
67
Article 17.6 of the CPTPP.
68
See Article 18.5 para. 1 of CETA.
69
Joubin-Bret and Chiffelle (2017), p. 10.
70
Chaisse (2016b), pp. 627 et seq. and Kratsas and Truby (2015), pp. 139 et seq., for a short
description of the GAPP.
When State Enterprises Have Deeper Pockets: Ensuring Competitive. . . 85

should maximize risk-adjusted financial returns and are based on economic and
financial grounds.71 Furthermore, SWFs are not to take advantage of government
influence or privileged information in competing with private entities.72 However,
these principles only apply to SWFs and not all SEs and do not seem to address
explicitly the issue raised in this chapter regarding competitive neutrality in
IM&A.73 Accordingly, the recently concluded G20 Guiding Principles for Global
Investment Policy-Making may be considered to be an important stepping stone for
establishing a multilateral investment framework.74 Nonetheless, they remain silent
on SEs’ use of undue competitive advantages in IM&A.75

3.2 Domestic Investment Screening Regimes

Most domestic investment regimes do not treat foreign SEs differently than foreign
private investors.76 Faced with the growing importance of SEs as global competitors,
however, some countries have set in place or strengthened domestic policy frame-
works dealing with inward investment by SEs.77 In most cases, governments point to
national security and national interests as well as the protection of strategic assets as
justification for such measures. Consequently, domestic review of IM&A deals with
SE involvement usually focuses on whether such transactions are compatible with
the national security and national interest of the respective host country.78 In the
following paragraphs it will be briefly assessed, to what extent the investment
screening frameworks in the USA, Canada and Australia are also taking into account
competitive neutrality when reviewing SEs’ IM&A deals.79
In the USA, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)
is the inter-agency body charged with reviewing the effects of “foreign government-
controlled transactions” on the national security.80 Due to the broad definition of
“foreign government-controlled transactions” inward-transactions by SEs into the

71
See GAPP 4.1 and 19.
72
GAPP 20.
73
Furthermore, SWFs provide over very specific investment patterns (risk-averse, passive, long-
term oriented) that not necessarily apply to SEs in general (see Kratsas and Truby (2015),
pp. 99 et seq.).
74
Joubin-Bret and Chiffelle (2017), p. 10.
75
Sauvant (2018), p. 10.
76
OECD (2016), p. 72.
77
OECD (2016), p. 71.
78
OECD (2016), p. 72.
79
Chaisse (2016a), pp. 252 et seq., and Chaisse (2016b), pp. 636 et seq., for a description of the
according regulations in the UK, Germany and France.
80
50 USCA §4565(b)(2)(A) and (B). See Gordon and Milhaupt, pp. 22 et seq. and Schweitzer,
pp. 259 et seq., for an overview of the national security review process in the USA.
86 P. Baumann

USA are thus automatically subject to investigation by CFIUS.81 In 2007, the

foreign investment review process has even been amended to particularly toughen
the examination of transactions involving SEs.82 Upon recommendation by CFIUS,
the US President may block the transaction in question.83 While the existing
investment review process concentrates on national security effects of the relevant
transactions, there are currently reform efforts underway, that would allow CFIUS to
consider also broader economic effects in their assessment.84
This is already the case under the Australian foreign investment framework.
Foreign government investors must get approval by the Treasurer of the Common-
wealth of Australia before acquiring a direct interest in Australia.85 When assessing
investment proposals, the Australian government considers apart from national
security also factors like competition and impact on the economy. With regard to
investments by “foreign government investors”, it is further examined whether the
investment is commercial in nature or pursues political or strategic objectives
contrary to Australia’s national interest. In this regard, investments by foreign
government investors operating on a full at arm’s length and commercial basis are
less likely to raise national interest concerns.86 As a consequence, investments by
SEs benefitting from undue competitive advantages might be likely to face higher
scrutiny.
Similarly, the Canadian foreign investment framework distinguishes between a
national security review and a net benefit review. The latter applies to investments
exceeding a certain threshold. When reviewing investments made by foreign SOEs,
Canada is particularly considering the commercial orientation of and adherence to
free market principles by the respective SOE.87
Finally, it should be noted that the European Union (EU) has recently adopted
Regulation (EU) 2019/452 establishing a framework for the screening of foreign
direct investments into the EU.88 The regulation provides for greater scrutiny of

81
Shima (2015), p. 22.
82
Enderwick (2017), p. 269.
83
Gordon and Milhaupt (2018), p. 24, who note that foreign acquires usually withdraw their filings
before such negative decisions in order to avoid adverse consequences resulting from a blocked
transaction.
84
Gordon and Milhaupt (2018), p. 24; see Kirchner and Mondschein (2018), pp. 19 et seq., for an
overview of the proposed CFIUS reforms.
85
Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia, Australia’s Foreign Investment Policy,
2018 January 2018, https://cdn.tspace.gov.au/uploads/sites/82/2017/06/Australias-Foreign-Invest
ment-Policy.pdf for an overview of the Australian regulatory regime for FDI.
86
Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia, Australia’s Foreign Investment Policy,
2018 January 2018, https://cdn.tspace.gov.au/uploads/sites/82/2017/06/Australias-Foreign-Invest
ment-Policy.pdf stating that the national interest test affords the treasurer a broad discretion to
reject foreign acquisitions.
87
Guidelines—Investment by state-owned enterprises—Net benefit assessment, http://www.ic.gc.
ca/eic/site/ica-lic.nsf/eng/lk00064.html#p2.
88
See Svetlicinii (2018), p. 5, for a short overview of the regulation. Several member states of the
EU already have specific rules governing foreign investments. See Jones and Davies (2014),
pp. 465 et seq., for a description of the respective regulations in Germany, France, Austria and Italy.
When State Enterprises Have Deeper Pockets: Ensuring Competitive. . . 87

foreign direct investments by SOEs as member states and the Commission may take
into account whether the foreign investor is “controlled by the government of a third
country” when considering whether such investment is affecting security or public
order.89 However, in contrast to the Canadian and Australian legislations, the
regulation lacks provisions regarding commercial orientation or adherence to free
market principles.
In summary, the domestic investment screening frameworks generally do not
distinguish between SEs and private entities as foreign investors. Further, inward
investments by SEs are typically only assessed with regard to their implication on
national security and national interests. Some countries also consider other factors
when evaluating investment by foreign SEs, particularly the extent to which such
SEs operate on commercial terms. However, the question whether a State enterprise
has benefited from undue competitive advantages in the investment process is not
part of the investment screening process.

3.3 Competition Law

Competition law plays an important role in ensuring a level playing field in markets
where SEs and private actors compete.90 In this respect, the rise of IM&A deals and
the growing importance of SEs as global investors has created additional complexity
for the enforcement of domestic competition laws and has demonstrated a need for
increased cooperation among local competition authorities.91 There are two entry
points in competition law to enhance competitive neutrality in IM&A.
First, competition law can prevent certain anti-competitive conduct by SEs. The
unique characteristics of SEs, such as for example entrenched market positions or
subsidies and public service obligations, may lead to specific anti-competitive
conduct like predation by cross-subsidisation from subsidised non-commercial
activities to commercial ones. Generally, competition law is believed to offer a
wide range of disciplines to address such behavior.92 Provided that SEs’ businesses
are of sufficient size and have sufficient impact on the market to fall in scope of
competition law, competition law enforcement by the home state may thus reduce
certain undue competitive advantages by SEs.93 Of course, this is only the case if
SEs are not exempt from competition laws and face the same scrutiny by competition

89
Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2019/452.
90
OECD (2016), p. 98.
91
Chaisse (2016a), pp. 243 et seq.; OECD (2016), p. 98; see further Weber (2016), p. 204.
92
OECD (2016), pp. 98 et seq.
93
Capobianco and Christiansen (2011), p. 22.
88 P. Baumann

authorities as their private competitors. In this regard, it is encouraging to note that

emerging countries appear to be increasingly subjecting SEs to competition law.94 If
SEs lose certain undue competitive advantages due to competition law, they cannot
leverage these advantages for their IM&A. However, this only holds true for undue
competitive advantages falling within the scope of competition law. Significantly,
beneficial access to capital that SEs often enjoy usually does not belong to this
category.
Secondly, IM&A by SEs are often subject to merger control by competition
authorities.95 Merger control under competition law aims at identifying competition-
related concerns arising from M&A activities.96 Therefore, competition authorities
will usually assess whether the IM&A transaction by the foreign SE will substan-
tially lessen or prevent competition in the markets where the SE and the target
company are active. This may be the case if the transaction increases the market
power of the companies involved, resulting in higher prices for consumers or if it is
to be expected that firms will be significantly more likely to coordinate and raise
prices or otherwise harm competition after the transaction in terms of lower product
quality or less innovation.97 Moreover, in order for merger control rules to apply,
most jurisdictions require that control or decisive influence over the target company
is acquired and that certain notification thresholds are met.98
The question whether the acquirer benefitted from undue competitive advantages
when acquiring the target company, however, is generally not a factor to be
considered in the competition law analyses when evaluating an IM&A transaction.99
Therefore, access to preferential financing by foreign SEs when carrying out IM&A
transactions will typically not raise competition law concerns. Illustrative in this
regard is the recent decision by the EU Commission on the acquisition of Syngenta
by ChemChina.100 As part of its “single entity” assessment the EU Commission
elaborated on the relationship of ChemChina and the Chinese government.101 In its
extensive merger review it did not assess, however, whether ChemChina benefitted

94
Nourry and Jung (2012), p. 5; see further Capobianco and Christiansen (2011), p. 26; see with
regard to Chinese antitrust regulations Zhang (2015), p. 228, who is of the opinion, that due to the
lack of independent and effective judicial supervision, it is unlikely that China will have an effective
antitrust policy to regulate SOEs.
95
OECD (2009), p. 4.
96
OECD (2016), p. 106.
97
Capobianco and Christiansen (2011), p. 23; OECD (2009), p. 5.
98
OECD Secretariat (2016), p. 12.
99
See also Chaisse (2016a), p. 246, using the example of Canada to show that also the commercial
orientation of SEs is typically not assessed under merger control.
100
Case No. COMP/M.7962 ChemChina/Syngenta, decision of 5 April 2017.
101
COMP/M.7962, paras 80–88, see further Svetlicinii (2018), p. 35. The EU Commission did not
decide whether ChemChina is to be regarded as one single entity with other Chinese state-owned
companies but simply assumed it in the sense of a “worst case”-assessment. According to the single
entity theory, the EU Commission will consider SOEs a forming only one common undertaking if
there is a common center of commercial decision-making, Briguet (2018), p. 841.
When State Enterprises Have Deeper Pockets: Ensuring Competitive. . . 89

from access to preferential financing when acquiring Syngenta. Accordingly, a

broader application of the single entity theory in EU merger controls involving
Chinese SEs, as some observers argue for in order to ensure competitive neutrality
in IM&A,102 may subject more SEs to merger control but will be ineffective to
prevent or sanction the use of preferential financing by SEs.
The above analysis shows that due to its restricted scope of application, compe-
tition law is only of limited assistance in ensuring competitive neutrality in IM&A.
Therefore, other means are required to ensure a level playing field between SEs and
private investors. On the domestic level, a small but growing number of jurisdictions
have enacted competitive neutrality policies ranging from subsidy control to regu-
latory impact assessment.103 These domestic competitive neutrality policies are
tailored, however, to deal with domestic SEs. For this reason, even if such domestic
competitive neutrality policies exist, they do not provide the tools to avoid the
distortion of IM&A transactions by foreign SEs. For instance, the EU state aid
rules, which are considered a very effective competitive neutrality framework, do
not apply to subsidies granted by a third-country state to its SEs, even if such
third-country SE conducts business within the EU.104 On the other hand, remark-
ably, EU state aid rules seem to apply when EU-companies invest in non-EU
countries, thus ensuring competitive neutrality of EU-companies investing outside
the EU.105

4 How to Ensure Competitive Neutrality in IM&A

The preceding paragraphs have shown that despite the growing importance of SEs in
IM&A, the issue of ensuring competitive neutrality in IM&A remains largely
unaddressed by the applicable international and national investment and competition
law regimes. Consequently, the question arises which regulatory approaches should
be undertaken to ensure a level playing field in IM&A. In a first step, this section will
lay out some general observations that are to be taken into account for any future
regulatory effort. Subsequently, possible regulatory measures on the level of

102
Briguet (2018), pp. 852 and 857, stating that there should be a presumption that all Chinese SEs
are government controlled. In contrast, Zhang (2017), pp. 216 et seq. Argues that the application of
the single entity concept to Chinese SOE will lead to over inclusive and under inclusive outcomes.
103
OECD (2016), p. 113.
104
Frenz (2017), p. 195; Schweitzer (2010), p. 285.
105
See e.g. EGC, case T-422/07, Djebel – SGPS SA v European Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2012:11,
concerning planned aid for a commercial company in the form of a soft loan in order to help finance
an investment by that company in Brazil. The decision declared the aid to be incompatible with the
common market.
90 P. Baumann

multilateral non-binding investment principles, IIAs, domestic investment legisla-

tion and competition law are discussed.
The ultimate purpose of any regulatory reform should be to offer a level playing
field between SEs and private actors and at the same time to ensure that the
international investment environment remains open.106 Otherwise, there is a risk
that the regulation itself will cause more welfare reduction through impeding
investments than the unaddressed issue of competitive neutrality in IM&A it
intended to solve.107 Further, ensuring competitive neutrality is an issue that tran-
scends the boundaries of investment, trade and competition law.108 As each legal
field is developed by different institutions and uses distinct legal instruments, there is
a significant risk that the issue of competitive neutrality in IM&A is addressed
incoherently.109 Therefore, in order to achieve competitive neutrality comprehen-
sively, any regulatory action in this regard should be careful to take into account the
efforts already undertaken in the different fields. Additionally, competitive neutrality
in IM&A is by definition an international issue. For this reason, solely issuing and
applying national laws (such as for example competition law) will lead to
fragmented rules, instead of the required coherency.110
So far, competitive neutrality has been predominantly analysed with regard to
SOEs.111 Several authors point out that the dichotomy between SOEs and privately-
owned enterprises (POEs) is not adequate to ensure a level playing field within the
area of IM&A, as in many jurisdictions advantages such as HCMs are not only
granted to SOEs but also extend to POEs.112 This chapter tried to address this
legitimate concern by using the broad SE-definition instead of the term SOE.
Regulators and policymakers are thus well advised not to base future legislation
solely on ownership characteristics. Vice versa, the debate on HCMs’ interference
with the principle of competitive neutrality should be broadened to include any
undue competitive advantage in the IM&A context and not to focus exclusively
on HCMs.

106
Christiansen and Kim (2014), p. 48.
107
Kratsas and Truby (2015), p. 106 are using this line of argument with regard to the regulation of
SWF. For this reason, the Swiss government recently declined to introduce investment controls
although it recognized the risk of violations of competitive neutrality by foreign SEs (see for the
report by the Swiss government in this matter https://www.seco.admin.ch/seco/de/home/seco/nsb-
news.msg-id-73973.html).
108
Kowalski and Rabaioli (2017), p. 32.
109
Chaisse (2016a), p. 258.
110
Weber (2016), p. 204 pointing out that that non co-ordinated competition laws will result in
similar activities being treated differently due to geographical borders. See further Willemyns
(2016), p. 670.
111
Sauvant and Nolan (2015), p. 900.
112
With regard to HCM see Sauvant and Nolan (2015), p. 900 and Sauvant and Ortino (2013),
pp. 116 et seq. See further explicitly with regard to China Milhaupt and Zheng (2015),
pp. 707 et seq. and Zhang (2017), pp. 210 et seq., noting that in China, the line between SOEs
and privately-owned enterprises will become increasingly blurred.
When State Enterprises Have Deeper Pockets: Ensuring Competitive. . . 91

The most far-reaching measure to the matter at hand would be to establish a

binding multilateral framework ensuring competitive neutrality comprehensively at
the international level. Indeed, Gordon and Milhaupt suggest a global M&A regime,
under which firms would only be eligible to engage in IM&A if they meet certain
requirements.113 According to their proposal, SEs engaged in IM&A transactions
would have to commit to commercial objectives, must have at least two members of
their board of directors appointed by private investors and to open up at least 25% of
their equity to private investors. The role of the appointed independent directors
would be to check and confirm that the SE’s IM&A transactions are in accordance
with commercial considerations and without government involvement.
Although a detailed discussion of this proposal would go beyond the scope of this
chapter, some obvious challenges (if not shortcomings) are apparent. The require-
ment to have two independent directors would interfere heavily with domestic
corporate law. Furthermore, it is doubtful that these directors are able to remain
truly independent in fulfilling these special review duties assigned to them. Rather,
the proposed obligations are likely to create conflicts of interest and potentially be
contrary to directors’ duty of care towards the company. Further, although opening
up SEs to foreign investment may lead to improved governance and commercial
orientation, it still seems questionable whether such a strict requirement is really
required to ensure competitive neutrality in IM&A or if not other, less invasive
measures may be better suited to this end. Applying this requirement as an essential
prerequisite for IM&A by SEs runs the risk of deterring investment by SEs just on
formal grounds.
In addition, it has been pointed out that such multilateral, extra-territorially
binding commitment is not feasible in the near future.114 Rather, it seems advisable
to work towards international guidelines first, outlining what issues need to be
further assessed and what domestic policy measures can be taken by countries to
achieve a level playing field in IM&A without unnecessary protectionist conse-
quences.115 This would promote a common understanding of the subject matter and
serve as guidance for any further regulatory action in this regard.116 As the G20
Guiding Principles for Global Investment Policymaking seem to represent the
current lowest common denominator on investment rule-making, it may be worth
considering a corresponding further development of these principles.
Subsequently, any binding agreement should focus on resolving the most impor-
tant departures from competitive neutrality such as, for example, preferential financ-
ing of SEs.117 Particularly, IIAs are likely to be further amended to account for the

113
See for a detailed description of their proposal Gordon and Milhaupt, pp. 32 et seq. It must be
noted, however, that their proposal is not primarily aimed at addressing competitive neutrality
concerns. Rather, according to their reasoning, it intends to deal with the problem that Chinese
enterprises act as “national strategic buyers”, whose transactions are motivated mainly by the
pursuit of industrial policy or national security concerns.
114
Christiansen and Kim (2014), pp. 15 and 46; see also Sauvant (2018), p. 11.
115
OECD (2016), p. 155.
116
Joubin-Bret and Chiffelle (2017), p. 10.
117
Christiansen and Kim (2014), p. 46.
92 P. Baumann

growing challenge of investments by SEs. It is to be expected that countries will be

reluctant to include broad binding commitments with regard to competitive neutral-
ity in IM&A in these agreements.118 Therefore, a narrower approach, focusing on
the funding and financing of SEs outward investments, may be advisable.119 In this
respect, it may prove useful to extend the concept of commercial assistance used in
the CPTPP to investments together with according transparency obligations.
Thirdly and lastly, host countries may wish to amend their regulations applying to
inward investments in order to maintain a level playing field between private entities
and SEs in IM&A transactions. This is particularly the case, if the process to
establish respective obligations at the international level should prove to become
rather difficult and lengthy. Here, the spectrum of possible approaches is wide,
ranging from mere disclosure obligations for SEs with regard to their (cost of)
financing of IM&A, to according evaluation and blocking competences for compe-
tent domestic regulatory authorities. Competition authorities may be the appropriate
government body to assess this issue, as they are often already involved in the
respective transaction and due to their expertise regarding the assessment of com-
petitive effects.120 Investment screening authorities on the other hand, assess invest-
ment from a more political perspective, which seems to be of less importance for the
issue at hand. In any case, coordination of the various authorities involved must be
ensured.

5 Conclusion

This chapter has outlined that SEs which have undue competitive advantages and
engage in IM&A activities may distort prices in IM&A transactions and thus cause
negative welfare effects. Although this issue is accentuated in the context of Chinese
SEs, it would be a mistake to consider it a purely China-related problem. Rather,
undue competitive advantages for SEs, such as access to preferential financing, exist
in numerous jurisdictions and SEs globally are becoming increasingly active in the
IM&A arena. Against this background, it is important to understand how this issue is
currently dealt with under the regulations covering IM&A.
This chapter has shown that international investment law, domestic investment
screening regimes and competition laws do not adequately address this problem.
International investment law, mainly in the form of IIA, is still primarily focused on
protecting investors’ rights and thus ensuring that private investments are on equal

118
Christiansen and Kim (2014), pp. 15 et seq.
119
Christiansen and Kim (2014), p. 16. In this respect, it needs to be ensured that SEs’ business
relations with state-owned banks are purely based on commercial grounds, OECD (2015), p. 48.
120
See e.g. Chapter 4a of the Finish Competition Act, according to which the Finish Competition
and Consumer Authority has the authority to intervene, if SEs’ operation models or operating
structures prevent or distort competition in the market.
When State Enterprises Have Deeper Pockets: Ensuring Competitive. . . 93

footing with domestic SEs when competing in the host state’s market. Some recently
concluded IIAs contain provisions regarding SEs and competitive neutrality but they
do not apply to IM&A. Domestic investment screening regimes, on the other hand,
usually focus on interests like national security or critical infrastructure. Undue
competitive advantages used by SEs in the acquisition process, however, are not
of major concern to the authorities when examining the respective transactions.
Finally, competition law is of assistance in restraining certain undue competitive
advantages that SEs enjoy. However, the scope of competition law is limited and
does notably not include financing advantages in particular. Merger review assesses
the effects of an IM&A on competition in the relevant markets but does not examine
how SEs succeed in securing the bid for an acquisition.
Proposals for regulatory reform in this regard are largely missing and have
remained vague or over-intrusive. As the issue of competitive neutrality in IM&A
touches on many different legal fields at the national and international level, a three-
pillar approach is recommended. A common understanding is to be achieved via
international investment principles. More specific obligations, e.g. focusing on
preferential financing may be included in IIAs. Finally, governments intending to
extend their domestic investment screening and competition law regimes to undue
competitive advantages by foreign SEs should be careful to avoid protectionism.

References

Biau C et al (2016) Governments as competitors in the global marketplace: options for ensuring a
level playing field. E15Initiative, Geneva
Briguet J (2018) The state’s invisible hand: Chinese SOEs facing EU antitrust law. J World Trade
52(5):839–858
Capobianco A, Christiansen H (2011) Competitive neutrality and state-owned enterprises: chal-
lenges and policy options. OECD Corporate Governance Working Papers No. 1
Chaisse J (2016a) Untangling the triangle: issues for state-controlled entities in trade, investment,
and competition law. In: Chaisse J, Lin T (eds) International economic law and governance.
Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 233–258
Chaisse J (2016b) Demystifying public security exception and limitations on capital movement:
hard law, soft law and sovereign investments in the EU internal market. Univ Pa J Int Law 37
(2):583–646
Christiansen H, Kim Y (2014) State-invested enterprises in the global marketplace: implications for
a level playing field. OECD Corporate Governance Working Papers No. 14
Collier A (2018) China buys the world – analyzing China’s overseas investments. Springer,
Singapore
Enderwick P (2017) International investment by state-controlled enterprises: a source for concern?
Strateg Chang 26(3):261–271
Fleury J, Marcoux JM (2016) The US shaping of state-owned enterprise disciplines in the trans-
Pacific partnership. J Int Econ Law 19(2):445–465
Frenz W (2017) Die Beihilfenkontrolle in der internationalen Wirtschaft. Europäisches Wirtschafts-
und Steuerrecht, 194–198
Geddes R (2004) Case studies of anticompetitive SOE behavior. In: Geddes R (ed) Competing with
the government: anticompetitive behavior and public enterprises. Hoover Institution Press,
Stanford, pp 27–58
94 P. Baumann

Globermann S (2015) Host governments should not treat state-owned enterprises differently than
other foreign investors. Columbia FDI perspectives No. 138
Gökgür N (2011) Are resurging state-owned enterprises impeding competition overseas?. Colum-
bia FDI perspectives No. 36
Gordon J, Milhaupt C (2018) China as a ‘National Strategic Buyer’: towards a multilateral regime
for cross-border M&A. Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No. 522
Guo W, Clougherty J (2015) The effectiveness of the state in Chinese outward foreign direct
investment: the “go global” policy and state-owned enterprises. Adv Int Manag 28:141–159
Healey D (2015) Competitive neutrality: addressing government advantages in Australian markets.
In: Drexl J, Bagnoli V (eds) State-initiated restraints of competition. Edward Elgar Publishing,
Cheltenham, pp 3–39
Jones A, Davies J (2014) Merger control and the public interest: balancing EU and national law in
the protectionist debate. Eur Compet J 10(3):453–497
Joubin-Bret A, Chiffelle R (2017) G20 guiding principles for global investment policy-making: a
stepping stone for multilateral rules on investment. World Economic Forum, Geneva
Kawase T, Ambashi M (2017) Disciplines on state-owned enterprises under the Trans-Pacific
Partnership Agreement: overview and assessment. ERIA Discussion Paper Series No. 13
Kirchner S, Mondschein J (2018) Dealbreakers? Regulating foreign direct investment for national
security in Australia and the United States. United States Studies Centre at the University of
Sydney, July 2018
Kowalski P, Rabaioli D (2017) Bringing together international trade and investment perspectives on
state enterprises. OECD Trade Policy Papers No. 201
Kratsas G, Truby J (2015) Regulating sovereign wealth funds to avoid investment protectionism. J
Financ Regul 1(1):95–134
Lin LW, Milhaupt C (2017) Bonded to the state: a network perspective on China’s corporate debt
market. J Financ Regul 3(1):1–39
Matsushita M (2017) State-owned enterprises in the TPP agreement. In: Julien Chaisse J, Gao H,
Chang-fa L (eds) Paradigm shift in international economic law rule-making. Springer, Singa-
pore, pp 187–203
Milhaupt C, Zheng W (2015) Beyond ownership: state capitalism and the Chinese firm. George-
town Law J 103:665–722
Nakagawa J (2012) Regulatory harmonization through FTAs and BITs: regulation of state-owned
enterprises. SIEL Working Paper No. 55
Nielsen R (1981) Competitive advantages of state owned and controlled businesses. Manag Int Rev
21(3):56–66
Nourry A, Jung N (2012) Protectionism in the age of austerity – a further unlevelling of the playing
field? Compet Policy Int 8(1):1–9
OECD (2007) International investment perspectives 2007: freedom of investment in a changing
world. Paris
OECD (2009) Competition Law and Foreign-Government Controlled Investors. Paris
OECD (2012) Competitive neutrality: maintaining a level playing field between public and private
business. Paris
OECD (2015) OECD Guidelines on Corporate Governance of State-Owned Enterprises. Paris
OECD (2016) State-owned enterprises as global competitors: a challenge or an opportunity?. Paris
OECD Secretariat (2016) Competition policy & competitive neutrality: note by the Secretariat.
Paris
Sauvant K (2018) China moves the G20 toward an international investment framework and
investment facilitation. In: Chaisse J (ed) China’s three-prong investment strategy: bilateral,
regional, and global tracks. Oxford University Press, London
Sauvant K, Nolan M (2015) China’s outward foreign direct investment and international investment
law. J Int Econ Law 18(4):893–934
Sauvant K, Ortino F (2013) Improving the international investment law and policy regime: options
for the future. Helsinki, Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland
When State Enterprises Have Deeper Pockets: Ensuring Competitive. . . 95

Sauvant K et al (2014) Trends in FDI, home country measures and competitive neutrality. In:
Bjorklund A (ed) Yearbook on international investment law & policy 2012–2013. Oxford
University Press, New York, pp 5–117
Schweitzer H (2010) Sovereign wealth funds – market investors or ‘imperialist capitalist’? The
European response to direct investments by non-EU state-controlled entities. In: Bernitz U,
Ringe WG (eds) Company law and economic protectionism: new challenges to European
integration. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 250–289
Shima Y (2015) The policy landscape for international investment by government-controlled
investors: a fact-finding survey. OECD Working Papers on International Investment 2015/01
Subedi S (2016) International investment law: reconciling policy and principle. Hart, Oxford
Svetlicinii A (2018) The acquisitions of the Chinese state-owned enterprises under the EU merger
control regime: time for reflection? Revue Lamy de la concurrence 67:30–36
UNCTAD (2017) World investment report 2017. United Nations, Geneva
UNCTAD (2018), World Investment Report 2018. United Nations, Geneva
Weber R (2016) Unfinished business: competition law and the WTO. In: Chaisse J, Lin T (eds)
International economic law and governance. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 201–215
Willemyns I (2016) Disciplines on state-owned enterprises in international economic law: are we
moving in the right direction? J Int Econ Law 19(3):657–680
Wu M (2016) The “China, Inc.” challenge to global trade governance. Harv Int Law J 57
(2):261–324
Yun M (2016) An analysis of the new trade regime for state-owned enterprises under the trans-
Pacific partnership agreement. J East Asian Econ Integr 20(1):3–35
Zhang AH (2015) Taming the Chinese leviathan: is antitrust regulation a false hope? Stanford J Int
Law 51(2):195–228
Zhang AH (2017) The antitrust paradox of China, Inc. NYU J Int Law Polit 50:159–226

Phil Baumann is a post-doctoral research associate at the Center of Public Economic Law at the
Zurich University of Applied Sciences. His research focuses on state-owned enterprises (SOEs),
state aid law and competitive neutrality. Admitted to the Zurich bar, he previously worked as a
senior associate in the banking and finance practice group of a major Swiss law firm in Zurich. He
completed his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in law and economics at the University of St. Gallen
and received his LL.M. in international economic law from the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
He also holds a Ph.D. (Dr. iur.) from the University of Lucerne.
The Review of National Competition
Authorities’ Acts in Investment Arbitration:
Setting Limits to ‘Economic Lawfare’
in the 21st Century

José Gustavo Prieto Muñoz

Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
2 Economic Lawfare and the Judicialization of Geopolitical Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
3 The Case of Gazprom and Ukraine’s Antimonopoly Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
4 Finding a Standard of Review of National Competition Authorities Acts in Investment
Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
4.1 Arbitrariness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
4.2 Denial of Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
4.3 Proportionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Abstract This chapter explores what could be an appropriate standard of review

that investment arbitrators could use to evaluate the lawfulness of acts of national
competition authorities in the context of “economic lawfare”. The interest in inter-
national investment arbitration and competition law adjudicators is justified since
both are empowered with effective coercion mechanisms. Also, both fields have
developed a highly specialized legal vocabulary to codify economic transactions.
Therefore, in the context of current developments especially with the intervention of
state-owned enterprises in the markets of other states, it is possible that these two
fields could be used (or abused) by the states involved in an international conflict.
These dynamics are explored with reference to the arbitration case between
Gazprom, the state-owned enterprise of Russia and the Ukrainian competition
authority. The chapter argues in general for the need of a three-principles standard
of review to examine the acts of national competition authorities in light of the
current standards of treatment contained in international investment agreements
(IIAs).

J. G. Prieto Muñoz (*)

Università degli Studi di Torino, Turin, Italy

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 97

K. Fach Gómez et al. (eds.), International Investment Law and Competition Law,
European Yearbook of International Economic Law,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33916-6_5
98 J. G. Prieto Muñoz

1 Introduction

Economic means have been used for centuries to influence an international conflict.
In international relations and international law, scholars have focused on the concept
of “economic warfare”, to describe various strategies and actions that aim to inflict
economic damage on a perceived adversary. New actions on the global stage have
revived this notion for the twenty-first century at a different level. For example, the
new saga of economic sanctions and countermeasures in the aftermath of the
annexation of Crimea, or the call from the 45th President of the United States for
an open “economic war” against China reveal the role of economic measures on the
international stage.
Two factors in the emergence of the current “economic warfare” show how it
differs from that of the past. First, “economic warfare” is now orchestrated in a more
interdependent and interconnected global economy that is characterized by the
activity of state-owned enterprises and sovereign wealth funds under different
jurisdictions. Second, economic strategies are developed within the context of a
pluralist international legal framework. Thus, the global legal arena is composed of
overlapping legal regimes and authorities that regulate international economic
transactions.
Also, the reported existence of a new case of investment arbitration, Gazprom
v. Ukraine, which content is still confidential, could point in the direction that soon
investment arbitration could have the task of evaluating the decisions of national
competition authorities in complex geopolitical scenarios. In the case, the Russian
state-owned enterprise is seeking the review of the decision of the Ukrainian
competition authority (Антимонопольного комітету України), that imposed a
large fine that was later confirmed by the High Commercial Court of Ukraine.
Therefore, these new challenges demand the closer study of the legal standards
that could be used to give answers inside the legal sphere.
In concrete, the chapter aims to explore what could be an appropriate standard of
review that investment arbitrators could use to evaluate the lawfulness of acts of
national competition authorities in the context of “economic lawfare.” The interest in
these two fields is justified since both are empowered with effective coercion
mechanisms. Also, both fields have developed a highly specialized legal vocabulary
to codify economic transactions. Therefore, in the context of current developments,
especially with the intervention of state-owned enterprises in the markets of other
states, it is possible that these two fields could be used (or abused) by the states
involved.
The roadmap of the inquiry goes as follows. The next section (Sect. 2) provides
some conceptual background on “economic lawfare” as a general analytical tool for
the study of interactions between competition authorities and investment arbitration.
The third part (Sect. 3) explores how this type of new conflicts unfolds by describing
the dispute between Gazprom, the state-owned enterprise of Russia and the
Ukrainian competition authority. In the last section (Sect. 4) I argue for the need
of a three-principles standard of review to examine the acts of national authorities in
The Review of National Competition Authorities’ Acts in. . . 99

light of the current standards of treatment contained in international investment

agreements. This standard could be useful to review the lawfulness of the acts of
national competition authorities without the need for an arbitral tribunal to decide
upon a broader geopolitical context.

2 Economic Lawfare and the Judicialization of Geopolitical

Conflicts

The application of economic means to influence an international conflict is some-

thing that has been done for centuries. In international relations and international
law, scholars have focused on the study of various strategies used to inflict economic
damages on a perceived adversary. In the nineties, Førland defined those strategies
under the concept of “economic warfare.” He details this concept as follows:
“Economic warfare” here implies an intense, coercive disturbance of the economy of an
adversary state, aimed at diminishing its power. It is analytically distinguished from ‘military
warfare’, which attacks the adversary’s military capabilities, not its economic resources. In
practice of course the two forms of warfare may overlap, as for example strategic bombing
destroying military targets as well as industrial plants. Economic warfare can be waged
separately - in which case the measures are often called ‘sanctions’ - or in conjunction with
military warfare.1

Førland’s definition allows us to differentiate three elements contained in the

notion of “economic warfare”: (i) Intention: distinguishing between hostile acts and
those that constitute a concrete strategy to harm the economy of a perceived
adversary; (ii) intensity: establishing that these actions are sufficient to destabilize
the economy of the adversary; (iii) context: demonstrating that a state’s actions are
consistent with a broader context of hostilities between two states. Taking these
elements into account, the most common actions referred to in the literature as
“economic warfare” are blockades and sanctions.2
However, in recent years, the notion of “economic warfare” has acquired new
dimensions. The first relates to the involvement of “non-state actors” in international
conflicts. This implies that new strategies implemented to disrupt an adversary’s
economy may be complicated by the difficulty of not knowing in many cases who
the combatants may be. For example, this might occur within the so-called “financial
war on terrorism”3 aimed at freezing and confiscating terrorist assets.

1
Førland (1993), p. 151.
2
In this context sanctions mean “economic measures – in contrast to diplomatic or military ones –
taken by states to express disapproval of the acts of the target state or to induce that the state has to
change some policy or practice or even its governmental structure” Lowenfeld (2009), p. 850.
3
This term started to appear in the literature after the 9/11 attacks in the United States. For an
account of the first use of the term see, OECD (2004a) The Financial War on Terrorism.
100 J. G. Prieto Muñoz

A second factor influencing the way in which international conflicts currently

unfold is the insertion of new tactics and technologies, which can cause damage to an
opponent without recourse to military force. These tactics are now referred to as
“soft war”, a term that has been used to encompass “all non-kinetic measures
whether persuasive or coercive”.4 The term “soft war” has been used in the study
of a range of diverse topics including cyber warfare, economic sanctions, propa-
ganda, civil disobedience, and others.5
Among these topics, the notion of “lawfare” has been used in recent years,
especially by International Humanitarian Law scholars and practitioners. The word
is a semantic fusion of “law” and “warfare” used to evoke a situation were legal
norms and procedures can be used as an alternative means to harm an adversary. In
2005, in one of its earliest uses, Charles Dunlap6 defined the term as a “strategy of
using – or misusing- law as a substitute for traditional military means to achieve an
operational objective”. Since then the term has been used to describe different
situations in which law, and especially international law, is involved in the way
that international conflicts unfold.
The problem with this broad definition is that it might affect the efficiency of law
in the international sphere. If any use or misuse of law in the context of an
international conflict could be interpreted as “lawfare” there would be no need to
resort to the term “law” as an independent element in the first place. This definition,
of course, also entails the need to define what uses of the law in war can be
considered “abuse”. To address this question, Jannina Dill has decomposed the
notion of “abuse of law” into two elements: on the one hand, the existence of a
breach of law, and on the other, the existence of bad faith. In turn, bad faith implies
the existence of a decision to “misrepresent the facts to induce compliance in a
belligerent”.7
Despite these debates over the use of the term “lawfare” within the discipline of
international humanitarian law, the term has not been used in international economic
law more concretely in the sense of “economic warfare”. However, there are three
reasons that justify the use of this notion also in an economic context. The first
reason is that since the creation of international economic regimes, there has also
been a proliferation of possible adjudicators in economic disputes. Usually this
phenomenon has been studied under the topic of “fragmentation” in international
law. The study of fragmentation first attracted attention when a working group of the
International Law Commission (ILC) tackled the issue producing a report on
fragmentation in 2006. Since then the term has been used in various contexts.
Here the word fragmentation is used to stress a deep transformation of the law
“from a stable, unitary system to a complex pluralism”.8 Second, the decision of an

4
Gross and Meisels (2017), p. 195.
5
Gross and Meisels (2017).
6
Dunlap (2005), p. 95.
7
Dill (2017).
8
Koskenniemi (2009), p. 798.
The Review of National Competition Authorities’ Acts in. . . 101

economic adjudicator can add legitimacy to a specific economic measure used in the
context of economic warfare. In other words, a specific actor could take advantage of
the state of fluidity in the global legal arena and use different legal regimes for
strategic purposes, abusing international economic regimes in bad faith to legitimize
a measure that intentionally targets the economy of an adversary.
Finally, a third reason is the growing intervention of state-owned enterprises in a
globally interconnected economy. A state-owned enterprise is defined as “all those
non-financial companies where the state exercises control, regardless of the size of
ownership”.9 Already in 2011, state-owned enterprises accounted for “about USD
2 trillion of assets and more than six million jobs in the Organisation for Economic
Co-Operation and Development (OECD) member countries combined”.10 There-
fore, these new actors could be means used by a controlling state to apply economic
pressure on a third state, and the target of measures by a third state to disrupt the
economy of the controlling state.
In this context, the notion of “economic lawfare”, could be useful for studying
situations where the following elements exist: (i) A broader strategy to harm the
economy of a perceived adversary; (ii) the abuse of economic legal regimes—
misrepresentation of facts in bad faith in a legal procedure—by an international
actor that aims to legitimatize measures against the economy of an adversary,
directly, or through a state-owned enterprise (SOE).

3 The Case of Gazprom and Ukraine’s Antimonopoly

Committee

The Gazprom v. Naftogaz legal saga following the “new gas war”11—that includes a
legal process for national jurisdictions as well as several investment and commercial
arbitration proceedings—could offer an example of how international disputes and
economic tactics are judicialized in different legal regimes.
In 2009, the Russian state-owned enterprise, with considerable participation from
the international shareholders Gazprom and the Ukrainian SOE Naftogaz, entered
into a contract for the transport of gas in Ukraine territory. However, according to
Naftogaz, since the beginning of the contract in 2009, Gazprom systematically failed
to comply with its obligations regarding the volume of natural gas transported which
influenced the profitability of the economic operation.12
This dispute developed in the context of the conflicts and tensions between Russia
and Ukraine after the annexation of Crimea to the Russian Federation in 2014 and

9
European Comission (2016), p. 6.
10
European Comission (2016), p. 7.
11
Financial Times https://www.ft.com/content/b85f8f48-2768-11e8-b27e-cc62a39d57a0.
12
Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine [Антимонопольний Комітет України Рішення] (2016),
p. 4, para. 35.
102 J. G. Prieto Muñoz

the armed conflict in the Donbass—Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Since that year,
relations between Ukraine and Russia had deteriorated to such a degree that they
were categorized by a WTO panel as “emergency in international relations”.13 As
result, a series of legal disputes arose between the SOEs of the two countries.
In this context, in 2016, following a complaint from Naftogaz, the competition
authority of Ukraine, the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine found the actions of
Gazprom in violation of articles 13 and 50 of the Law of Ukraine On Protection of
Economic Competition.14 It reached this conclusion by reasoning that Gazprom had
abused its dominant position from 2009 to 2015, as a single buyer in the Ukrainian
market, as defined in article 12 of Ukraine law regarding “protection of economic
competition”.15
The defense of Gazprom relied on the fact that, according to the contract, which
contains a clause stipulating arbitration under the Stockholm Chamber of Com-
merce, the competition authority did not have competence over the claim. The
Ukranian Antimonopoly Committee rejected this argument by stating that the matter
in question was not the execution or non-execution of the contract, but rather the
actions taken by a business entity in the Ukrainian market and the consequent
assessment of compliance with competition law in Ukraine. All of these actions
fell, according to the committee, under its competence16 and it sanctioned Gazprom
with a fine of 85,965,927,000 Hryvnas17 (equivalent to 3.2 billion USD).
Gazprom used the Ukrainian legal system to review the resolution and the fine
imposed, a process that ended with a resolution by the Highest Ukrainian Commer-
cial Court deciding that the actions of the competition authority were legal, but
additionally adjusting the amount of the fine to roughly 170 billion Hryvnas (equiv-
alent to 6.4 billion USD). After this decision, it was reported that Gazprom initiated
an arbitration based on the Ukraine—Russia bilateral investment treaty (BIT).18
However, since this process is not public there is not enough information available
on the central claims Gazprom has made in the arbitration process.19
The Ukraine—Russia BIT was signed in 1998 and entered into force in 2000.
Like most of the BITs signed during the nineties, it lacks a full development of the
concepts addressed in current IIAs and it is even less developed than other BITs

13
The WTO panel arrived to such conclusion based on the analysis of several of UN General
Assembly resolutions in WT/DS512/R (2019), Russia - Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit
report, para. 7.121–7.123.
14
Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (2016), resolution 2, p. 9.
15
Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (2016), p. 4, para. 32.
16
Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (2016), p. 7 and 8 para. 64.
17
Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (2016), resolution, p. 9.
18
BIT Russian Federation – Ukraine BIT signed in Moscow, November 27, 1998.
19
Russian Energy Firm Gazprom Reportedly Notifies Ukraine of Bit Claim, Investment Arbitration
Reporter 2018. https://www.iareporter.com/articles/russian-energy-firm-gazprom-reportedly-
notifies-ukraine-of-bit-claim/.
The Review of National Competition Authorities’ Acts in. . . 103

signed during the same time. For instance, the Ukraine—Russia BIT does not
contain a fair and equitable treatment (FET) clause. The only standard relevant to
this case could be found in a formulation of ‘unconditional legal protection’ in the
following way:
Each Contracting Party shall guarantee, in conformity with its legislation, the complete and
unconditional legal protection of investments of investors of the other Contracting Party.20

Also, there is a standard of expropriation and “other measures” laid out in Article
5(1) of the treaty:
The investments of investors of either Contracting Party, carried out on the territory of the
other Contracting Party, shall not be subject to expropriation, nationalization or other
measures, equated by its consequences to expropriation (hereinafter referred to as
expropriation)

In this scenario, the review of the arbitration tribunal could operate if the decision
of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine and the subsequent decision of the High
Commercial Court to confirm and double the fine was either “other measure”
equivalent to expropriation, or a violation of the “unconditional legal protection”
standard laid out in Article 2.2.
The answer to these legal aspects of the decision implies a general context of
‘emergency in international relations’ between Ukraine and the Russian Federation
and the judicialization of geopolitical disputes. In consequence, the decision of an
arbitral tribunal could reflect the difference between the two narratives. The first one
implies that Ukraine was the victim of an economic measure—the possible abuse of
an SOE’s dominant position to reduce the supply of gas—to harm its economy.
Under this narrative, the response first of the Ukranian national competition author-
ity was only the recognition of national law, that later was ratified by the local courts.
On the other hand, the second narrative portrays the Russian SOE as the target of an
abusive legal process on the part of the competition authority of Ukraine, which
imposed a considerable fine that damage its economy. In any case, it seems possible
that with the proliferation of international adjudicative bodies, the fields of compe-
tition and international investment law will soon overlap in providing legal answers
to the complex geopolitical conflict. In the end, these interactions could determine
when countries are either the victims or authors of economic lawfare.

4 Finding a Standard of Review of National Competition

Authorities Acts in Investment Arbitration

If the plurality of legal regimes that can be applied to international economic trans-
actions could be abused by an actor in order to inflict economic damage on the
economy of an adversary, then competition and investment law could play an

20
Article 2.2 of the Ukraine – Russia BIT (1998).
104 J. G. Prieto Muñoz

important role. These two fields, international investment law and competition law,
are empowered by two interrelated elements. The first is the existence of effective
coercion mechanisms within the competences of the adjudicators of each discipline.
Both national competition authorities and investment arbitrators possess the legal
capacity—the latter contained in national law, the former contained in IIAs—to
categorize acts of the subjects controlled by the other as lawful or unlawful. Also, the
categorization of an act as “unlawful” allows each adjudicator to impose and ensure
the payment of a specific sum of money by the “transgressor”.
In addition, both fields have developed a highly specialized legal vocabulary to
codify the lawfulness of economic transactions. International investment law and
competition law are complex disciplines whose epistemic communities have fos-
tered the construction of legal categories and vocabulary. Therefore, in the context of
tensions between two or more states, especially with the intervention of state-owned
enterprises in the markets of other states, it is possible that these two fields could be
used (or abused) by the states. In a hypothetical example, if State A wanted to
expropriate an investor from State B, decades ago, it would have typically had to do
so by calling the measure an “expropriation” or something similar. However, if State
A decides to inflict economic damage equivalent to expropriation on an investor
from State B, it is possible to do so by labeling a specific case using the vocabulary
and conceptual categories of a highly specialized legal subfield, such as the term
“abuse of dominant position”, a term taken from competition law.
The difference between these two regimes is the fact that investment arbitration
not only sources its authority from international agreements but that its mechanisms
of execution are more effective outside the borders of a single state. In short, in a case
where a competition authority imposes a fine on a foreign investor, this fine can only
be executed within the territory of the state. If later the investor seeks redress for
grievances in an arbitration process, a tribunal could find the actions of the compe-
tition authority attributable to the State to be a breach of international law and order
compensation. The hypothetical amounts that could be granted by a tribunal could be
collected in almost every place were a state holds assets, making the original fine of
the competition authority ineffective. In sum, an investment tribunal would have the
“last word” in these types of conflicts.
An investment tribunal, however, cannot become the natural reviewer of a
decision taken by a national competition authority, neither can it serve as a sort of
appellate body for the court decisions that upheld competition fines. It is not
sufficient that the actions of a competition authority be legal for them to be reviewed
by international law, those actions must also violate the standards of treatment
established in international investment agreements.
There is a need for a standard of review that could be used to determine whether
the actions of a competition authority in a country amount to an internationally
wrongful act. In this sense, it can be assumed that the use of competition authorities
as “weapons” of an economic lawfare constitutes an abuse of law contrary to the
obligations of international investment agreements. The problematic part is to
determine when such abuse occurs. In this regard transporting the “economic
lawfare” from the international relations context into a legal arbitration process
The Review of National Competition Authorities’ Acts in. . . 105

could be a difficult task. Consequently, a legal standard that transport the concept of
economic warfare or lawfare will have to look not into the existence in a specific case
the Førland’s elements (i.e. intention; intensity; context).
In other words, to establish that one state has “abused the national competition
law” imposing a considerable fine as a mean to disturb the economy of another state
will put investment arbitration in a position of being “judges” of geopolitical
conflicts. Also, arbitrators will have to “judge” the systemic independence of a
national authority. Both functions were not the reasons that state parties of an IIA
agree on arbitration as a method of dispute settlement.
Then, it seems more plausible to construct a general legal standard of review that
could be applied by investment arbitrators to determine the international lawfulness/
unlawfulness of any action of competition authorities. Two options could be used to
form this standard of review.
The first option is to use the indirect expropriation standard to evaluate the actions
of national competition authorities. In general, conflicts that arise from foreign
investment involve the deprivation or transfer of property from the investor to the
state, a process also known as “nationalization”. However, the insertion in many
IIAs of a prohibition on indirect expropriation represents a standard that also seeks to
prevent any interference by a state in the enjoyment of the benefits from an
investment, that would have similar effects to an expropriation.21 Nevertheless,
there is no widely accepted definition of indirect expropriation. That means that it
would be difficult to rely only on the concept of indirect expropriation in assessing
the fines imposed by the national competition authority.
The second option is to construct a more structured standard of review with the
aim of providing a legal tool that could assess three concepts of international
investment law: arbitrariness, denial of justice and proportionality. Thus, a standard
of review based of these concepts provides a stricter assessment than indirect
expropriation, when the motivation of a measure could be not only the intention of
nationalization, but also inflicting economic damage to a third state.

4.1 Arbitrariness

There are several cases of international investment arbitration where protection

against arbitrariness and discrimination is recognized and developed. In most
cases, the prohibition is interpreted as part of the FET standard, but it is also a
self-standing standard incorporated in IIAs that precludes states from acting in an
arbitrary, unjustifiable or discriminatory way.
There are two criteria in arbitral jurisprudence to identify when a measure taken
by a state may be considered arbitrary or discriminatory regarding international law.
The first more restrictive criterion is established when different arbitral tribunals

21
OECD (2004b), p. 4.
106 J. G. Prieto Muñoz

interpret the term “arbitrary” in line with the criteria that the International Court of
Justice (ICJ) developed in the ELSI case. Here the ICJ stated that “[a]rbitrariness is
not so much something opposed to a rule of law, as something opposed to the rule of
law [. . .] deliberate disregard of due process, an act that shocks, or at least surprises a
sense of legal property”.22 A second, broader and less restrictive criterion is applied
when international responsibility has been determined more generally without a
particular analysis as in the case of Occidental v. Ecuador in 2004.23
In order to advance a more restrictive criterion it is possible to characterize an
arbitrary measure as one that is taken with great discretion, beyond any legal
standard, and that at the same time does not pursue any public purpose. The first
element (excess of discretion) could be extracted from the reasoning of the
Crystallex v. Venezuela ICSID tribunal that argued that a measure could be arbitrary
if it is “not based on legal standards but on excess of discretion, prejudice or personal
preference, and taken for reasons that are different from those put forward by the
decision maker.”24
The second element of arbitrariness is the absence of a “legitimate public
objective”. This idea was applied in the Genin v. Estonia case, where the tribunal
pays special attention to establish whether a legitimate public objective was the
reason for the act of the state. In this case, the competent Estonian authority canceled
an operation license by alleging a legitimate public purpose for reforming its
banking system during a period of economic transition. The international arbitral
tribunal of the Genin case reasoned as follows:
The Tribunal has further considered whether the Bank of Estonia’s actions constituted an
“arbitrary” treatment of investment as that term is used in Article II(3)(b) of the BIT. In this
regard, it is relevant that the Tribunal has found no evidence of discriminatory action. In
addition, the Tribunal accepts Respondent’s explanation that it took the decision to annul
EIB’s license in the course of exercising its statutory obligations to regulate the Estonian
banking sector. The Tribunal further accepts Respondent’s explanation that the circum-
stances of political and economic transition prevailing in Estonia at the time justified
heightened scrutiny of the banking sector. Such regulation by a state reflects a clear and
legitimate public purpose.25

If the described elements of arbitrariness are analyzed together, i.e., the lack of a
legal standard and the pursuit of a public purpose, it is not enough for a measure to
simply mention any reason for acting an investment again. For instance, in the same
Crystallex v. Venezuela case, the responded state denied a permit arguing about
environmental reasons including a reference to “global warming”. The tribunal

22
Concerning Elettronica Sicula S.P.A. (Elsi) United States of America v. Italy, International Court
of Justice, 20 July 1989.
23
Occidental v. Ecuador (I), LCIA Case No. UN 3467, Award, 1 July 2004.
24
Crystallex v. Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/11/2, Award, 4 April 2016, para. 578.
25
Genin v. Estonia, ICSID Case No. ARB/99/2, Award 25 June 2001, para. 370.
The Review of National Competition Authorities’ Acts in. . . 107

concluded that there was not in question that Venezuela had the responsibility to
raise concerns relating to “global warming”,26 but the lack of evidence and consis-
tency with its previews acts of the state in this line constituted an arbitrary act.27
If the same elements are transposed to the analysis of a national competition
authority acts, it implies that a decision could not simply be justified as pursuing a
public purpose. In concrete, for imposing a large fine to an economic actor solely
mention simply abuse due to the dominant position, without the proper motivation
and evidence, could be considered as an arbitrary act.

4.2 Denial of Justice

The second concept that could form the standard of review for national competition
authorities is the relation of an arbitrary act with the concept of “access to justice” or
“denial of justice”, which implies that the competition system of a country includes
the judicial system, as a whole, since the former one could prevent a wrongdoing.
The denial of justice concept has been interpreted as an element that has to be
respected by host states either as part of the international customary minimum
standard of treatment, the FET standard or as an independent standard expressly
incorporated into treaties. Regardless of the origin (custom, FET, or independent
standard), the idea of denial of justice as an internationally wrongful act is difficult to
prove. In this line, denial of justice cannot be attributed to the procedural unfairness
of a national system, but only to actions that ‘shock’ an independent observer.
The exhaustion of local remedies, therefore, has become an important element to
define denial of justice. The Arif v. Moldova ICSID tribunal analyzed that investment
arbitration is not intended to be a subsidiary system of dispute settlement, but
deciding a claim for denial of justice, the conduct of the “whole judicial system is
relevant”28 should be taken into account. This element is not expressly stated in
treaties, but it has been accepted that claims of denial of justice imply that legal
remedies at the national level have already been exhausted. This is because, for a
“denial” to amount to international wrongfulness it has to have come from the legal
system of the host state as a whole, not from one particular body or judge. This was
also concluded in recent cases such as Corona Materials v. Dominican Republic,
where it was expressly recognized that a claim of denial of justice could only be
applied after a “final decision” by the highest judicial authority or if any further step
in the domestic level proved to be “manifestly ineffective.” The Corona tribunal
expresses this idea in the following way:

26
Crystallex v. Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/11/2, Award, 4 April 2016, para. 578, paras
590–591.
27
Crystallex v. Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/11/2, Award, 4 April 2016, para. 578.
28
Arif v. Moldova, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/23, Award, 8 April 2013, para. 345.
108 J. G. Prieto Muñoz

there can be no denial of justice without a final decision of a State’s highest judicial
authority. In the instant case, not only is there no final decision of a State’s highest judicial
authority, there is no decision of an administrative adjudicatory body or judicial authority at
all [. . .]
Based on the Claimant’s allegations and the evidence submitted by the Parties in this
arbitration, it has not been shown that taking a further step in the domestic legal system of
the Dominican Republic would have been futile or manifestly ineffective.29

Taking this into account, denying justice could also be caused by the dealy of the
judicial system of the host state to give a response to a legal remedy within a
reasonable time. In Toto v. Lebanon, the ICSID tribunal in a dispute arising out of
the construction of a section of a highway linking Beirut and Damascus held that
“the failure to render justice within a reasonable period might constitute a breach of
international customary law”.30
The Toto v. Lebanon tribunal mentioned that the notion of a reasonable period has
been developed within the right to due process and fair and equitable trial developed
by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), but acknowledging that these
decisions are not relevant since Lebanon is not a party to the ECHR.31 Probably for
this reason, the Toto tribunal analyze the ‘reasonable period’ element by referring to
an old case of from nineteenth century, the Fabiani case (1896), that stated that as a
“general principles of international law, denial of justice includes wrongful delays of
the judicial authority in giving judgment.”.32
The question that stands is if the “exhaustion of local remedies” could or should
be applied as a legal standard of evaluation of the acts of national competition
authorities. In this sense, article 4 of the ILC draft articles on state responsibility
points in the direction that the act of a national competition authority could amount
by itself without the exclusion of local judicial remedies:
The conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of that State under international
law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions,
whatever position it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever its character as an
organ of the central Government or of a territorial unit of the State.33

From the perspective of the ILC draft articles, national competition authorities are
categorized as state organs and their acts, including imposing a fine on a foreign
enterprise, could be considered an act of the state subject to review. However, it
seems reasonable to apply the ‘exhaustion of local remedies’ of denial of justice to

29
Corona Materials v. Dominican Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/14/3 Award (2016), paras
264, 265.
30
Toto v. Lebanon, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/12, Decision on Jurisdiction, Award, 7 June 2009,
para. 156.
31
Toto v. Lebanon, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/12, Award, 7 June 2009, para. 157.
32
Quote from the Fabiani case, in Toto v. Lebanon, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/12, Decision on
Jurisdiction, 7 June 2009, para. 156.
33
Article 4 of the Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts
(2001).
The Review of National Competition Authorities’ Acts in. . . 109

competition matters. Mainly, the impact of decisions from national competition law
in international law should be evaluated as a whole; this implies considering the
response of the judicial system, preventing a situation of multiple proceedings.
The issue of multiple adjudicators is not an entirely new topic on competition law
since there is the experience of parallel proceedings that occur with the existence
when the same competition issues that arise in arbitration are subject to an investi-
gation by a national competition authority.34 The difference with investment arbi-
tration is that unlike competition arbitration, the jurisdiction of the investment
tribunal does not arise from an arbitration agreement, it does from an international
agreement; the competition arbitration proceeding is governed usually by national
law35; and the object of the matter is related with competition law, rather than
international law.
Therefore, the “exhaustion of local remedies” on competition matters in the
national level will prevent that investment arbitration could be seen as a parallel or
even a third track to the judicial system. Also, it raises the threshold of responsibility,
because an act of national authorities could only be relevant internationally after the
whole competition system, including judicial review, has breach international law
obligations of treatment.

4.3 Proportionality

One last principle that could encompass the standard of review of competition
authorities is the analysis of proportionality of the act. The use of proportionality
will occur in extraordinary cases when an action imposes a financial hardship that
could amount to international wrongdoing despite that could haven taken for a
legitimate public purpose.
Proportionality has gained momentum in international investment law in recent
years, but it had existed as a doctrine for almost a century, when it emerged in the
Prussian administrative courts and was expanded by German courts in the post-
World War II era,36 as a check on state power. It has also been used by international
tribunals including the European Court of Justice, the ECHR and the World Trade
Organization panels37 (WTO). In this vein, the Tecmed v. Mexico tribunal,38 when it
interpreted as a principal part of the FET standard case introduced for the first time
the concept of proportionality to investment arbitration, and since then there has
been a debate about the contours of the concept.39

34
Nazzini (2011), p. 885.
35
Nazzini (2011), p. 886.
36
Martinez and Martinez (2015), p. 262.
37
Martinez and Martinez (2015).
38
Tecmed v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/2, Award, 29 May 2003.
39
Sweet (2010).
110 J. G. Prieto Muñoz

In the context of evaluating a decision made by a national competition authority,

the prism of proportionality does not imply determining if the decision that sanc-
tioned an investor was lawful under national competition law, but rather if the
sanction imposed was proportional with the act committed by the investor. This
stance has not been widely accepted, but there are already some arbitration cases
where international responsibility has been established by applying proportionality
criteria.
In 2012 the Tribunal of Occidental v. Ecuador (II) determined that the investor
broke Ecuadorian law by transferring its economic rights without proper authoriza-
tion from the home state. However, the Occidental tribunal decided that the punish-
ment (termination of contract and seizure of all the assets of the investor) was not
proportional to the fault committed by the investor:
It can be accepted that some punishment or other step may well have been justified, or at the
very least defensible. [. . .] The Tribunal does not necessarily disagree with the reasoning that
the Respondent could justifiably have wished to re-emphasize the importance of adherence
to its regulatory regime. But the overriding principle of proportionality requires that any such
administrative goal must be balanced against the Claimants’ own interests and against the
true nature and effect of the conduct being censured. The Tribunal finds that the price paid by
the Claimants – total loss of an investment worth many hundreds of millions of dollars – was
out of proportion to the wrongdoing alleged against OEPC [. . .]40

In a more recent case, the tribunal of PL Holdings v. Poland goes further with the
concept of proportionality, while analyzing the actions taken by the Komisja
Nadzoru Finanswego, a Polish government entity that supervised the activity of all
banks and credit institutions in Poland. Here the tribunal analyzed the principle of
proportionality in its three elements extensively: suitability, meaning that the mea-
sures taken by the host state should be “appropriate in achieving its stated public
interest concerns”41; necessity, meaning in the words of the tribunal that there were
no “less draconian means available”42; and excessiveness, meaning that measures
taken by the host state were not “excessive in light of the magnitude of the public
interest”.43
This evolution of proportionality in investment arbitration, including the men-
tioned cases, could point in the direction where this principle could be further
developed to a complementary standard of review in which acts of the competition
authority are evaluated.

40
Occidental v. Ecuador (I), LCIA Case No. UN 3467, Award, 1 July 2004.
41
Pl Holdings v. Poland SCC Case No. 2014/163, Partial Award (2017), paras 356–373.
42
Pl Holdings v. Poland (2017), paras 374–383.
43
Pl Holdings v. Poland (2017), paras 384–410.
The Review of National Competition Authorities’ Acts in. . . 111

5 Conclusion

The Gazprom v. Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine case shows that investment

arbitration could be involved in new global dynamics of “economic lawfare”, where
there is not only at stake a specific legal problem, but the legitimation of geopolitical
narratives in broader conflicts. It is not the function of investment arbitrators to
decide on which narrative should prevail in these scenarios, not only because this is
beyond the scope of investment agreements, but also because investment arbitration
does not have the substantive and procedural legal means for such an enterprise.
Except for a 2006 ICSID case, Telenor v. Hungary,44 where a tribunal dismissed all
claims of a Norwegian company including one related to a competition authority,
there has been no previous decision on the revision of this type of cases.
Therefore, a three-principle standard of review—arbitrariness, denial of justice,
and proportionality—could prove useful for assessing the lawfulness of an act of a
national competition authority. First, the application of this standard of review
implies that a national authority’s decision should be based on a previously
established “legal standard”, pursue a “legitimate public” purpose and, in any
case, it could not establish a non-proportional sanction. Furthermore, a claim of
this type could only be brought after the “exhaustion of local remedies” or where any
further step in the domestic level proved to be “manifestly ineffective”.

References

Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine [Антимонопольний Комітет України Рішення] (2016)

Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine - Gazprom, About the Violation Legislation on Protection
Economic Competition and Imposing a Penalization
Dill J (2017) Abuse of law on the twenty-first-century battlefield: a typology of lawfare. In: Gross
ML, Meisels T (eds) Soft war: the ethics of unarmed conflict. Cambridge University Press
Dunlap C (2005) Remarks at the Keystone Leadership Summit. The Reporter Keystone Edition
European Comission (2016) State-owned enterprises in the EU: lessons learnt and ways forward in
a post-crisis context. European Comission
Førland TE (1993) The history of economic warfare: international law, effectiveness, strategies. J
Peace Res 30(2):151–162
Gross ML, Meisels T (2017) Soft war the ethics of unarmed conflict. Cambridge University Press
Koskenniemi M (2009) Legal fragmentation(s): an essay on fluidity and form. In: Calliess C,
Fischer-Lescano A, Wielsch D, Zumbansen P (eds) Soziologische Jurisprudenz: Festschrift Für
Gunther Teubner, De Gruyter Recht, Berlin
Lowenfeld A (2009) International economic law, 2nd edn. Repr. Oxford University Press
Martinez C, Martinez L (2015) Proportionality in investment treaty arbitration and beyond: an
“irresistible attraction”? BCDR Int Arbitr Rev 2:261–288
Nazzini R (2011) Parallel proceedings before the tribunal and the courts/competition authorities. In:
Blanke G, Landolt P (eds) EU and US antitrust arbitration: a handbook for practitioners. Kluwer
Law International

44
Telenor v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/15, Award (2006).
112 J. G. Prieto Muñoz

OECD (2004a) The financial war on terrorism. OECD

OECD (2004b) Working papers on international investment, 2004/04. “Indirect Expropriation” and
the “Right to Regulate” in international investment law. OECD
Russian Energy Firm Gazprom Reportedly Notifies Ukraine of Bit Claim, IA REPORTER2018
Sweet AS (2010) Investor-state arbitration: proportionality’s new frontier. Law Ethics Human
Rights 4(1):48–76

José Gustavo Prieto Muñoz is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Law Department of University of
Turin, Italy. His field of expertise is International Economic Law. He have been studying different
legal regimes that regulate economic cross-border transactions in many countries including Ecuador
(his country of origin), Italy, Germany, Ukraine, and Russia. Currently, his research interests
focuses on the relation between Constitutional Courts and international investment arbitration,
the history of international investment adjudication in the twentieth century, and the governance of
transnational digital infrastructures, such as Distributed Ledger Technology.
Are Market Competition and Investment
Protection Incompatible in the EU Energy
Sector?

Belen Olmos Giupponi

Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
2 The Interface Between International Investment Law and EU Law in the Energy
Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
2.1 The “Sisyphean” Task of Articulating a Proper EU Investment Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
2.2 The “Renewable Energy Hurdle” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
2.3 Fair and Equitable Treatment in Renewable Energy Cases Before International
Investment Tribunals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
3 EU Competition Law as an Obstacle to the Enforcement of Arbitral Awards . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
3.1 State Aid and Investments in the Renewable Energy Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
3.2 The Spanish Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
3.3 Clashes Between International Investment Law and EU Competition Law . . . . . . . . . 130
3.4 The Interpretation of the FET Clause in Light of EU Competition Law . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
3.5 Compatibility Between Compensation Awarded by an Investment Tribunal
and EU Competition Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

Abstract The chapter explores the interface between international investment law
and EU competition law in the realm of renewable energy disputes. It underscores
recent developments in the configuration of European Union (EU) investment policy
and unveils the intricacies of the EU state aid regime. At the centre of this critical
analysis lies the legal nature of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) as an international
investment agreement. Whereas the Commission’s role in international investment
law has increased over the last years, internal factors impede the development of an
authentic EU investment policy. The chapter examines jointly the evolution of the
case law of arbitral investment tribunals, the Court of Justice of the European Union
(CJEU) and the European Commission’s position on intra-EU investment treaties
and state aid in the energy sector.

B. Olmos Giupponi (*)

Kingston University, London, UK
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 113

K. Fach Gómez et al. (eds.), International Investment Law and Competition Law,
European Yearbook of International Economic Law,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33916-6_6
114 B. Olmos Giupponi

1 Introduction

Interactions between European Union (EU) competition law and international

investment law have become critical in the energy law realm, as several clashes
between these two areas of law have recently occurred. This boils down to the
following question: Are market competition and investment protection incompati-
ble? The beginnings of an answer can be found in cases decided by international
investment tribunals involving investments in the renewable energy sector.
The various renewable energy cases, such as Novenergia v. Spain decided in
February 2018 by an arbitral tribunal, may be a turning point in the investor-state
dispute settlement system. In November 2017, the European Commission
(EC) recommended that EU law should take precedence during the enforcement of
an arbitral award in a dispute between an investor of one member state and another
member state or on the basis of an intra-EU bilateral investment treaty (BIT).1
The EC has requested member states on several occasions to terminate intra-EU
BITs. While it has sometimes provided direct guidelines, it has also used more
persuasive means to convey the message, such as amicus curiae briefs in arbitral
cases.2 The Achmea judgment, handed down in March 2018, addressed again the
question of intra-EU BITs and the effective investment and investor protection
within the EU.3 The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that
investment treaty arbitration based on intra-EU BITs is not compatible with EU
law.4 This might lead to two levels of protection as EU investors will need to have
their rights protected in the domestic courts of the member states, whereas
non-European investors could benefit from the safeguards afforded by BITs.5
The chapter is divided into three main sections. The first section explores the
interface between international investment law (IIL) and EU competition and invest-
ment law in the energy sector. In particular, this section looks at various arbitral
awards (such as Charanne Constructions, Isolux and Eiser) and CJEU judgments
which have defined these relations in dissimilar manner. The second section turns its
attention to the legal nature of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) as an international
investment agreement. The Commission’s request to terminate intra-EU BITs raises

1
Decision of the European Commission C(2017) 7384 final, State Aid SA.40348 (2015/NN)—
Spain, Support for electricity generation from renewable energy sources, cogeneration and waste,
10 November 2017.
2
See, for instance, Novenergia II—Energy & Environment (SCA) (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg),
SICAR v. The Kingdom of Spain, SCC Case No. 2015/063. Proposed Brief of the European
Commission on Behalf of the European Union as Amicus Curiae in Support of the Respondent,
Novenergia II v Kingdom of Spain, US District Court for the District of Columbia, 28 February
2019. This brief contains a special reference to the Achmea Decision at page 2.
3
CJEU, Achmea, C-284/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158.
4
Ibid, para. 57.
5
To illustrate, in Spain, the national courts (Constitutional Court and Supreme Court) confirmed the
legality of the reforms leaving the claimants empty-handed. See the rulings issued in 2018.
Are Market Competition and Investment Protection Incompatible in the EU. . . 115

the question of whether the ECT is an intra-EU investment agreement, as observed in

cases like Micula and Achmea.
In response to the CJEU’s Achmea judgment, member states issued declarations
undertaking to terminate BITs concluded between them by the end of 2019.6 In the
Declaration the member states reaffirmed that Union law takes precedence over
intra-EU BITs. An arbitral tribunal instituted on the basis of these investor-state
arbitration clauses lacks jurisdiction. In addition, the ECT as other international
investment agreements concluded by the Union are an integral part of the EU legal
order and should be compatible with the Treaties.7
Some preliminary rulings issued by the CJEU with regard to energy disputes may
have a decisive influence on pending and future disputes. Thus, this section analyses
the legal nature of the ECT in light of these jurisprudential developments. Third, the
next section is specifically devoted to examining the relations between EU compe-
tition law and international investment law. EU competition law has emerged as an
obstacle to award of compensation under international investment law, as the EU
competition rules may prevent foreign investors from enforcing investment arbitral
awards which, in turn, brings about the question of compatibility or conflict between
these different areas of law. Drawing on these arguments, the paper aims to throw
light on the debate about the relation between the international settlement of energy
disputes and EU competition law.

2 The Interface Between International Investment Law

and EU Law in the Energy Sector

Energy investment disputes in Europe have prompted discussions about the inter-
action between international investment law and different sectors of EU law. Spe-
cifically, renewable energy disputes have raised the question of the compatibility of
international investment provisions with EU law. Various arbitral awards (such as
Charanne Constructions, Isolux and Eiser) and CJEU judgments have shaped these
relations in dissimilar manners.
In a broad sense, renewable energy disputes have been defined as encompassing
controversies “under international law that concern international investment law and
WTO law; renewable energy disputes at European level [. . .] and national

6
E.g. Declaration of the Member States of 15 January 2019 on the legal consequences of the
Achmea judgment and on investment protection, available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/
files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/190117-bilateral-investment-
treaties_en.pdf accessed 15 May 2019.
7
Declaration of the Member States of 15 January 2019 on the legal consequences of the Achmea
judgment and on investment protection, available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/busi
ness_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/190117-bilateral-investment-treaties_en.pdf
accessed 15 May 2019.
116 B. Olmos Giupponi

disputes”.8 The disputes have been brought in different fora: World Trade Organi-
sation (WTO) panels, the CJEU, international investment tribunals, and national
courts. The resolution of disputes thus follows different logics. Accordingly, the
arguments raised depend on the specific features of each dispute settlement system.
At the WTO, main legal claims have concerned the compatibility of subsidies with
trade liberalisation and GATT-consistent exceptions. Under EU law, disputes are
framed in the context of the single market in light of EU treaty law. In international
investment law, legal claims are based upon investment protection as they arise out
of breach of standards of treatment, such as fair and equitable treatment (FET), full
protection and security and protection against illegal expropriation. In national law,
administrative law questions, contract law aspects and compatibility with constitu-
tional provisions are at issue.

2.1 The “Sisyphean” Task of Articulating a Proper EU

Investment Policy

In the framework of the EU investment policy emerging after the adoption of the
Lisbon Treaty, the EU embarked on the quest for the definition of a genuinely
European investment policy. This translates into the articulation of a common
investment policy vis-à-vis third countries and the adoption of a consistent position
regarding intra-EU treaties. Well before CJEU’s Achmea judgment, the EC had
requested EU member states to terminate intra-EU BITs and submitted various
amicus curiae briefs underlining the lack of jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals. In
most of the cases, arbitral tribunals nevertheless found that they had jurisdiction over
the merits of the case. This has led to the question of the nature of the ECT as an
intra-EU BIT, as seen in Micula.9
Micula and Achmea are paradigmatic cases in this evolution. In Micula the
investment claim arose in the manufacturing sector from the government’s decision
to introduce a series of investment incentives in the context of Romania’s accession
to the EU favouring the development of certain disfavoured regions of Romania and
from the subsequent partial withdrawal or amendment of those incentives.10 The EC
sent a letter to Romania concerning the investigation of state aid in January 2014
stating that “any implementation of the Award would constitute new aid and would
have to be notified to the Commission”.11 The Commission further claimed that “any

8
Talus (2015).
9
Lavranos (2018).
10
Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula, S.C. European Food S.A., S.C. Starmill S.R.L. and S.C. Multipack S.
R.L. Claimants v. Romania Respondent, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, 11 December 2013.
11
State aid SA.38517(2014/C) (ex 2014/NN)—Romania. Implementation of Arbitral award Micula
v Romania of 11 December 2013.
Are Market Competition and Investment Protection Incompatible in the EU. . . 117

execution of the Award of 11 December 2013 would amount to the granting of

incompatible ‘new aid’”.12 After that, the EC adopted a decision prohibiting the
implementation of the arbitral award.13 In Micula, the respondent submitted that all
substantive obligations contained in the BIT must be interpreted in a manner
consistent with EU law.14 In a subsequent ruling rendered on 18 June 2019, the
General Court quashed the Commission’s decision on the incompatibility of the
compensation as a state aid.15 The main argument referred to the question of the
competence ratione temporis as the investment had taken place before Romania
became a member of the EU and, therefore, the said EU state aid rules were not
applicable and the Commission had no competence to apply these rules prior to
Romania’s accession to the EU.16 As another key element in the analysis, the Court
decided that compensation for damage did not constitute, in principle, state aid.17
The Court recalled that “compensation for damage suffered cannot be regarded as
aid unless it has the effect of compensating for the withdrawal of unlawful or
incompatible aid”.18 Furthermore, the Court took the view that the right to compen-
sation had arisen before Romania joined the EU.19
Turning now to Achmea, the investment tribunal had ruled on the merits that the
Slovak Republic was liable for breaching investment protection standards under the
BIT.20 As a consequence, the arbitral tribunal granted the investor compensation.21
The CJEU in its preliminary ruling determined that intra-EU arbitration clauses
should be deemed incompatible with EU law. Precisely, in March 2018, the CJEU
handed down its preliminary judgment in the Achmea case.22 In the Court’s view,
investor-state arbitration clauses in intra-EU BITs are not compatible with EU law.
EU member states cannot derogate from the provisions of EU instruments, especially

12
Ibid, para. 71.
13
Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1470 of 30 March 2015 on State aid SA.38517 (2014/C)
(ex 2014/NN).
14
Ioan 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, 11 December 2013, para. 308.
15
General Court, Cases T 624/15, T 694/15 and T 704/15, Judgment of 18 June 2019, Spain and
Hungary intervened to support the Commission’s arguments (Micula Judgement).
16
Micula Judgement, paras 59–93.
17
Micula Judgement, paras 94–111.
18
Micula Judgement, para. 103.
19
Micula Judgement, para. 107.
20
Achmea B.V. v. Slovak Republic, PCA Case No. 2008-13, Award, 7 December 2012, para. 295.
21
Achmea B.V. v. Slovak Republic, PCA Case No. 2008-13, Award, 7 December 2012, B. The
Tribunal’s Decision on Damages, paras 319–334.
22
Achmea B.V. v. Slovak Republic, PCA Case No. 2008-13, Award, 7 December 2012.
118 B. Olmos Giupponi

the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU), which provide for the primacy of
EU law. Arbitral tribunals should apply EU law, however, they are not entitled to
submit preliminary ruling requests.

2.2 The “Renewable Energy Hurdle”

This controversy concerning international investment law and EU law returned and
was accentuated in cases arising out of the roll-back of the subsidies in the renewable
energy sector in, among others, Spain and Italy.23 In 2016 and 2017, four awards
were rendered in respect of claims by investors from one EU state against another
EU state: Charanne v. Spain24; Eiser v. Spain25; Isolux Netherlands, BV v. Spain26;
and Blusun v. Italy.27 In 2018 some further awards were delivered raising some
similar issues: Novenergia v. Spain,28 Antin v. Spain29 and Masdar Solar v. Spain.30
Investment arbitration claims in the renewable energy sector might have prompted
Italy’s withdrawal from the ECT (notified in December 2014), although, the state
remained liable for a period after the denunciation of the treaty.31 As for the legal
nature of the ECT, arbitral tribunals referred to the character of the Charter as an
international treaty.32 Some preliminary rulings by the CJEU may have a crucial
impact on future disputes. Thus, this section analyses the legal nature of the ECT in
light of these jurisprudential developments. The question at issue consists in deter-
mining whether the ECT could be considered as an intra-EU investment agreement
and, therefore, non-enforceable.

23
Selivanova (2018).
24
Charanne and Construction Investments v. Spain, SCC Case No. V 062/2012, Award,
21 January 2016.
25
Eiser Infrastructure Limited and Energía Solar Luxembourg S.à r.l. v. Spain, ICSID Case
No. ARB/13/36, Award, 4 May 2017.
26
Isolux Netherlands, BV v. Kingdom of Spain, SCC Case V2013/153, Award, 17 July 2016.
27
Blusun S.A., Jean-Pierre Lecorcier and Michael Stein v. Italian Republic, ICSID Case
No. ARB/14/3, Award, 27 December 2016.
28
Novenergia II—Energy & Environment (SCA) (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), SICAR v. The
Kingdom of Spain, SCC Case No. 2015/063, Award, 25 February 2018.
29
Antin Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.à.r.l. and Antin Energia Termosolar
B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/31.
30
Masdar Solar & Wind Cooperatief U.A. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/1.
31
On 31 December 2014, the Italian Republic notified the Depository of the ECT, its withdrawal
from the treaty. According to the Article 47, para. 2 of the ECT (sunset clause), any such withdrawal
shall take effect upon the expiry of one year after the date of the receipt of the notification by the
Depositary. Accordingly, the withdrawal from the ECT by Italy became effective on the 1st
January 2016.
32
Leal Arcas (2018).
Are Market Competition and Investment Protection Incompatible in the EU. . . 119

The ECT is a “sui generis” treaty encompassing the protection of foreign energy
investments. The goals set in the ECT touch upon different areas of energy policy
(not only investment protection) as follows: trade liberalisation in energy materials,
products and energy-related equipment based on WTO rules; the resolution of
disputes between participating states and between investors and host states, and
the promotion of energy efficiency, minimising the environmental impact of energy
production and use. Governing principles set in the ECT are sustainable develop-
ment and permanent sovereignty over energy resources. Investment protection is
articulated around FET (Article 10) and the prohibition of illegal expropriation
(Article 13). The ECT can be seen as instituting a regime in light of the object and
purpose of the treaty.33 Clearly, there is an “inherent” intra-EU character of the ECT
as it was signed by EU member states and was also seen as “a cross-European
initiative”.34
The relations between investment protection provisions of the ECT and EU law
have been at issue in many cases particularly after the Commission’s request to
remove intra-EU BIT. AES v. Hungary35 and Electrabel v. Hungary36 paved the way
for the discussion of the nature of the ECT. In AES, the expert opinion submitted by
Professor Piet Eeckhout threw light on the nature of the ECT.37 Two aspects of the
expert opinion are worth noting. First, Eeckhout submitted that the ECT is not an EU
instrument. Second, he considered that the ECT prevails over EU law.38
The renewable energy cases under the ECT, from Charanne Constructions
(January 2016) to Foresight (November 2018), have further fuelled the contro-
versy.39 Because of the importance of these cases, examination will focus on
them. These cases arose out of changes to the 2007 regulatory framework introduced
by 2010 and 2013/2014 regulations.40 These claims relied on application of Articles
10(1) and 13 of the ECT. Although some cases focused on the 2010 reforms, a
number of investors initiated investor-state arbitration against Spain on the basis
of the ECT against the changes brought by the Royal Decree 413/2014 to benefi-
ciaries of the premium remuneration scheme it replaces. There are interpretation
issues as well as legal and policy implications deriving from the decisions adopted in
these cases.

33
Selivanova (2018) and Alvarez (2018).
34
Alvarez (2018).
35
AES Summit Generation Limited and AES-Tisza Erömü Kft v. Hungary, ICSID Case
No. ARB/07/22, Award 23 September 2010.
36
Electrabel S.A. v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Award, 25 November 2015.
37
AES Summit Generation Limited and AES-Tisza Erömü Kft v. Hungary, Expert Opinion of
Professor Piet Eeckhout, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22, 30 October 2008.
38
AES Summit Generation Limited and AES-Tisza Erömü Kft v. Hungary, Expert Opinion of
Professor Piet Eeckhout, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22, 30 October 2008.
39
More than thirty cases are still pending against Spain.
40
Real Decreto 1565/2010, Real Decreto Ley 9/2013, Real Decreto 413/2014 and Orden IET/1045/
2014.
120 B. Olmos Giupponi

Contradictions between international law (international energy law and interna-

tional investment law) and the EU legal system are at the heart of these cases. The
main submissions by the respondent state were as follows: (a) As the EU itself is a
signatory of the ECT and both parties are from the EU, Article 26(1) ECT does not
apply i.e. the claimant is not from an “area” of “another Contracting Party”; (b) The
ECT includes a “disconnection clause”, preventing EU member states from applying
the ECT inter se; (c) EU law is an independent legal system taking precedence over
other international law and domestic law, providing an exclusive source of legal
rights and remedies for intra-EU relations, including investor protection; (d) The
arbitral tribunal should apply EU law in reaching its decision. The EC submitted
amicus curiae briefs, arguing that the arbitral tribunals lacked jurisdiction to hear
ECT claims between an EU member state and an investor from another EU state.
In turn, the position held by arbitral tribunals underlined the following elements:
(a) The EU is not the only signatory of the ECT but also EU member states are
individually parties to it; (b) From the wording of the ECT, a disconnection clause
cannot be inferred; (c) The claims and the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunals are
based on the ECT and not on EU law; (d) Therefore there is no clash between the
ECT and EU law.
As a more recent development, the preliminary ruling in Achmea may contribute
new arguments to resolve the controversy. Notwithstanding this, arguably, the cases
have arisen in different contexts: while a BIT between two EU member states was
the subject-matter of Achmea, in the renewable energy arbitral proceedings the EU
itself is a signatory to the ECT. Therefore, it may be contended that the EU has
agreed to the settlement of claims arising under the ECT by the arbitration mecha-
nism set therein.41

2.3 Fair and Equitable Treatment in Renewable Energy

Cases Before International Investment Tribunals

FET is at the centre of the discussion. The notion of legitimate expectations was
interpreted differently by the various arbitral tribunals dealing with renewable
energy disputes, spanning from a narrow interpretation of the term to a broader
meaning encompassing specific assurances to unilateral concessions made to foreign
investors regardless of the state’s intention.
A common element in the analysis of the international investment tribunals on the
violation of the FET clause is their conclusion that Article 10(1) ECT does not
prevent a state from amending its regulatory regime, unless (a) it has given specific
assurances that it will keep that regime in place for the lifetime of the investment

41
CJEU, Achmea, C-284/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158, paras 56 and 57.
Are Market Competition and Investment Protection Incompatible in the EU. . . 121

(in Charanne the arbitral tribunal referred to “stabilisation clauses”)42; and/or

(b) such changes are disproportionate to the aim of the legislative reforms
disregarding investors’ legitimate expectations.
In Charanne, the criteria used by the tribunal are articulated around three key
concepts: public interest, reasonableness and proportionality.43 Although the first
renewable energy cases (Charanne and Eiser) were decided in favour of the state,
the award rendered in Eiser reversed the trend as it was the first case decided in
favour of the foreign investor. In Eiser, the claimant distinguished the 2010 amend-
ments to Spain’s solar incentives regime from the more extensive 2013/14 reforms.
The tribunal held that Article 10(1) ECT entitled the claimants to expect that Spain
would not revise the regime upon which their investments were based to such a
degree that all value in them was lost. According to the arbitral tribunal, legitimate
expectations were based on the 2007 legislation and Spain’s further conduct in
2010–2011. The tribunal stated that the 2013/14 reforms amounted to a “total and
unreasonable change” in violation of those legitimate expectations.44
Two other developments have stirred up further controversy, leading to a “roller-
coaster” effect for foreign investors in the renewable energy sector. In Novenergia
v. Spain, the tribunal ordered Spain to pay €53 million to Novenergia, a Luxembourg
fund which had invested in photovoltaic plants in Spain. The award departed from
the previous cases adopting a more expansive approach to investor claims (including
Eiser). The Novenergia tribunal put forward a particular analysis of the ECT in light
of the Vienna Convention. A broader approach to legitimate expectations was also
taken by the arbitral tribunal as it held that “legitimate expectations” may “arise
naturally from undertakings and assurances” given by the host state.
In Antin, the tribunal confirmed the trend initiated by Eiser.45 It noted that
ensuring stability of conditions for investors “is a leitmotiv in [. . .] the ECT”,
referring to the award in Charanne further underlining that changes to a state’s
regulatory framework must be “consistent with assurances on stability of the regu-
latory framework provided by the State and required by the ECT”.46
Relying on arguments similar to those deployed in Eiser, Isolux and Novenergia,
the Antin arbitral tribunal held that investors’ legitimate expectations must be
assessed objectively at the time the investment was made. Such expectations must
originate in some “affirmative action of the State” (either specific commitments or
representations), which could derive from “features of a regulation aimed at

42
Charanne and Construction Investments v. Spain, SCC Case No. V 062/2012, Award, 21 January
2016, para. 490.
43
Charanne and Construction Investments v. Spain, SCC Case No. V 062/2012, Award, 21 January
2016, paras 487 and 488.
44
Eiser Infrastructure Limited and Energía Solar Luxembourg S.à r.l. v. Spain, ICSID Case
No. ARB/13/36, Award, 4 May 2017, para. 363.
45
Antin Infrastructure Services Luxembourg Sàrl and Antin Energia Termosolar BV v. Spain,
ICSID Case No. ARB/13/31, Award, 15 June 2018, paras 363–386.
46
Antin Infrastructure Services Luxembourg Sàrl and Antin Energia Termosolar BV v. Spain,
ICSID Case No. ARB/13/31, Award, 15 June 2018, para. 363.
122 B. Olmos Giupponi

encouraging investments in a specific sector”.47 Accordingly, the tribunal asserted

that Spain had repeatedly given assurances for the stability of its renewable incentive
regime through reports, press releases, in the preamble of its royal decrees, govern-
ment plans and advertising material. As a consequence, Antin had legitimate expec-
tations that the legal framework for concentrated solar power (CSP) plants would
remain stable and predictable.48
The arbitral tribunal rejected Spain’s argument that Antin had a legitimate
expectation to a “reasonable return” on its investment as guaranteed by the modified
regulatory framework. In response to Spain’s position, the tribunal clarified that for
the reformed regime to be compliant with the ECT’s “stable and predictable”
conditions for investment, the payment due to CSP installations should have been
based on “identifiable criteria”. Spain failed to identify the parameters by which it
determined the “standard installation” on which the “reasonable return” was based.
In a similar fashion, the respondent state could not explain how the revision of the
“reasonable rate” would be calculated.49
Antin raises similar problems to those previously discussed in relation to payment
of awards that might constitute state aid. As discussed in Sect. 3, the EC has warned
Spain that it cannot pay out any investment awards regarding its renewable incen-
tives scheme; for, such compliance would constitute a state aid, thus requiring
previous approval by the EC. Furthermore, any attempt to enforce the award in
EU member state courts would be probably rejected based on the grounds put
forward in the Achmea judgment, as ISDS provisions in intra-BITs shall be
interpreted as incompatible with Articles 267 and 344 TFEU. However, Carducci
points out, the Court’s wording “is not tantamount to invalidating the BIT” which is
a matter still regulated by the specific provisions of public international law.50
Following this interpretation, the “Member State concerned is to take all appropriate
steps to eliminate such investor-State arbitration provision”.51 In turn, Alvarez
suggests that rather than real legal conflicts between the ECT and the TFEU, there
is a clear relationship of policy tension.52

47
Antin Infrastructure Services Luxembourg Sàrl and Antin Energia Termosolar BV v. Spain,
ICSID Case No. ARB/13/31, Award, 15 June 2018, para. 565.
48
Antin Infrastructure Services Luxembourg Sàrl and Antin Energia Termosolar BV v. Spain,
ICSID Case No. ARB/13/31, Award, 15 June 2018, para. 409.
49
Antin Infrastructure Services Luxembourg Sàrl and Antin Energia Termosolar BV v. Spain,
ICSID Case No. ARB/13/31, Award, 15 June 2018, para. 567.
50
Carducci (2018).
51
Carducci (2018).
52
Alvarez (2018).
Awards in renewable energy cases with Spain as a Respondent
Cases Charanne Isolux Eiser Novaenergia Antin Masdar Foresight
Dispute Stockholm Stockholm ICSID—May Stockholm ICSID—June 2018 ICSID—May 2018 SCC—November
settlement Chamber of Chamber of 2017 Chamber of 2018
forum and Commerce, Commerce, July Commerce,
date of January 2016 2016 February
award 2018
Panel Alexis Mourre Yves Derains Professor John Johan Mr. J. Christopher Mr. John Beechey Dr Michael
(President), (President), R. Crook, Pres- Sidklev Thomas QC, Arbitra- CBE, President of the Moser, Chairper-
Guido Santiago Guido Santiago ident (President) tor Tribunal son
Tawil Tawil (appointed Dr. Stanimir Professor Prof. Francisco Mr. Gary Born, Prof Dr Klaus
(Appointed by by Claimants) A. Alexandrov, Antonio Orrego Vicuña, Arbitrator Michael Sachs,
Claimants), and Claus Von Arbitrator Pro- Crivellaro, Arbitrator Professor Brigitte Co-Arbitrator
Claus Von Wobeser fessor Campbell Arbitrator Dr. Eduardo Zuleta, Stern, Arbitrator Dr Raúl Emilio
Wobeser (Appointed by McLachlan QC, Judge Juez President Vinuesa,
(Appointed by Respondent) Arbitrator Bernardo Co-Arbitrator
Respondent) Sepúlveda
Type of 34 photovoltaic Indirect invest- Investment in a Investment: Investment in a series Operation of three Investments in
investment (PV) plants in ment that series of Con- Investments of Concentrated concentrated solar three solar photo-
Spain in 2009 involved centrated Solar in photovol- Solar Plants (CSP) power plants in voltaic facilities
117 PV plants Plants (CSP) taic solar Spain:
plants
Provisions 2010 measures 2012–2014 mea- 2012–2014 2012–2014 2012–2014 measures 2012–2014 measures 2012–2014
challenged imposing new sures, particu- measures measures measures
conditions on larly, the 7% of
Are Market Competition and Investment Protection Incompatible in the EU. . .

investors estimated return

Provisions ECT, Articles ECT, Articles ECT, Articles ECT, Arti- ECT, Articles 10 (1), ECT, Articles 10 (1), ECT, Article
invoked 10 (1), 13 10 (1), 13 10 (1), 13 cles 10 (1), 13 13 (set out in the 10 (1)
13 Request for Arbitra-
tion, but not
maintain)
123

(continued)
Cases Charanne Isolux Eiser Novaenergia Antin Masdar Foresight
124

Main Investor: FET, Investor: FET, Investor: FET, Investor: Investor claims: Investor claims: Dec- Investor claims:
claims/ and “legitimate and “legitimate and “legitimate FET, and Claims arising out of laration that the Declaration that
arguments expectations” expectations” expectations” “legitimate a series of energy Respondent has the Respondent
Detrimental Non-profitable The measures expectations” reforms undertaken breached Article 10 has breached Arti-
effect on investment constituted “a State: Right by the Government (1) of the ECT; an cle 10(1) of the
profits—changes State: Right to complete value to regulate affecting the renew- order that the ECT
reduced the regulate destruction” of ables sector, includ- Respondent make
profitability of Case before the the investment ing a 7% tax on full reparation to the
their plants by Spanish Supreme State: Right to power generators’ Claimant for the
10% Court regulate revenues and a injury to its invest-
State: Right to reduction in subsi- ments arising out of
regulate dies for renewable Spain’s breach of the
energy producers. ECT and interna-
State: Right to tional law
regulate
Final In favour of the In favour of the In favour of the In favour of In favour of the In favour of the In favour of the
outcome state state investor the investor investor investor investor
No indirect Dissenting opin- Dissenting opin-
expropriation ion: Tawill raised ion: Vinuesa
Dissenting opin- the issue of fore-
ion: Tawill seeability of the
measures
Source: Author’s analysis—Information retrieved from UNCTAD Investment Hub
Date: May 2019
B. Olmos Giupponi
Are Market Competition and Investment Protection Incompatible in the EU. . . 125

3 EU Competition Law as an Obstacle to the Enforcement

of Arbitral Awards

In the EU, the interaction between energy law and EU competition law has gone
through distinctive periods since the adoption of the TFEU. Regulated in Article
194 TFEU, the EU competence in the energy market was re-defined after the Lisbon
reforms. EU energy objectives were set out in Article 194(1) TFEU, with the
competence in the energy sector regulated as a shared competence in light of Articles
4(2)(i) and 194(2) TFEU.
Notably, the EU is habilitated to adopt measures in the field of energy through the
ordinary legislative procedure pursuant to Article 194(2) TFEU. However, this
clause also provides that this competence is “without prejudice to the application
of other provisions of the Treaties”. Some authors have raised questions about the
interpretation of this provision and in particular whether energy can be seen as a lex
specialis.53 But Article 194(2) TFEU also provides that member states have the
“right to determine the conditions for exploiting [their] energy resources”.
According to a joint reading of Articles 194(2) and 192(2)(c) TFEU, the Council
may seek to legislate or take measures significantly affecting a member state’s
choice between different sources of energy and the general structure of the energy
supply particularly relating to the configuration of the internal market and EU
competition policy.54
Although the competence allocation in energy matters follows, in principle, a
shared competence scheme, other EU-level competences overlap, bringing about the
question of the “separation of powers” and legitimacy issues. The EU competition
policy presents a contradiction to this shared competence structure, as the Commis-
sion can enforce free movement and competition law in individual cases. In other
words, by circumventing the shared competences allocation, the EU may seek to
achieve energy objectives through directly effective TFEU provisions such as
Article 107 relating to state aid. As an example, the Commission has adopted the
State Aid and General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER)55 and the Energy and
Environmental Aid Guidelines (EEAG)56 especially relevant for the question under
analysis. Even though the Commission issued these legal instruments in the exercise
of its competence over state aid, their nature is prescriptive for the energy sector. An
extensive practice has developed in terms of member states’ notifications to the
Commission for national promotion schemes for renewable energies. In view of this,
the legislative effect of the above instruments on member states is to curtail their
power to choose energy sources.

53
Johnston and Block (2012). CJEU, Case C-490/10, EP v. Council, 6 September 2012.
54
Leal Arcas et al. (2016).
55
Council Regulation No 994/98 of 7 May 1998, amended by Council Regulation No 733/2013 of
22 July 2013.
56
Communication from the Commission—Guidelines on state aid for environmental protection and
energy 2014–2020, OJ C 200, 28.6.2014, pp. 1–55.
126 B. Olmos Giupponi

Clearly, the question at issue concerns the role of the Commission as the anti-trust
watchdog to ensure fair competition in the energy markets. Prior cases concerning
traditional energy sectors, such as oil, gas and nuclear energy, have been examined
by the EC.57 Renewable energy cases inaugurated a new era of litigation. Cases such
as Preussen Elektra,58 Alands Vindkraft59 and Essent60 gave the CJEU the oppor-
tunity to discuss the compatibility of restrictions in the internal market concerning
member states’ promotion of the national production of green electricity
(in accordance with Directive 2009/28) with Article 34 TFEU.
Currently, the application of EU competition law gives rise to several controver-
sies related to the implementation of investment arbitral awards.61 Ultimately, EU
competition rules may prevent foreign investors from receiving compensation
which, in turn, raises the question of compatibility or conflict between two distinct
areas of law.62

3.1 State Aid and Investments in the Renewable Energy

Sector

Arbitral awards rendered in the period 2016–2018 in respect of investors’ claims

under the ECT in relation to renewable incentive schemes across Europe raised again
the issue of the contradiction between EU competition law and international
investment law.
The EC’s Decision 2017/C 442 issued in November 201763 demonstrates the
difficulties in finding common ground between competition law and international
investment law. In its claims, Spain alleged that it had complied with Directive 2000/
60/EC64 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy
with regard to the support provided to hydropower plants under the notified scheme,

57
UK state aid to nuclear energy concerning Hinkley Point C. On 12 July 2018, the General Court
dismissed an action by Austria and Luxembourg that challenged the EC’s decision. Judgment in
Case T-356/, Austria v. Commission.
58
CJEU, PreussenElektra AG v. Schleswag AG (2001) C-379/98.
59
Case C-573/12, Ålands Vindkraft AB, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 July 2014,
Ålands vindkraft AB v. Energimyndigheten.
60
1/1, C-204/12—Essent Belgium, Essent Belgium NV v. Vlaamse Reguleringsinstantie voor de
Elektriciteits- en Gasmarkt. 11 September 2014.
61
Jones (2016).
62
Scholz and Vohwinkel (2017).
63
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union. Cases where the Commission raises no objections (Text with EEA relevance,
except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty) (2017/C 442/02). Official Journal of the
European Union, C 442, 22 December 2017.
64
Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 October 2000.
Are Market Competition and Investment Protection Incompatible in the EU. . . 127

in line with point 117 EEAG.65 As another relevant directive for the analysis, Spain
referred to waste hierarchy as set out in Directive 2008/98/EC (Waste Framework
Directive)66 in terms of the support provided under the notified scheme to plants
using waste.67
Third-party intervention was allowed in this case on the part of the investors
which assessed state aid to existing installations.68 The investors made submissions
on the application of this scheme to existing installations arguing that the previous
scheme would not qualify as state aid, or would in any event be compatible with the
internal market.69
In its decision, the EC analysed the measures adopted to support renewable
energy against the requirements of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, in light of the primary
objective of the measures concerning environmental protection.70 This chapter was
considered the legal basis for certain economic activities/areas. The secondary legal
basis relates to environment and energy and the application of the Guidelines on state
aid for environmental protection and energy 2014–2020.71
On the whole, the Commission underlined that there is “no right to state aid”.
Simply put, it is up to the member states not to grant a state aid, or to stop an aid
scheme. If the Commission has not authorized the aid, the member state is under the
obligation to suspend the scheme until the Commission has declared its compatibil-
ity with the internal market pursuant to Article 108(3) TFEU.72
Then, the Commission assessed the measure notified by Spain to determine if
existing installations receive overcompensation, and found that on the basis of the
total payments received under both schemes (the specific remuneration scheme and
the premium economic scheme) that was not the case.73

3.2 The Spanish Case

Spain had decided to replace the premium economic scheme with the notified aid
measure. However, this was not considered relevant for the scope of the decision to

65
Decision 2017/C 442, para. 152.
66
Directive 2008/98/EC on waste (Waste Framework Directive) of 19 November 2008.
67
Decision 2017/C 442, para. 153.
68
Decision 2017/C 442, 3.5.1, Assessment of State aid to existing installations, para. 154.
69
Decision 2017/C 442, 3.5.1. Comments of third parties and compliance with other EU law, para.
157.
70
European Commission. Energy law. SA.40348 Support for electricity generation from renewable
energy sources, cogeneration and waste. Member state: Spain.
71
Sector: D.35.11—Production of electricity. Aid instrument: Direct grant. Scheme. Duration:
From 11.06.2014 to 10.06.2024, 3.4.8. Compliance with environmental legislation.
72
Decision 2017/C 442, para. 155.
73
Decision 2017/C 442, para. 156.
128 B. Olmos Giupponi

assess whether the originally foreseen payments under the previous schemes would
have been compatible or not.
The Commission may give aid subject to an evaluation where the potential
distortion of competition is particularly high, i.e. when the measure may risk
significantly restricting or distorting competition if their implementation is not
reviewed in due time. Given its objectives, evaluation only applies to aid schemes
with large aid budgets, containing novel characteristics or when significant market,
technology or regulatory changes are scheduled.74 The Spanish scheme had to be
subject to an evaluation since it had a large aid budget and contained novel
characteristics.75
Spain had notified the Commission about an evaluation plan along with the aid
scheme, defining the scope and methods for the evaluation, taking into consideration
the Commission Staff Working Document on a Common Methodology for State Aid
Evaluation.76 In assessing the notification, the Commission considered that the
evaluation plan contained the necessary elements to be considered compatible with
EU law: “the objectives of the aid scheme to be evaluated, the evaluation questions,
the result indicators, the proposed methodology to conduct the evaluation, the data
collection requirements, the proposed timing of the evaluation including the date of
submission of the final evaluation report, the description of the independent body
conducting the evaluation or the criteria that will be used for its selection and how
the evaluation will be published”.77
The Commission found that the evaluation plan had been properly drafted as,
among others, it set out and explained the main methods used to identify the impact
of the scheme, and discussed why these methods are likely to be appropriate for the
scheme in question.78 The Commission acknowledged the commitments made by
Spain on ensuring that the evaluation was conducted by an independent evaluation
body in accordance with the notified evaluation plan. Spain must submit the final
evaluation report by the end of 2020.79
In examining the case, the Commission cited the Opinion of Advocate General
Wahl in Kotnik, to assert that “under EU state aid rules, no undertaking can claim a
right to receive state aid; or, to put it differently, no member state can be considered
obliged, as a matter of EU law, to grant state aid to a company.”80 At the intersection

74
Decision 2017/C 442, 3.6. Evaluation. para. 167.
75
Decision 2017/C 442, para. 168.
76
Decision 2017/C 442, para. 169.
77
Decision 2017/C 442, para. 170.
78
Decision 2017/C 442, para. 171.
79
Decision 2017/C 442, para. 172.
80
CJEU, Opinion of Advocate General Wahl in Kotnik, C-526/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:102, para. 79.
See also to that effect Order in Milchindustrie-Verband e.V. und Deutscher Raiffeisenverband
e.V. v. Commission, T-670/14, EU:T:2015:906, para. 29.
Are Market Competition and Investment Protection Incompatible in the EU. . . 129

between international investment law and EU competition law, the EC examined the
concept of legitimate expectations.81
Foreign investors’ claims were the same before both investor-state arbitration
tribunals and in their submissions to the EC. Essentially, they held that by modifying
the support scheme with regard to existing installations, Spain had violated the
general principles of the EU law of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.82
In response to these claims, the Commission advanced the argument that “where a
Member State grants state aid to investors, without respecting the notification and
stand-still obligation of Article 108(3) TFEU, legitimate expectations with regard to
those state aid payments are excluded.”83 This interpretation draws on the case-law
of the ECJ, which held that a recipient of state aid cannot, in principle, have
legitimate expectations built upon the lawfulness of state aid which has not been
notified to the Commission. The EC cited Case C-24/95 Land Rheinland-Pfalz
v. Alcan Deutschland, in which the Court of Justice concluded that “[i]n view of
the mandatory nature of the supervision of state aid by the Commission under Article
[108] of the Treaty, undertakings to which aid has been granted may not, in
principles, entertain a legitimate expectation that the aid is lawful unless it has
been granted in compliance with the procedure laid down in that article. A diligent
businessman should normally be able to determine whether that procedure has been
followed.”84
Investors also alleged violation of provisions of the ECT.85 As a preliminary
observation, the Commission submitted that most of the investors that brought cases
against Spain were based in other member states of the EU. The EC took the view
that any clause providing for investor-state arbitration between two member states
is in breach of EU law.86 This position is based on Article 19(1) TEU, the freedom of
establishment, the freedom to provide services and the free movement of capital, as
established by the Treaties and the general principles of EU law of primacy, unity
and effectiveness of EU law, of mutual trust and of legal certainty.87

81
Decision 2017/C 442, 3.5.2. General principles of Union law of legal certainty and legitimate
expectations.
82
Decision 2017/C 442, para. 157.
83
Decision 2017/C 442, para. 158. In the very specific situation of the present case.
84
Case C-24/95, paras 13 and 14 and Judgment in case C-169/95, Spain v. Commission EU:
C:1997:10. (paras 13 and 14); see also the Judgment in case C-169/9, Spain v. Commission EU:
C:1997:10. EU:C:1997:163, para. 25.
85
Decision 2017/C 442, 3.5.3, para. 159.
86
Electrabel S.A. v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Award, 25 November 2015; EDF
v. Romania, ARB/05/13, Award, 8 October 2008, paras 279 to 283; Al Bahloul v. Tajikistan,
SCC/64/2008, Award, 8 June 2010, paras 221 to 225; ADF Group v. United States of America,
ARB(AF)/00/1, Award, 9 January 2003, para. 189.
87
In particular Articles 49, 52, 56, and 63 TFEU), as well as Articles 64(2), 65(1), 66, 75,
107, 108,65 215, 267 and Article 344 TFEU.
130 B. Olmos Giupponi

3.3 Clashes Between International Investment Law and EU

Competition Law

Moreover, in its decision the EC pointed out two specific dimensions of the
conflict between international investment law and EU law: substance and enforce-
ment. Substantively, EU law comprises a complete set of investment protection
rules.88 As a result, member states are not competent to conclude bilateral or
multilateral investment agreements. The EC availed of numerous cases on juris-
diction at EU level, including the investment tribunal award in Micula.89 The
EC observed that there is a risk of conflicts between international investment
treaties and EU law since the two sets of rules on investment protection regulating
relations between an EU member state and an investor of another state (i.e. the
Treaties and intra-EU BITs and the ECT in an intra-EU setting) are not identical,
being applied by different adjudicators.90
On enforcement, the EC held that an arbitration tribunal constituted on the basis
of the ECT to hear a dispute between an investor of one member state and another
member state or an intra-EU BIT has to rely on EU law as applicable law (both as
international law applicable between the parties and, where relevant, as domestic
law of the host state). However, according to the case-law, an arbitral tribunal is
not equivalent to a court or tribunal of a member state, and hence cannot make
references to the CJEU, because in particular the requirements of permanence,
being a body of a state with mandatory competence, are not fulfilled.91 The
resulting treaty conflict is to be solved, in line with the case-law of the Court, on
the basis of the principle of primacy in favour of European Union law. For those
reasons, the ECT does not apply to investors from other member states initiating
disputes against a member state.92

88
See, in particular, Articles 49, 52, 56, and 63 TFEU, as well as Articles 64(2), 65(1), 66, 75 and
215 TFEU.
89
Concerning the implementation of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, see Decision (EU) 2015/1470 of
the Commission of 30 March 2015 on state aid SA.38517 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) implemented by
Romania—Arbitral award of 11 December 2013 in Micula v. Romania (OJ L 232 of 4.9.2015,
p. 43). CJEU, Opinion 2/13, paras 168, 191, 194 and 258 first indent.
90
Ioan 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, 11 December 2013, para. 317.
91
Decision 2017/C 442, para. 162. See Case C-370/12, Pringle EU:C:2012:756, paras 100 and 101.
Cases C-249/06, Commission v. Sweden EU:C:2009:119, para. 42; C-205/06, Commission
v. Austria EU:C:2009:118, para. 42; and Case C-118/07, Commission v. Finland EU:
C:2009:715, para. 33. See also Case C-471/98, Commission v. Belgium (Open Skies) EU:
C:2002:628, paras 137 to 142; and Opinion 2/13, paras 198, 199 and 208.
92
Decision 2017/C 442, para. 163.
Are Market Competition and Investment Protection Incompatible in the EU. . . 131

3.4 The Interpretation of the FET Clause in Light of EU

Competition Law

On this issue, the EC found that on substance there had not been a breach of FET.
According to the Commission, in the specific case, Spain had not violated the
principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations under Union law.93 In the
Commission’s view, EU law is part of the applicable law to an intra-EU dispute, as
it constitutes international law applicable in the relations between the parties to the
dispute.94 The EC argued that FET cannot have a broader scope than the EU law
notions of legal certainty and legitimate expectations in the context of a state aid
scheme.95 In an extra-EU scenario, the investor cannot have, as a matter of fact, a
legitimate expectation stemming from illegal state aid. The EC argued that as
previously decided by investment arbitral tribunals in “settled case-law [. . .] a
measure that does not violate domestic provisions on legitimate expectation
generally does not violate the FET provision”.96

3.5 Compatibility Between Compensation Awarded by

an Investment Tribunal and EU Competition Law

The Commission recalled that any compensation which international investment

tribunals were to grant to an investor would constitute in itself state aid and would
be subject to notification to the EC. Precisely, in the EC’s interpretation, interna-
tional investment tribunals are not competent to authorise the granting of state aid
since this is an exclusive competence of the Commission. If they award compen-
sation, such as in Eiser, or were to do so in the future, this compensation would be
notifiable state aid pursuant to Article 108(3) TFEU and subject to the standstill
obligation.97 Finally, the Commission stressed that Decision 2017/C 442 is part of
EU law, and as such it is also binding on arbitration tribunals, where they apply EU
law, and the judicial system of the EU is the exclusive forum where its validity can
be challenged.98

93
Decision 2017/C 442, para. 158.
94
Decision 2017/C 442, para. 162.
95
Decision 2017/C 442, para. 164.
96
Decision 2017/C 442, para. 164.
97
Decision 2017/C 442, para. 164.
98
Decision 2017/C 442, para. 166.
132 B. Olmos Giupponi

4 Conclusions

The relationship between international energy law and EU law has come under
scrutiny as contradictions between international energy law and international invest-
ment law, on the one hand, and EU investment law and competition law, on the other
hand, have emerged. This is particularly so in the area of renewable energy disputes
in the EU.
In relation to the features of international energy law as a specialised field, the
question that arises concerns the interpretation of the ECT as a sui generis legal
instrument. The ECT has created a specific regime based on public international law
which goes beyond mere investment protection and, essentially, differs from
EU law.
In terms of dispute resolution and enforcement of arbitral awards, Decision
2017/C 442 and the Achmea judgment may discourage the enforcement of an
ECT award in the EU. Any attempt by the respondent EU member state to satisfy
the award may fall into the state aid regime, triggering the question of (in)compat-
ibility of such actions with EU law and thus undermining the enforcement of
foreign arbitral awards. Finally, in terms of compensation, the Micula judgment
has clarified that compensation does not per se represent state aid unless it is linked
to the withdrawal of an unlawful state aid. The impact of this judgment on
renewable energy cases will depend on the subsequent state practice and foreign
investors’ legal strategies.

References

Alvarez GM (2018) Redefining the relationship between the Energy Charter Treaty and the treaty of
functioning of the European Union: from a normative conflict to policy tension. ICSID Rev
Foreign Invest Law J 33(2):560–581
Carducci G (2018) A state’s capacity and the EU’s competence to conclude a treaty, invalidate,
terminate – and “Preclude” in Achmea – a treaty or BIT of Member States, a State’s consent to
be bound by a treaty or to arbitration, under the law of treaties and EU law, and the CJEU’s
decisions on EUSFTA and Achmea: their roles and interactions in treaty and investment
arbitration. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 33(2):582–619
Johnston A, Block G (2012) EU energy law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Jones C (2016) EU energy law. Volume II. EU competition law and energy markets. Claeys &
Casteels, Deventer/Leuven
Lavranos N (2018) A new Micula-type case on the horizon? January 25, 2018. Available at https://
www.nl-investmentconsulting.com/2018/01/a-new-micula-type-case-on-the-horizon/.
Accessed 15 Sept 2018
Leal Arcas R (2018) Commentary on the Energy Charter Treaty. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Leal Arcas R et al (2016) Energy security, trade and the EU. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Scholz U, Vohwinkel T (2017) The application of EU competition law in the energy sector. J Eur
Compet Law Pract 8(3):190–204
Selivanova Y (2018) Changes in renewables support policy and investment protection under the
Energy Charter Treaty: analysis of jurisprudence and outlook for the current arbitration cases.
ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J
Are Market Competition and Investment Protection Incompatible in the EU. . . 133

Talus K (2015) Special Issue on Renewable Energy Disputes TDM 3 (2015), www.transnational-
dispute-management.com. Available at www.transnational-dispute-management.com/article.
asp?key¼2214. Accessed 15 Sept 2018

Belen Olmos Giupponi is an Associate Professor and Head of Law at Kingston University
London. She holds a Ph.D. in International Law—University Carlos III of Madrid (2004—Suma
Cum Laude) and an LL.M in Human Rights (University Carlos III). Throughout her career, Dr
Olmos Giupponi has undertaken research in EU law, international economic law and dispute
resolution. She has published more than fifteen articles in leading peer-reviewed journals, including
the Leiden Journal of International Law, Transnational Environmental Law, ICSID Review,
European Union Journal, Journal of Business Law, Arbitration International, European Energy
and Environmental Law Review, Journal of European Legal Studies and the Spanish Yearbook of
International Law.
Stipulating Investors’ Obligations
in Investment Agreements as a Suitable
Regulatory Approach to Prevent
and Remedy Anti-Competitive Behaviour?

Karsten Nowrot and Emily Sipiorski

Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
2 Background: Towards a Merger of Investors’ Rights and Obligations in Investment
Treaty Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
3 Substantive Law Perspective: Three Main Types of Investors’ Obligations in IIAs . . . . . . 139
3.1 Stipulating Direct Obligations of Conduct for Foreign Investors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
3.2 Regulating Indirect Obligations of Conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
3.3 Provisions Signalling a Commitment to Corporate Social Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . 143
4 Competition Law Perspective: Introducing Investors’ Treaty Obligations Aimed
at Promoting and Protecting Market Competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
5 Enforcement Perspective: Implementing Investors’ Obligations in International
and Domestic Investment Dispute Settlement Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Abstract This chapter approaches the regulatory option of integrating provisions of

competition law into the normative structure of international investment agree-
ments (IIAs). Grounded in the growing trend to include investors’ obligations in
the new generation of IIAs, the analysis attempts to assess the feasibility and
potential benefits of this regulatory approach as a means to prevent and remedy
anti-competitive behaviour by foreign investors. By identifying three main types of
obligations currently integrated into agreements, including direct obligations, indi-
rect obligations, and commitments to corporate social responsibility, the chapter
pushes forward the proposition of including obligations aimed at promoting and
protecting market competition. The similarities between the policy aims of compe-
tition law and international investment law, among them the protection of human
rights and the environment, the promotion of core labour and social standards as well
as the prevention of corruption, create an opening for cooperation. Further legiti-
mizing the integration between the two spheres, foreign investors have the potential

K. Nowrot (*) · E. Sipiorski

University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 135

K. Fach Gómez et al. (eds.), International Investment Law and Competition Law,
European Yearbook of International Economic Law,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33916-6_7
136 K. Nowrot and E. Sipiorski

to interfere with the free play of market forces and thus contravene the aims pursued
by competition policy. The chapter illustrates the potential applicability and exten-
sion of incorporating investors’ obligations designed to prevent and remedy anti-
competitive behaviour into IIAs. The chapter concludes by addressing the underly-
ing burdens of enforcement and implementation with regard to any inclusion of such
obligations for the investors.

1 Introduction

Although the interfaces between, and mutual influences of, foreign investments and
competition policies as well as their economic and societal implications have been
identified and analysed already some time ago,1 the relationship and overlaps
between competition law and investment law themselves are still underexplored in
the legal literature.2 Thereby, one out of many issues potentially arising in connec-
tion with this—from a de lege lata as well as de lege ferenda perspective—truly
multifaceted relationship concerns the regulatory option of integrating provisions of
competition law into the normative structure of international investment agreements
(IIAs). Against this background, the present chapter more specifically intends to
connect this broader topic to the current scholarly discussions as well as develop-
ments in recent investment treaty-practice dealing with stipulations of investors’
obligations. In this regard, it attempts to assess the feasibility and potential benefits
of this regulatory approach as a means to prevent and remedy anti-competitive
behaviour by foreign investors.
In the following, we plan to approach this research subject in four main steps and
by way of adopting four different perspectives. In the first section, adopting an
overarching kind of bird’s-eye view, the background of the current policy shift on
the issue of investors’ obligations will be briefly illustrated (Sect. 2). The second
section adopts a substantive law perspective and identifies the different manifesta-
tions of investors’ obligations in current investment agreements in general (Sect. 3).
Building up on the findings made in these two sections, the subsequent third section,
adopting a competition law perspective, evaluates the possibilities of, and reasons
for, stipulating investors’ treaty obligations aimed at promoting and protecting
market competition (Sect. 4). Finally, in the fourth section, adopting an enforcement
perspective, the approaches to this regulatory experiment as well as its implications
for the realm of investment dispute settlement are addressed (Sect. 5).

1
UNCTAD (1997), pp. 123 et seq.
2
Tamada (2015), p. 2.
Stipulating Investors’ Obligations in Investment Agreements as a. . . 137

2 Background: Towards a Merger of Investors’ Rights

and Obligations in Investment Treaty Law

International investment law is definitively in an era of reformation and

“reconceptualization”.3 The current phase is characterized in part by intensified
efforts in all parts of the world to progressively realize sustainable development
objectives within investment protection.4 These efforts include states regaining some
of their “policy space” vis-à-vis foreign investors.5 In light of certain negatively
perceived effects of the previously established framework of international invest-
ment protection,6 the central challenge in investment agreement design is finding an
appropriate and acceptable balance between the legally protected economic interests
of foreign investors and the domestic and international steering capacity of host
states. From the states’ interest, a balance would allow the promotion and protection
of other (non-economic) public interest concerns like the protection of human rights
and the environment, the promotion of public health, and the enforcement of
internationally recognized labour and social standards. As a consequence of these
developments, also a broader discussion on possible “counterweights” to investors’
rights7 is gaining momentum in recent years.
By incorporating broader public interest concerns into IIAs, the issue of inves-
tors’ obligations in the respective investment treaty-making processes is increasingly
discussed and considered. Obligations of investors have until recently not featured
very prominently in the discussions on and policy approaches towards the interna-
tional treaty regime dealing with the protection of foreign investments. Most bilat-
eral investment treaties (BITs)8 are titled “Treaty Concerning the Promotion and
Protection of Investments” or some close variation. International investment law is
traditionally—and also today—primarily concerned with the protection of foreign
investors and their investments.9 In furtherance of these goals, most investment
treaties so far still confine themselves to stipulating obligations of the contracting
state parties and do not impose any direct legal responsibilities on investors under
international law.10

3
Miles (2010), pp. 295 et seq.; Lavranos (2016), pp. 309 et seq.; Puig and Shaffer (2018), p. 361,
Roberts (2018), pp. 411 et seq.
4
UNCTAD (2017a), pp. 119 et seq.
5
Tietje (2009), p. 461.
6
Butler and Subedi (2017), pp. 46 et seq.
7
Tietje and Crow (2017), pp. 107 et seq.; Peters (2016), p. 339.
8
UNCTAD (2018) p. 88.
9
Salacuse (2015), pp. 124 et seq.
10
Dolzer and Schreuer (2012), p. 25 (“BITs give guarantees to investors but do not normally
address obligations of investors.”); Muchlinski (2017), p. 367; Mbengue and Schacherer (2018),
pp. 558 et seq.; as well as UNCTAD (2017b), p. 61 (“Most IIAs are asymmetrical in that they set out
obligations only for States and not for investors.”).
138 K. Nowrot and E. Sipiorski

The overarching approach of incorporating investors’ obligations into IIAs is not

entirely new. At the domestic level, the idea of corporate social responsibility has
long embraced the idea that private investors and other economic actors are expected
and required to also contribute in the course of their economic activities to the
realization of broader public interests, such as the protection of human rights, core
labour and social standards as well as the environment where they operate.11
Regarding implications in the field of international investment relations, as early
as the 1770s Edmund Burke remarked on the activities of the East India Company12
that “the prosperity of the natives must be previously secured, before any profit from
them whatsoever is attempted”.13
Within the international regime governing foreign investments, however, these
concerns have been conventionally addressed in separate fora and on the basis of
distinct steering approaches. These approaches largely remained outside of the realm
of modern international investment law in the narrower sense of the meaning.14 The
requirements of these private actors to contribute to the promotion of community
interests had been, beginning in the 1970s, until recently mainly listed in soft law or
other non-binding steering instruments and regimes. Only in the course of the
previous decade, an understanding has emerged that foreign investors are—as a
kind of quid pro quo for the legal protection they enjoy under investment agree-
ments15—expected and required to contribute in the course of their business activ-
ities to the promotion and realization of other public interest concerns based on
internationally recognized standards. Further, these expectations and obligations are
now increasingly addressed in international investment treaties as well as other
sources of investment law.
External factors are pushing forward this approach in international investment
law. The activities of non-state actors in the international system are becoming more
carefully examined and their impacts on the international system more fully realized.
There is a corresponding intensified discussion on whether and how to integrate
them into the global legal order as addressees of rights. These non-state actors also
promote community interests.16 In this regard, NGOs have become actively involved
in and concerned with the rule-making and enforcement processes in this area of law,
with recommendations for an international regulation of foreign investors.17 As one
example, the ‘Model International Agreement on Investment for Sustainable Devel-
opment’, published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development

11
ISO Advisory Group on Social Responsibility (2004), para. 1.
12
On the chartered trading corporations as predecessors of modern transnational enterprises, see
Carlos and Nicholas (1988), pp. 399 et seq.
13
Metcalf (1994), p. 19.
14
Salacuse (1985), p. 1008; Muchlinski (2010), pp. 28 et seq.
15
UNCTAD (2001), p. 5.
16
Clapham (2006), Alston (2005), pp. 3 et seq.; Nowrot (1999), pp. 579 et seq.; Noortmann et al.
(2015), d’Aspremont (2011), Klabbers (2003), pp. 351 et seq.
17
Concerning the importance of NGOs as a contributing factor to the current policy shift in
investment law see Muchlinski (2011), pp. 33 et seq.
Stipulating Investors’ Obligations in Investment Agreements as a. . . 139

(IISD) in April 2005 provides, inter alia, an extensive list of investors’ obligations,18
and has been utilized in part in recent IIAs.19

3 Substantive Law Perspective: Three Main Types

of Investors’ Obligations in IIAs

The public international law ‘backbone’ is formed by BITs and other international
agreements that provide for investment provisions.20 In an attempt to conceptualize
the respective proposals and their implementation in investment treaty practice from
a systematic perspective, it is helpful to distinguish between three different types of
legal obligations of investors: (1) direct obligations of conduct, (2) indirect obliga-
tions of conduct, and (3) provisions signalling a commitment to corporate social
responsibility by the contracting parties.

3.1 Stipulating Direct Obligations of Conduct for Foreign

Investors

The first category concerns legal obligations of investors explicitly stipulated and
directly addressed in BITs and other investment agreements. Although this is the
most expected and natural approach in light of common regulatory techniques, this
normative steering method has de lege lata until now not gained widespread
recognition in investment treaty practice.
There are, however, increased examples from the last decade of obligations being
included in investment agreements. The Investment Agreement for the Common
Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) Common Investment Area,
adopted on 22–23 May 2007, states in its second part—tellingly titled ‘rights and
obligations’—in Article 11 the objectives of the agreement “to provide COMESA
investors with certain rights in the conduct of their business within an overall balance
of rights and obligations between investors and Member States”.21 Moreover, the
treaty stipulates in Article 13 that foreign investors are to “comply with all applicable
domestic measures of the Member State in which their investment is made.” A

18
The text of the IISD Model Agreement is for example available under: http://www.iisd.org/pdf/
2005/investment_model_int_agreement.pdf. All references to websites in this contribution have
been last accessed on 26 Nov 2018.
19
See for example, Model Text for the Indian Bilateral Investment Treaty (2016) available under:
http://www.dea.gov.in/sites/default/files/ModelBIT_Annex_0.pdf.
20
UNCTAD (2018) World Investment Report 2018, Investment and New Industrial Policies, p. 88.
21
Investment Agreement for the COMESA Common Investment Area of 22/23 May 2007, http://vi.
unctad.org/files/wksp/iiawksp08/docs/wednesday/Exercise%20Materials/invagreecomesa.pdf.
140 K. Nowrot and E. Sipiorski

similar provision is also included in Article 8 of Annex 1 of the Southern African

Development Community (SADC) Protocol on Finance and Investment as approved
by the SADC Summit in Lesotho on 18 August 2006 and amended on 31 August
201622 as well as in Article 11 of the BIT concluded between Argentina and Qatar on
6 November 2016.23
More noticeable and specific regarding labour, Article 16 of the 2007 COMESA
Investment Agreement indicates that while investors have in principle the right “to
hire technically qualified persons from any country”, they are required to “accord a
priority to workers who possess the same qualifications and are available in the
Member State or any other Member State” of COMESA.
Furthermore, and again in the geographical context of Africa, the Economic
Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Supplementary Act A/SA.3/12/08
Adopting Community Rules on Investment and the Modalities for their Implemen-
tation with ECOWAS24 stipulates in Chapter III (Obligations and Duties of Investors
and Investments) a number of direct obligations of conduct. This includes the
requirement for foreign investors “to strive through their management policies and
practices, to contribute to the development objectives of the host States and the local
levels of government” under Article 11(3), the duty to conduct environmental and
social impact assessments of planned investments (Article 12), the obligation to
refrain from involvement in corrupt practices in accordance with Article 13 as well
as the normative expectation to establish and maintain “liaison processes” with local
communities under Article 15(3). In addition, Article 14(2) of the ECOWAS
Supplementary Act stipulates that foreign investors:
shall uphold human rights in the workplace and the community in which they are located.
Investors shall not undertake or cause to be undertaken, acts that breach such human rights.
Investors shall not manage or operate the investments in a manner that circumvents human
rights obligations, labour standards as well as regional environmental or social obligations,
to which the host State and/or home State are Parties.

This provision is supplemented and concretized by Article 14(3) of the referred

text, foreseeing that foreign investors shall not “by complicity with, or in assistance
with others, including public authorities, violate human rights in times of peace or
during socio-political upheavals”, as well as by Article 14(4), requiring that inves-
tors shall act in accordance with the fundamental labour standards as enshrined in

22
Southern African Development Community (SADC), Agreement Amending Annex
1 (Co-operation on Investment) of the Protocol on Finance and Investment, as signed by the
Heads of State or Government of SADC Member States in the Kingdom of Swaziland on 31 August
2016, http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/IIA/treaty/3383.
23
Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments between the Argentine Republic and the
State of Qatar of 6 November 2016, http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/IIA/treaty/3706.
24
Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Supplementary Act A/SA.3/12/08
Adopting Community Rules on Investment and the Modalities for their Implementation with
ECOWAS of 19 December 2008, http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/IIA/treaty/3547.
Stipulating Investors’ Obligations in Investment Agreements as a. . . 141

the International Labour Organization (ILO) Declaration on Fundamental Principles

and Rights at Work as adopted on 18 June 1998.25
Another recent example is provided by the BIT concluded between Morocco and
Nigeria on 3 December 2016.26 Article 14 of this investment treaty requires foreign
investors, in the respective pre-establishment phase, to conduct environmental as
well as social impact assessments of their potential investments and, in this regard, to
apply the precautionary principle to their environmental assessment screening pro-
cesses. Article 17 stipulates a prohibition of investors to engage in practices of
corruption and Article 19 requires these actors to “meet or exceed national and
internationally accepted standards of corporate governance for the sector involved,
in particular for transparency and accounting practices” (lit. a) as well as to establish
local community liaison processes in accordance with internationally accepted
standards (lit. b). Furthermore, Article 18 of the agreement states in the realm of
post-establishment obligations that investments have to maintain an environmental
management system (paragraph 1), that investors “shall uphold human rights in the
host state” (paragraph 2), that they act in accordance with core labour standards
(paragraph 3) and do not “manage or operate the investments in a manner that
circumvents international environmental, labour and human rights obligations to
which the host state and/or home state are Parties” (paragraph 4).
From a broader perspective, these examples support the perception that modern
public international law includes more international legal subjects to limited degrees.
And thus, from the point of view of general public international law, it is possible
and admissible to include such obligations within the agreements. Nevertheless,
because of the long history of investment agreements in their current form, most
agreements still do not contain direct obligations for investors. Moreover, the states
including such obligations, as noted above, are often from Asia, Africa, and Latin
America. The stretch for new mechanisms of balance within the international
investment regime is derived from the states that desired the system to achieve
more than mere protection for investments.
Beyond reluctance to incorporate such obligations from the perspective of eco-
nomic entities, certain substantive and procedural challenges connected with the
implementation of such a regulatory approach in treaty practice still exist. From a
substantive law perspective, the complex issues arise as to which standards should
be included in international investment treaties as binding obligations of investors as
well as how detailed the respective provisions need to be phrased in order to provide
for a workable guidance for these actors’ conduct. The express inclusion of substan-
tive requirements would need to sit in parallel with domestic law standards of the
host states and other existing international obligations for the protection of human

25
ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work of 18 June 1998 (Annex revised
15 June 2010), https://www.ilo.org/declaration/thedeclaration/textdeclaration/lang%2D%2Den/
index.htm.
26
Reciprocal Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement between Morocco and Nigeria of
3 December 2016, http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/IIA/treaty/3711.
142 K. Nowrot and E. Sipiorski

rights, the environment, and labour.27 Merely incorporating standards by reference

to existing international agreements on respective issues, as done in Article 2 of the
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement in the
realm of the World Trade Organization (WTO), would not necessarily adequately
bind non-state actors. Providing feasible and acceptable answers to all these sub-
stantive questions in practice both complicates and prolongs the negotiating and
drafting processes on new bilateral or multilateral investment agreements.
Beyond the substantive limitations, equally important are the procedural ques-
tions regarding enforcement of obligations. Traditional investment treaty regimes
proceed on the conceptual basis of stipulating obligations of the host states to
guarantee certain standards of protection that can in turn be enforced by foreign
investors of other contracting parties through the respective investor-state dispute
settlement clauses. This currently still predominant treaty approach does not—and
obviously needs not—provide any procedures for the enforcement of investors’
obligations. In order to be effective, incorporating respective direct legal responsi-
bilities thus also requires a decision on and inclusion of new enforcement venues,
another step that would considerably modify the normative structure of investment
agreements.28 Some proposals have been implemented in investment treaty practice.
Despite the recognized need for a certain reformation of investment law, states in
general have until now in investment treaty practice primarily taken recourse to more
indirect approaches when dealing with the issue of investors’ responsibilities. To
these, the analysis now turns.

3.2 Regulating Indirect Obligations of Conduct

Among these regulatory techniques is the inclusion of what might be characterised

as indirect obligations of conduct for foreign investors. This second category refers
to provisions in international investment treaties that do not stipulate obligations as
directly addressed to investors but require the contracting parties to the agreements
to consider and adopt measures aimed at regulating as well as guiding the behaviour
of these private actors.
For example, Article 72 of the Economic Partnership Agreement between the
CARIFORUM states and the European Union (EU) and its member states, entitled
“behaviour of investors”, foresees that the parties:
shall cooperate and take, within their own respective territories, such measures as may be
necessary, inter alia, through domestic legislation, to ensure that investors comprehensively
abstain from engaging in corruptive business practices (lit. a), act in accordance with core
labour standards as stipulated in the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights

27
Muchlinski (2008), pp. 37 et seq.
28
García-Bolívar (2009), p. 484 (“It seems that the most difficult task would be to devise the
enforcement mechanisms for those obligations [. . .]”).
Stipulating Investors’ Obligations in Investment Agreements as a. . . 143

at Work (lit. b), do not “manage or operate their investments in a manner that circumvents
international environmental or labour obligations arising from agreements” signed and
ratified by the parties (lit. c) as well as “establish and maintain, where appropriate, local
community liaison processes” (lit. d).29

Furthermore, the Investment Agreement for the COMESA Common Investment

Area (CCIA) provides in its Article 7(2) lit. d that the CCIA Committee shall be
responsible for “making recommendations to the Council on any policy issues that
need to be made to enhance the objectives of this Agreement”. Thereby, it explicitly
refers to “the development of common minimum standards relating to investment in
areas such as” environmental and social impact assessments, labour standards,
respect for human rights and corruption.
In addition, this category of indirect obligations also encompasses respective
provisions whose scope of application is not limited to the behaviour of foreign
investors. To mention but one example, Article 11 of the BIT between Japan and
Myanmar of 15 December 2013 stipulates that “[e]ach Contracting Party shall
ensure that measures and efforts are undertaken to prevent and combat corruption
regarding matters covered by this Agreement in accordance with its laws and
regulations”.30

3.3 Provisions Signalling a Commitment to Corporate Social

Responsibility

The third type of stipulations worth highlighting in the present context are provisions
in investment agreements that signal a commitment to corporate social responsibility
by the contracting parties. This regulatory approach is in particular gaining ground in
current treaty practice.31 Thereby, a number of agreements emphasize the impor-
tance of these issues in their preambles.32 Among them is the BIT concluded by
China and Tanzania on 24 March 2013 whose preamble states that the contracting

29
Economic Partnership Agreement between the CARIFORUM States and the European Union and
its Member States, reprinted in: Official Journal of the European Union, No. L 289/I/3 of
30 October 2008.
30
Agreement between Japan and Myanmar for the Liberalization, Promotion and Protection of
Investment of 15 December 2013, http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/IIA/country/105/treaty/
2155.
31
On this perception see also already also UNCTAD (2011), pp. 119–120; Hepburn and Kuuya
(2011), pp. 601 et seq.
32
On the functions and importance of preambles for treaty interpretation, see for example ICJ, Case
Concerning Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia v. Malaysia), Judgment
(17 December 2002), ICJ Reports 2002, 625, p. 652, para. 51); Gardiner (2015), pp. 205 et seq.;
Dörr and Schmalenbach (2018), Article 31, para. 49; Compania de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and
Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, Award, 20 August 2007, para.
7.4.4.
144 K. Nowrot and E. Sipiorski

parties encourage investors to respect corporate social responsibility.33 In addition,

the BIT concluded between Iran and Slovakia, signed on 19 January 2016 and
entered into force on 30 August 2017, emphasizes in its preamble the determination
of the contracting parties to “promote corporate social accountability”.34
Other BITs and free trade agreements even provide in their operational sections
specific provisions asking the parties to encourage corporations—and thus the
primary type of foreign investors—to fulfil the societal expectations on their busi-
ness conduct. A vivid example is provided by Article 14 of the BIT concluded
between Canada and Mongolia on 8 September 2016 and entered into force on
24 February 2017:
Each Party should encourage enterprises operating within its territory or subject to its
jurisdiction to voluntarily incorporate internationally recognized standards of corporate
social responsibility in their practices and internal policies, such as statements of principle
that have been endorsed or are supported by the Parties. These principles address issues such
as labour, the environment, human rights, community relations and anti-corruption. The
Parties should remind those enterprises of the importance of incorporating such corporate
social responsibility standards in their internal policies.35

In addition, Article 11 of the BIT between Nigeria and Singapore of 4 November

2016 stipulates that:
“Singapore reaffirms the importance of encouraging enterprises operating within its territory
or subject to its jurisdiction to voluntarily incorporate into their internal policies those
internationally recognized standards, guidelines and principles of corporate social responsi-
bility that have been endorsed or are supported by Singapore” (paragraph 1), and that
“Nigeria is to encourage enterprises operating within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction
to voluntarily incorporate internationally recognized standards of corporate social responsi-
bility in their practices and internal policies such as statements of principles that have been
endorsed or are supported by Nigeria. These principles address issues such as labour, the
environment, public health, human rights, community relations and anti-corruption” (para-
graph 2).36

Article 5(2) of Chapter 9 (Investment) of the Pacific Agreement on Closer

Economic Relations (PACER Plus) concluded on 14 June 2017 between Australia,
New Zealand as well as 12 Pacific island states holds that:
[t]he Parties reaffirm the importance of each Party encouraging enterprises operating within
its territory or subject to its jurisdiction to voluntarily incorporate into their internal policies

33
Agreement between the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Government of
the United Republic of Tanzania Concerning the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Invest-
ments of 24 March 2013, http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/IIA/country/42/treaty/990.
34
The text of the agreement is available under: http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/IIA/treaty/
3633.
35
Agreement between Canada and Mongolia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments of
8 September 2016, http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/IIA/country/35/treaty/3698.
36
Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement between the Government of the Federal Repub-
lic of Nigeria and the Government of the Republic of Singapore of 4 November 2016, http://
investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/IIA/treaty/3705.
Stipulating Investors’ Obligations in Investment Agreements as a. . . 145

internationally recognized standards, guidelines and principles of corporate social responsi-

bility that have been endorsed or are supported by that Party.37

Related stipulations are also enshrined, inter alia, in Article 9.17 of the Compre-
hensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) con-
cluded on 8 March 2018 between Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan,
Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam,38 in Article 16 of
the BIT between the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s
Republic of China and the Republic of Chile of 18 November 2016,39 in Article
14 of the Intra-MERCOSUR Cooperation and Facilitation Investment Protocol of
7 April 2017,40 and in Article 15 of the investment cooperation and facilitation
agreement signed between Brazil and Suriname on 2 May 2018.41
Although this last mentioned type of provisions does not envision any legally
binding obligations for foreign investors, it is noteworthy for its explicit recognition
of investors’ public responsibilities and the importance attached to them by the
contracting parties.42 The creation of certain linkages as a result of these develop-
ments between the previously largely separated realms of IIAs and the protection of
investments enshrined therein on the one side and expectations on the conduct of
investors on the other side is another obvious indication that the idea of a merger of
investors’ rights and responsibilities is slowly but steadfastly gaining momentum in
investment treaty practice.

37
Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER Plus) of 14 June 2017, https://www.
mfat.govt.nz/en/trade/free-trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements-concluded-but-not-in-force/
pacer/pacer-plus-full-text/.
38
For the text of this agreement and its annexes see the information under: https://www.mfat.govt.
nz/en/trade/free-trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements-concluded-but-not-in-force/cptpp/compre
hensive-and-progressive-agreement-for-trans-pacific-partnership-text/.
39
The text of the agreement is available under: http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/IIA/
mostRecent/treaty/3717.
40
The text of the protocol is available under: http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/IIA/treaty/
3772.
41
The text of the agreement is available under: http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/IIA/
mostRecent/treaty/3815.
42
See also, e.g., UNCTAD (2011), p. 120 (“such clauses nevertheless serve to flag the importance
of CSR in investor–State relations, which may also influence the interpretation of IIA clauses by
tribunals in investor–State dispute settlement cases, and create linkages between IIAs and interna-
tional CSR standards”); as well as UNCTAD (2017b), pp. 62–63.
146 K. Nowrot and E. Sipiorski

4 Competition Law Perspective: Introducing Investors’

Treaty Obligations Aimed at Promoting and Protecting
Market Competition

In light of the increasing practical importance of the issue of investors’ obligations in

the investment treaty-making processes, the question arises as to possible motives
for, as well as suitable regulatory means of, applying this normative ordering idea
and comparatively new regulatory experiment also to provisions of competition law
and their incorporation into investment agreements. There are at least two main
reasons that speak in favour of stipulating in investment treaties also investors’
obligations aimed at promoting and protection market competition. First, there are
obvious similarities between the aims pursued by the policy issues already enshrined
in provisions stipulating investors’ obligations—among them the protection of
human rights and the environment, the promotion of core labour and social standards
as well as the prevention of corruption—and the goals of competition policy. In the
same way as these other existing rules of behaviour, also competition law regulates
business practices in order to promote broader public interest concerns, namely in
particular consumer welfare and the efficient allocation of resources.43
Second, it should be recalled that it is especially also the activities of (large)
foreign investors that have the potential to interfere with the free play of market
forces and thus contravene the aims pursued by competition policy. In order to
illustrate and confirm this perception, attention might for example be drawn to the
respective findings made by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) Secretariat, highlighting that “many MNEs [multinational
enterprises] have considerable financial resources at their disposal, they operate in
industries that are often dominated globally by a handful of large firms, and they are
able to establish dominant positions in many national markets through their foreign
investments”. Consequently, “the activities of MNEs can have structural implica-
tions with potentially negative effects on competition in some national markets”.44
In addition, the EU has stated in one of its communications to the WTO dealing with
the relation between investment and competition policy that “many countries,
including developing ones, may remain concerned that investment liberalization
could lead to unfair competition or monopolisation by capital-intensive foreign
companies seeking to enter the market. In all such cases, antitrust agencies can
perform an important task to protect consumers and competitors against anticom-
petitive practices”.45 Against this background, it is therefore unsurprising that issues
of competition policy also form part of international corporate social responsibility
(CSR) steering instruments addressed to foreign investors. This is evidenced by

43
On the goals pursued by competition law see Lowenfeld (2008), p. 419, 456; Khan et al., Article
101 TFEU, in: Geiger et al. (2015), para. 1; OECD Secretariat, A Policy Framework for Investment:
Competition Policy, 2005, pp. 2 et seq.
44
OECD Secretariat (2005), A Policy Framework for Investment: Competition Policy.
45
WTO, Communication from the European Community and its Member States, WT/WGTI/W/63
of 12 November 1998, para. 13.
Stipulating Investors’ Obligations in Investment Agreements as a. . . 147

Chapter X of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, originally adopted

by the OECD Ministerial Council and adhering governments on 21 June 1976 as an
annex to the Declaration on International Investment and Multinational Enterprises
last updated in May 2011.46
When considering the present issue from the perspective of implementation and
operationalization, the three categories of provisions are all of relevance in the
context of investors’ obligations and in principle also provide for suitable regulatory
means to stipulate respective rules of behaviour in the realm of competition law. To
begin with, this finding applies to provisions signalling a commitment to corporate
social responsibility by the contracting parties. In fact, these rules already, at least
indirectly, refer to societal expectations with regard to competition policy. This is
particularly the case in those investment treaties that explicitly mention the OECD
Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and thus also refer to their Chapter X.
Among them is the BIT between Austria and Kosovo of 22 January 2010; the
preamble expresses the “belief that responsible business behaviour, as incorporated
in the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, can contribute to mutual
confidence between enterprises and host countries” and takes “note of the principles
of the UN Global Compact”.47
However, this type of provision might also be taken recourse to in order to even
more directly emphasize the importance attached by the contracting parties to an
effective competition policy in general and the observance of competition rules in
particular. This logic is in line with respective stipulations to be found in free trade
agreements like Article 17.2(1) of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agree-
ment (CETA) between Canada and the EU of 30 September 2016.48 A respective
example from the realm of normative steering instruments in international invest-
ment relations is provided by Article 28 lit. a of the African Union’s Draft
Pan-African Investment Code of December 2016 proscribing that the member states
shall “[p]romote, maintain and encourage competition to enhance economic effi-
ciency in investment at the national and regional level”.49
Furthermore, and again in the same way as corresponding regulations in regional
economic integration agreements such as Article 11.13 of the Economic Partnership

46
Reprinted in: I.L.M. 15 (1976), pp. 969 et seq.; for the text of the updated OECD Guidelines as
well as accompanying documents see OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, 2011, http://
www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/29/48004323.pdf. On the issue of competition law and policy in the
OECD Guidelines see Hawk (1977), pp. 241 et seq.
47
Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investment between the Government of the
Republic of Austria and the Government of the Republic of Kosovo of 22 January 2010, https://
www.ris.bka.gv.at/. . ./COO_2026_100_2_726968.pdfsig. See also, e.g., Reinisch (2013), p. 21.
48
OJ EU L 11/23 of 14 January 2017.
49
Draft Pan-African Investment Code, African Union Commission, Economic Affairs Department,
December 2016, in: United Nations Economic and Social Council, Draft Pan-African Investment
Code, UN Doc. E/ECA/CM/50/1, AU/STC/FMEPI/MIN/1(III) of 8 February 2017.
148 K. Nowrot and E. Sipiorski

Agreement signed by the EU and Japan on 17 July 2018,50 the stipulation of indirect
obligations of conduct also appears among the proper regulatory approaches aimed
at more effectively integrating competition law into investment agreements. Article
28 lit. b and c of the African Union’s Draft Pan-African Investment Code provides
one of the few examples in the area of transnational investment regulations. This
provision requires the member states to:
[p]rohibit any anti-competitive investment conduct that prevents, restricts or distorts com-
petition at the national and regional levels” (lit. b) as well as to “[a]dopt and implement clear
and transparent rules on competition to increase the ability of the regional economy to attract
investment and to maximize the benefits of such investment (lit. c).

Lastly attention can—and in fact should—also in the present context be drawn to the
ordering idea of including direct obligations of conduct for foreign investors aimed
at preventing anti-competitive behaviour. In the same way as with regard to the
promotion and protection of other public interest concerns as already noted above,
this normative steering technique has, in particular also concerning the field of
competition law, not frequently been applied in treaty practice. One of the rare but
comparatively well-known manifestations in the realm of regional economic inte-
gration agreements is the normative framework on competition enshrined in the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in particular Article
101 TFEU outlawing anti-competitive collusions between two or more economic
actors in the form of cartels as well as Article 102 TFEU prohibiting abuses of a
dominant market position by individual business entities.51 The Court of Justice of
the European Union (CJEU) clarified several decades ago that both provisions are
directly applicable and produce direct effects in relations between individuals,52
thereby also underlining their character as what is here referred to as direct obliga-
tions of conduct. In addition, among the few examples that the present authors are
aware of in the transboundary normative framework dealing with foreign invest-
ments itself is Article 17(1) of the Charter on a Regime of Multinational Industrial
Enterprises in the Preferential Trade Area for Eastern and Southern African States of
21 November 1990 that list a number of obligations incumbent upon multinational
enterprises and their subsidiaries. Among them is, according to lit. d of this provi-
sion, the duties to “refrain from entering into restrictive business practices that have

50
The text of the agreement is for example available under: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/
index.cfm?id¼1684.
51
For a more detailed discussion of these two provisions Jones and Townley (2017), pp. 514 et seq.;
Schütze (2018), p. 709 et seq.
52
CJEU, Case 127/73, BRT et al. v. SABAM et al., Judgement of 30 January 1974, para. 16; as well
as subsequently for example CJEU, Case C-282/95 P, Guérin Automobiles v. Commission, Judge-
ment of 18 March 1997, para. 39; CJEU, Joined Cases C-295/04 to C-298/04, Vincenzo Manfredi
et al. v. Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni SpA et al., Judgement of 13 July 2006, para. 39. See also,
e.g., Khan et al., Article 101 TFEU, in: Geiger et al. (2015), para. 36; Khan et al., Article 102 TFEU,
in: Geiger et al. (2015), para. 2. For a more comprehensive treatment of the concepts of direct
applicability and direct effect in EU law see for example Schütze (2018), pp. 76 et seq.
Stipulating Investors’ Obligations in Investment Agreements as a. . . 149

an adverse effect on: (i) the acquisition and transfer of technology; and (ii) the
competitiveness of other enterprises owned by nationals of Member States”.53
Some of the primary reasons why contracting state parties in most parts of the
world are as of today still rather reluctant to stipulate in particular direct obligations
of investors in investment treaties have already been identified above. Many of these
motives most certainly also apply in the present context. Nevertheless, they do not
principally prevent the inclusion of respective investors’ obligation into international
agreements, in particular if the contracting parties are willing and able to also
adequately address the challenges connected with the enforcement of this type of
provisions. And, to this enforcement perspective we now turn.

5 Enforcement Perspective: Implementing Investors’

Obligations in International and Domestic Investment
Dispute Settlement Proceedings

The idea of investors’ responsibilities does not involve issues of substantive law
alone. This concept also entails a strong procedural dimension by giving rise to the
questions where and by which means respective obligations can be enforced. In light
of the fact that until now very few investment treaties proscribe respective direct
obligations, this issue has hardly been dealt with in the practice of investment
arbitration. The conduct of investors has previously been taken into account by
tribunals when misconduct occurs. However, it needs to be emphasized that the
respective legal consequences of “investments made in breach of fundamental
principles of the host state’s law, e.g. by fraudulent misrepresentation or the dissim-
ulation of true ownership” has been widely discussed in arbitral practice,54 and the
implications of other forms of “unconscionable conduct” on the side of the foreign
investor,55 do not concern direct investors’ obligations in the narrow sense of the
meaning. Rather, they more closely resemble, in the context of international invest-
ment law, behavioural expectations being incumbent upon investors on the basis of
the principle of good faith,56 a violation of which does not give rise to compensation,
but “merely” results in a legal disadvantage with the investor forfeiting the

53
Charter on a Regime of Multinational Industrial Enterprises in the Preferential Trade Area for
Eastern and Southern African States of 21 November 1990, reprinted for example in: UNCTAD
(1996), pp. 427 et seq.
54
Desert Line Projects LLC v. Yemen, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/17, Award, 6 February 2008, para.
104; see also, e.g., World Duty Free Company Ltd. v. Kenya, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/7, Award,
4 October 2006, paras 138 et seq.; as well as from the literature for example Douglas (2014),
pp. 155 et seq.
55
Azinian et al. v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/2, Award, 1 November 1999, reprinted in:
I.L.M. 39 (2000), p. 537, pp. 553 et seq.; see also for example Muchlinski (2006), p. 536 et seq.
56
On the principle of good faith as the basis of these behavioural expectations see Phoenix Action,
Ltd. v. Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award, 15 April 2009, paras 100, 106 et seq.;
150 K. Nowrot and E. Sipiorski

protection under the respective investment agreement57 or, alternatively, might be

taken into account in calculating the damages to be awarded to the claimant
investor.58
Counterclaims initiated by the host country in investor-state arbitration proceed-
ings59 are another mechanism for enforcement of investors’ direct obligations of
conduct as stipulated in investment agreements. Indeed, respective provisions
explicitly allowing counterclaims by host states can, in current treaty practice, also
be found in some of the few investment agreements that actually overtly stipulate
direct obligations for investors. Article 28(9) of the 2007 Investment Agreement for
the COMESA Common Investment Area states in this connection:
A Member State against whom a claim is brought by a COMESA investor under this Article
may assert as a defence, counterclaim, right of set off or other similar claim, that the
COMESA investor bringing the claim has not fulfilled its obligations under this Agreement,
including the obligations to comply with all applicable domestic measures or that it has not
taken all reasonable steps to mitigate possible damages.

The same applies for example to Article 18 of the 2008 ECOWAS Supplementary
Act A/SA.3/12/08 Adopting Community Rules on Investment and the Modalities for
their Implementation with ECOWAS entitled “Relations of Investor’s Liability to
Dispute Settlement” and stipulating, among others, in its paragraph 4:
A host Member State may initiate a counterclaim before any tribunal established pursuant to
this Supplementary Act for damages resulting from an alleged breach of the
Supplementary Act.

From the perspective of traditional international investment law, the attractive-

ness of this more indirect approach that primarily relies on counterclaims initiated by
the host country lies undoubtedly in its procedural connectivity and thus the possi-
bility to incorporate it in the present system of investor-state arbitration. However,
other more far-reaching and advanced procedural options on how to enforce inves-
tors’ direct obligations of conduct in the realm of international investment arbitration
and beyond would require certain modifications of the currently predominant frame-
work of investment dispute settlement. Among them is the possibility to grant host
states a right to actively initiate respective proceedings against foreign investors.

Plama Consortium Ltd. v. Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Award, 27 August 2008, para.
144.
57
Nowrot (2010), p. 40.
58
Creek Mining Company v. Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/21, Award, 30 November 2017,
Partially Dissenting Opinion of Philippe Sands, paras 4 et seq. See in this connection also Article
23 of the new Dutch Model BIT, adopted by the Dutch government on 19 October 2018 https://
www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g¼c5bb3ed4-08ea-440e-9a77-43deff073842: “Without
prejudice to national administrative or criminal law procedures, a Tribunal may, in deciding on
the amount of compensation, take into account non-compliance by the investor with its commit-
ments under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and the OECD Guidelines
for Multinational Enterprises.”
59
On counterclaims in international investment arbitration see, e.g., Waibel (2015), pp. 1235 et seq.;
Hoffmann (2013), pp. 438 et seq.
Stipulating Investors’ Obligations in Investment Agreements as a. . . 151

This approach, even in the practice of contract-based investor-state arbitration, is still

quite rarely taken recourse to.60 Furthermore, it has even sporadically been proposed
in the literature to also consider the option of providing for standing of, inter alia,
individuals, juridical persons and indigenous communities in the host states to
launch respective claims for compensation against foreign investors—in the fora
of international investment arbitration proceedings—based on an alleged violation
of obligations imposed on them in an investment agreement.61 Although undoubt-
edly a rather innovative idea to cope with the challenge of how to ensure access to
effective remedial processes for other actors negatively affected by an investment,62
states would be reluctant to agree to such a system.63
The door to legal remedies in the form of access to international investment
arbitration proceedings for societal actors in the host countries negatively affected by
the conduct of foreign investors thus seems to be currently not widely available.
However, recent investment treaty practice, in particular in the African context,
reveals the emergence of a regulatory approach that relies on the still not infrequently
overlooked or neglected steering potential of the foreign investors’ home countries.
An example illustrating this comparatively new approach is provided by Article
20 of the BIT treaty concluded between Morocco and Nigeria in December 2016:
“Investors shall be subject to civil actions for liability in the judicial process of their
home state for the acts or decisions made in relation to the investment where such
acts or decisions lead to significant damage, personal injuries or loss of life in the
host state”.64 A related provision can be found in the 2008 ECOWAS Supplemen-
tary Act whose Article 29 stipulates that “[h]ome States shall ensure that their legal
systems and rules allow for, or do not prevent or unduly restrict, the bringing of court
actions on their merits before domestic courts relating to the civil liability of
investors for damages resulting from alleged acts or decisions made by investors

60
On the limited number of cases in which the host state acted as claimant in contract-based
investor-state arbitration proceedings see, e.g., Toral and Schultz (2010), pp. 589 et seq.; Laborde
(2010), p. 97 et seq.
61
Weiler (2004), pp. 437 et seq.
62
On the underlying fundamental issue of providing individuals and groups affected by foreign
investments with adequate access to justice, see also Francioni (2009), pp. 71 et seq.
63
See thereto for example Mann (2008), p. 14 (“In the view of this author, such an approach is
illusory, given the costs of international arbitration processes in many cases, and the difficulties in
mounting such cases before tribunals designed for commercial law purposes rather than enforce-
ment of legislation or obligations against corporations.”).
64
On this provision see also already, e.g., Gazzini (2017), p. 4 (“The final innovation is the
provision on the investor liability before the tribunals of the home state, which may have a
considerable impact on domestic litigation against investors – especially multinational companies –
and help overcome jurisdictional hurdles and most prominently the forum non conveniens doctrine.
This can be considered as an important development from the standpoint of the responsible conduct
of investments, the redress of wrongful doings and the role of the home state.”); as well as
UNCTAD (2017a), p. 63.
152 K. Nowrot and E. Sipiorski

in relation to their investments in the territory of other Member States”.65 Further-

more, Article 7(4) of the new Dutch model BIT adopted by the Dutch government on
19 October 2018 states that “[i]nvestors shall be liable in accordance with the rules
concerning jurisdiction of their home state for the acts or decisions made in relation
to the investment where such acts or decisions lead to significant damage, personal
injuries or loss of life in the host state”. In addition, one final example is Article 19
(4) of the 2012 SADC Model BIT Template that a quite similar stipulation:
In accordance with the domestic law of the Home State, the Host State, including political
subdivisions and officials thereof, private persons, or private organizations, may initiate a
civil action in domestic courts of the Home State against the Investor, where such an action
relates to the specific conduct of the Investor, and claims damages arising from an alleged
breach of the obligations set out in this Agreement.66

In the same way as for example Article 4(2) of the OECD Convention on
Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transac-
tions,67 that stipulates: “Each Party which has jurisdiction to prosecute its nationals
for offences committed abroad shall take such measures as may be necessary to
establish its jurisdiction to do so in respect of the bribery of a foreign public official”,
these provisions require the contracting state parties to provide for an extraterritorial
application of their domestic laws to the activities of their private business actors
while operating abroad. The regulations at issue thus establish, in addition to the
national courts of the host state, also the domestic judicial bodies of the home states
of foreign investors as suitable and potentially promising fora for the enforcement of
investors’ obligations at the initiative of individuals and other societal actors that
have been negatively affected by the conduct of respective foreign investors.
While most certainly also the other approaches as identified and outlined above
provide for suitable enforcement options likewise in the present context of compe-
tition law, it is submitted that in particular also this last-mentioned enlistment of the
national courts of the host as well as home states and thus the possibility for private
actors, prominently among them affected consumers and business competitors, to

65
See also on the stipulation of investor liability in the courts of the host state the provision of
Article 17 of the 2008 ECOWAS Supplementary Act: “Investors shall be subject to civil actions for
liability in the judicial process of their host State for acts or decisions made in relation to the
investment where such acts or decisions lead to significant damage, personal injuries or loss of life
in the host State.”
66
SADC Model Bilateral Investment Treaty Template with Commentary (July 2012) Articles
10 et seq. https://www.iisd.org/itn/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/sadc-model-bit-template-final.pdf.
See also, again, concerning the respective stipulation of investor liability in the courts of the host
state Article 19(3) of the 2012 SADC Model Bilateral Investment Treaty Template: “In accordance
with its applicable domestic law, the Host State, including political subdivisions and officials
thereof, private persons, or private organizations, may initiate a civil action in domestic courts
against the Investor or Investment for damages arising from an alleged breach of the obligations set
out in this Agreement.”
67
OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business
Transactions of 21 November 1997. http://www.oecd.org/corruption/oecdantibriberyconvention.
htm.
Stipulating Investors’ Obligations in Investment Agreements as a. . . 153

engage into antitrust litigation should be regarded as a notable and in principle

effective technique to remedy anti-competitive behaviour by foreign investors. A
telling role model for this regulatory approach in the transnational economic system,
specifically in the realm of regional economic integration agreements, is provided by
the entitlement of individuals and other actors, as recognized under EU law by the
CJEU68 and for example more recently concretized in Directive 2014/104/EU69 with
the aim to ensure maximum effectiveness of the competition rules, to compensation
for harm resulting from infringements of EU competition law—prominently among
them the already mentioned Articles 101 and 102 TFEU—on the basis of private
enforcement actions before the domestic courts of the EU member states.70 There
seems to be no major reason speaking against, and quite to the contrary a consider-
able number in favour of, at least seriously considering a transfer of this noteworthy
enforcement approach to the realm of international investment law and thus also its
incorporation into investment agreements.

6 Conclusion

The issue of investors’ public obligations towards the societies in which they operate
is unlikely to vanish from the discourses on and practice of international investment
law any time soon. Closely intertwined with and stimulated by the broader discus-
sions on how to integrate non-state actors into the normative structure of the
international system, numerous developments justify the conclusion that this subject
has emerged as an important component of the current processes aimed at reforming
this area of law by rebalancing the rights and obligations of states and investors.
Against this background, the present chapter illustrates the potential applicability
and extension of this regulatory approach to the realm of competition law by
stipulating respective investors’ obligations aimed at preventing and remedying
anti-competitive behaviour to be incorporated into IIAs.

68
CJEU, Case C-453/99, Courage Ltd. v. Crehan, Judgement of 20 September 2001, paras
23 et seq.; CJEU, Joined Cases C-295/04 to C-298/04, Vincenzo Manfredi et al. v. Lloyd Adriatico
Assicurazioni SpA et al., Judgement of 13 July 2006, paras 56 et seq.
69
Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on
Certain Rules Governing Actions for Damages under National Law for Infringements of the
Competition Law Provisions of the Member States and of the European Union, OJ EU L 349/1
of 5 December 2014.
70
Komninos (2002), p. 447 et seq.; Reich (2005), p. 35 et seq.; Schütze (2018), pp. 430 et seq.;
Jones and Townley (2017), p. 514.
154 K. Nowrot and E. Sipiorski

References

Alston P (2005) The ‘not-a-cat’ syndrome: can the international human rights regime accommodate
non-state actors? In: Alston P (ed) Non-state actors and human rights. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, pp 3–36
Butler N, Subedi S (2017) The future of international investment regulation: towards a world
investment organisation? Neth Int Law Rev 64:43–72
Carlos AM, Nicholas S (1988) Giants of an earlier capitalism: the chartered trading companies as
modern multinationals. Bus Hist Rev 62:398–419
Clapham A (2006) Human rights obligations of non-state actors. Oxford University Press, Oxford
D’Aspremont J (ed) (2011) Participants in the international legal system: multiple perspectives on
non-state actors in international law. Routledge, London
Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University
Press, Oxford
Dörr O, Schmalenbach K (eds) (2018) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a commentary,
2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg
Douglas Z (2014) The plea of illegality in investment treaty arbitration. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest
Law J 29:155–186
Francioni F (2009) Access to justice, denial of justice, and international investment law. In: Dupuy
PM, Francioni F, Petersmann EU (eds) Human rights in international investment law and
arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 63–81
García-Bolívar OE (2009) Sovereignty v. investment protection: back to Calvo? ICSID Rev
Foreign Invest Law J 24:464–488
Gardiner R (2015) Treaty interpretation, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Gazzini T (2017) The 2016 Morocco-Nigeria BIT: an important contribution to the reform of
investment treaties. Invest Treaty News 8(3):3–4
Geiger R, Khan DE, Kotzur M (eds) (2015) European Union treaties. Beck/Hart, Oxford
Hawk BE (1977) The OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises: competition. Fordham Law
Rev 46:241–276
Hepburn J, Kuuya V (2011) Corporate social responsibility and investment treaties. In: Cordonier
Segger MC, Gehring MW, Newcombe A (eds) Sustainable development in world investment
law. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 589–609
Hoffmann AK (2013) Counterclaims in investment arbitration. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J
28:438–453
Jones A, Townley C (2017) Competition law. In: Barnard C, Peers S (eds) European Union law,
2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 509–542
Klabbers J (2003) (I can’t get no) recognition: subjects doctrine and the emergence of non-state
actors. In: Petman J, Klabbers J (eds) Nordic cosmopolitanism – essays in international law for
Martti Koskenniemi. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 351–369
Komninos AP (2002) New prospects for private enforcement of EC competition law: courage
v. Crehan and the community right to damages. Common Mark Law Rev 39:447–487
Laborde G (2010) The case for host state claims in investment arbitration. J Int Dispute Settlement
1:97–122
Lavranos N (2016) How the European Commission and the EU member states are reasserting their
control over their investment treaties and ISDS rules. In: Kulick A (ed) States’ reassertion of
control over international investment agreements and international investment treaty dispute
settlement. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 309–332
Lowenfeld AF (2008) International economic law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Mann H (2008) International investment agreements, business and human rights: key issues and
opportunities. International Institute for Sustainable Development, p. 14. www.iisd.org/pdf/
2008/iia_business_human_rights.pdf
Mbengue MM, Schacherer S (2018) Africa and the rethinking of international investment law:
about the elaboration of the Pan-African investment code. In: Roberts A, Stephan PB, Verdier
Stipulating Investors’ Obligations in Investment Agreements as a. . . 155

PH, Versteeg M (eds) Comparative international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp
547–569
Metcalf TR (1994) Ideologies of the raj. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Miles K (2010) Reconceptualising international investment law: bringing the public interest into
private business. In: Lewis MK, Frankel S (eds) International economic law and national
autonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 243–268
Muchlinski P (2006) ‘Caveat investor’? The relevance of the conduct of the investor under the fair
and equitable treatment standard. Int Comp Law Q 55:527–557
Muchlinski P (2008) Policy issues. In: Muchlinski P, Ortino F, Schreuer C (eds) The Oxford
handbook of international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–48
Muchlinski P (2010) Multinational enterprises as actors in international law: creating “soft law”
obligations and “hard law” rights. In: Noortman M, Ryngaert C (eds) Non-state actor dynamics
in international law — from law-takers to law-makers. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 9–39
Muchlinski P (2011) Regulating multinationals: foreign investment, development, and the balance
of corporate and home country rights and responsibilities in a globalizing world. In: Alvarez JE,
Sauvant KP (eds) The evolving international investment regime. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, pp 30–59
Muchlinski P (2017) The impact of a business and human rights treaty on investment law and
arbitration. In: Deva S, Bilchitz D (eds) Building a treaty on business and human rights – context
and contours. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 346–374
Noortmann M, Reinisch A, Ryngaert C (eds) (2015) Non-state actors in international law. Hart,
Oxford
Nowrot K (1999) Legal consequences of globalization: the status of non-governmental organiza-
tions under international law. Indiana J Global Legal Stud 6:579–645
Nowrot K (2010) International investment law and the Republic of Ecuador: from arbitral bilater-
alism to judicial regionalism. Beiträge zum Transnationalen Wirtschaftsrecht, vol. 96. Institut
für Wirtschaftsrecht, Halle (Saale)
Peters A (2016) Beyond human rights – the legal status of the individual in international law.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Puig S, Shaffer G (2018) Imperfect alternatives: institutional choice and investment law reform. Am
J Int Law 112:361–409
Reich N (2005) The “courage” doctrine: encouraging or discouraging compensation for antitrust
injuries? Common Mark Law Rev 42:35–66
Reinisch A (2013) Austria. In: Brown C (ed) Commentaries on selected model investment treaties.
Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 15–51
Roberts A (2018) Incremental, systemic and paradigmatic reform of investor-state arbitration. Am J
Int Law 113:410–432
Salacuse JW (1985) Towards a new treaty framework for direct foreign investment. J Air Law
Commer 50:969–1010
Salacuse JW (2015) The law of investment treaties, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Schütze R (2018) European Union law, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Tamada D (2015) Discriminatory application of competition law and international investment
agreements. Research Institute of Economy, Trade & Industry Discussion Paper Series 15-E-
125, November 2015, pp 1–20
Tietje C (2009) The future of international investment protection: stress in the system? ICSID Rev
Foreign Invest Law J 24:457–463
Tietje C, Crow K (2017) The reform of investment protection rules in CETA, TTIP, and other recent
EU FTAs: convincing?. In: Griller, Obwexer W, Vranes E (eds) Mega-regional trade agree-
ments: CETA, TTIP, and TiSA. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 87–110
Toral M, Schultz T (2010) The state, the perpetual respondent in investment arbitration? Some
unorthodox considerations. In: Waibel M et al (eds) The backlash against investment
arbitration – perceptions and reality. Kluwer, Austin, pp 577–602
156 K. Nowrot and E. Sipiorski

UNCTAD (1996) International investment instruments: a compendium, vol II. United Nations,
New York
UNCTAD (1997) World investment report 1997: transnational corporations, market structure and
competition policy. United Nations, New York
UNCTAD (2001) Social responsibility, UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/22. United Nations, New York
UNCTAD (2011) World investment report 2011: non-equity modes of international production and
development. United Nations, New York
UNCTAD (2017a) World investment report 2017: investment and the digital economy. United
Nations, New York
UNCTAD (2017b) UNCTAD’s reform package for the international investment regime. United
Nations, New York
UNCTAD (2018) World investment report 2018: investment and new industrial policies. United
Nations, New York
Waibel M (2015) Investment arbitration: jurisdiction and admissibility. In: Bungenberg M,
Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law. Nomos/Hart, Baden-Baden,
pp 1212–1287
Weiler T (2004) Balancing human rights and investor protection: a new approach for a different
legal order. Boston Coll Int Comp Law Rev 27:429–450

Karsten Nowrot received his legal education at the Universities of Kiel (Germany), Surrey (UK),
Halle-Wittenberg (Germany) and Indiana University School of Law (USA). He is Professor of
Public Law, European Law and International Economic Law, Director of the Research Institute for
Economic Law and Labour Law as well as the current Head of the Department of Law at the School
of Socio-Economics of the Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences at Hamburg
University, Germany. He also serves as Deputy Director of the Master Programme “European
and European Legal Studies” at the Institute for European Integration of the Europa-Kolleg in
Hamburg.

Emily Sipiorski is an associated researcher at the University of NOVA, Lisbon, Centre of Research
and Development for Law and Society (CEDIS) and was previously a post-doctoral researcher in the
Department of Law at the School of Socio-Economics at the University of Hamburg, Germany. She
worked at Martin Luther University, Halle-Wittenberg, Germany as a lecturer and senior researcher,
where she completed her PhD, and at Luther Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft on the complex disputes team.
Anti-competitive Investor Behaviour
and Illegal Investments in Investment
Treaty Arbitration

Elena Belova

Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
2 A Definition of Anti-competitive Investor Behaviour that Taints Investments
with Illegality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
3 Anti-competitive Investor Behaviour as a Matter That Falls Within “In Accordance
with Host State’s Laws” Clauses Under the Relevant BIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
3.1 Anti-competitive Investor Behaviour That Falls Within the “Substantial Scope” Test . 162
3.2 Anti-competitive Behaviour That Falls Within the “Time Scope” Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
4 Anti-competitive Investor Behaviour as a Separate or Additional Ground of Illegality
Under International Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
4.1 Anti-competitive Investor Misconduct Under the Emergent General Principle
of Law to Comply with Host State Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
4.2 Anti-competitive Investor Behaviour Under the Developing Components of Truly
International Public Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Abstract Anti-competitive behaviour on the part of investors can lead to breaches

of the host state legal order and cause market distortions. This chapter discusses the
legal consequences of such behaviour within the framework of investment treaty
arbitration and aims to show that anti-competitive strategies may lead to breaches not
only of competition law, but also of a variety of host state national laws and
regulations. It consequently proposes the adoption of a functional definition of
anti-competitive actions that taint investments with illegality and explores the
ways in which such investments may be excluded from the protection offered by
bilateral investment treaties (BITs). The study of recent case law tends to show that
investors are likely to face the consequences of their anti-competitive conduct in
investment treaty arbitration. Two main hypotheses are explored: first, the issue of
illegality when the BIT in question contains a specific legality requirement, and

E. Belova (*)
University of Lille, Lille, France
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 157

K. Fach Gómez et al. (eds.), International Investment Law and Competition Law,
European Yearbook of International Economic Law,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33916-6_8
158 E. Belova

second, the possibility for states to rely on international law when challenging
investors’ anti-competitive behaviour.

1 Introduction

Our faith in freedom does not rest on the foreseeable results in particular circumstances but
on the belief that it will, on balance, release more forces for the good than for the bad.1

The conclusion of bilateral investment treaties (BITs) as a step towards market

liberalization reflects the belief that if states ensure protection for foreign investors in
exchange for capital flows, this will contribute to economic development.2 The
resulting international investment agreements (IIAs) are part of states’ broader
competition strategy, aimed at promoting fairness and equity, political and economic
pluralism, and consumer welfare.3 When states limit their sovereignty by concluding
IIAs with a view to inter alia encouraging foreign competition, any breaches on the
part of investors of the domestic laws and regulations guaranteeing these values
place an economic burden on the host state.4 In investment treaty arbitration the state
can claim that the investments in question are tainted with illegality because they
were made in violation of domestic laws, and may consequently ask the tribunal to
deny the benefit of substantial treaty protection on this ground.5 Within investor-
state dispute settlements, any wrongdoings on the part of investors that are the
outcome of anti-competitive behaviour are therefore related to complex issues
arising from the illegality of the investment.
With this in mind, the chapter is organised as follows. The first task is to clarify
the relationships between anti-competitive behaviour on the part of investors and
investment illegality in investment treaty arbitration; then, a definition of the anti-
competitive behaviour in violation of host state domestic laws is suggested. Sec-
ondly, the question of how such conduct may fall within the scope of the investment
treaty’s legality requirement (the “in accordance with host state’s laws” clause of the
BIT) is discussed. Thirdly and finally, the chapter will explain how investment
tribunals have relied on other sources, namely transnational standards and principles,

1
Hayek (1960).
2
Alvarez (2011), pp. 287–288.
3
Working Group on the Interaction between Trade and Competition Policy, The fundamental
principles of competition policy, Background note by the Secretariat, WT/WGTCP/W/127,
7 June 1999, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/comp_e/wgtcp_docs_e.htm.
4
Alasdair Ross Anderson and others v. Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/07/3, Award,
19 May 2010, para. 53: “[t]he assurance of legality with respect to investment has important, indeed
crucial, consequences for the public welfare and economic well-being of any country.” In a
“criminal” context, see also Betz (2017), pp. 281–282.
5
Moloo and Khachaturian (2011), p. 1475; Schill (2012), pp. 281 and 309; El Gawhary
(2015), p. 300.
Anti-competitive Investor Behaviour and Illegal Investments in. . . 159

either on a complementary fashion, or even in the absence of an “in accordance with

host state’s laws” clause of the BIT. In this situation, some types of anti-competitive
investor conduct may trigger the application of these standards. The chapter closes
with some brief conclusions.

2 A Definition of Anti-competitive Investor Behaviour that

Taints Investments with Illegality

As mentioned above, illegality arises when a foreign investor breaches host state
domestic laws and regulations. However, the concept of “anti-competitive behav-
iour” which transgresses domestic laws is more difficult to define. A narrow defini-
tion is to be found in the Japan-Mongolia Agreement for an Economic Partnership,
which states that: “the term ‘anticompetitive activities’ means any conduct or
transaction that may be subject to penalties or relief under the competition laws
and regulations of the respective Parties.”6 Under an approach such as this, anti-
competitive behaviour is limited to investor actions that are forbidden by national
competition law. States especially prohibit and penalize a great many business
practices which artificially distort market equilibrium.7 Despite the fact that legal
norms vary from one jurisdiction to another, competition law normally refers to
“control of mergers and acquisitions, control of restrictive business practices and
control of unfair trade practices.”8 Restrictive business practices include abuses
during the concluding of anti-competitive agreements (e.g. forming cartels) and
abuses of market domination in the form of maintaining or increasing market
powers.9 Unfair trade practices, in turn, are those that directly harm the consumer
(e.g. misleading advertising); as these are subject to consumer protection laws, they
may fall outside the scope of competition laws.10 This approach is reflected in the
Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), the preamble to which recalls the importance of
“competition rules concerning mergers, monopolies, anti-competitive practices and
abuse of dominant position”.11

6
Article 11.1, Chapter 11 of the Agreement between Japan and Mongolia for an Economic
Partnership, concluded 10 February 2015. It must be specified that under this Chapter the parties
agreed to include each state’s obligations in the matter of competition laws and that all disputes
connected to such commitments are non-arbitrable, in conformity with Article 11.6 of this
Agreement.
7
Khemani and Shapiro (1993). See also UNCTAD (2007), UNCTAD Model Law on Competition:
Substantive elements for a competition law including commentaries and alternative approaches,
https://unctad.org/en/Docs/tdrbpconf5d7rev3_en.pdf.
8
Mehta et al. (2008).
9
Mehta et al. (2008), pp. 45–46.
10
Mehta et al. (2008), p. 46.
11
Para. 11, Preamble, Energy Charter Treaty, adopted in Lisbon on 17 December 1994.
160 E. Belova

However, given the differences among national legislations, anti-competitive

investor behaviour does not necessarily correspond to anti-competitive practices as
these are understood under national competition law. Rather, the notion of “anti-
competitive behaviour” encompasses “the way in which [the investor] acts”12
resulting in adverse effects on market competition. For the purposes of this study,
therefore, anti-competitive behaviour is defined under a functionally-based
approach, which matches economic realities. From this perspective, anti-competitive
investor conduct could be regulated by a wide range of domestic laws, including
competition laws, consumer laws,13 privatization laws, criminal laws and investment
laws. Foreign investors may breach some or many of them.
Arbitral practice provides some useful examples of anti-competitive behaviour on
the part of investors that is related to investments acquired by illegal means that are
sanctioned under a wide range of local laws. There is certainly evidence to show that
foreign investors may engage in corruption,14 which “affects the correct and proper
functioning of markets.”15 For instance, a personal donation made by an investor to
the president of the host state with the aim of concluding an investment agreement
and thus being able to conduct business was at the heart of the World Duty Free
v. Kenya case.16 This was a clear example of corruption involving a high-ranking
official17; in the same vein, making excessive payments to private consultants,
allegedly conducting lobbying activities concerning an investment project, and in
fact having important connections to public officials in charge of the claimants’
investments were all discussed by the parties in Metal-Tech v. Uzbekistan.18 Market
competition can therefore be artificially distorted when there is no equal access to the
market. Although corruption is primarily sanctioned under criminal law, it can still
be a tool by which foreign investors can engage in unfair competition.

12
Oxford Dictionary online, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/behaviour.
13
In fact, if the purpose of competition law is to fight against certain behavioural patterns and to
ensure market equilibrium at a horizontal level (between firms), consumer laws adopted by states
complement this objective in a vertical sense by addressing relationships between firms and
consumers. For more explanations, see: Dhall (2008).
14
Pradhan et al. (2000). See more explanations in Kryvoi (2018), https://ssrn.com/
abstract¼3212741 (electronic version used hereinafter).
15
OECD, Fighting corruption and promoting competition, Executive Summary of key findings
from the discussion held during Session I of the 13th meeting of the Global Forum on Competition
on 27–28 February 2014, DAF/COMP/GF(2014)12/FINAL, 20 November 2014, http://www.oecd.
org/competition/fighting-corruption-and-promoting-competition.htm.
16
World Duty Free Co. Ltd. v. Kenya, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/7, Award, 4 October 2006, paras
62–66.
17
World Duty Free Co. Ltd. v. Kenya, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/7, Award, 4 October 2006, para.
136.
18
Metal-Tech Ltd. v. Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/3, Award, 4 October 2013, paras
199–203 and 225–227. The arbitral tribunal also considered other factors, namely the absence of
services or proof of services, the lack of qualifications on the part of the consultants, fake consulting
contracts and the lack of payee transparency (paras 204–224). For a deeper analysis of corruption in
investment arbitration, see: Lamm et al. (2014), pp. 328–349; Llamzon (2014); Kryvoi (2018).
Anti-competitive Investor Behaviour and Illegal Investments in. . . 161

Another hypothesis concerns different kinds of serious misrepresentation or

massive fraud entailing market distortion during tender and privatization processes,
which also have to be considered part of anti-competitive investor behaviour. In his
dissenting opinion in Lemire v. Ukraine, Professor Jürgen Voss recalled that if
market participants were not competing in the tender process on the same terms
and conditions, there was no fair competition.19 The effects of illegal acts may lead
to the violating of fundamental pillars of the process (the bidding process, procure-
ment, privatization), influencing the host state’s choice of the successful company.
To take one example, the investor in the ICSID Inceysa v. El Salvador arbitration
had not only supplied forged documentation and false information during the
bidding process, but had also concealed its links with a related company, whereas
the state argued that it had prohibited the participation of associated companies in
order to avoid the forming of a monopoly.20 Fraudulent investor behaviour aimed at
inducing the host state to authorize the transfer of shares during a privatization
process was also examined in Plama v. Bulgaria.21 Investors can therefore commit
abuses resulting from fraud, or other violations of good faith which are sanctioned
under national competition law22 or under the rules governing privatization or
bidding processes, in order to gain an illegal advantage over their competitors. For
the purposes of this chapter, anti-competitive investor behaviour therefore embraces
all types of private actions that lead to serious market distortions, and at the same
time breach the host state’s laws.

3 Anti-competitive Investor Behaviour as a Matter That

Falls Within “In Accordance with Host State’s Laws”
Clauses Under the Relevant BIT

Many BITs contain “in accordance with host state’s laws” clauses.23 The arbitral
tribunal in Electrabel v. Hungary noted that, depending on the wording, “the legality
of the investment and the investor’s good faith may be relevant as elements of the
definition of an investment or as a bar to the exercise of jurisdiction or to investment

19
Joseph Charles Lemire v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/18, Dissenting Opinion of Arbitrator
Dr. Jürgen Voss, 1 March 2011, para. 117.
20
Inceysa Vallisoletana S.L. v. El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26, Award, 2 August 2006,
paras 53 and 58.
21
Plama Consortium Limited v. Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Award, 27 August 2008,
para. 133. For an in-depth analysis of fraud and misrepresentations in investment arbitration, see
Llamzon and Sinclair (2015), pp. 469–478.
22
Federal Act of December 19, 1986, on Unfair Competition (status as of January 1st, 2016).
23
Moloo and Khachaturian (2011), p. 1476; El Gawhary (2015), p. 300.
162 E. Belova

protection on the merits.”24 Interpreting the legality requirement under the Bolivia-
Chile BIT in light of previous arbitral decisions, the tribunal in Quiborax v. Bolivia
found it to be framed by both subject-matter (laws and regulations) and time (the
time at which the alleged illegal action took place) limitations.25 An “in accordance
with laws” clause is applicable only if anti-competitive investor conduct satisfies the
subject-matter and time limitations tests established by arbitral tribunals.

3.1 Anti-competitive Investor Behaviour

That Falls Within the “Substantial Scope” Test

At first glance, the “in accordance with host state’s laws” clause seems clear, as it
refers to host state national laws and regulations. However, although the “ordinary
meaning of the phrase ‘made in compliance with legislation’ is inclusive and without
explicit substantial limitations”, this legality requirement is not “entirely without
limits”.26 The question of whether specific anti-competitive investor conduct falls
within the scope of an “in accordance with host state’s laws” clause depends on the
arbitral tribunal’s preferred approach.27 Broadly speaking, there are two different
approaches: one based on the nature of the relevant laws and regulations, and another
based on the importance of the values protected by national laws as compared to the
seriousness of the breach committed.

3.1.1 Anti-competitive Behaviour Under the Nature of Laws

and Regulations Approach

Where the nature of local laws and regulations is concerned, arbitral tribunals
consider the different degree of connectedness between the legislation that has
allegedly been violated and the investments. A variety of laws may be linked with
the investment process, from special laws targeting foreign investments to generally

24
Electrabel S.A. v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Award, 25 November 2015, para. 5.43;
Schill (2012), pp. 283–291. For a more in-depth analysis of the wording of “in accordance with
laws” clauses, see also Obersteiner (2014), pp. 268–269.
25
Quiborax S.A., Non Metallic Minerals S.A. and Allan Fosk Kaplún v. Bolivia, ICSID Case
No. ARB/06/2, Decision on Jurisdiction, 27 September 2012, para. 266. The arbitral tribunal in
Metal-Tech v. Uzbekistan supported this approach when ruling on the legality requirement under the
Israel-Uzbekistan BIT. See Metal-Tech Ltd. v. Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/3, Award,
4 October 2013, para. 164.
26
Vladislav Kim and al. v. Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/6, Decision on Jurisdiction,
8 March 2017, para. 19.
27
For general criticisms of arbitral tribunals’ limitations of these clauses, see Hepburn J, In
accordance with which host state laws? Restoring the ‘defence’ of investor illegality in investment
arbitration, 24 April 2014, http://ssrn.com/abstract¼2428859.
Anti-competitive Investor Behaviour and Illegal Investments in. . . 163

applicable rules under the national legal order, e.g. criminal law. Hence, the nature of
the domestic laws that have allegedly been violated may either be irrelevant for
challenging anti-competitive investor conduct or may condition it.
When analysing the way in which the investments had been obtained, the arbitral
tribunal in Anderson v. Costa Rica noted that the “process by which that possession
or ownership was acquired [would have] complied with all of the prevailing laws.”28
In this case the tribunal verified that the requirements of the Organic Law of the
Central Bank of Costa Rica had been met in the disputed transaction. The arbitral
tribunal in Phoenix v. The Czech Republic echoed this in its general observation that
“no violation of a rule of the Czech Republic legal order [might be found] [. . .] as it
ha[d] not been contended that the acquisition was against Czech laws”.29 This broad
approach demonstrates that a wide range of laws and regulations covering the
investors’ anti-competitive behaviour may become the subject of the arbitral tri-
bunal’s scrutiny.
A narrower approach for assessing the degree of connection between any
breaches and the investments involved can limit the clause’s scope. The arbitral
tribunal in Saba Fakes v. Turkey concluded that only laws and regulations related to
the very essence of investments—i.e. the host state’s domestic laws governing the
acceptance of investments—could trigger the application of the legality clause.30
The arbitral tribunal rejected the respondent’s allegations that the claimant had also
breached competition laws and regulations in the telecommunications sector on a
different ground (discussed below), and then clearly stated that a host state was not
allowed to rely on “domestic legislation beyond the sphere of the investment
regime”.31 Thus, the legality requirement may fail to or may only partially cover
anti-competitive behaviour.

3.1.2 The Significance of the Protected Values and Gravity

of Anti-competitive Investor Conduct

When assessing a state’s illegality defence, arbitral tribunals have often acted by
comparing the degree of importance of the values protected by national laws and
regulations to the seriousness of the investor’s breach of them. They have generally
proceeded in one of two ways: some tribunals have defined these values universally
and reduced them to values of the utmost importance, namely the fundamental
principles of municipal law, while others have taken a more flexible approach that

28
Alasdair Ross Anderson and others v. Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/07/3, Award,
19 May 2010, para. 57.
29
Phoenix Action, Ltd. v. The Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award, 15 April 2009,
para. 134.
30
Saba Fakes v. Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/20, Award, 14 July 2010, para. 119. See also
Mamidoil Jetoil Greek Petroleum Products Societe S.A. v. Albania, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/24,
Dissenting Opinion of Steven A. Hammond, 30 March 2015, para. 130.
31
Saba Fakes v. Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/20, Award, 14 July 2010, para. 119.
164 E. Belova

did not rely on these pre-ranked values, based on an assessment of the significance of
the rules in concreto.
(a) A Pre-definition of the Values Protected by Domestic Laws in the Form
of Fundamental Principles
As commented above, some arbitral tribunals choose to adopt a narrow
approach to this issue, holding that investments were only excluded from the
BIT’s scope if the investors had used methods to achieve private goals that
compromised the corresponding interest of the state as expressed in fundamental
legal principles.32 In Desert Lines v. Yemen the tribunal relied on “fraudulent
misrepresentations or the dissimulation of true ownership” as an example of the
violation of fundamental principles, quoting the Fraport v. Philippines case,33 in
which the arbitral tribunal stressed the investor’s “egregious” conduct and its
deliberate violations of a “serious provision of a Philippine law”.34 The arbitral
tribunal in Hochtief v. Argentina also evoked corruption,35 and Allard
v. Barbados provides a further example of this duality. Having acknowledged
the legitimate interest of Barbados in tracking and regulating monies remitted
into its territory, the arbitral tribunal observed neither a violation of the state’s
public policy nor criminality,36 and the illegality objection therefore failed.37
With respect to the “fundamental principles of municipal law” test, anti-
competitive behaviour in the form of fraud or corruption is likely to trigger the
application of the clause. As Professor Reisman explained in the individual
declaration attached to the Allard v. Barbados case, even if the investor’s
conduct was far from being exemplary, the investor was not “engaged in any
effort to mislead, defraud or gain unlawful advantage” by means of
non-compliance.38 Hence, the effect of the non-compliance with domestic
rules that had been established did not meet the gravity threshold for the

32
LESI SpA and Astaldi SpA v. People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, ICSID Case
No. ARB/05/03, Decision on Jurisdiction, 12 July 2006, para. 83(iii); Desert Line Projects LLC
v. Yemen, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/17, Award, 6 February 2008, para. 104; Rumeli Telekom
A.S. and Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. v. Kazakhstan, ICSID Case
No. ARB/05/16, Award, 29 July 2008, para. 319.
33
Desert Line Projects LLC v. Yemen, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/17, Award, 6 February 2008, para.
104.
34
Fraport A.G. Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines, ICSID Case
No. ARB/03/25, Award, 16 August 2007, paras 397–398.
35
Hochtief AG v. Argentine, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/31, Decision on Liability, 29 December
2014, para. 199.
36
Peter A. Allard v. Barbados, PCA Case No. 2012-06, Award on Jurisdiction, 13 June 2014, para.
92.
37
Peter A. Allard v. Barbados, PCA Case No. 2012-06, Award on Jurisdiction, 13 June 2014, paras
92–95.
38
Peter A. Allard v. Barbados, PCA Case No. 2012-06, Declaration of Professor Reisman,
27 June 2016.
Anti-competitive Investor Behaviour and Illegal Investments in. . . 165

violation of fundamental principles.39 Compliance with competition law may

also fall within the scope of host state public policy.40
(b) The Contextualization of Values Protected by the Host State Legal Order
Some arbitral tribunals have taken a more flexible approach and acknowl-
edged that the values protected by national law are not necessarily limited to its
fundamental legal principles, and their assessment is subject to contextualiza-
tion. From this perspective, investors’ anti-competitive behaviour falls more
easily within the legality requirement’s scope of application.
The arbitral tribunal in Quiborax v. Bolivia combined different approaches
adopted by previous arbitral tribunals and found that the following violations to
be considered serious:
[t]he subject-matter scope of the legality requirement is limited to (i) non-trivial viola-
tions of the host State’s legal order (Tokios Tokelés, LESI and Desert Line), (ii) violations
of the host State’s foreign investment regime (Saba Fakes), and (iii) fraud – for instance,
to secure the investment (Inceysa, Plama, Hamester) or profits (Fraport).41

These violations correspond to three categories of equally important values: a

wide range of values protected by national laws irrespective of their nature42;
specific values connected with a foreign investment regime, and universally
accepted values in the form of fighting corruption and fraud in international
economic operations. Hence, anti-competitive investor conduct that violates
various host state laws and regulations falls within different categories of the
violations categorized by the Quiborax arbitral tribunal.
Another arbitral tribunal has confirmed that the importance of the protected
values must be contextualized. In Vladilam Kim v. Uzbekistan the investors had
allegedly breached a wide range of national laws by manipulating prices on the
stock exchange and artificially distorting market competition.43 Relying on the
principle of proportionality, the arbitral tribunal held that if the BIT’s “applica-
tion is triggered by noncompliance with a law that results in a compromise of a

39
Peter A. Allard v. Barbados, PCA Case No. 2012-06, Award on Jurisdiction, 13 June 2014, para.
94.
40
See, for example, Swedish Supreme Court, Systembolaget Aktiebolag v. The Absolut Company
Aktiebolag, T 5767-13, 17 June 2015.
41
Quiborax S.A., Non Metallic Minerals S.A. and Allan Fosk Kaplún v. Bolivia, ICSID Case
No. ARB/06/2, Decision on Jurisdiction, 27 September 2012, para. 266 (footnotes omitted); Metal-
Tech Ltd. v. Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/3, Award, 4 October 2013, para. 165. For
another approach based on the type of wrongdoings, see Llamzon and Sinclair (2015), pp. 503–505.
42
See, for example, Mamidoil Jetoil Greek Petroleum Products Societe S.A. v. Albania, ICSID Case
No. ARB/11/24, Award, 30 March 2015, para. 489: “the Tribunal rejects the argument that the
non-application for and the non-issuance of the [exploitation] permits were but minor administrative
errors”.
43
Vladilam Kim and others v. Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/6, Decision on Jurisdiction,
8 March 2017, para. 421.
166 E. Belova

correspondingly significant interest of the Host State”, the investor shall not be
entitled to the treaty’s protection.44 The arbitral tribunal considered, among other
things, the severity of sanctions for non-enforcement under domestic law in
order to determine the significance of the obligation with which the investor is
alleged to not comply.45 Should one follow the same line of reasoning, it
becomes clear that the enforcement of competition and other laws regulating
anti-competitive investor conduct would also be found to be of the utmost
importance. The issue of anti-competitive behaviour depends mainly on the
sanctions imposed by national law, and also on whether finding a transaction
illegal renders it void or otherwise under domestic regulations.
To sum up, there are not only two different approaches to this issue, but each
one has also been interpreted both narrowly and broadly. The choice of the exact
approach and the scope of interpretation influence whether the anti-competitive
behaviour is covered by the clause or not.

3.2 Anti-competitive Behaviour That Falls Within the “Time

Scope” Test

The application of the “in accordance with host state’s law” clause in cases of anti-
competitive behaviour is subject to a time criterion, which has been developed by
arbitral tribunals. Two issues are relevant here: the possibility of changing the law,
and the time at which the breach occurred. The first limitation needs no special
comments: states can only rely on domestic laws that existed when the investment
was initiated.46 The second concerns the distinction between legality at different
stages. Despite the fact that “in accordance with host state’s law” clauses are worded
differently, a number of arbitral tribunals have concluded that they are limited to a
jurisdictional bar and thus only control an investment’s legality at the time that it is
made.47 The assessment of the time at which investments were made thus excludes

44
Vladilam Kim and others v. Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/6, Decision on Jurisdiction,
8 March 2017, paras 19–20. For the approval of this analysis and more comments, see
Kryvoi (2018).
45
Vladilam Kim and others v. Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/6, Decision on Jurisdiction,
8 March 2017, para. 406.
46
Phoenix Action, Ltd. v. The Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award, 15 April 2009,
para. 103.
47
Fraport A.G. Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines, ICSID Case
No. ARB/03/25, Award, 16 August 2007, para. 345; Quiborax S.A., Non Metallic Minerals
S.A. and Allan Fosk Kaplún v. Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/2, Decision on Jurisdiction,
27 September 2012, para. 266; Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao
Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v. Argentine, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26, Decision on Jurisdiction,
19 December 2012, para. 260; Teinver S.A., Transportes de Cercanías S.A. and Autobuses Urbanos
del Sur S.A. v. Argentine, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/1, Decision on Jurisdiction, 21 December 2012,
paras 317–322; Vannessa Ventures Ltd. v. Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)04/6, Award,
Anti-competitive Investor Behaviour and Illegal Investments in. . . 167

the question of their subsequent performance, i.e. whether they were operated,
managed or conducted illegally.48
It follows from this arbitral practice that the standard time criterion applies only to
the initiation of the investments. As a matter of fact, assessing the time when an
investment truly begins is fraught with difficulties, since at least three scenarios can
be identified. First, an investment can be acquired by a sole act, which must be legal.
Second, it can be constituted by various interrelated acts that form the overall
operation that is qualified as the investment.49 When an investment is made in
tranches (a series of transactions), all the consecutive acts must be legal.50 Finally,
an investment project may be rolled out over a period of time and include a great
many steps; in these cases, guidance can be sought from arbitral tribunals’ findings
on the ratione materiae jurisdiction. To take an example, the tribunal in the
M. Houben v. Burundi case concluded that the acquisition of a plot of land, as a
first step of the building project, was deemed an investment.51 If the components of
the investment can be separated, only the legality of the first step has jurisdictional
consequences under the legality requirement.
Bearing in mind such limitations, only the anti-competitive investor behaviour
during a bidding or privatization process which gave rise to an investment is likely to
satisfy the time criterion. If an investor commits even one serious breach of the rules
governing the processes, let alone a chain of clearly illegal interrelated acts (as was
the case in Inceysa v. El Salvador) with the aim of eliminating other competitors and
winning a contract, this investment cannot benefit from BIT protection.
The question is more complicated where competition law is concerned. In the
Saba Fakes case, the arbitral tribunal rejected the state’s allegations that the viola-
tions of competition laws triggered the legality requirement under the BIT,
explaining that the breaches of Turkish competition law, if established, fell outside
the time criterion.52 Any breach of competition rules must occur during the invest-
ment process, and, as mentioned above, it is not easy to draw the line between
different stages of an investment.

16 January 2013, para. 167; ECE Projektmanagement v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, PCA
Case No. 2010-5, Award, 19 September 2013, para. 3.166; Metal-Tech Ltd. v. Uzbekistan, ICSID
Case No. ARB/10/3, Award, 4 October 2013, para. 193; Bernhard von Pezold and others
v. Zimbabwe, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/15, Award, 28 July 2015, para. 420. See also Schill
(2012), pp. 307–309; Obersteiner (2014), pp. 278–280; El Gawhary (2015), p. 303.
48
Copper Mesa Mining Corporation v. Ecuador, PCA No. 2012-2, Award (Redacted), 15 March
2016, paras 5.54–5.57.
49
Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka, A.S. v. Slovakia, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/4, Decision of the
Tribunal on Objections to Jurisdiction, 24 May 1999, para. 72.
50
Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation, UNCITRAL, PCA Case
No. AA 227, Final Award, 18 July 2014, para. 1369; Mamidoil Jetoil Greek Petroleum Products
Societe S.A. v. Albania, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/24, Award, 30 March 2015, para. 369.
51
Joseph Houben v. Burundi, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/7, Award, 12 January 2016, paras 127–130.
52
Saba Fakes v. Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/20, Award, 14 July 2010, para. 120.
168 E. Belova

On the other hand, if investors fail to respect the competition laws while an
investment is being set up and the investment is subsequently found to be void ab
initio, the legality requirement may be considered inapplicable. The Arif v. Moldova
case, in which the investor’s company won a tender to operate border duty free
stores, illustrates this difficulty. On the basis of the exclusivity clause in the
agreement that formalized the result of the tender, the company concluded four
lease agreements with local customs offices to operate four cross-border stores, and a
further lease agreement with the state airport authorities. As a result of lawsuits filed
by the investing company’s competitors, the national antitrust agency found that the
exclusivity clause breached national competition laws, thereby vitiating the results of
the tenders and leading to the cancellation of the airport lease agreement by local
courts.53 The arbitral tribunal decided that the respondent’s illegality defence, which
was based on the “in accordance with laws” clause had no bearing on the BIT’s
scope of application and commented as follows:
There are temporal limitations on a jurisdictional argument based on the illegality of an
investment, where the legality of the investment has been accepted and acted upon in good
faith by both parties over a period of time. This is not a case of a concealed illegality [. . .].
The investment was not made fraudulently or on the basis of corruption. In cases like the
present one, the passage of time and the actions of the parties on the mutual assumption of
legality cannot be ignored in the determination of jurisdiction. [. . .] [The illegality at stake
shall] be treated as an issue of liability.54 (Emphasis added)

When deciding whether the investment was void, the arbitral tribunal seems to
have considered both the absence of the intent to violate national laws and “the
mutual assumption of legality” of the investment at the time it was set up. By way of
an analogy, if a state-owned company concludes an agreement with a foreign
investor which is subsequently held to be void ab initio due to the violation of
competition laws, the arbitral tribunal can reject the legality defence.
Furthermore, regardless of whether or not the applicable treaty expressly stipu-
lates that investments must comply with domestic laws, the investor’s disputed
conduct has to be addressed from the international law perspective.

4 Anti-competitive Investor Behaviour as a Separate or

Additional Ground of Illegality Under International Law

The investor’s misconduct vis-à-vis competition may also be at the heart of the
state’s illegality defence on the basis of international principles and standards.
Certain arbitral tribunals have endorsed the legality requirement as part of the
general principles of law in the absence of an express requirement for compliance
with local laws and regulations in the applicable BIT. Furthermore, the need to abide

53
Mr. Franck Charles Arif v. Moldova, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/23, 8 April 2013, paras 41–124.
54
Mr. Franck Charles Arif v. Moldova, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/23, 8 April 2013, para. 376.
Anti-competitive Investor Behaviour and Illegal Investments in. . . 169

by local laws and regulations also seems to be at least partially covered by “truly
international or transnational public policy”.

4.1 Anti-competitive Investor Misconduct Under

the Emergent General Principle of Law to Comply
with Host State Laws

Even if the applicable treaty does not expressly deal with an investor’s duty to
comply with host state national rules and regulations, investments vitiated by
illegality, including anti-competitive behaviour, preclude investors from seeking
remedies under the terms of the relevant BIT. Although the legal consequences of
this may differ, (bar of jurisdiction as in Ampar v. Egypt, or substantial inadmissi-
bility as in Plama v. Bulgaria),55 the emergent general principle of law56 to respect
the host state’s legal order at the time that the investment is made57 provides a
common legal basis for dismissing such cases.
Some arbitral tribunals have been reluctant to deny protection at the jurisdictional
stage when there was no implicit requirement in the treaty. The tribunal in Stati
v. Kazakhstan stated that the ECT contained no legality requirement and that “[a]t
least with regard to jurisdiction, the Tribunal [did] not see where such a requirement
could come from.”58 More recently, the tribunal in Bear Creek Mining Corporation
v. Peru concurred with the claimant and concluded that “under international law, the
Tribunal may not import a requirement that limits its jurisdiction when such a limit is
not specified by the parties.”59 Finally, in the Achmea v. Slovakia case, the respon-
dent argued that the investors had breached both competition laws and rules on
public procurement when making their investments.60 Although the tribunal con-
sidered that there was no legal basis for interpreting the BIT as containing the
legality requirement,61 it seems to have rejected the jurisdictional objection because

55
For the analysis of the appropriate stages for dealing with investor misconduct, see for example
Moloo and Khachaturian (2011), pp. 1418–1494; Newcombe (2011), pp. 187–200; Llamzon and
Sinclair (2015), pp. 507–508; Kryvoi (2018).
56
For criticisms of the limitations of the state’s consent entailed by general principles of interna-
tional law, see Douglas (2014), pp. 169–172.
57
Scholars have already discussed some aspects related to the idea of an “emerging principle
requiring compliance with the law of the host state”. See Moloo and Khachaturian (2011), p. 1475.
58
Anatolie Stati, Gabriel Stati, Ascom Group SA and Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd v. Kazakhstan,
SCC Case No. V (116/2010), Award, 19 October 2013, para. 812.
59
Bear Creek Mining Corporation v. Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/2, Award, 30 November 2017,
paras 309 and 320.
60
Achmea B.V. v. Slovakia, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2008-13, Award, 7 December 2012, paras
135–139.
61
Achmea B.V. v. Slovakia, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2008-13, Award, 7 December 2012, para.
176.
170 E. Belova

the state had failed to meet the “fundamental principles of municipal law” test
applied in this case.62
Most arbitral tribunals have agreed with the idea of the general principle of
compliance with domestic laws and regulations. As the tribunal in Phoenix
v. Czech Republic commented, the “purpose of the international mechanism of
protection of investments through ICSID arbitration cannot be to protect investments
made in violation of the laws of the host State or investments not made in [the] good
faith”.63 It also added that “the conformity of the establishment of the investment
with national laws [. . .] is implicit even when not expressly stated in the relevant
BIT.”64 A number of tribunals have reached a similar conclusion within and outside
the ICSID framework.65 Those in Fraport v. Philippines (II) and Ampal v. Egypt
both noted that over time the legality requirement had become a “well-established
principle of international law”, at least in the words of the former, related to illegality
that “goes to the essence of the investment”.66 Arbitral tribunals can therefore reject
claims on the grounds of anti-competitive behaviour on the part of investors,
provided that the subject-matter and time limitations are met.
The question of subject-matter limitations in cases involving anti-competitive
investor behaviour becomes immaterial in the context of the Energy Charter Treaty
(ECT). Most arbitral tribunals follow the general trend to deny protection for
investments that contravene local laws or are made in bad faith,67 “which is in
conformity with the object and purpose of the ECT”.68 Since both the ECT’s design
and structure confirm the importance of competition, it is highly unlikely to protect
illegal investments resulting from anti-competitive misconduct. This specific feature,

62
Achmea B.V. v. Slovakia, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2008-13, Award, 7 December 2012, para.
177.
63
Phoenix Action, Ltd. v. The Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award, 15 April 2009,
para. 100 (footnote omitted).
64
Phoenix Action, Ltd. v. The Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, Award, 15 April 2009,
para. 101.
65
Yaung Chi Oo Trading Pte. Ltd. v. Government of the Union of Myanmar, Asean I.D. Case
No. ARB/01/1, Award, 31 March 2003, para. 58; Gustav F. W. Hamester GmbH & Co. KG
v. Ghana, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/24, Award, 18 June 2010, para. 123–124; SAUR International
S.A. v. Argentine, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/4, Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability, 6 June 2012,
para. 308; Oxus Gold plc v. Uzbekistan, the State Committee of Uzbekistan for Geology & Mineral
Resources, and Navoi Mining & Metallurgical Kombinat, UNCITRAL, Final Award, 17 December
2015, para. 706.
66
Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines (II), ICSID Case
No. ARB/11/12, Award, 10 December 2014, para. 332; Ampal-American Israel Corporation and
others v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/11, Decision on Jurisdiction, 1st
February 2016, para. 301.
67
Khan Resources Inc., Khan Resources B.V., and Cauc Holding Company Ltd. v. The Govern-
ment of Mongolia, UNCITRAL, Decision on Jurisdiction, 25 July 2012, para. 383; Mamidoil Jetoil
Greek Petroleum Products Societe S.A. v. Albania, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/24, Award, 30 March
2015, para. 360.
68
Energoalians TOB v. Moldova, UNCITRAL, Award, 23 October 2013, para. 261.
Anti-competitive Investor Behaviour and Illegal Investments in. . . 171

which distinguishes the ECT from other treaties that lack express legality require-
ments, can be illustrated through an analysis of arbitral tribunal findings in two cases.
In Plama v. Bulgaria the tribunal addressed deliberate investor fraud during the
privatization process, which consisted of inducing the host state to transfer its shares
to an entity that lacked sufficient capacity to operate a refinery. The arbitral tribunal
considered that although such a “situation [did] not involve the ‘straw man’ provi-
sion set out in the Bulgarian Privatization Law”, such “behaviour [was] contrary to
other provisions of Bulgarian law”.69 The tribunal decided that the ECT could not
cover investments made in contravention of local laws, in light of its fundamental
aim of strengthening the rule of law on energy issues, as stated in the introductory
note to the treaty.70 This aim is essential for safeguarding competition: the introduc-
tory note mentioned by the Plama arbitral tribunal stressed that “the strategic value
of [the ECT] is likely to increase in the context of efforts to build a legal foundation
for global energy security, based on the principles of open, competitive markets”.71
Thus, if an investor procures investments by illegal means with the aim of bypassing
competition in the market, it will be precluded from the protection offered by the
ECT because such actions run counter to the treaty’s specific purpose.
In the second case, Yukos v. Russia, the arbitral tribunal analysed whether, in light
of the ECT’s object and purpose, the treaty in its entirety could make the protection
of investments conditional on their legality.72 It decided that in “imposing obliga-
tions on states to treat investors in a fair and transparent fashion investment treaties
[sought] to encourage legal and bona fide investments”,73 and concluded that an
investor must be excluded from ECT protection if the investment had been made in
violation of host state laws.74 Where anti-competitive behaviour is concerned, the
treaty structure also reflects the importance of competition rules: first, as mentioned
above, the preamble to the ECT refers to generally recognized competition laws, and
second, Article 6 provides for states’ obligation to guarantee free competition.
Hence, treaty protection is also to be denied for competition law violations.

69
Plama Consortium Limited v. Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Award, 27 August 2008,
paras 135–145.
70
Plama Consortium Limited v. Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Award, 27 August 2008,
para. 139.
71
Energy Charter Secretariat, The Energy Charter Treaty and Related Documents. A Legal Frame-
work for International Energy Cooperation, An Introduction to the Energy Charter Treaty,
September 2004, http://www.ena.lt/pdfai/Treaty.pdf.
72
Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation, UNCITRAL, PCA Case
No. AA 227, Final Award, 18 July 2014, para. 1346.
73
Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation, UNCITRAL, PCA Case
No. AA 227, Final Award, 18 July 2014, para. 1352. A similar conclusion had also been made in
Fraport A.G. Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines, ICSID Case
No. ARB/03/25, Award, 16 August 2007, para. 402.
74
Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation, UNCITRAL, PCA Case
No. AA 227, Final Award, 18 July 2014, para. 1364.
172 E. Belova

4.2 Anti-competitive Investor Behaviour Under

the Developing Components of Truly International Public
Policy

Investor misconduct may breach not only domestic but also international law.75
Investor breaches can be covered by different components of transnational or truly
international public policy. The arbitral tribunal in World Duty Free v. Kenya
distinguished between international public policy in narrow terms and as a broader
concept. In narrow sense, international public policy covers national public policy
applied to foreign awards during enforcement proceedings.76 These international
public policies differ substantially and each state defines them subjectively.77 In the
broader version, “[t]he term “international public policy” [. . .] signif[ies] an inter-
national consensus as to universal standards and accepted norms of conduct that
must be applied in all fora. It has been proposed to cover that concept in referring to
‘transnational public policy’ or ‘truly international public policy’.”78 Professor
Mathias Forteau has developed this concept further from the public international
law standpoint and found that it has been characterized by an expansion of the
protected values.79
Bearing this in mind,80 truly international public policy covers anti-competitive
behaviour in two ways. First of all, it includes anti-competitive behaviour that results
in fraudulent acts. Secondly, anti-competitive investor behaviour may fall within a
developing component of truly international public policy in the form of the require-
ment to comply with the rule of law. However, there does not currently seem to be
sufficient leeway to distinguish competition law as an autonomous component of
truly international public policy.

75
Plama Consortium Limited v. Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Award, 27 August 2008,
para. 138.
76
World Duty Free Co. Ltd. v. Kenya, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/7, Award, 4 October 2006, para.
138.
77
EWHC, Anatolie Stati, Gabriel Stati, Ascom Group S.A., Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd
v. Kazakhstan, [2017] EWHC 1348 (Comm), 6 June 2017, para. 84. See also Fry (2009), pp. 86–87.
78
World Duty Free Co. Ltd. v. Kenya, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/7, Award, 4 October 2006, para.
139 (quoting Lalive 1987). For more detailed explanations, see Douglas (2014), pp. 180–183;
Llamzon and Sinclair (2015), pp. 517–523; Jagusch (2014), pp. 24–27.
79
Forteau (2011), paras 10–15.
80
For other definitions of truly international public policy, see Fry (2009), pp. 88–89.
Anti-competitive Investor Behaviour and Illegal Investments in. . . 173

4.2.1 Anti-competitive Practices as a Matter of Fraudulent Conduct,

Broadly Interpreted

Fraudulent behaviour has come to be recognized as a matter of truly international

public policy,81 which may therefore cover some types of anti-competitive
strategies on the part of investors. Arbitral tribunals have often followed the
broad definition of international public policy used by the tribunal in World
Duty Free v. Kenya and have found that fraudulent acts resulted in investments
that were tainted with illegality. A useful example is provided by Plama v. Bulgaria,
in which the tribunal concluded that the claimants’ investments that were made
in breach of local laws would also be contrary to principles of international law,
namely to the “basic notion of international public policy – that a contract
obtained by wrongful means (fraudulent misrepresentation) should not be enforced
by a tribunal”82—a conclusion that appears to have been tacitly shared by the
Yukos arbitral tribunal.83 The Churchill Mining and Planet Mining v. Indonesia
tribunal confirmed this more explicitly by finding particularly serious cases of
fraudulent conduct to be contrary to “international or transnational public
policy”.84
This tribunal especially distinguished corruption and forgery from among uni-
versally shared categories of fraudulent behaviour. It can be said that the latter in fact
constitutes an example of a more general case of the fraudulent manipulation of
information that was essential for setting up the investments.
Where corruption is concerned, the conclusions reached by the World Duty Free
arbitral tribunal have received considerable support in investment arbitration.85 The
tribunal addressed a contract claim and found that a contract procured by corrupt
means breached both truly international public policy and English public order, as
part of the law applicable to the contract.86 Other arbitral tribunals that were dealing
with both treaty claims (e.g., Metal-Tech v. Uzbekistan and Infinito Gold

81
Llamzon and Sinclair (2015), p. 519.
82
Plama Consortium Limited v. Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Award, 27 August 2008,
paras 140 and 143.
83
Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation, UNCITRAL, PCA Case
No. AA 227, Final Award, 18 July 2014, paras 1350 and 1352.
84
Churchill Mining PLC and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/14 and
12/40, Award, 6 December 2016, para. 493.
85
For example, Bottini (2010), p. 298: “there is a growing consensus that corruption is against the
international ordre public”.
86
World Duty Free Co. Ltd. v. Kenya, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/7, Award, 4 October 2006, paras
129, 137–188. For further explanation, see, Kryvoi (2018).
174 E. Belova

Ltd. v. Costa Rica87) and contract claims (Niko v. Bangladesh88) confirmed the
prohibiting of corruption to be of such great importance for the international legal
order that it forms part of truly international public policy. The arbitral tribunal in
Vladislav Kim v. Uzbekistan also noted that this truly international public policy was
implicitly present in BITs.89
Another component of fraudulent conduct that is sanctioned by truly international
public policy is the serious manipulation of information that is critical for acquiring
the investment. The arbitral tribunals in both Plama v. Bulgaria and Inceysa v. El
Salvador declared that the investors’ fraudulent misrepresentation during the privat-
ization process (deliberately concealing essential information) and the bidding
process (falsifying essential information) was contrary to truly international public
policy.90 By the same token, the arbitral tribunal in Churchill Mining and Planet
Mining v. Indonesia agreed with the respondent “that claims arising from rights
based on fraud or forgery which a claimant deliberately or unreasonably ignored are
inadmissible as a matter of international public policy”.91 In this case the arbitral
tribunal tackled repeated acts of forgery aimed at orchestrating, legitimizing and
perpetuating a fraudulent scheme to gain access to valuable mining rights.92 The
claims were dismissed in their entirety.
Investors may potentially use these illegal means—to the detriment of other
market participants—with the aim of inducing the host state to authorize their
investment projects (corruption) or to grant them the rights to implement a state-
proposed project through bidding or privatization processes. Truly international
public policy does not allow investors to benefit from investment treaty protection
in cases of fraudulent conduct.

87
Metal-Tech Ltd. v. Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/3, Award, 4 October 2013, para. 292;
Infinito Gold Ltd. v. Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/5, Decision on Jurisdiction, 4 December
2017, para. 137.
88
Niko Resources (Bangladesh) Ltd. v. Bangladesh Petroleum Exploration & Production Company
Limited (Bapex) and Bangladesh Oil Gas and Mineral Corporation (Petrobangla), ICSID Case
No. ARB/10/18, Decision on Jurisdiction, 19 August 2013, para. 431–433.
89
Vladislav Kim and al. v. Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/6, Decision on Jurisdiction,
8 March 2017, para. 593.
90
Plama Consortium Limited v. Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Award, 27 August 2008,
paras 141 and 143 (quoting the arbitral tribunal in Inceysa).
91
Churchill Mining PLC and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/14 and
12/40, Award, 6 December 2016, para. 508.
92
Churchill Mining PLC and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/14 and
12/40, Award, 6 December 2016, paras 507 and 515.
Anti-competitive Investor Behaviour and Illegal Investments in. . . 175

4.2.2 Anti-competitive Behaviour Under a Developing Component

of the Rule of Law?

Respect for the rule of law may also be considered an emergent component of truly
international public policy93 which can bar claims on grounds of illegality resulting
from anti-competitive conduct. Both state practice and arbitral awards94 support the
idea of the importance of complying with the rule of law. As the World Duty Free
v. Kenya tribunal pointed out, truly international public policy is characterized by the
adherence of the international community to protected values (or international
consensus) and the immediate and universal protection of these values in all forums,
including by international tribunals. In Inceysa v. El Salvador the arbitral tribunal
felt that the BIT’s inclusion of “in accordance with laws” clauses “follows interna-
tional public policies [of each of the signatory states] designed to sanction illegal acts
and their resulting effects”.95 It further observed that respect for the rule of law was
in fact not only the respondent’s concern, but that of “any civilized country”.96 This
is in line with the notion of general principles of law provided for in Article 38 of the
International Court of Justice Statute. Furthermore, the proliferation of these clauses
in various investment treaties can be considered to contribute to the existence of an
international consensus through a custom.97
In the same vein, arbitral tribunals have come to recognise the duty of investors to
comply with local laws, which is inherent to investment treaties and can thus be
considered a general principle of law. The arbitral tribunal in Blusun v. Italy was
relying on this practice when it concluded recently that the ECT does “not cover
investments which are actually unlawful under the law of the host state at the time
they were made because protection of such investments would be contrary to the
international public order”.98 Taking into account that not all violations of domestic
law constitute breaches of a truly international public policy,99 arbitral tribunals will

93
Forteau (2011), para. 92 (discussing Phoenix, Plama, Mytilineos Holdings, LESI, Rumeli).
94
World Duty Free Co. Ltd. v. Kenya, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/7, Award, 4 October 2006, para.
141: “Tribunals must be very cautious in this respect and must carefully check the objective
existence of a particular transnational public policy rule in identifying it through international
conventions, comparative law and arbitral awards”. See also Douglas (2014), p. 181.
95
Inceysa Vallisoletana S.L. v. El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26, Award, 2 August 2006,
para. 247.
96
Inceysa Vallisoletana S.L. v. El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26, Award, 2 August 2006,
para. 248.
97
See, for example., Sempra Energy International v. Argentine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16,
Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, 11 May 2005, para. 156: ‘there is no obstacle in interna-
tional law to the expression of the will of states through treaties being at the same time an expression
of practice and of the opinion juris necessary for the birth of a customary rule if conditions for it are
met’. On the customary nature of truly international public policy from the standpoint of public
international law, see Forteau (2011), paras 55–69.
98
Blusun S.A., Jean-Pierre Lecorcier and Michael Stein v. Italy, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/3, Final
Award, 27 December 2016, para. 264 and footnote 490.
99
Douglas (2014), pp. 181–182.
176 E. Belova

have to specify the content of the rule of law when considering this ground of
illegality.

4.2.3 The Insufficiency of Grounds for Qualifying Competition Law

as a Separate Component?

Scholars have debated whether competition law is covered by truly international

public policy.100 In investment arbitration, as already mentioned, the arbitral tribunal
in World Duty Free v. Kenya considered international conventions, comparative law
and arbitral awards to conclude that the prohibition of corruption forms part of truly
international public policy. When analysing the relevant sources of law, it seems that
compliance with competition rules is unlikely to presently be recognized as an
autonomous component under truly international public policy. Although in 1980
the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Set of Multilaterally Agreed
Equitable Principles and Rules for the Control of Restrictive Business Practices,101
confirming the importance of competition law for the international community,102
and competition law has been adopted by an increasing number of states being
undoubtedly the core element of many states’ economic policy103—approximately
of 130 states104—, it is by no means “universal”.105 The further internationalisation
of competition law through international conventions, combined with (quasi-) uni-
versal adherence to this value, may one day result in the creation of a truly
international policy against private anti-competitive behaviour.

100
See Gaillard and Savage (1999), p. 824, para. 1468 (and references given by the authors);
Jagusch (2014), pp. 37–38 (arguing that truly international public policy includes
competition laws).
101
UNCTAD (2000), “The Set of Multilaterally Agreed Equitable Principles and Rules for the
Control of Restrictive Business Practices”, http://unctad.org/en/docs/tdrbpconf10r2.en.pdf.
102
Jagusch (2014), p. 38.
103
UNCTAD (2014), Handbook on Competition Legislation, Vol. II, http://unctad.org/en/
PublicationsLibrary/ditcclp2012_handbook_en.pdf.
104
Aydin and Büthe (2016), p. 2.
105
World Duty Free Co. Ltd. v. Kenya, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/7, Award, 4 October 2006, para.
139 (referring to “universal standards” when defining the concept of truly international public
policy) and para. 140 (observing that “active and passive corruption, are sanctioned by criminal law
in most, if not all, countries”); see also Douglas (2014), p. 181: “the grounds of international public
policy are limited to conduct that is universally condemned and abhorred by the international
community” (quoting World Duty Free); Llamzon and Sinclair (2015), p. 519: “In determining the
existence and content of a certain transnational public policy, it therefore must be shown that [. . .]
[values are] (1) essential; (2) supported by a large adherence or what in a usual language is called a
large consensus, let alone a universal one; and (3) therefore requiring immediate application,
regardless of any contrary agreement’.”
Anti-competitive Investor Behaviour and Illegal Investments in. . . 177

5 Conclusion

In order to liberalize markets and remove barriers for foreign investors, states grant
investors protection in exchange for capital flows. If investors hinder competition in
the market, not only do they harm the host state’s socio-economic welfare, but they
also weaken the rule of law. This chapter has discussed the relationship between the
functional approach to defining anti-competitive illegal behaviour and the applicable
law approach. It has argued that investors can violate competition laws, use unfair
tools to achieve their goals and seriously distort market competition by fraud or
corruption. For this reason, a functional definition of anti-competitive investor
behaviour which is in breach of domestic laws would appear to be the most
appropriate for the purposes of this study. This anti-competitive behaviour taints
the investments affected with illegality and may lead to the denial of protection
under the applicable treaty. In the presence of an “in accordance with host state’s
law” clause under a relevant treaty, both substantial and time limitations may restrict
the possibility of successfully triggering the application of the clause when investors
resort to anti-competitive conduct. In the absence of such a clause, investor obliga-
tions to comply with host state’s laws, including those that directly or indirectly
frame and guarantee market equilibrium, stem from the emergence of a general
principle of law or truly international public policy. Future disputes are likely to
provide more guidelines with regard to the scope and extent of investors’ obligations
to respect the legal order of host states.

References

Alvarez JE (2011) The public international law regime governing international investment. In:
Collected courses of The Hague Academy of International Law, The Hague Academy of
International Law, vol 344
Aydin U, Büthe T (2016) Competition law & policy in developing countries: explaining variations
in outcomes; exploring possibilities and limits. Law Contemp Probl 79:1–36
Betz K (2017) Economic crime in international arbitration. ASA Bull 35(2):281–292
Bottini G (2010) Legality of investments under ICSID jurisprudence. In: Waibel M, Kaushal A et al
(eds) The backlash against investment arbitration. Kluwer Law International, pp 297–314
Dhall V (2008) Competition law and consumer protection — insights into their interrelationship. In:
Qaqaya H, Lipimile G (eds) The effects of anti-competitive business practices on developing
countries and their development prospects. UNCTAD. http://unctad.org/en/docs/ditcclp20082_
en.pdf
Douglas Z (2014) The plea of illegality in investment treaty arbitration. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest
Law J 29:155–186
El Gawhary M (2015) Reflections on recent ICSID arbitral awards in which the “illegality of the
investment” defense was raised by the host State. In: Leboulanger P, Abdel Raouf M, Ziadé NG
(eds) Festschrift Ahmed Sadek El-Kosheri. Kluwer Law International, pp 299–324
Forteau M (2011) L’ordre public international face à l’enchevêtrement croissant du droit interna-
tional privé et du droit international public. Journal du droit international (Clunet) 1:3–49
Fry JD (2009) Désordre Public International under the New York Convention: wither truly
international public policy. Chin J Int Law 8:81–134
178 E. Belova

Gaillard E, Savage J (eds) (1999) Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on international commercial arbi-
tration. Kluwer Law International
Hayek FA (1960) The constitution of liberty. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Jagusch S (2014) Issues of substantive transnational public policy. In: Bray D, Bray HL (eds)
International arbitration and public policy, pp 23–45
Khemani RS, Shapiro DM (1993) Glossary of industrial organisation economics and competition
law. OECD. http://www.oecd.org/regreform/sectors/2376087.pdf
Kryvoi Y (2018) Economic crimes in international investment law. Int Comp Law Q 67:577–605
Lalive P (1987) Transnational (or truly international) public policy and international arbitration. In:
Sanders P (ed) Comparative arbitration practice and public policy in arbitration, ICCA Congress
Series 1986, vol 3. Kluwer Law International, New York, pp 258–318
Lamm C, Greenwald B, Young K (2014) From “World Duty Free” to “Metal-Tech”: a review of
international investment treaty arbitration cases involving allegations of corruption. ICSID Rev
Foreign Invest Law J 29:328–349
Llamzon A (2014) Corruption in international investment arbitration. Oxford University Press
Llamzon A, Sinclair AC (2015) Investor wrongdoing in investment arbitration: standards governing
issues of corruption, fraud, misrepresentation and other investor misconduct. In: van den Berg A
(ed) Legitimacy: myths, realities, challenges, ICCA Congress Series, vol 18. Kluwer Law
International, pp 451–530
Mehta PS, Mitra S, Dube C (2008) Competition policy and consumer policy: complementarities and
conflicts in the promotion of consumer welfare. In: Qaqaya H, Lipimile G (eds) The effects of
anti-competitive business practices on developing countries and their development prospects.
UNCTAD. http://unctad.org/en/docs/ditcclp20082_en.pdf
Moloo R, Khachaturian A (2011) The compliance with the law requirement in international
investment law. Fordham Int Law J 34(6):1473–1501
Newcombe A (2011) Investor misconduct: jurisdiction, admissibility or merits? In: Brown C, Miles
K (eds) Evolution in investment treaty law and arbitration. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp 187–200
Obersteiner T (2014) “In accordance with domestic law” clauses: how international investment
tribunals deal with allegations of unlawful conduct of investors. J Int Arbitr 31(2):265–288
Pradhan S et al (2000) Anticorruption in transition: a contribution to the policy debate. World Bank.
https://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWBIGOVANTCOR/Resources/contribution.pdf
Schill SW (2012) Illegal investments in investment treaty arbitration. Law Pract Int Courts Tri-
bunals 11:281–323

Elena Belova is currently a PhD candidate (doctorante contractuelle) and a teaching assistant in
the European law and the French administrative law at the University of Lille, Faculty of Law
(France). She is also a research fellow (doctorante associée) at the University Paris-Nanterre,
CEDIN (France). Her current research focuses on international investment law and arbitration, as
well as on international and the European system of human rights protection. She holds a Master’s
degree in Human Rights and Humanitarian Law from the University Panthéon-Assas (France).
The Impact of EU State Aid Law
on International Investment Law
and Arbitration

Paschalis Paschalidis

Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
2 Inconsistencies Between the FET Standard and EU State Aid Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
2.1 The Concept of “State Aid” Under EU Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
2.2 The Protection of Investors’ Legitimate Expectations Through the FET Standard . . . . 185
2.3 Problems Arising from the Application of the FET Standard in the Area
of EU State Aid Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
3 Can Arbitral Awards Constitute State Aid Under EU Law? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
3.1 Imputability of Arbitral Awards to the State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
3.2 Damages as Economic Advantage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
4 Are There Remedies Against Arbitral Awards Conflicting with EU State Aid Law? . . . . . 197
5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

Abstract This chapter examines the overlap between European Union (EU) state
aid law and international investment law and arbitration. First, it enquires whether
there is a systemic incompatibility between the fair and equitable treatment (FET)
standard and EU state aid law. This chapter focuses in particular on the principle of
legitimate expectations and the manner that it was applied by several arbitral tri-
bunals in relation to state aid measures. For the purposes of this enquiry, this chapter
sets out the basic components of the notion of state aid under EU law and points out
the severely restrictive application by the Court of Justice of the European
Union (CJEU) of the principle of legitimate expectations in the field of state aid.
Second, this chapter examines whether arbitral awards granting damages to an
investor can constitute, as such, incompatible and unlawful state aid. The chapter
focuses on two key questions, namely whether arbitral awards can constitute an
economic advantage and whether they are attributable to the member state in
question. Third, this chapter looks at the issue of the fate of arbitral awards granting

P. Paschalidis (*)
Shearman & Sterling LLP, Paris, France
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 179

K. Fach Gómez et al. (eds.), International Investment Law and Competition Law,
European Yearbook of International Economic Law,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33916-6_9
180 P. Paschalidis

damages to investors in state aid matters. It examines what remedies are available to
member states against such awards. In doing so, it takes into account the different
legal regimes applicable to awards issued under the Convention on the Settlement of
Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Conven-
tion) and non-ICSID awards. It also examines the possibility of safeguarding the
enforcement of ICSID awards that may be incompatible with EU law under Article
351 TFEU.

1 Introduction

European Union (EU) state aid law and international investment law are creatures of
the world order that emerged after the Second World War. The project of European
integration started off with the establishment of the European Coal and Steel
Community (ECSC) in 1952 and the conclusion of the Treaty establishing the
European Economic Community (EEC Treaty) in 1957. Only a couple of years
later, in 1959, Germany and Pakistan concluded the first modern bilateral investment
treaty (BIT). Yet, despite a common interest in promoting economic development,
EU law and international investment law pursue different aims.
For the ECSC and EEC Treaties as well as their successors, including the Treaty
on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), economic development is not an
aim as such but a means to a much broader political goal, namely to achieve and
preserve peace in the European continent.1 The first step in this direction was to
achieve a significant degree of economic integration through the establishment of the
internal market. EU state aid law protects the EU’s internal market by preventing
member states for engaging in a subsidy race in support of their respective domestic
undertakings.2 Indeed, Article 107(1) TFEU declares that, subject to certain excep-
tions laid down in Article 107(2)-(3) TFEU, “any aid granted by a Member State or
through state resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort
competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods
shall, in so far as it affects trade between member states, be incompatible with the
internal market”.
Unlike EU state aid law, international investment law is concerned with the
protection of the interests of investors and states alike. It safeguards the interests
of foreign investors by protecting their investments against interference by the host
state while simultaneously respecting the interests of the host state, in particular its

1
See Schuman Declaration (9 May 1950): “World peace cannot be safeguarded without the making
of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it [. . .] Europe will not be made all at
once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create
a de facto solidarity”.
2
See Kassim and Lyons (2013), p. 9; Bacon QC (2017), para. 1.04; Hofmann and Micheau (2016),
pp. 9–11, 18–21. For the origins of subsidy control, see Piernas López (2015), pp. 21–44.
The Impact of EU State Aid Law on International Investment Law and Arbitration 181

right to regulate.3 In order to achieve these goals, investment treaties guarantee

certain substantive rights to investors, subject to certain limits, and give jurisdiction
to arbitral tribunals to adjudicate disputes between investors and states. As will be
seen below, investment protection is ensured, to a considerable extent, through the
guarantee of fair and equitable treatment (FET)4 which inter alia protects the
investors’ legitimate expectations arising from state conduct, such as specific prom-
ises and agreements.
Even at this level of abstraction, one can notice the tension between the opposing
aims pursued by international investment law and EU state aid law. EU state aid law
prevents member states from encouraging investment through subsidies and it
requires that such subsidies be abolished where they have been granted unlawfully.
By contrast, the FET standard may grant protection to investors who have benefitted
from such subsidies and therefore perpetuate the distortion of competition and trade
created by the subsidies.
This article explores this tension by, first, setting out the inconsistencies that may
arise between the FET standard and EU state aid law. Second, it examines whether
arbitral awards compensating investors for state aid measures that have been granted
and then altered or withdrawn may themselves constitute state aid. Finally, it looks at
the consequences for arbitral awards that are incompatible with EU state aid law.

2 Inconsistencies Between the FET Standard and EU State

Aid Law

2.1 The Concept of “State Aid” Under EU Law

The term “state aid”5 refers to an economic advantage granted directly or indirectly
through state resources, which is imputable to the state and is selective because it
favours certain undertakings or the production of certain goods.

2.1.1 The Definition of Aid as an Economic Advantage

According to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the notion of
economic advantage covers measures “which, whatever their form, are likely
directly or indirectly to favour certain undertakings . . . or are to be regarded as an

3
See Scheuer (2013), para. 1.
4
See Vannessa Ventures v. Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/04/6, Award, 16 January 2013,
para. 222, where the arbitral tribunal held that the FET standard requires that “the treatment of
investments not fall below a minimum standard of fairness and equitableness that all investors have
a right to expect”.
5
On the notion of state aid under EU law, see Hofmann and Micheau (2016), pp. 17–90.
182 P. Paschalidis

economic advantage which the recipient undertaking would not have obtained under
normal market conditions”.6
Identification of a measure as an economic advantage is, therefore, based on the
so-called “market economy investor principle” (MEIP). According to this principle,
one should assess whether the measure adopted by the state would have been
adopted in normal market conditions by a private investor in a situation as close as
possible to that of the state, having regard in particular to the information that was
available and the developments that were foreseeable at the date when the state
measure whose adopted.7 As a result of this broad definition of economic advantage,
state aid encompasses a variety of measures having a direct or indirect effect on the
public purse, such as direct financial measures (capital investments and injections,
interest-free loans etc.), indirect financial measures (such as waivers of public debt),
state guarantees, tax exemptions and reductions, etc.8

2.1.2 State Aid Must Be Granted by a Member State or Through State

Resources

Article 107(1) TFEU refers to aid granted by a member state or through state
resources. On this basis, the CJEU has held that only advantages granted by the
state or through state resources are to be considered aid within the meaning of that
provision. According to the CJEU:
[t]he distinction made in that provision between ‘aid granted by a Member State’ and aid
granted ‘through State resources’ does not signify that all advantages granted by a State,
whether financed through State resources or not, constitute aid but is intended merely to
bring within that definition both advantages which are granted directly by the State and those
granted by a public or private body designated or established by the State.9

For the purposes of establishing the existence of state aid, a sufficiently direct link
must be established between, on the one hand, the advantage given to the beneficiary
and, on the other, a reduction of the state budget or a sufficiently concrete economic
risk of burdens on that budget.10 However, according to the CJEU, “it is not

6
CJEU, Judgment of 24 July 2003, Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, C-280/00,
EU:C:2003:415, para. 84.
7
See CJEU, Judgment of 16 May 2002, France v. Commission, C-482/99, EU:C:2002:294, para.
70; Judgment of 5 June 2012, Commission v. EDF, C-124/10 P, EU:C:2012:318, paras 78–79;
Judgment of 1 October 2015, Electrabel and Dunamenti Erőmű v. Commission, C-357/14 P, EU:
C:2015:642, para. 144.
8
See Bacon QC (2017), para. 2.06.
9
CJEU, Judgment of 13 March 2001, PreussenElektra, C-379/98, EU:C:2001:160, para. 58. For the
subsequent development of this notion in CJEU case-law, see Rusche (2015), pp. 79–117.
10
See CJEU, Judgment of 19 March 2013, Bouygues and Bouygues Télécom v. Commission and
Others and Commission v. France and Others, C-399/10 P and C-401/10 P, EU:C:2013:175, para.
109. See also Judgment of 28 March 2019, Germany v. Commission, C-405/16 P, EU:C:2019:268,
para. 60.
The Impact of EU State Aid Law on International Investment Law and Arbitration 183

necessary that such a reduction, or even such a risk, should correspond or be

equivalent to that advantage, or that the advantage has as its counterpoint such a
reduction or such a risk, or that it is of the same nature as the commitment of State
resources from which it derives”.11

2.1.3 Imputability of the Aid Measure to the State

In addition to being provided through state resources, state aid must be imputable to
the state. In certain cases, the measure in question can be easily imputed to the State.
This is the case, for example, for economic advantages granted directly by the state
through legislation or other acts of the state’s public administration. Where, how-
ever, aid is granted through a publicly owned undertaking, the CJEU has held that
imputability “may not be inferred from the mere fact that they have been provided by
a public undertaking controlled by the State”.12 Instead, in such circumstances
imputability to the state depends on whether public authorities were actually
involved in the adoption of the measure in question or in deciding its compass, its
content, and its conditions.13

2.1.4 The Economic Advantage Granted by the State or Through State

Resources Must Be Selective

To constitute state aid, an economic advantage must be selective. This requirement

flows from the wording of Article 107(1) TFEU which refers to measures “favouring
certain undertakings or the production of certain goods”. An economic advantage is,
therefore, selective if it favours certain undertakings or goods over other undertak-
ings or goods which, in the light of the objective pursued by that regime, are in a
comparable factual and legal situation and, accordingly, suffer different and, hence,
discriminatory treatment.14
In addition, where the measure at issue is conceived as an aid scheme and not as
individual aid, that measure is selective even if it confers an advantage of general

11
See CJEU, Judgment of 19 March 2013, Bouygues and Bouygues Télécom v. Commission and
Others and Commission v. France and Others, C-399/10 P and C-401/10 P, EU:C:2013:175, para.
110. See also Piernas López (2015), pp. 172–176.
12
CJEU, Judgment of 17 September 2014, Commerz Nederland, C-242/13, EU:C:2014:2224, para.
31. See also Judgment of 16 May 2002, France v. Commission, C-482/99, EU:C:2002:294, para.
51.
13
CJEU, Judgment of 16 May 2002, France v. Commission, C-482/99, EU:C:2002:294, paras
51–55; Judgment of 17 September 2014, Commerz Nederland, C-242/13, EU:C:2014:2224, paras
31–32.
14
See CJEU, Judgment of 21 December 2016, Commission v. World Duty Free Group and Others,
C-20/15 P and C-21/15 P, EU:C:2016:981, para. 54 and case law cited.
184 P. Paschalidis

application, when the benefit of that advantage is in fact conferred exclusively on

certain undertakings or certain sectors of activity.15

2.1.5 The Notions of “Incompatible” and “Unlawful” State Aid

State aid is incompatible with the internal market when it is liable to distort
competition and affect trade between member states. This requirement is met in
cases where aid strengthens the position of an undertaking compared with other
undertakings that are or could be competing in intra-EU trade.16
However, Article 107(2)-(3) TFEU sets out certain exceptions to the rule that
state aid is incompatible with the internal market. Article 107(2) TFEU lists the types
of aid that are automatically considered as compatible, including social aid, aid
destined as response to natural disasters and other extraordinary circumstances as
well as aid granted to certain areas of Germany affected by the division of the
country during the Cold War period.17 Article 107(3) TFEU covers certain types of
aid which can be considered compatible with the internal market, subject to the
European Commission (EC)’s discretionary assessment, such as regional aid, aid to
important projects and to remedy serious economic disturbances, aid to promote the
development of certain economic activities, and aid for culture and heritage
conservation.18
Unlawful aid is a concept distinct from that of incompatible aid. Aid is unlawful if
it is implemented in contravention of Article 108(3) TFEU, meaning without
notification to and approval by the EC.19 Consequently, aid can be unlawful even
if it is compatible with the internal market.
Pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU, if the EC finds that unlawful aid granted by a
member state is incompatible with the internal market, it shall require the member
state concerned to abolish or alter the aid. Any aid already paid must be recovered,20

15
See CJEU, Judgment of 21 December 2016, Commission v. World Duty Free Group and Others,
C-20/15 P and C-21/15 P, EU:C:2016:981, para. 55.
16
See CJEU, Judgment of 17 September 1980, Philip Morris Holland v. Commission, Case 730/79,
EU:C:1980:209, para. 11; Judgment of 15 December 2005, Unicredito Italiano, C-148/04, EU:
C:2005:774, para. 56.
17
For further analysis, see Hofmann and Micheau (2016), pp. 235–239; Bacon QC (2017), paras
3.09–3.18.
18
For further analysis, see Hofmann and Micheau (2016), pp. 240–307; Bacon QC (2017), paras
3.19–3.3.45.
19
See Article 1(f) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed
rules for the application of Article 108 TFEU, [2015] OJ L248/9. However, aid schemes meeting
the requirements of the so-called General Block Exemption Regulation are deemed compatible with
the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(2)-(3) TFEU and are exempted from the
notification requirement of Article 108(3) TFEU. See, to this effect, Article 3 of Commission
Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with
the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty, [2014] OJ L187/1.
20
See Article 16 of Regulation 2015/1589.
The Impact of EU State Aid Law on International Investment Law and Arbitration 185

unless recovery is absolutely impossible.21 By contrast, where unlawful aid is found

to be compatible by the EC after its implementation, the EC has no power to order its
recovery on the sole basis that the requirement of prior notification and approval had
not been respected. Such power lies with the national courts.22

2.2 The Protection of Investors’ Legitimate Expectations

Through the FET Standard

Many arbitral tribunals have sought to describe rather than to define the FET23 as a
flexible standard that must be adapted to the circumstances of each case.24 The
protection of investors’ legitimate expectations is one of the most significant facets
of the FET.25 Essentially, an investor is entitled to compensation, if he can establish
that he legitimately or reasonably relied on a specific promise or representation made
to him by the state in making the investment, and that the state subsequently reneged
on this commitment to the detriment of the investment.26
However, the protection of legitimate expectations under investment treaties is
not an “insurance policy against the risk of any changes in the host State’s legal and
economic framework”.27 In the words of the Micula v. Romania tribunal:
an overwhelming majority of cases supports the contention that, where the investor has
acquired rights, or where the state has acted in such a way so as to generate a legitimate
expectation in the investor and that investor has relied on that expectation to make its

21
See CJEU, Judgment of 9 July 2015, Commission v. France, C-63/14, EU:C:2015:458, para. 48;
Judgment of 6 November 2018, Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori v. Commission and Com-
mission v. Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori and Ferracci, C-622/16 P to C-624/16 P, EU:
C:2018:873, para. 80.
22
See CJEU, Judgment of 21 October 2003, van Calster and Others, C-261/01 and C-262/01, EU:
C:2003:571, paras 73–76.
23
See Tudor (2008), p. 6; Angelet (2011), paras 5–6. See also Demirkol (2018), pp. 31–39. For a
detailed analysis of the conceptual challenges posed by the FET standard, see Kläger (2011), in
particular pp. 115–128.
24
See Waste Management v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/3, Award, 30 April 2004, para.
99; Micula v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, Final Award, 11 December 2013, para. 506.
25
See Electrabel v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Decision on jurisdiction, applicable law
and liability, 30 November 2012, para. 7.75; Micula v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20,
Award, 11 December 2013, para. 667; Novenergia v. Spain, SCC Case No. 2015/063, Final Arbitral
Award,15 February 2018, paras 648–649. See also Kläger (2011), pp. 164–187.
26
See, for example, Peter A. Allard v. The Government of Barbados, PCA Case No. 2012-06,
Award, 27 June 2016, para. 194. For a detailed analysis of the notion of legitimate expectations in
investment treaty arbitration, see Wongkaew (2019).
27
EDF (Services) Ltd. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/13, Award, 8 October 2009, para. 217.
186 P. Paschalidis

investment, action by the state that reverses or destroys those legitimate expectations will be
in breach of the [FET] standard and thus give rise to compensation.28 (footnotes omitted)

Nonetheless, in the absence of a stabilization clause, the principle of legitimate

expectations does not provide investors with an absolute guarantee that the regula-
tory framework in which they operate will not change. Indeed, the FET standard
calls for a balance between the protection of investors’ rights and the host state’s
public interest.29 Indeed, after pointing out that “an interpretation which exaggerates
the protection to be accorded to foreign investments may serve to dissuade host
states from admitting foreign investments”,30the Saluka v. Czech Republic tribunal
held that:
[n]o investor may reasonably expect that the circumstances prevailing at the time the
investment is made remain totally unchanged. In order to determine whether frustration of
the foreign investor’s expectations was justified and reasonable, the host State’s legitimate
right subsequently to regulate domestic matters in the public interest must be taken into
consideration as well.31

In this respect, it has been held that insofar as the investors’ expectations arising
from the legislation applicable were legitimate and reasonable when the investment
was made the FET standard protects against radical changes in the law that alter the
essential characteristics of that legislation.32

2.3 Problems Arising from the Application of the FET

Standard in the Area of EU State Aid Law

The FET standard and EU state aid law will come into conflict if a member state
encourages investment in a way that both gives rise to legitimate expectations and
constitutes incompatible or unlawful state aid. Depending on how arbitral tribunals

28
See Micula v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, Award, 11 December 2013, para. 667. See
also Electrabel S.A. v. Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Award, 25 November
2015, para. 7.77.
29
See McLachlan et al. (2017), p. 309; Angelet (2011), para. 6.
30
Saluka Investments v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2001-04, Partial Award,
17 March 2006, para. 300.
31
Saluka Investments v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2001-04, Partial Award,
17 March 2006, para. 305. See also, to the same effect, Arif v. Moldova, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/
23, Award, 8 April 2013, para. 537; Micula v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, Award,
11 December 2013, para. 666; Electrabel v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Award,
25 November 2015, paras 165–166; Eiser v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/36, Award, 4 May
2017, para. 362; Novenergia v. Spain, SCC Case No. 2015/063, Final Arbitral Award, 15 February
2018, para. 688.
32
See Eiser Infrastructure Limited and Energía Solar Luxembourg S.à r.l. v. Kingdom of Spain,
ICSID Case No. ARB/13/36, Award, 4 May 2017, para. 382; Novenergia v. Spain, SCC Case
No. 2015/063, Final Arbitral Award, 15 February 2018, para. 656.
The Impact of EU State Aid Law on International Investment Law and Arbitration 187

will interpret the FET standard and in particular the principle of legitimate expecta-
tions and on whether they will find a breach for the withdrawal or modification of a
state aid scheme, they may reach results incompatible with EU state aid law insofar
as the scope of application of the principle of legitimate expectations in this field is
severely restricted. The CJEU has held in relation to the principle of legitimate
expectations that:
In view of the mandatory nature of the review of State aid by the [EC] under Article [108
TFEU], undertakings to which aid has been granted may not, in principle, entertain a legitimate
expectation that the aid is lawful unless it has been granted in compliance with the procedure
laid down in that article and, second, a diligent businessman should normally be able to
determine whether that procedure has been followed. In particular, where aid is implemented
without prior notification to the [EC], so that it is unlawful under Article [108(3) TFEU], the
recipient of the aid cannot have at that time a legitimate expectation that its grant is lawful [. . .]
Neither the Member State in question nor the operator involved can plead the principle of legal
certainty either, in order to prevent recovery of the aid, since the risk of national proceedings
[. . .] was foreseeable from the moment that the aid was implemented.33

This holds true even when the behaviour of a national authority charged with the
task of applying EU law and creating the expectation turns out to be contrary to EU
law. That expectation cannot be a legitimate one.34 Essentially, nothing short of
precise assurances given by the EC and leading an investor to entertain well-founded
expectations will give rise to legitimate expectations that will prevail over the
principle that incompatible aid has to be abolished and recovered.35
Turning now to arbitral practice in this area, it is useful to distinguish between
cases where there is a definitive finding by the EC that the investor benefitted from
an economic advantage that constitutes incompatible state aid and those where there
is no such finding but there is good reason to believe that the state conduct relied
upon by the investor constitute state aid.
The Electrabel v. Hungary and EDF v. Hungary arbitrations are prominent
examples of the first category of cases.36 Both dealt with the termination by Hungary
of long-term power purchase agreements (PPAs) granted in favour of Belgian and
French investors who had invested in the modernization of Hungarian power plants.
In doing so, Hungary had complied with a decision of the EC finding that the PPAs
constituted incompatible state aid.37

33
See CJEU, Judgment of 15 December 2005, Unicredito Italiano, C-148/04, EU:C:2005:774, para.
104 and case law cited.
34
See CJEU, Judgment of 4 October 2007, Commission v. Italy, C-217/06, EU:C:2007:580, para.
23 and case law cited.
35
See CJEU, Judgment of 16 December 2010, Kahla Thüringen Porzellan v. Commission, C-537/
08 P, EU:C:2010:769, paras 65–66. See also Bacon QC (2017), para. 18.134.
36
The Micula v. Romania arbitration is not listed here because it concerned an aid scheme put in
place prior to accession and, therefore, at a time when EU law was not applicable to it. Whether the
Micula v. Romania award constitutes per se state aid incompatible with the internal market is
examined below.
37
See Commission Decision of 4 June 2008 on the State aid C 41/05 awarded by Hungary through
Power Purchase Agreements [2009] OJ L225/53, affirmed by General Court, Judgment of
188 P. Paschalidis

In this context, the Electrabel v. Hungary and EDF v. Hungary tribunals reached
opposing results. The Electrabel v. Hungary tribunal did not examine whether
Hungary breached Electrabel’s legitimate expectations by terminating the PPA.
Rather, it reviewed the way Hungary brought about that termination and held that
there was no evidence suggesting that Hungary had treated Electrabel unfairly in its
dealings with the EC or that Hungary had acted irrationally or arbitrarily in under-
standing that the EC’s decision required it to terminate the PPAs.38 The EDF
v. Hungary tribunal’s award is not publicly available but it appears that the tribunal
found a breach of the FET standard because, regardless of the termination of the
PPAs, Hungary had the possibility under EU law to compensate the investor’s
stranded costs39 but had failed to do so in a fair and equitable manner.40 Whether
international investment law can offer complementary protection to investors in a
manner compatible with EU law is not obvious,41 especially in light of the CJEU’s
holding that “matters covered by the transfer of powers from the member states to the
EU are governed by EU law to the exclusion, if EU law so requires, of any other
law”.42
A series of arbitrations against Spain (Charanne v. Spain,43 Isolux v. Spain,44
Eiser v. Spain,45 Novenergia v. Spain,46 Masdar v. Spain,47 Foresight v. Spain,48
RREEF v. Spain49 and 9REN v. Spain50) are prominent examples of cases where the
EC has not taken a decision characterizing the scheme relied upon by the investor as

13 February 2012, Budapesti Erőmű v. Commission, T-80/06 and T-182/09, EU:T:2012:65;

General Court, Judgment of 30 April 2014, Dunamenti Erőmű v. Commission, T-179/09, EU:
T:2014:236; CJEU, Judgment of 1 October 2015, Electrabel and Dunamenti Erőmű v. Commission,
C-357/14 P, EU:C:2015:642.
38
See Electrabel v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Decision on Jurisdiction, Admissibility
and Liability, 30 November 2012, paras 6.66–6.69 and 6.91.
39
See letter of the European Commission to the Hungarian Minister for Foreign Affairs dated
27 April 2010, regarding “State aid SA N 691/2009 - Hungarian stranded costs compensation
scheme”, C (2010) 2532 final.
40
See Judgment of the Tribunal fédéral (Federal Tribunal, Switzerland) of 6 October 2015, 4A_34/
2015, para. 5.3.2; Electrabel v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Award, 25 November 2015,
para. 225.
41
For further analysis, see Paschalidis (2018), pp. 51–115.
42
Opinion 2/13 (Accession of the European Union to the ECHR) of 18 December 2014, EU:
C:2014:2454, paras 193. Emphasis added.
43
SCC Case No. 2012/062, Final Award, 21 January 2016.
44
SCC Case No. 2013/153, Award, 12 July 2016).
45
ICSID Case No. ARB/13/36, Award, 4 May 2017.
46
SCC Case No. 2015/63, Final Arbitral Award, 15 February 2018.
47
ICSID Case No. ARB/14/1, Award, 16 May 2018.
48
SCC Case No. 2015/150, Final Award, 14 November 2018.
49
ICSID Case No. ARB/13/30? Decision on Responsibility and on the Principles of Quantum,
30 November 2018.
50
9REN Holding S.a.r.l v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/15, Award, 31 May 2019.
The Impact of EU State Aid Law on International Investment Law and Arbitration 189

state aid.51 They all dealt with the modification by Spain, especially through Royal
Decree 413/2014, of a scheme introduced by Royal Decrees 661/2007 and 1578/
2008 and supporting the production of electricity from renewable sources through
guaranteed feed-in tariffs paid to investors in photovoltaic panels. Certain investors
considered that the modification to the support scheme, which considerably reduced
these amounts, violated the FET standard contained in Article 10 of the Energy
Charter Treaty (ECT). The original scheme had not been notified to the EC and was
implemented without its approval. According to the EC, the measures modifying
that scheme, in particular Royal Decree 413/2014, and causing prejudice to the
investors constituted compatible state aid which was nonetheless unlawful as it had
been implemented without its approval.52
None of the arbitral tribunals seized in the context of the Spanish renewable
energy arbitrations under the ECT seems to have taken into account the fact that the
original Spanish support scheme on which the investors in renewable energy based
their expectations may have constituted state aid implemented in contravention of
the notification requirement laid down in Article 108(3) TFEU.
The Foresight v. Spain tribunal went as far as to hold that the EC’s decision of
10 November 2017 “ha[d] no bearing on the issue of the [investors’] legitimate
expectations of regulatory stability at the time of their investment”53 on the basis that
the EC’s decision did not concern the regulatory regime relied upon by the investors
but the subsequent modifications to that regime introduced by Spain. In so holding,
the Foresight v. Spain tribunal did not examine whether the original regime consti-
tuted state aid under EU law and, in the affirmative, whether such aid was
implemented in conformity with Article 108(3) TFEU.
As the CJEU held in its ruling in Unicredito italiano, unlawful aid is not capable
of generating legitimate expectations because investors can easily verify whether the
procedure laid down in Article 108(3) TFEU has been respected.54 The fact that
Spain’s modification of the original support scheme was subsequently declared by
the EC as compatible with the internal market under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU55 does
not alter the fact that the investors’ expectations arising out of the original scheme

51
One could also add Blusun v. Italy, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/3, Award, 27 December 2016 and
Greentech & NovEnergia v. Italy, SCC Arbitration V (2015/095), Final Award, 23 December 2018,
which dealt with claims arising out of Italy’s modification to its solar power aid regime establishing
long-term fixed rates for investors investing in solar plants.
52
See letter of the European Commission to the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooper-
ation dated 10 November 2017, regarding “State aid SA.40348 (2015/NN) – Spain, Support for
electricity generation from renewable energy sources, cogeneration and waste”, C(2017) 7384 final.
53
See Foresight Luxembourg Solar 1 Sàrl and others v. Kingdom of Spain, SCC Case No. 2015/
150, Final Award, 14 November 2018, para. 381. On this point, see Partial Dissenting Opinion of
Co-Arbitrator Raul E. Vinuesa, paras 22–38.
54
See CJEU, Judgment of 15 December 2005, Unicredito Italiano, C-148/04, EU:C:2005:774, para.
104. See also Bacon QC (2017), para. 18.132.
55
Aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas,
where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common
interest.
190 P. Paschalidis

would not be legitimate, if it were found to constitute state aid. Indeed, although the
EC cannot order recovery of the aid in cases of unlawful but compatible aid, the fact
is that in such a case the aid beneficiary has obtained a competitive advantage
vis-à-vis other market operators because he received the aid prematurely. This
advantage consists in the interest that he would have paid if he had borrowed the
value of the aid in the market for the period of aid’s unlawfulness. Other market
operators can obtain compensation from member states courts on this basis.56
However, these remarks are subject to one assumption, namely that the original
scheme constituted state aid. In this respect, it is worth noting that the EC’s thesis on
the existence of state aid in the Spanish cases relies on two key elements: the
electricity producers received support sourced (i) from the Spanish treasury budget
and (ii) from a charge collected from electricity consumers managed by a public
body, the CNMC.57 On the basis of these two elements, the EC considered that the
scheme in question constituted aid granted by the state or through state resources.
However, it is not clear whether the support from the Spanish treasury budget existed
under the original scheme on which the investors rely.58 Nor is it a given that the
charge in question would constitute a state resource.
Indeed, certain investors may have believed that the original scheme did not
constitute state aid on the basis of the CJEU’s PreussenElektra ruling, in which the
CJEU held that the obligation imposed on private electricity suppliers to purchase
electricity produced from renewable energy sources at fixed minimum prices did not
constitute state aid because it did not involve any direct or indirect transfer of state
resources to undertakings which produced that type of electricity.59
The EC relies60 on the CJEU’s ruling in the Elcogás case, which held that
amounts financed by the end-users of electricity as a whole and paid to electricity

56
See CJEU, Judgment of 18 December 2008, Wienstrom, C-384/07, EU:C:2008:747, paras 28–32.
57
See letter of the European Commission to the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooper-
ation dated 10 November 2017, regarding “State aid SA.40348 (2015/NN) – Spain, Support for
electricity generation from renewable energy sources, cogeneration and waste”, C(2017) 7384 final,
para. 84.
58
For example, in its decision the EC refers to Law 15/2012, which suggests that this element was
not part of the original scheme. See letter of the European Commission to the Spanish Minister for
Foreign Affairs and Cooperation dated 10 November 2017, regarding “State aid SA.40348 (2015/
NN) – Spain, Support for electricity generation from renewable energy sources, cogeneration and
waste”, C(2017) 7384 final, para. 10.
59
CJEU, Judgment of 13 March 2001, PreussenElektra, C-379/98, EU:C:2001:160, para. 59. The
EC initially hesitated as to how to interpret the principle laid down in this Judgment but it
subsequently sought to limit its ambit through a series of cases brought before the CJEU. See
Rusche (2015), pp. 85–108.
60
See letter of the European Commission to the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooper-
ation dated 10 November 2017, regarding “State aid SA.40348 (2015/NN) – Spain, Support for
electricity generation from renewable energy sources, cogeneration and waste”, C(2017) 7384 final,
para. 84.
The Impact of EU State Aid Law on International Investment Law and Arbitration 191

companies by a public body according to criteria predefined by law constitute aid

granted by state intervention or through state resources.61
However, in its more recent Judgment in Germany v. Commission,62 the CJEU
found against the EC in relation to a surcharge introduced by the German law
concerning renewable energy sources (EEG 2012). The surcharge in question was
collected and administered by the transmission system operators. It was intended
ultimately to cover the costs generated by the feed-in tariffs and market premium
provided for in the EEG 2012 by guaranteeing producers of EEG electricity a price
for the electricity they produced that is above the market price.
The CJEU decided that such a surcharge did not constitute aid granted through state
resources because (i) the surcharge in question did not constitute a levy and therefore a
state resource63; (ii) the state did not hold a power of disposal over the funds generated
by the EEG surcharge64; and (iii) the transmission system operators responsible for
managing the funds generated by the surcharge in questions were not constantly under
public control or subject to such control.65 This last criterion may ultimately show that
the question of passing on the cost to the consumer may turn out to have little impact in
the examination of the criterion of “state resources”, if it turns out the funding of the
national support scheme is under public control, regardless of the origin of the funds.66
Having said that, it should be noted that despite the importance of these questions,
arbitral tribunals are not entitled to seek guidance from the CJEU on the correct
interpretation of the notion of “state resources” because they do not qualify as courts
or tribunals of a member state, which are able to submit references for preliminary
rulings to the CJEU pursuant to Article 267 TFEU.67 They are, however, able to
request the EC to give them guidance on this point, especially when the EC has
intervened in the arbitration proceedings as an amicus curiae.

61
See CJEU, order of 22 October 2014, Elcogás, C-275/13, EU:C:2014:2314, para. 33. It is
noteworthy that this case concerned another Spanish aid scheme in the field of electricity whose
essential similarity with the one examined by the arbitral tribunals consisted in the fact that the
amounts paid to the electricity producers were financed by the end-users. In its Elcogás ruling, the
CJEU distinguished this scenario from the one at issue in PreussenElektra on the basis that the funds
at issue in PreussenElektra originated solely from private undertakings and their payment to the aid
beneficiaries never went through public undertakings. Nor had the state put in place a mechanism
for the compensation of surcharges (see para. 32).
62
See CJEU, Judgment of 28 March 2019, Germany v. Commission, C-405/16 P, EU:C:2019:268.
63
See CJEU, Judgment of 28 March 2019, Germany v. Commission, C-405/16 P, EU:C:2019:268,
paras 65–71.
64
See CJEU, Judgment of 28 March 2019, Germany v. Commission, C-405/16 P, EU:C:2019:268,
paras 73–76.
65
See CJEU, Judgment of 28 March 2019, Germany v. Commission, C-405/16 P, EU:C:2019:268,
paras 77–85.
66
See to that effect, CJEU, Judgment of 15 May 2019, Achema and Others, C-706/17, EU:
C:2019:407, paras 50–55.
67
See CJEU, Judgment of 6 March 2018, Achmea, C-284/16, EU:C:2018:158, paras 43–49.
192 P. Paschalidis

3 Can Arbitral Awards Constitute State Aid Under EU

Law?

Whether arbitral awards awarding damages to investors can constitute state aid and
therefore be incompatible with the EU’s internal market is a thorny question. It was
raised for the first time in relation to the award handed down in the Micula
v. Romania arbitration.68
That arbitration concerned an aid scheme that Romania had put in place and
terminated prior to its accession to the EU as a pre-condition to that accession. EU
law was not applicable to the aid scheme in question, because the scheme was
implemented and terminated prior to accession. Consequently, the tribunal did not
need to deal with any potential conflict that could exist (assuming that the scheme
would be found to constitute state aid under EU law) between the FET standard and
EU state aid law.
Subsequently, the EC took the view that the award of damages corresponding to
the value of the economic advantage that the investor would have received from
Romania if the scheme had not been prematurely terminated, is per se state aid
incompatible with the internal market.69 The EC, therefore, declared as incompatible
state aid the payment of damages under the Micula award for the entire period from
the repeal of the aid scheme in 2005 until 2009, when the scheme would have
normally ended.
The General Court then annulled the EC’s decision, holding that the right of the
Micula brothers and their companies to receive the damages, granted by the Micula
award, arose and began to take effect when Romania repealed the aid scheme in
question, before Romania’s accession to the EU. According to the General Court, the
award did no more than recognize the existence of a right prior to accession and any
payment of damages post-accession represented the enforcement of a right which
arose prior to accession.70 This coupled with the fact the EC declared the payment of
damages under the award as incompatible state aid even in relation to the portion of
damages pertaining to the period prior to accession (2005–2007) was sufficient for
the General Court to conclude that the EC had exercised its powers retroactively in
respect of facts and amounts lying outside the temporal scope of application of EU
law.71

68
This part of the article is based on Paschalidis (2018), pp. 145–154.
69
See Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1470 of 30 March 2015 on State aid SA.38517 (2014/C)
(ex 2014/NN) implemented by Romania — Arbitral award Micula v. Romania of 11 December
2013 [2015] OJ L232/43.
70
See GCEU, Judgment of 18 June 2019, European Food and Others v. Commission, Cases T-624/
15, T-694/15 and T-704/15, EU:T:2019:423, paras 70–78. The Commission has lodged an appeal
against the General Court’s Judgment in the pending case Commission v. European Food and
Others, Case C-638/19 P.
71
See GCEU, Judgment of 18 June 2019, European Food and Others v. Commission, Cases T-624/
15, T-694/15 and T-704/15, EU:T:2019:423, paras 89–92 and 106–109.
The Impact of EU State Aid Law on International Investment Law and Arbitration 193

Given that the aid at issue in Micula was offered and terminated pre-accession,
the General Court did not have to address in detail whether the payment of damages
under an investment award could constitute incompatible aid. The question, how-
ever, could be raised in relation to other arbitral awards, such as the one rendered in
Eiser v. Spain, if these awards were considered to quantify damages for the revoca-
tion of measures that constituted unlawful state aid.72 Such awards do not raise the
questions of temporal application of EU law.
In this context, the critical question is, therefore, whether damages can constitute
state aid. According to the EC, damages are a selective advantage in the sense that
only certain undertakings benefit from them (namely the investor-claimant in the
arbitration).73 They are also paid through state resources.74 The more difficult
questions are whether arbitral awards satisfy the criterion of imputability to the
state75 and whether damages constitute an economic advantage in accordance with
the MEIP.76

3.1 Imputability of Arbitral Awards to the State

Arbitral tribunals are, in principle, not part of the state or its administration and do
not constitute public bodies. In addition, they must satisfy certain requirements of
independence and impartiality so that, in the normal course of things, it will be hard
to argue that the state and its authorities are involved in the adoption of the arbitral
award by influencing its compass and content.77 The CJEU’s recent Judgment in the
Achmea case, which rejected the idea that investment tribunals can be considered as
courts or tribunals of a member state for the purposes of the Article 267 TFEU, is
also consistent with this line of reasoning, which excludes the imputability of arbitral
awards to the state.
The EC recognized that arbitral awards are not, in principle, imputable to the state
in the context of a complaint filed in 2013 by DEI, the Greek public power
corporation. DEI argued that the price for electricity set by an arbitral award handed
down in a pricing dispute between DEI and Alouminion SA was so far below market
price that the selling of electricity to Alouminion at such a low price constituted state
aid. The EC decided not to pursue this complaint considering that the arbitral award

72
See letter of the European Commission to the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooper-
ation dated 10 November 2017, C(2017) 7384 final, regarding “State aid SA.40348 (2015/NN) –
Spain, Support for electricity generation from renewable energy sources, cogeneration and waste”,
at para. 165.
73
See Commission Decision 2015/1470, paras 109–115.
74
See Commission Decision 2015/1470, para. 116.
75
See Commission Decision 2015/1470, paras 117–121.
76
See Commission Decision 2015/1470, paras 92–108.
77
See Judgment of 16 May 2002, France v. Commission, C-482/99, EU:C:2002:294, para. 56;
Judgment of 17 September 2014, Commerz Nederland, C-242/13, EU:C:2014:2224, para. 33.
194 P. Paschalidis

did not constitute state aid for several reasons including the lack of imputability of
the award to the Greek State because “the State [did] not seem to have had the
possibility to dictate the decision of the arbitration tribunal”.78
This position can be contrasted to the position the EC subsequently took in
relation to the Micula v. Romania award. In its Micula decision, the EC concluded
that an award issued under the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes
between States and Nationals of Other States, opened for signature at Washington,
on 18 March 1965 (ICSID Convention) was imputable to the state because Romania
had agreed to enter into the BIT with Sweden and had partially, but voluntary,
implemented the award. In addition, several organs of the Romanian State whose
acts are attributable to the Romanian State, such as courts, bailiffs and government
branches, had cooperated in the payment of compensation to the investor.79
It is worth noting that, 5 days before issuing its Micula decision, the EC revoked
the letter relating to the DEI/Alouminion dispute by adopting a formal decision
rejecting DEI’s complaint without addressing the question of imputability of the
arbitral award to the Greek State.80 This issue was not addressed by the General
Court’s Micula Judgment and will thus continue to require clarification from the EU
courts.

3.2 Damages as Economic Advantage

In its landmark Altmark Judgment, the CJEU defined aid as “[m]easures which,
whatever their form, are likely directly or indirectly to favour certain undertakings
[. . .] or are to be regarded as an economic advantage which the recipient undertaking
would not have obtained under normal market conditions”.81 It is difficult to see how
the payment of damages can fit this definition. Indeed, although damages may be
likely to directly or indirectly to favour certain undertakings, the application of the

78
See letter of the European Commission COMP/E3/ON/AB/ark2014/61460 dated 12 June 2014
quoted at Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet in DEI v. Commission, C-228/16 P, EU:
C:2017:133, para. 8 at footnote 2.
79
See Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1470 of 30 March 2015 on State aid SA.38517 (2014/C)
(ex 2014/NN) implemented by Romania — Arbitral award Micula v. Romania of 11 December
2013 [2015] OJ L232/43, paras 118–120. The validity of this decision is challenged before the
General Court of the European Union in pending Joined Cases European Food and others
v. Commission, T-624/15, and Micula v. Commission, T-694/15. The hearing took place on
20 March 2018.
80
See letter of the European Commission to the Greek Minister for Foreign Affairs dated 25 March
2015 regarding “SA.38101 (2015/NN) (ex 2013/CP) – Greece – Alleged State aid to Aluminium
SA in the form of electricity tariffs below cost following Arbitration Decision” C(2015) 1942 final.
The case has been referred back to the General Court (see Judgment of 31 May 2017, DEI
v. Commission, C-228/16 P, EU:C:2017:409).
81
CJEU, Judgment of 24 July 2003, Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, C-280/
00, EU:C:2003:415, para. 84.
The Impact of EU State Aid Law on International Investment Law and Arbitration 195

MEIP to damages may be a futile exercise. Indeed, the quantification and award of
damages in a judicial or arbitral process is not likely to differ if damages were due by
a private investor.
The CJEU was confronted with this issue in the Asteris litigation which arose
from certain technical errors that the EC committed when fixing coefficients to be
applied to production aid for tomato concentrates in the context of the EU’s
Common Agricultural Policy. These errors led to unequal treatment of Greek tomato
concentrate producers vis-à-vis such producers from other member states. On this
basis, the CJEU annulled the EC’s regulation containing those errors.82
The Greek tomato concentrate producers commenced separate proceedings
against the EC seeking to obtain compensation for their loss but the CJEU decided
that the illegality stemming from the EC’s errors was not sufficiently serious to
condemn the EC to pay damages.83 Having failed to obtain damages from the EC,
the Greek tomato concentrate producers brought an action for damages against the
Greek State seeking to obtain the difference between the production aid actually
received and the production aid to which they would have been entitled but for the
unlawfulness of the EC’s regulation. In that context, the Greek courts submitted a
reference for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU inquiring inter alia whether the
granting of compensation in that case would constitute state aid in the meaning of
Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, which had to be notified to the EC.
The response of the CJEU to this question was threefold. First, it held that
damages paid to individuals as compensation for damage caused to them did not
constitute state aid because “State aid, that is to say measures of the public author-
ities favouring certain undertakings or certain products, [was] fundamentally differ-
ent in its legal nature”,84 without however explaining this any further. Second, it
drew a distinction between an action for damages and an action for payment of
amounts due under EU legislation. On that basis, it noted that subsequent EU
legislation had granted the Greek tomato producers the additional production aid
that had not been paid to them as a result of the EC’s technical error.85 Third, it
therefore ruled that an action for damages before the Greek courts could only
concern “damage suffered in excess of those amounts as a result of the fact that
they did not receive the amounts in question on the date on which they would
normally have been entitled to them”.86
As it had already rejected the Greek tomato concentrate producers’ claim against
the EC for damages on the basis of unequal treatment, the CJEU added that “an

82
See CJEU, Judgment of 19 September 1985, Greece v. Commission, 192/83, EU:C:1985:356.
83
See CJEU, Judgment of 19 September 1985, Asteris and Others v. Commission, 194/83 to
206/83, EU:C:1985:357.
84
CJEU, Judgment of 27 September 1988, Asteris and Others, 106/87 to 120/87, EU:C:1988:457,
para. 23.
85
See CJEU, Judgment of 27 September 1988, Asteris and Others, 106/87 to 120/87, EU:
C:1988:457, paras 25–27.
86
See CJEU, Judgment of 27 September 1988, Asteris and Others, 106/87 to 120/87, EU:
C:1988:457, para. 28.
196 P. Paschalidis

action for damages against the Greek State would have to be on different grounds
from the actions dismissed by the [CJEU]”.87 The net outcome was that the action
for damages brought by the Greek tomato concentrate producers did not lead to
compensation calculated on the basis of due but unpaid aid because those amounts
had already been paid by the EC and therefore their action only concerned any
excess amounts for loss incurred by the non-timely payment of the full amount of
production aid. It is significant that the production aid that had not been paid to the
Greek tomato concentrate producers constituted a subsidy approved under the EU’s
common agricultural policy. By consequence, its lawfulness was not disputed.
Therefore, if awarded, the damages requested by the Greek tomato concentrate
producers would not constitute incompatible and unlawful state aid.
This scenario should be contrasted with an arbitral award that grants damages as
compensation for a breach of the FET standard where a member state reneged on its
promise to grant a certain economic advantage to the investor, especially when the
damages represent the amount of the aid promised but not paid. If the aid in question
is incompatible and unlawful state aid, compensation representing the amount of
promised but unpaid aid is in itself such aid. The fact that the arbitral award may not
be imputable to the state does not alter the fact that the amount of compensation is
state aid in disguise. The General Court recognized this in its Micula Judgment by
holding that “compensation for damage suffered cannot be regarded as aid unless it
has the effect of compensating for the withdrawal of unlawful or incompatible
aid”.88
Two observations are called for in this respect. First, in the case of damages
granted for aid promised but not given, the state aid test, and in particular the
criterion of imputability, must be applied not to the damages but the underlying
measure for which damages were granted. Second, and more importantly, damages
constitute aid when they have the effect of compensating for the withdrawal of
“unlawful or incompatible aid”. This means that provided that the underlying
scheme for which damages are granted constitutes state aid, the EC can take a
decision ordering a Member State not to comply with the award even if the aid is
simply unlawful, i.e. it has been implemented in breach of the standstill obligation
contained in Article 108(3) TFEU regardless of whether it is fact compatible or not
with the internal market. This finding may be of particular relevance in the context of
the renewable energy arbitrations against Spain discussed above.

87
See CJEU, Judgment of 27 September 1988, Asteris and Others, 106/87 to 120/87, EU:
C:1988:457, para. 29.
88
See GCEU, Judgment of 18 June 2019, European Food and Others v. Commission, Cases T-624/
15, T-694/15 and T-704/15, EU:T:2019:423, para. 103.
The Impact of EU State Aid Law on International Investment Law and Arbitration 197

4 Are There Remedies Against Arbitral Awards Conflicting

with EU State Aid Law?

Articles 107 and 108 TFEU constitute fundamental norms of the EU legal order and
form part of its public policy.89 Given the primacy of EU law over their other
obligations, EU member states are required not to comply with awards that are
incompatible with EU law,90 unless such awards could benefit from the
grandfathering clause of Article 351 TFEU. According to this provision, the obli-
gations that member states assumed towards third countries prior to 1 January 1958
(for the founding member states91) or their accession to the EU (for all other member
states) and by necessary implication the corresponding rights of those third countries
shall not be affected by the provisions of the EU Treaties.
Against this background one should distinguish between awards rendered pursuant
to the ICSID Convention and non-ICSID awards due to the different legal regime that
applies to the annulment, recognition and enforcement of such awards.92
Turning first to ICSID awards, all EU member states (save for Poland) have
acceded to the ICSID Convention. As a treaty concluded with third countries, the
ICSID Convention comes within the scope of Article 351(1) TFEU but only in
respect of those member states that ratified it prior to their accession to the EU,93
namely all member states except for Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Spain, France,
Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
In addition, to successfully rely on Article 351 TFEU, the ICSID Convention
must confer upon a third country rights that it can require the Member State
concerned to respect.94 In this respect, the obligation of an EU Member State to
comply with and enforce an ICSID award rendered against it stems not for the
underlying BIT or other investment treaty, but from Article 54(1) of the ICSID
Convention.95 The EC seems to have ignored this point when it concluded that the
Micula v. Romania award did not benefit from Article 351 TFEU on the basis that

89
See Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet in Achmea, C-284/16, EU:C:2017:699, para. 236.
90
See Article 4(3), second paragraph, of the Treaty on European Union, according to which “[t]he
Member States shall take any appropriate measure [. . .] to ensure fulfilment of the obligations
arising out of the [EU] Treaties or resulting from acts of the institutions of the Union”.
91
Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
92
See Articles 52–54 of the ICSID Convention. See also Schreuer et al. (2009), pp. 890–1151;
Alexandrov (2009), Káposznyák (2019), pp. 428–430; de Stefano (2019), p. 443.
93
See CJEU, Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet in Genentech, C-567/14, EU:C:2016:177,
footnote 39.
94
See CJEU, Judgment of 10 March 1998, T. Port, C-364/95 and C-365/95, EU:C:1998:95, para. 61;
Opinion 2/15 (EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement) of 16 May 2017, EU:C:2017:376, para. 254.
95
“Each Contracting State shall recognize an award rendered pursuant to this Convention as binding
and enforce the pecuniary obligations imposed by that award within its territories as if it were a final
Judgment of a court in that State. A Contracting State with a federal constitution may enforce such
an award in or through its federal courts and may provide that such courts shall treat the award as if
it were a final Judgment of the courts of a constituent state.”
198 P. Paschalidis

the parties to the BIT in question (Sweden and Romania) are both EU member
states96 and that, as it argued at the hearing before the General Court, Romania’s
obligation to enforce the award was owed solely to Sweden as the investors’ home
state. One could argue, however, that on a correct construction of Articles 54(1) and
6497 of the ICSID Convention, this obligation is owed to all third countries which are
parties to that Convention and who can request that the member state concerned
comply with it,98 even when the underlying arbitration is intra-EU.99
Be that as it may, it should be noted that the Luxembourg, Swedish and English
courts took a different approach in relation to their obligation to enforce the Micula
v. Romania award while the proceedings regarding the validity of the EC’s Micula
decision were pending before the General Court. Indeed, the Court of Appeal of
Luxembourg relied solely on the obligatory character that the EC’s decision has in
all member states and effectively ignored the clear language of Articles 53 and 54 of
the ICSID Convention requiring all contracting states to enforce ICSID awards.100
It is understood that, in the same vein, the Nacka District Court (Sweden) found
that Article 351 TFEU did not apply because the obligation to enforce the award in
question under the ISCID Convention did not involve the rights of non-EU states. It
also concluded that it was required to enforce the EC’s Micula decision by the
principle of sincere cooperation enshrined in Article 4(3) TEU.101
The High Court (England & Wales) took a more nuanced approach. Blair
J. reasoned that:
This court cannot [. . .] proceed to enforce the Judgment consequent on registration of the
Award in circumstances in which the [EC] has prohibited Romania from making any
payment under the Award to the claimants because in doing so, the court would, in effect,
be acting unlawfully. This does not (in the court’s view) create a conflict with the interna-
tional obligations of the UK as contained in the 1966 Arbitration Act implementing the

96
See Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1470 of 30 March 2015 on State aid SA.38517 (2014/C)
(ex 2014/NN) implemented by Romania — Arbitral award Micula v. Romania of 11 December
2013 (2015) OJ L232/43, para. 129.
97
“Any dispute arising between Contracting States concerning the interpretation or application of
this Convention which is not settled by negotiation shall be referred to the International Court of
Justice by the application of any party to such dispute, unless the States concerned agree to another
method of settlement.”
98
See Broches (1972), p. 379; Schreuer et al. (2009), p. 1109. See also Micula and Others
v. Romania (2018) EWCA Civ 1801, paras 190–195 (per Arden LJ).
99
See Paschalidis (2018), pp. 140–141.
100
See Judgment No. 71/18, of 21 March 2018, of the Luxembourg Court of Appeal in Romania
v. Micula and Others, p. 20 (“En l’espèce, la Décision de la Commission du 30 mars 2015 est
exécutoire et elle entrave l’exécution du titre constitué par la Sentence arbitrale. Elle est obligatoire
dans tous ses éléments et dans tous les États membres en vertu de l’article 288 du TFUE et même si
elle fait actuellement l’objet d’un recours devant les juridictions [de l’Union], ce recours n’est pas
suspensif en vertu de l’article 278 du TFUE”).
101
See Nacka District Court, decision of 23 January 2019 in Micula and others v. Romania, Case No
Ä 2550-17, pp. 8–9 and 13.
The Impact of EU State Aid Law on International Investment Law and Arbitration 199

ICSID Convention in UK law, because a purely domestic Judgment would be subject to the
same limitation.102

However, this position was not endorsed by the Court of Appeal of England and
Wales which held that Article 54 of the ICSID Convention, as incorporated into
English law through Article 2(1) of the Arbitration (International Investments) Act
1966, does not authorize the English courts to refuse to enforce an ICSID award for a
reason that would justify staying enforcement of an ordinary domestic Judgment.103
It recognised, however, that there was some limited discretion under Article 54 of the
ICSID Convention to stay the enforcement of the award and that this stay should be
granted while the proceedings before the General Court are pending.104 In upholding
the stay of enforcement granted by Blair J., the majority of the Court of Appeal
considered that it was necessary in view of the fact that the correct interpretation of
Article 351 TFEU was a litigious matter in the Micula proceedings pending before
the GC.105
The situation is different in relation to non-ICSID awards. When seized of actions
to set aside an award because it is contrary to public policy because it conflicts with
EU state aid law, the courts of EU member states must set aside the award in
accordance with the principles laid down by the CJEU in its Eco Swiss ruling.106
Likewise, in the context of recognition and enforcement proceedings, the courts of
EU member states must refuse to recognize and enforce an award that is incompat-
ible with EU state aid law.107

5 Conclusion

Arbitral practice thus far has given examples where a tension could arise between
EU law and international investment law by the application of the FET standard in
the field of EU state aid law. Indeed, several tribunals have dealt with investor claims
alleging a breach of legitimate expectations on the basis of a state’s withdrawal or
modification of measures that constitute or might constitute state aid. This may be
problematic in cases where the EC has not taken a decision declaring a specific
measure as state aid and the member state in question has not notified the EC of the

102
Micula and Others v. Romania (2017) EWHC 31 (Comm) para. 132.
103
See Micula and Others v. Romania (2018) EWCA Civ 1801, paras 120–121 (per Arden LJ).
104
See Micula and Others v. Romania (2018) EWCA Civ 1801, paras 124–132 (per Arden LJ),
paras 162–163 (per Hamblen LJ) and paras 257–262 (per Leggatt LJ).
105
See Micula and Others v. Romania (2018) EWCA Civ 1801, paras 153–165 (per Hamblen and
Leggatt LJJ).
106
See CJEU, Judgment of 1 June 1999, Eco Swiss, C-126/97, EU:C:1999:269. See also Judgment
of 7 July 2016, Genentech, C-567/14, EU:C:2016:526.
107
See CJEU, Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet in Gazprom, C-536/13, EU:C:2014:2414,
paras 173–177.
200 P. Paschalidis

measure before implementing it. In such circumstances, the risk that arbitral tri-
bunals may be enforcing unlawful state aid schemes cannot be excluded.
However, the application of the FET standard in the field of EU state aid law
should not automatically lead to a result incompatible with EU law. When applying
the principle of legitimate expectations in this field, arbitral tribunals must first assess
whether the state’s conduct relied upon by the investor constitutes state aid that has
been implemented without EC approval. In that context, arbitral tribunals should
take into account the limited scope of operation of the principle of legitimate
expectations in that field.
Finally, arbitral awards granting compensation for revoked state aid schemes that
were incompatible with the EU’s internal market and/or unlawful because they were
implemented in contravention of Article 108(3) TFEU may themselves constitute
state aid. Such an award would be incompatible with Articles 107 and 108 TFEU
and, therefore, may be annulled or refused recognition and enforcement, unless the
obligation to enforce the award is safeguarded by Article 351 TFEU.

References

Alexandrov SA (2009) Enforcement of ICSID awards: Articles 53 and 54 of the ICSID convention.
In: Binder C, Kriebaum U, Reinisch A, Wittich S (eds) International investment law for the 21st
century: essays in honour of Christoph Schreuer. OUP, Oxford, pp 322–337
Angelet N (2011) Fair and equitable treatment. In: Wolfrum R (dir) Max Planck Encyclopaedia of
Public International Law, vol 3. OUP, Oxford, pp 1094–1103
Bacon QC K (ed) (2017) European Union law of state aid, 3rd edn. OUP, Oxford
Broches A (1972) The convention on the settlement of investment disputes between states and
nationals of other states. Collect Courses Hague Acad Int Law 136:331–410
de Stefano C (2019) The circulation of international investment awards under the New York
Convention In: Fach Gómez K, López Rodríguez AM (eds) 60 years of the New York
Convention: key issues and future challenges. Kluwer AH, Alpena an den Rijn, pp 441–455
Demirkol B (2018) Judicial acts and investment treaty arbitration. CUP, Cambridge
Hofmann H, Micheau C (eds) (2016) State aid law of the European Union. OUP, Oxford
Káposznyák A (2019) The expanding role of the New York Convention in enforcement of
international investment arbitral awards In: Fach Gómez K, López Rodríguez AM (eds)
60 years of the New York Convention: key issues and future challenges. Kluwer AH, Alpena
an den Rijn, pp 425–440
Kassim H, Lyons B (2013) The new political economy of EU state aid policy. J Ind Compet Trade
13:1–21
Kläger R (2011) “Fair and Equitable Treatment” in International Investment Law. CUP, Cambridge
McLachlan C, Shore L, Weiniger M (2017) International investment arbitration: substantive
principles, 2nd edn. OUP, Oxford
Paschalidis P (2018) International investment law and EU law: are there systemic conflicts and
incompatibilities? In: Gaillard E, Ruiz Fabri H (eds) EU law and international investment
arbitration, IAI Series No. 11. JURIS, Huntington, New York, pp 7–169
Piernas López JJ (2015) The concept of state aid under EU law. OUP, Oxford
Rusche TM (2015) EU renewable electricity law and policy: from national targets to a common
market. CUP, Cambridge
Scheuer Ch (2013) Investments, international protection. In: Wolfrum R (dir) Max Planck Ency-
clopaedia of Public International Law, vol 6. OUP, Oxford, pp 328–343
The Impact of EU State Aid Law on International Investment Law and Arbitration 201

Schreuer C, Malintoppi L, Reinisch A, Sinclair A (2009) The ICSID convention: a commentary,

2nd edn. CUP, Cambridge
Tudor I (2008) The fair and equitable treatment standard in the international law of foreign
investment. OUP, Oxford
Wongkaew T (2019) Protection of legitimate expectations in investment treaty arbitration: a theory
of detrimental reliance. CUP, Cambridge

Paschalis Paschalidis is a senior associate in Shearman & Sterling’s International Arbitration and
Public International Law practices. Paschalis is also a Board Member of the Luxembourg Arbitra-
tion Association and a Visiting Lecturer at the Executive M.B.L.-HSG course organized by the
University of St. Gallen. He represents and advises companies and States in international arbitra-
tions conducted under the auspices of a variety of rules, ICSID, SCC, ICC and UNCITRAL Rules.
His practice focuses on investment and commercial disputes with a European Union law nexus.
From 2012 to 2018, Paschalis served as a référendaire at the Court of Justice of the European Union,
where he assisted First Advocate General Melchior Wathelet in a variety of cases raising, amongst
others, questions of international law and arbitration. Paschalis holds a LLB from the Aristotle
University of Thessaloniki and a MJur, MPhil and DPhil from the University of Oxford. He is the
author of many publications regarding the interaction of EU law with international arbitration.
The Complex Relationship Between
Competition Law and Investment
Arbitration After Achmea: The Novenergía
v. Spain Case

Millán Requena Casanova

Contents
1 Introduction: The Spanish Renewable Energy Regulatory Framework and Alleged
Violation of the ECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
2 The Relationship Between Competition Law and the ECT: The Achmea Case and Its
Implications for Intra-EU and Extra-EU Arbitrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
3 Is It Reasonable to Extend the Achmea Judgement to the ECT? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
4 The Novenergía Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
4.1 The Dispute Between Novenergía and Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
4.2 The European Commission’s Decision in Support of Spain’s Jurisdictional
Objections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
4.3 Spain’s Petition to Annul the Award Before the Svea Court of Appeal . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
4.4 Novenergía’s Petition for the Recognition and Enforcement of the Award Before
US Courts: State Aid Regime and US Public Policies as Grounds for Dismissal
of the Petition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

Abstract In recent years several European investors have initiated investor-state

arbitration against Spain under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) as a result of the
radical changes adopted by the Spanish authorities in the regulatory framework of
the renewable energy sector. The Novenergía arbitration highlights the complex
relationship between competition law and investment arbitration, especially in intra-
EU investment disputes. This type of dispute has caused much controversy because
EU competition law often plays a central role in investment arbitration. According to

The present chapter has been prepared in the framework of the research Project title “La Unión
Europea ante los Estados fracasados de su vecindario: retos y respuestas desde el Derecho
Internacional (II)” (ref. DER2015-63498-C2-2-P), financed by the Spanish Ministry of
Economy and Competitiveness.

M. Requena Casanova (*)

University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 203

K. Fach Gómez et al. (eds.), International Investment Law and Competition Law,
European Yearbook of International Economic Law,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33916-6_10
204 M. Requena Casanova

Spain’s position, arbitral tribunals are jurisdictionally not competent to render an

award since the power to authorize state aid falls within the exclusive competence of
the European Commission (EC). When an arbitral tribunal orders the payment of
compensation to an investor, that tribunal could act ultra vires, deciding a matter that
EU competition law (state aid regime) establishes as beyond any submission to
arbitration. But the new scenario opened by Achmea can allow Spain to challenge the
jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal created on the basis of the ECT, request the
set-aside of the award issued and oppose recognition and enforcement, at least before
the courts of the member states. The EC has underlined the public order nature of the
EU competition rules, already established by the Court of Justice of European
Union (CJEU) in Eco Swiss, and has pointed out the difficulties that US courts
would face when asked to recognize and enforce the international awards. However,
in the recent Micula judgment, the General Court of the EU observed that compen-
sation for damage suffered did not constitute state aid unless it represented compen-
sation for the withdrawal of aid that was unlawful, since the EC had no power to
review Romanian conduct prior to Romania’s accession to the EU. However, while
Micula appears to be closely related to measures taken by Romania prior to its
accession to the EU in 2007, other cases seem to relate only to incentive schemes
(cuts to renewable energies) implemented after EU accession, thus giving the EC a
clearer path to intervene. Finally, the Novenergía arbitration, highlights the difficul-
ties for the recognition and enforcement of the awards issued in the saga of
renewable energy arbitrations against Spain, especially where that award is issued
under arbitration rules other than the International Centre for Settlement of
Invesment Disputes Convention.

1 Introduction: The Spanish Renewable Energy Regulatory

Framework and Alleged Violation of the ECT

At the beginning of the last decade, Spain set in place a regulatory framework to
promote the development of its clean energy sector, including through commitments
to the stability of electricity tariffs and to a reasonable return on investment.1 A
massive influx of investment resulted. However, following a change of government
in late 2011, Spain rolled back its commitments to clean energy investors in order to
bolster the public coffers. With the aim of tackling the deficit, the Spanish govern-
ment has promulgated seven new decrees since 2012, removing the entitlement to
subsidies available for alternative energy technologies and imposing a tax on power
generation. Such drastic reforms, foreign investors contend, will virtually wipe out

1
Through the 2000 Plan for Renewable Energy, the 2005 Spanish Renewable Energy Plan, and
Royal Decree 661/2007.
The Complex Relationship Between Competition Law and Investment. . . 205

profits for photovoltaic, solar thermal and wind plants, in particular those highly
leveraged. Many of the investors who had relied on Spain’s clean energy commit-
ments have subsequently resorted to Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) arbitration to
vindicate their rights, lodging approximately €10 billion in claims against Spain.2
A number of investors, most of them based in other member states of the EU,
have initiated investor-state arbitration against Spain on the basis of the ECT in
reaction to changes brought but the Royal Decree 413/2014.3 The increasing number
of arbitrations against Spain on the basis of the ECT has become a “saga of
arbitrations”. Spain currently faces 42 known cases under the ECT (and three
non-ECT cases); 40 out of those cases have been brought by investors from other
European Union (EU) member states.4
Because all of these disputes stem from the same renewable energy measures,
Spain’s “unconditional consent” to arbitrate in Article 26(3) of the ECT has emerged
as a key protection for energy investors within the EU.5 ECT arbitration has became
widely employed to resolve energy disputes often worth hundreds of millions or
billions of dollars. At present, 60 intra-EU arbitrations are pending, and in a number
of additional cases enforcement proceedings are ongoing.6 The current wave of ECT
arbitrations against Spain is a case in point.

2
Ali (2013), pp. 5–6.
3
Two major changes were made to this initial regulatory framework to try to alleviate the
considerable economic losses for Spain in the electricity sector: the “package of regulatory
measures of 2010” came about essentially with decrees RD 1614/2010 and RDL 14/2010
(a reduction of incentives for the promotion of renewables originally planned), and the “package
of regulatory measures of 2013–2014”, especially with decrees RDL 9/2013, RD 413/2014 and
Ministerial Order IET/1045/2014 (elimination of said incentives). This radical regulatory change is
the fundamental reason that has given rise to more than 40 investment arbitrations against Spain by
foreign investors with economic interests in photovoltaic and thermoelectric plants in Spain. See
López Escudero (2014), pp. 228–229, Fernández Masiá (2017), p. 669 and Hernández Mendible
(2017), pp. 230–236.
4
According to the data from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
(UNCITRAL), in March 2019 Spain had a total of 42 renewable energy arbitral proceedings
pending. It was the second State with the highest number of claims initiated against it after
Argentina: https://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/ISDS/FilterByCountry.
5
ECT investors can choose to submit their disputes with Contracting Parties to one of three
international arbitration regimes: (1) arbitration at ICSID; (2) arbitration before a sole arbitrator
or an ad hoc tribunal under the UNCITRAL Arbitration; or (3) arbitration at the Arbitration Institute
of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC).
6
See https://energycharter.org/what-we-do/dispute-settlement/cases-up-to-18-may-2018/.
206 M. Requena Casanova

2 The Relationship Between Competition Law

and the ECT: The Achmea Case and Its Implications
for Intra-EU and Extra-EU Arbitrations

The conflict between investment law and competition law concerns both substance
and enforcement. On substance, EU law provides for a set of rules on investment
protection.7 As the two sets of rules on investment protection potentially applicable
in the relations between an EU member state and an investor of another state (i.e. the
Treaties and intra-EU bilateral investment treaties (BITs) or the ECT in an intra-EU
setting) are not identical in content and are applied by different adjudicators, there is
also a risk of conflicts between the ECT and EU law. Likewise, competition law
bestows upon the European Commission (EC) the exclusive competence to autho-
rize state aid, and prohibits EU member states from granting state aid without its
authorization. Where a member state grants aid to investors, without respecting the
notification and obligation of Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union (TFEU), the legitimate expectations of investors under the fair and
equitable treatment (FET) with respect to such state aid payments could be excluded.
That is because according to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European
Union (CJEU), a recipient of state aid cannot, in principle, have legitimate expec-
tations in the lawfulness of aid that has not been notified to the EC.8 Therefore, an
arbitral tribunal would not have jurisdiction to make an award obligating an EU
member state to provide state aid.
In relation to enforcement, an arbitration tribunal constituted on the basis of the
ECT to hear a dispute between a European investor and an EU member state or an
“intra-EU” BIT has to apply EU law (both as international law applicable between
the parties and, where relevant, as part of the domestic law of the host state). Since
the CJEU has denied arbitral tribunals the right to submit a preliminary question,9
arbitral case law has also indicated that an arbitral tribunal “is not a court of a

7
In particular, Articles 49, 52, 56 and 63 of the TFEU, as well as Articles 64(2), 65(1), 66, 75 and
215 of the TFEU.
8
Case C-536/13, Gazprom, Judgement, 13 May 2015, EU:C:2015:316, para. 56.
9
Case C-102/81, Nordsee, Judgement, 23 March 1982, EU:C:1982:107, paras 10–13; Case C-126/
97, Eco Swiss, Judgement, 1 June 1999, EU:C:1999:269, para. 34; Case C-536/13, Gazprom,
Judgement, 13 May 2015, EU:C:2015:316, para. 36. See also Opinion 2/15, 16 May 2017, EU:
C:2017:376, para. 292. The CJEU emphasizes that the fact that an arbitral tribunal renders decisions
pursuant to law, that its award has res judicata between the parties, or that it may be enforceable,
does not suffice. For the CJEU, preliminary reference would only be possible if the jurisdiction of a
tribunal is mandatory for the parties and emanates directly from a public act and not from an act of
the parties’ free will, and if there is a sufficiently proximate link between the legal order of the
member state and the arbitration proceeding. The CJEU has established in the Nordsee case that the
national courts should refer a question for preliminary ruling in such situations, see Case C-102/81,
Nordsee, Judgement, 23 March 1982, EU:C:1982:107, paras 14–15.
The Complex Relationship Between Competition Law and Investment. . . 207

member State”.10 Moreover, member states are obliged to provide remedies suffi-
cient to ensure the effective legal protection of investors’ rights under EU law
(Article 19(1) of the TFEU). In particular, every member state must ensure that its
courts meet the requirements of effective judicial protection.11 In the EC’s view, the
treaty conflict would be solved on the “basis of the principle of primacy in favour of
Union law. For those reasons, ECT [arbitration] does not apply to investors from
other member States initiating disputes against another Member States”.12 For that
reason, an award rendered by an arbitral tribunal should be declared invalid if it
awarded compensation that qualifies as unauthorized state aid in contravention of
EU competition law.
However, following the Achmea judgment, we may ask again the question of
whether the relations between the ECT provisions and EU law may vary if Spain
invokes this decision in the still pending arbitrations. In its judgment of 6 March
2018, the CJEU affirmed that the investor-state arbitration mechanism provided for
in the Slovak Republic-Netherlands BIT is not compatible with the EU legal order,
in light of the principles of autonomy and primacy that, as recognized in CJEU case
law and included in articles 267 and 344 of the TFEU. Therefore, the CJEU
determined that arbitration clauses such as the one in Achmea are barred by the
TFEU.13 Likewise, Articles 267 and 344 of the TFEU are EU constitutional pro-
visions that member states should uphold also in the context of proceedings brought
for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards through the European
public policy rules.
One of the questions that arise as a result of the Achmea judgment is how to assess
whether this decision also affects the ECT, insofar as the latter allows arbitration
proceedings between a European investor and an EU member state. Although the EU
itself is a party to the ECT, it does not seem that the conclusions of the Achmea

10
Electrabel v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Decision on Jurisdiction, 30 November
2012, paras 4.111 and 4.112. Similarly, the tribunal in Eiser v. Spain recalled that its jurisdiction
derives from the ECT, stating that the tribunal “is not an institution of the European legal order and
is not subject to the requirements of said order”, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/36, Award, 4 May 2017,
para. 199.
11
Case C-65/16, Associaçao Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses, Judgement, 25 January 2018, EU:
C:2018:117, paras 31–37.
12
See EC Decision 7384 of 10 November 2017 on State aid SA.40348(2015/NN)—Spain Support
for electricity generation from renewable energy sources, cogeneration and waste, para. 163.
13
Specifically, the CJEU held that: “Articles 267 and 344 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a
provision in an international agreement concluded between Member States” under which “an
investor from one of those Member States may, in the event grounds for concluding that Achmea
provides not of a dispute concerning investments in the other Member State, bring proceedings
against the later member State before an arbitral tribunal whose jurisdiction that Member state has
undertaken to accept”, Case C-284/116, Achmea, Judgement, 6 March 2018, EU:C:2018:158, para.
60. For an analysis of this Judgement, see, Barausova (2018), pp. 129–153; Bilanová and Kudrna
(2018), pp. 261–281; Cavedon and Weber (2019), pp. 223–241; Cimiotta (2018), pp. 337–344;
Contartese and Andenas (2019), pp. 157–192; Gaillard (2018), pp. 616–630; Gourgourinis (2018),
pp. 282–315; Iruretagoyena (2018), pp. 1–23; Pinna (2018), pp. 73–95; and Overduin (2018),
pp. 242–260.
208 M. Requena Casanova

judgment might also be extrapolated to the intra-EU ECT disputes.14 In this sense, it
is necessary to insist on the relevance of this fact, specifically for Spain, insofar as it
draws a new horizon within the framework of the disputes regarding renewable
energies, where Spain already accumulates several condemnatory awards.15

3 Is It Reasonable to Extend the Achmea Judgement

to the ECT?

Like the CJEU, the EC has confirmed that the principles of EU law enshrined in
Articles 267 and 344 of the TFEU prohibit resort to arbitration in such circum-
stances. Following the Achmea judgment, the EC informed the European Parlia-
ment (EP) and the Council that the CJEU confirmed that investors may not “have
recourse to arbitration tribunals established [. . .] under the Energy Charter Treaty”.16
So, the EC used the Achmea judgment to argue against the possibility of arbitration
under the ECT as regards intra-EU disputes. The EC added that “the fact that the EU
is also party to the Energy Charter Treaty does not affect this conclusion: the
participation of the EU in that Treaty has only created rights and obligations between
the EU and third countries and has not affected the relations between the EU
Member States”.17
On the other hand, on 15 January 2019, EU member states issued a political
declaration addressing the consequences of the CJEU’s Achmea judgment in relation
to intra-EU BITs.18 In the majority Declaration signed by 22 governments, these
signatories pledged to take actions to terminate their intra-EU BITs,19 to use their
influence as home states and respondent-states to notify tribunals of the
non-arbitrability of intra-EU BIT and ECT claims, and to request the set-aside or
non-enforcement of such intra-EU awards. In the opinion of these states, according

14
In this regard, for example, Hindelang (2013), pp. 5–6.
15
Verburg and Lavranos (2018), pp. 197–222.
16
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: “Protection
of intra-EU investment”, COM (2018) 547 final, 19 July 2018, p. 26.
17
Ibid. p. 4. Nevertheless, the EC has indicated that it will maintain its opposition to investor-state
arbitration even in the event that the EU itself is named as a respondent in an ECT arbitration. For an
early discussion of some aspects of such an ECT scenario, see Bermann (2012), pp. 397–445. For
the withdrawal of an EU member state from the ECT, see Rao (2018), pp. 154–182.
18
“Declaration of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, of 15 January
2019, on the Legal Consequences of the Judgement of the Court of Justice in Achmea and on
Investment Protection in the European Union”, 15 January 2019.
19
Member states adopted a dealine of 6 December 2019 to carry out these terminations. But even if
the EC should convince member states to terminate all intra-EU BITs, a termination of the ECT is
inconceivable and would run counter to the EU’s own (energy) interests. Likewise, an amendment
of the treaty through which the EU withdraws its consent to arbitration under Article 26 of the ECT
is unlikely given the need for a consensus of all signatories, Stier (2015), p. 170.
The Complex Relationship Between Competition Law and Investment. . . 209

to the case law of the CJEU,20 the provisions of a BIT between member states
containing an investor-state arbitration clause such as the one described in the
Achmea Judgement are contrary to EU law and thus inapplicable. As a consequence,
the use of such an investor-state arbitration clause would be contrary to EU law.
But member states remain divided with respect to the implications of Achmea for
the ECT, with several countries preferring not to prejudge a question that is presently
before an EU member state court.21 In the Declaration, member states maintain that
international agreements concluded by the EU, including the ECT, “are integral part
of the EU legal order and must therefore be compatible with the Treaties”.22 Arbitral
tribunals have interpreted the ECT as also containing an investor-state arbitration
clause applicable between member states (Article 26(3) of the ECT). Construed in
such a manner,23 that clause would be incompatible with the EU Treaties, at least
according to the majority Declaration, and thus would have to be disapplied. In
addition, member states have committed to ensure that the ECT cannot be used as a
basis for arbitration between investors based in the EU, which is a boost to the
interests of Spain. In relation to the ECT, the majority Declaration states that:
Beyond actions concerning the Energy Charter Treaty based on this declaration, Member
States together with the Commission will discuss without undue delay whether any addi-
tional steps are necessary to draw all the consequences from the Achmea judgment in relation
to the intra-EU application of the Energy Charter Treaty.

In any case, this Declaration recalls that the Achmea judgment only affects the claims
of European investors and not those of investors from third countries.
Reflecting divergences between member states, two additional declarations (one
made by Finland, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovenia and Sweden, and another by
Hungary) depart from the majority Declaration in several respects, chiefly with
respect to the application of the Achmea judgment to the ECT. The Declaration

20
In its Judgement Budĕjovický Budvar, the CJEU noted that “since the bilateral instruments at
issue now concern two Member States, their provisions cannot apply in the relations between those
States if there are found to be contrary to the rules of the Treaty”, Judgement 8 September 2009,
Budĕjovický Budvar, Case C-478/07 (EU:C:2009:521, para. 98).
21
An ECT award in favour of Novenergía is currently being reviewed by the Svea Court of Appeal.
In the context of these proceedings, the Court of Appeal might opt to ask for further guidance from
the CJEU with respect to the application of the Achmea precedent to the ECT.
22
A “systemic interpretation” of the ECT in accordance with the EU Treaties could exclude
arbitration between the state and the investor in the EU. This approach to “systemic interpretation”
was foreseen in the Judgement of 27 February 2018, Western Sahara Campaign UK
v. Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Secretary of State for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs, Case C-266/16 (EU:C:2018:118, paras 42 to 51). According to this
reasoning, any provision of a treaty that is part of the EU [i.e. ECT provisions] must be fully
compatible with the EU Treaties and with the fundamental principles that derive from them
(primacy and autonomy), as they have been recognized in CJEU case law.
23
This interpretation is currently contested before a national court in Sweden: See Case No. 4658-18
Svea Court of Appeal, Novenergía II – Energy & Environment (SCA) (Grand Duchy of Luxem-
bourg), SICAR, v. Spain, SCC Arbitration (2015/06).
210 M. Requena Casanova

signed by Finland, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovenia and Sweden argues that the
Achmea judgment concerns the interpretation of EU law in relation to an investor-
state arbitration clause in a BIT between member states. This group of states claimed
that the Achmea Judgement is silent on the investor-state arbitration clause in the
ECT. A number of arbitration tribunals post-Achmea have concluded that the ECT
contains an investor-state arbitration clause applicable between EU member states.24
Against this background, a group of member states have expressed their views as
regards the compatibility of the investor-state arbitration clause provided in ECT
with EU law, especially with regard to pending arbitrations.25 The fact that the
Achmea judgment is limited to BITs between EU member states—and that it
contains no mention of the ECT—is no accident. As was explained by the CJEU’s
Advocate General (AG) M. Wathelet in his opinion submitted in advance of the
Achmea judgment, no EU member state or institution had ever sought the CJEU’s
opinion concerning the compatibility of the ECT with EU law, because no one ever
had the “slightest suspicion” that any provision in the ECT could violate EU law.26
The different approaches to the legal implications of the Achmea Judgement dem-
onstrates that it is not clear that investor-state arbitration based on the ECT in intra-
EU disputes infringes EU law.
As Iruretagoyena points out, this new scenario opened by Achmea will “allow
Spain to challenge the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunals created on the basis of the
ECT, request the annulment of the awards issued and oppose the recognition and
enforcement of the awards, at least, before the jurisdictional organs of the member

24
Masdar Solar & Wind Cooperatief UA v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/1, Award, 16 May
2018; Eiser Infrastructure Limited AND Energía Solar Luxemburg Sàrl v. Spain, ICSID Case
No. ARB/13/36; Antin Infrastructure Services Luxembourg Sàrl v. Spain and Antin Energía
Termosolar BV v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/2, Award, 15 June 2018; Vatenfall AB;
Vatenfall GMBH; Vattenfal Europé Nuclear Energy GMBH; Kernkraftwerk Krümmel GMBH &
Co. HG; Kernkraftwerk Brunbüttel GMBH & Co. Ohg vs Germany, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12;
Antaris Solar GmbH and Michael Gode v. Czech Republic, PCA Case No. 2014-01; Athena
Investmetns A/S v. Spain, SCC Case No. 150/2015 and RREEF Infrastructure (G.P.) Limited and
RREEF Pan-European Infrastructure Two Lux Sàrl, v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/30,
Decision on Responsibility and of the Principles of Quantum, 30 November 2018.
25
“Declaration of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, of 16 January, on
the enforcement of the Judgement of the Court of Justice in Achmea and on Investment protection
on the European Union”, p. 3. In addition, Hungary stresses that the Achmea Judgement concerns
“only intra-EU bilateral investments treaties”. This judgment is silent on the investor-state arbitra-
tion clause in the ECT and “it does not concern any pending or prospective arbitration proceedings
initiated under the ECT”, “Declaration of the Representative of the Government of Hungary, of
16 January, on the enforcement of the Judgement of the Court of Justice in Achmea and on
Investment protection on the European Union”, p. 3.
26
In particular, the AG noted that: “If no EU institution and no EU Member State sought an opinion
from the Court on the compatibility of that treaty [i.e., the ECT] with the EU and FEU Treaties, that
is because none of them had the slightest suspicion that it might be incompatible”, Case C-284/16,
Slovak Republic v. Achmea BV, Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet (EU:C:2017:699, para.
43, emphasis added).
The Complex Relationship Between Competition Law and Investment. . . 211

States”.27 For instance, the Novenergía arbitration highlights the difficulties for the
recognition and enforcement of the awards issued in the “saga of arbitrations” on
renewable energies against Spain, especially where that award is issued in arbitration
fora other than International Centre for Settlement of Invesment Disputes (ICSID).

4 The Novenergía Arbitration

4.1 The Dispute Between Novenergía and Spain

On 8 May 2015, Novenergía, an investor from Luxembourg, an EU member state,

commenced an arbitration against Spain, another member state, under the ECT. It
did so despite the EC having determined that the dispute settlement provisions of
investment treaties between EU member states, such as the ECT, are inoperative. In
its Decision 7384, the EC considered that any provision that provides for investor-
state arbitration between two member states is contrary to EU law.28
Novenergía’s claims concerned Spain’s regulation of the solar energy sector, an
area falling within EU competence.29 In 2007, Spain established a regime for
investments in the field of photovoltaic energy that guaranteed certain fixed prices
for energy produced through a feed-in-tariff. Spain subsequently adopted new
Decrees in 2013 and 2014 to remedy unsustainable growth of the tariff deficit
resulting from this special regime, which had accumulated debt of more than €22
billion.30 Novenergía claimed, inter alia, that these energy sector reforms violated its
right to FET under Article 10(1) of the ECT to which the EU, Spain and Luxem-
bourg are parties. Novenergía submitted the dispute to arbitration under the Stock-
holm Chamber of Commerce Rules (SCC Rules) and Stockholm was chosen as the
seat of arbitration.31

27
Iruretagoyena Agirrezabalaga (2018), p. 11.
28
According to CJEU case law, when investors from member states exercise one of the fundamental
freedoms such as the freedom of establishment or the free movement of capital, they act within the
scope of application of EU law and therefore enjoy the protection granted by those freedoms and, as
the case may be, by the relevant secondary legislation, by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
EU, and by the general principles of Union law, which include in particular non-discrimination,
proportionality, legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, Judgement 30 April
2014, Pfleger, Case C-390/12 (EU:C:2014:281, paras 55 to 57). Likewise, where a member state
enacts a measure that derogates from one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by EU law, that
measure falls within the scope of Union law and the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter
also apply, Judgement 14 june 2017, Online Games Handels, Case C-685/15 (EU:C:2017: paras
55–57).
29
Article 194 TFEU.
30
Novenergía II - Energy & Environment (SCA) (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), SICAR v. Spain,
Award, SCC Arbitration (2015/063), paras 131–152.
31
Novenergía invoked the dispute settlement provisions in Article 26 of the ECT which provides
that where “[d]isputes between a Contracting Party and an Investor of another Contracting Party
212 M. Requena Casanova

On the merits, the tribunal unanimously concluded that Spain had violated Article
10 of the ECT and that it failed to afford FET to Novenergía’s investments. The
award provides that Spain’s changes to the tariff regime following Novenergía’s
investment were “radical and unexpected”, and “had a significant damaging eco-
nomic effect on [Novenergía]’s investments”. In the Tribunal’s view “[t]he measures
implemented in 2013 and 2014 by [Spain] certainly constitute a substantial depri-
vation of the Claimant’s investment” and, consequently, it considers Spain’s actions
“contrary to the [. . .] Spain’s obligation to provide [FET] to investors”.32 The
adopted changes “amounted to a breach [. . .] of [Spain’s] obligation to accord to
the investor [FET] as set out in Article 10(1) of the ECT”.33 The award ordered Spain
to pay Novenergía €53.3 million in compensation, plus interest “from 15 September
2016 at the rate of 1.5%, compounded monthly, until full payment has been made”.34

4.2 The European Commission’s Decision in Support

of Spain’s Jurisdictional Objections

On 10 November 2017, the EC issued a Decision regarding the renewable energy

policy in Spain’s legal framework. Taking note of the fact that investors had
commenced arbitrations against Spain under Article 26 of the ECT, the EC deter-
mined that “any provision” of an investment treaty which “provides for investor-
State arbitration between two member States is contrary to Union law”, including
Articles 267 and 344 of the TFEU.35 The EC further stated that EU law precludes
arbitration under Article 26 of the ECT because an “Arbitration Tribunal created on
the basis of the Energy Charter Treaty in a dispute between an investor of one
Member State and another Member State” would “apply Union law” even though
the tribunal cannot make references to the CJEU.36 The EC concluded that the ECT

relating to an Investment of the latter in the area of the former” cannot be “settled amicably”, an
investor may submit such a dispute to arbitration pursuant to certain enumerated arbitral rules.
These include the rules of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC
Rules) (Article 26 (2)(4) of the ECT).
32
Novenergía II - Energy & Environment (SCA) (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), SICAR v. Spain,
Award, SCC Arbitration (2015/063), para. 695.
33
The Tribunal concluded that “the legislation introduced through RDL 9/2013, Law 24/2013, RD
413/2014 and Order 1045/2014 amount to a breach by the Kingdom of Spain of its obligation to
accord to the investor FET as set out in Article 10(1) of the ECT and entitles the Claimant to
compensation”, ibid. para. 697.
34
Ibid. para. 860(b). The Final Award further requires Spain to pay Novenergía €2.6 million for the
cost of the arbitration and reasonable costs incurred by Novenergía.
35
EC Decision 7384 of 10 November 2017 on State aid SA.40348 (2015/NN)—Spain Support for
electricity generation from renewable energy sources, cogeneration and waste, para. 160, emphasis
added.
36
Ibid. paras 162–163.
The Complex Relationship Between Competition Law and Investment. . . 213

could not be applied to energy disputes between European investors and EU member
states.37
As the EC pointed out, in the specific situation of the measures adopted by Spain
in the renewable energy sector, Spain has not violated the principles of legal
certainty and legitimate expectations under EU law. In the intra-EU context, EU
law is part of the applicable law, as is constitutes international law applicable
between the parties to the dispute. As a result, FET cannot have a broader scope
than the EU law notions of legal certainty and legitimate expectations in the context
of a state aid scheme. In the extra-EU context, the FET provision of the ECT is
respected since no investor could have, as a matter of fact, a legitimate expectation
stemming from illegal state aid. This has been expressly recognized by arbitration
tribunals on several occasions.38 The EC held its Decision to be “binding on
Arbitration Tribunals”.39
Likewise, the EC Decision referred to the EU state aid regime in connection with
arbitrations commenced against Spain, that seek compensation for the regulatory
reforms adopted in Spain’s solar and photovoltaic energy sector. It stated that awards
which require payment of compensation would constitute state aid, and because such
“Arbitration Tribunals are not competent to authorize that granting of state aid. This
is an exclusive competence of the Commission. If they award compensation, such as
in Eiser v. Spain, or were to do in the future, this compensation would be notifiable
State aid pursuant to Article 108(3) TFEU and be subject to standstill obligations”.40
This would mean that the damages awarded by the arbitral tribunal that purport to
compensate Novenergía for its alleged losses could not be paid by Spain without the
Commission’s prior approval.41 For this reason, Spain’s payment of the Novenergía
award would qualify as illegal state aid and, therefore, it would be in violation of EU
competition law.42
In accordance with its procedural strategy, Spain challenged EC Decision 7384 in
the Novenergía proceedings. In sum, Spain argued that the tribunal’s award of
compensation constitutes impermissible state aid under EU law. In Spain’s view,

37
In the same Decision, the EC also ruled that the energy sector reforms challenge by Novenergía
were compatible with EU law, para. 34.
38
Electrabel SA v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/19, Decision on Jurisdiction, Applicable
Law and Liability (30 November 2012) and Award (25 November 2015).
39
Novenergía II - Energy & Environment (SCA) (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), SICAR v. Spain,
Award, SCC Arbitration (2015/063), para. 166.
40
EC Decision 2017/7384, para. 165, emphasis added.
41
The view taken in Decision 7384 was consistent with a previous Decision by the EC that
determined that the payment by Romania of an arbitral award rendered under an investment treaty
with another EU member state was unauthorized state aid, see EC Decision 2015/1470 of 30 March
2015 on State aid SA.38517 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) implemented by Romania—arbitral award
Micula v. Romania of 11 December 2013, OJ L 232, paras 94 et seq.
42
Novenergía II – Energy & Environment (SCA), v. Spain, “Expert Declaration of Steffen
Hindelang in Support of Respondent the Kingdom of Spain’s Motion to Dismiss and to Deny
Confirmation of Foreign Arbitral Award”, Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-1148, para. 51.
214 M. Requena Casanova

the arbitral tribunal would not have jurisdiction oblige Spain to provide state aid.43
Separately, the EC supported Spain’s objection to the tribunal’s jurisdiction on the
ground that the offer to arbitrate provided for in Article 26(3) of the ECT is limited to
investors from non-EU member states, asserting that allowing Novenergía to refer
the dispute to arbitration would violate Articles 267 and 344 of the TFEU. The EC
pointed out that arbitration is “outside the complete system created by those articles,
and, in particular, does not have the possibility or the obligation to refer preliminary
questions to ECJ pursuant to Article 267 TFEU”.44
On 15 February 2018, the arbitral tribunal issued a final award. Disregarding EC
Decision 7584, the tribunal rejected Spain’s jurisdictional objections based on the
assertion that the arbitration was “not constituted on the basis of the European legal
order and it is not subject to any requirements of such legal order”.45
Postcriptum: In a Judgement rendered on 18 June 2019, in the Micula case, after
this chapter was written, the General Court of the EU annulled the EC’s decision to
bar Romania from complying with the 2013 ICSID award rendered favour of
Swedish investors Ioan Micula and Viorel Micula. The General Court considered
that the award recognized that the investors’ right to compensation existed before
Romania’s accession to the EU. As a result, the EC was precluded from applying EU
state aid rules at least with respect to the pre-accession period. After recalling that
“new rules apply, as a matter of principle, immediately to the future effects of a
situation which arose under the old rule”, the General Court highlighted that,
contrary to the Commission’s contention, “it cannot be considered that the effects
of the award constitute the future effects of a situation arising prior to accession [. . .],
since that award retroactively produced definitively acquired effects which it merely
‘stated’ for the past, that is to say, effects which, in part, were already established
before accession”.46 In its reasoning, the General Court emphasized that the fact that
the disputed measures pre-dated Romania’s accession to the EU distinguished the
Micula case from the Achmea case: the Micula tribunal, unlike the Achmea tribunal,
was not bound to apply EU law, as EU law could not be applicable to the measures.
As a result, the General Court held that “the decision by which [the EC] classified the

43
In particular, Spain drew the Tribunal’s attention to the fact that the EC Decision restates that:
“(i) the jurisdictional conflict between EU judicial institutions and ECT arbitral tribunals on intra-
EU investment disputes should be solved on the basis of the principle of primacy in favour of EU
law; and (ii) any compensation granted by ECT tribunals to investors based on the Kingdom of
Spain’s changes in legislation on renewable energy would constitute a state aid that arbitral
tribunals are not competent to authorise as this belongs to the exclusive competence of the EU
Commission. Accordingly, the Respondent underlines that the EC Decision, which is binding upon
the Kingdom of Spain, provides further support to its objection that this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction
over the Claimant’s claims”: Novenergía II - Energy & Environment (SCA) (Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg), SICAR v. Spain, Award, SCC Arbitration (2015/063), para. 424.
44
Amicus Curiae Brief of the European Commission, 2 May 2017, para. 98.
45
Novenergía II - Energy & Environment (SCA) (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), SICAR v Spain,
Award, SCC Arbitration (2015/063), para. 461. See Eiser Infrastructure Limited and Energía Solar
Luxembourg Sàrl v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/36, Final Award, 4 May 2017, para. 199.
46
Cases T-624/15, T-694 and T-704/15, European Food and others v. European Commission
(Micula case), 18 June 2019, EU:T:2019:423, paras 83 and 84.
The Complex Relationship Between Competition Law and Investment. . . 215

entirety of the compensation as aid is necessarily unlawful” and “must be annulled in

its entirety”.47

4.3 Spain’s Petition to Annul the Award Before the Svea

Court of Appeal

On 14 May 2018, Spain submitted an application to set aside the Novenergía award
to the Svea Court of Appeal. Simultaneously, Spain requested that the Svea Court
order that “the recognition and enforcement of the award be suspended until the
Court of Appeal has given its Judgement and this Judgement gained legal force”.48
On 17 May 2018, the Svea Court granted Spain’s request for suspension, and
ordered that “the arbitral award may not be enforced until further notice”.49 More
recently, on 22 February 2019, the Svea Court of Appeal announced its Judgement
in a case regarding the invalidity and setting aside of two arbitral awards between
Poland and PL Holdings, an investment company from Luxembourg.50 Poland
claimed that the awards should be declared invalid, or be set aside. It argued that
the provision regarding dispute settlement resolution in the BIT between Poland, on
the one hand, and Luxembourg and Belgium, on the other, was incompatible with
the EU law according the Achmea Judgement. Poland also claimed that the arbitral
tribunal had committed several other errors which should result in the awards being
set aside.
In its application, Spain explained that the award suffers from at least five fatal
defects that require that it be set aside under the Swedish Arbitration Act (SAA).
First, the award “is not covered by a valid arbitration agreement between the parties”
(Section 34(1) of the SAA). In particular, the tribunal lacked jurisdiction because
Article 26 of the ECT does not apply between Spain and other EU member states,
and thus does not contain a valid offer by Spain to arbitrate disputes with investors
from EU member states, such as Novenergía. As a result, there was no enforceable
arbitration agreement permitting the arbitral tribunal to decide the dispute.51
According to Spain’s assertions, the Achmea Judgement applies to any “international
agreement concluded between member states”, including the ECT. As a result,
arbitration clauses in treaties like the ECT are not applicable between EU member

47
Ibid. paras 108 and 111.
48
See Summons Application and Request for Suspension of the Kingdom of Spain, May 14, 2018,
para. 4.
49
Decision of the Svea Court of Appeal, May 17, 2018, p. 2.
50
Judgement of the Svea Court of Appeal, Poland v. PL Holdings, Sàrl, February 22, 2019, Case n .
T 8538-17 and T 12033-17, p. 2.
51
See Summons Application and Request for Suspension of the Kingdom of Spain, May 14, 2018,
para. 8.2.
216 M. Requena Casanova

states.52 Because Article 26 of the ECT does not apply between Spain and Luxem-
bourg, Spain made no legally binding offer to arbitrate with Luxembourg compa-
nies, such as Novenergía.
Second, the award must be set aside under Section 34(1) of the SAA because
Article 26 of the ECT would violate higher-ranking rules of EU law, including, inter
alia, the principle of autonomy of EU law and Articles 267 and 344 of the TFEU.53
Under Swedish case law, a finding of invalidity in such circumstances requires a
determination by the CJEU. However, in its Judgement in the case Poland v. PL
Holdings, the Svea Court of Appeal concluded that “articles 267 and 344 TFUE
would not as a such preclude Poland and PL Holdings from entering into arbitration
agreement and participating in arbitral proceedings regarding and investment-related
dispute”.54 For that reason, this Court of Appeal held that “a Member State is, based
on party autonomy, free [. . .] to enter into arbitration agreement with an investor
regarding the same dispute at a later stage, e.g., when the investor has initiated
arbitral proceedings. An arbitration agreement and arbitral proceedings between, on
the one hand, and investor from a Member State and, on the other hand, a Member
State, is therefore as such not in violation of the TFUE”.55
Third, the award would be invalid under Section 33(1) of the SAA,56 because it
interprets and applies EU law thereby addressing matters that fall within the exclu-
sive competence of the EC and the CJEU. As a result, the award purports to resolve
matters that are not arbitrable under Swedish law. Fourth, the award would be invalid
under Section 33(2) of the SAA, which requires a finding of invalidity “if the award,
or the manner in which the award arose, is clearly incompatible with the basic
principles of the Swedish legal system”. In particular, the award was rendered
pursuant to an arbitration agreement that is contrary to EU law and, by means of
its incorporation in Swedish law, to the laws of Sweden. Similarly, according to
Poland’s assertions, arbitral awards issued by the arbitral tribunal in the arbitration
between PL Holdings and Poland, as well as the manner in which the arbitral awards
were issued, are manifestly incompatible with Swedish ordre public, and therefore
invalid.57

52
“Expert Declaration of Steffen Hindelang in Support of Respondent the Kingdom of Spain’s
Motion. . .”, paras 35–45.
53
See Summons Application and Request for Suspension of the Kingdom of Spain, May 14, 2018,
para. 8.3.
54
Judgement of the Svea Court of Appeal, Poland v. PL Holdings, Sàrl, February 22, 2019, Case n .
T 8538-17 and T 12033-17, p. 43. The Court of Appeal also noted that the arbitral tribunal “is not
considered to be a court in a Member State within the meaning of article 267 TFEU, and therefore
cannot request a preliminary ruling from the CJEU”. Ibid., p. 44.
55
Ibid., p. 44.
56
Which requires the invalidation of an award that “includes determination of an issue which, in
accordance with Swedish law, may not be decided by arbitrators.”
57
According to Poland, it is of public interest that the autonomy of EU law is not undermined, and
that the full effectiveness of EU law is ensured. Therefore, the arbitration clause that is incorporated
in Article 9 of the BIT, would be contrary to the foundation of the EU legal system and thereby the
The Complex Relationship Between Competition Law and Investment. . . 217

Fifth, the award must be declared invalid pursuant to Section 33(1) of the SAA
because it is contrary to the Swedish legal order insofar as it awarded damages that
qualify as unauthorized state aid in contravention of EU competition law. For that
reason, the arbitral tribunal would be jurisdictionally incompetent to make such an
award since the power to authorize state aid falls within the exclusive competence of
the EC. This was also pointed out by the EC in Decision 7348.58 In that sense, the EC
has underlined the public order nature of EU competition rules, already stressed in
Eco Swiss case, and has pointed out the difficulties that national courts would face
when asked to enforce the award.59 However, since the Micula judgment, compen-
sation for damage suffered cannot be regarded as state aid “unless it has the effect of
compensation for the withdrawal of unlawful aid”.60
At the time of writing this chapter, Spain’s application to set aside the award is
pending with the Svea Court of Appeal. Novenergía did not attempt to enforce the
award in any EU member state. Instead, on 16 May 16, 2018, Novenergía filed a
petition before the US District Court for the District of Columbia to enforce the
international award under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of
Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention).61 As far as investment awards
(other than ICSID awards) are concerned, and in accordance with the CJEU’s
Achmea judgment, dispute settlement provisions allowing an arbitral tribunal to
apply or interpret EU law are not compatible with Articles 267 and 344 of the
TFEU. These are fundamental EU constitutional provisions that EU member states
must uphold also in the context of proceedings brought for the recognition and
enforcement of foreign arbitral awards through the public policy exception.62

Swedish legal system. However, in its reasoning the Svea Court of Appeal understood that the
arbitral awards are not invalid under Section 33 of the SAA.
58
EC Decision 2017/7384, para. 165.
59
The Eco Swiss case clearly shows that an award must be annulled where it gives effect to an
agreement between undertakings which infringe Article 101 of the TFEU, even if the award itself
does not constitute an agreement between undertakings, Judgement 1 June 1999, Eco Swiss, Case
C-126/97 (EU:C:1999:269). Otherwise, the parties could place anticompetitive agreements beyond
the reach of Article 101 of the TFEU by inserting arbitration clauses in those agreements.
60
Cases T-624/15, T-694 and T-704/15, European Food and others v. European Commission
(“Micula case”), 18 June 2019, EU: T:2019:423, paras 103–104.
61
Novenergía II – Energy & Environmental (SCA), Petitioner v. Spain, Respondent, Civil action
No.1:18-cv-1148. This District Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant
to Section 203 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which provides that actions or proceedings
falling within the New York Convention arise under the laws and treaties of the US and are subject
to the original jurisdiction of the district courts of the US. The proceeding arises under the
New York Convention because it is an action to recognize and enforce in the US an arbitral
award made in Sweden, a state-party to the New York Convention. Moreover, the arbitration giving
rise to the Final Award, administered by the SCC, was conducted pursuant to Spain’s agreement to
submit to binding arbitration under the ECT.
62
Paschalidis (2019), p. 233.
218 M. Requena Casanova

4.4 Novenergía’s Petition for the Recognition

and Enforcement of the Award Before US Courts: State
Aid Regime and US Public Policies as Grounds
for Dismissal of the Petition

For its part, Spain claimed that the Novenergía’s petition for the recognition and
enforcement of the award should be rejected by the US Court because the arbitral
tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction. In Spain’s opinion, the award addressed matters
that, in light of Article V(1)(c) of the New York Convention, exceed the terms of
submission to arbitration.63 If any such submission had validly been made—which
Spain argued had not—the submission would be circumscribed by Article 26(6) of
the ECT, a provision that only permits arbitral tribunals to “decide the issues in
dispute in accordance with this Treaty and applicable rules and principles of
international law.” EU law forms part of those “applicable rules and principles of
international law,” thereby restricting “the scope of submission to arbitration” to
matters that are arbitrable under that legal order. In that sense, the EC’s functions
include regulating state aid provided by EU member states.64 Other bodies, such as
arbitral tribunals, may not do so. The EC made precisely this point in its Decision on
Spain’s renewable energy policy, when it determined that “any compensation which
an Arbitral Tribunal were to grant to an investor” would be unauthorized state aid
that Spain is prohibited from paying.65 The tribunal was on notice that “any
compensation” it might order Spain to pay for having modified its tariff regime
would constitute unauthorized state aid. Spain brought the Commission’s decision to
the tribunal’s attention.66 According, the tribunal could act ultra vires, deciding a
matter that competition law (the legal regime on state aid) establishes as beyond any
submission to arbitration.
Further, according to Spain assertion’s, Novenergía’s petition for the recognition
and enforcement of the award should be rejected under Article V (2)(b) of the

63
Article V (1)(c) of the New York Convention provides the following grounds to refuse recogni-
tion and enforcement of the award: The award “deals with a difference not contemplated by or not
falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration” and “contains decisions on matters beyond
the scope of submission to arbitration”.
64
The EU Treaties prohibit member states from granting subsidies to private actors (state aid) that
might disrupt or treaten to distort competition within the EU (Article 107(1) of the TFEU).
Likewise, according to Article 108(3) of the TFEU, state aid is permissible only when first notified
to and approved by the EC. To establish whether a particular measure constitutes state aid, the
CJEU has adopted a broad reading of the notion, Judgement of 7 March 2002, Italy v. European
Commission, Case C-310/99 (EU:C:2002:143), para. 51. The award, even though issued by the
tribunal, is imputable to Spain as it would have to be financed through Spain’s state resources.
Spain’s payment of the award would qualify as state aid.
65
EC Decision 2017/7384, para.165.
66
See Award, paras 63 and 68: “According to the Respondent, the EC Decision concerned the
Spanish state aid framework for renewable sources and was, according to the Respondent, relevant
for the case, both as regards jurisdiction and the merits”, para. 63.
The Complex Relationship Between Competition Law and Investment. . . 219

New York Convention because recognizing and enforcing the award would contra-
vene the public policy of the United States.67 With regard to the New York Con-
vention, the CJEU has held in Eco Swiss that the EU competition law provision
(Article 101 of the TFEU), should be regarded as a public policy rule within the
meaning of Article V(2)(b) of the Convention under certain conditions.68 If
Novenergía’s petition was accepted, Spain would be asked to violate its legal
obligations under EU competition rules and would transgress the basic constitutional
arrangements that EU member states have agreed upon in the EU Treaties. The US
courts should refuse to recognize and enforce the award because to do otherwise
would be “contrary” to at least two US “public policies: (1) According to Spain, to
recognize and enforce the award would result in Spain violating EU rules on state
aid69 in direct contravention of a Decision of the EC stating that “any compensation”
that “an Arbitral Tribunal” might “grant to an investor” as a remedy for the
regulatory actions Spain undertook in regard to its renewable energy sector is
unauthorized state aid70; (2) Recognizing and enforcing the award would be contrary
to the respect owned by the US to the constitutional order that EU member states
have established in the EU Treaties. The EU Treaties endow the EC with the
exclusive competence to authorize state aid and give the EU judicial system the
exclusive authority to interpret and apply EU competition law rules. The award
rendered in Novenergía would violate the foundational principles of the EU legal
system reflected in Articles 267 and 344 of the TFEU, as pronounced by CJEU in
Achmea,71 and grant a form of compensation that only the EC is competent to
authorize under EU competition law rules. US courts must respect the EU’s consti-
tutional choices, and should not enforce an award that transgresses them.72 To do
otherwise would fail to give effect to the paramount values of “predictability and
stability through satisfaction of [states’] mutual expectations”.73 Where an interna-
tional award would “undermine the public interest” and “public confidence in the
administration of the law,” it should be denied recognition and enforcement under
Article V (2)(b) of the New York Convention.74

67
See Hardy Exploration & Prod. (India) v. Gov’t of India, 314 F. Supp. 3d 95, 109–114
(D.D.C. 2018).
68
Eco Swiss, Case C-126/97 (EU:C:1999:269), at paras 36 and 39.
69
See Revere Copper & Brass, Inc. v. Overseas Private Inv. Corp., 628 F.2d 81, 83 (D.C. Cir.
1980): (“[T]he public policy exception to the enforcement of arbitration awards” extends to awards
that “compel [. . .] the violation of law”). As the D.C. Circuit has ruled, it would cause “considerable
discomfort to think that a court of law should order a violation of law, particularly on the territory of
the sovereign whose law is in question”: In re Sealed Case, 825 F.2d 494, 498 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
70
EC Decision 7384 of 10 November 2017 on State aid SA.40348(2015/NN)—Spain Support for
electricity generation from renewable energy sources, cogeneration and waste, para. 165.
71
Case C-284/116, Achmea, Judgement, 6 March 2018, EU:C:2018:158, para. 60.
72
Novenergía II – Energy & Environmental (SCA), Petitioner v. Spain, Respondent, Civil action
No.1:18-cv-1148, p. 32.
73
Laker Airways, Ltd. v. Sabena, Belgian World Airlines, 731 F.2d 909, 937 (D.C.Cir. 1984).
74
Enron Nigeria Power Holding, Ltd. v. Nigeria, 844 F.3d 281, 289 (DC. Cir. 2016). Nonotheless,
the US courts’ practice reveals that “the public policy exception pursuant to Article (V)(2)(b) of the
220 M. Requena Casanova

By contrast, in its amicus curiae brief submitted to the District Court of Columbia
in support of the petitioner, MOL Hungarian Oil & Gas Plc (MOL), a Hungarian
company argued that such attempts to retroactively nullify an arbitration agreement
would be contrary to the US public policy in favour of binding arbitration clauses
and repugnant to fundamental notions of fairness.75 In its brief, the said company
argued that Achmea provides no basis for the US courts to refuse the recognition and
enforcement of the award. The arbitration clause in Achmea was contained in a BIT
between two EU member states (not a multilateral treaty, such as the ECT). The
questions that the German Federal Court referred to the CJEU were specifically
limited to “the application of a provision in a bilateral investment protection
agreement between Members of the European Union (a so-called intra-EU BIT).76
Thus, by its very terms, the Achmea judgment is limited to arbitration clauses in
intra-EU BITs, to which the EU is not a party. For this reason, the District Court of
Columbia is not empowered, in the context of an enforcement proceeding, to extend
Achmea beyond its clearly defined limits. Thus, contrary to Spain’s assertions, there
is no basis on which this District Court could conclude that, as a matter of EU law,
Achmea extends to the ECT, and on those grounds, refuse to recognize and enforce
an arbitral award in an intra-EU dispute under the ECT.77
Finally, Spain argued that the District Court of Columbia should stay this action
pending the resolution of the Swedish proceedings.78 Novenergía’s push to enforce
the award in the United States creates a serious risk: if the award is enforced against
Spain’s assets in the United States, but the Svea Court subsequently sets it aside,
Novenergía will have enforced an annulled award. If this case proceeds to recogni-
tion and enforcement, and the Svea Court later vacates the award, Spain would have
to seek recovery of any assets obtained by Novenergía in the interval. By contrast,
US courts do not normally apply EU law and cannot seek an authoritative interpre-
tation from the CJEU. Finally, in my opinion, it is likely that the Svea Court could
consider grounds for setting aside the award that have no equivalent in Article V of
the New York Convention and thus are not before US courts, including whether the
award should be declared invalid for violating the Swedish legal order.

New York Convention could not be substantiated through revamping considerations relating to the
sovereign or public status of a party or its property, especially where such defences have been
already tried in the arbitral phase. Consequently, the ordre public defence should be assessed on the
basis of international standards and narrowly construed so as not to thwart the effectiveness of
arbitration agreements and awards circulating under the New York Convention”, see de Stefano
(2019), p. 454.
75
See Corporación Mexicana de Mantenimiento Integral, S. de RL v. Pemex-Exploración y Prod.,
962 F. Supp. 2d 642, 656-57 (S.D.N.Y. 2013); Chromalloy Aeroservices, a Division of Chromalloy
Gas Turbine Corp. v. Egypt, 939 F. Supp. 907, 913 (D.D.C. 1996).
76
German Federal Court of Justice, Slovak Republic v. Achmea, Judgment (Oct. 31 2018), Case I
ZB/15. Emphasis added.
77
“Brief of MOL hungarian oil and gas PLC as amicus curiae in Support of Petitioner’s response to
respondent Kingdom of Spain’s motion to dismiss and to deny petition to confirm foreign arbitral
award”: Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-1148 (TSC), p. 20.
78
According to Article VI of the New York Convention.
The Complex Relationship Between Competition Law and Investment. . . 221

5 Conclusion

In the last years several foreign investors, most of them based in EU member states, have
initiated investor-state arbitration against Spain under the ECT as a result of the radical
changes brought to the regulatory framework in the renewable energy sector since 2010.
The relationship between ECT provisions and competition law (state aid regime) has
changed after the CJEU Achmea judgment. The latter concluded that investor-state
arbitration clauses provided for in intra-EU BITs are incompatible with EU law, as they
remove disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the EU law from the
jurisdictional system of the EU. However, taking into account the arguments used by the
CJEU, the consequences of Achmea can go far beyond intra-EU BITs.
In that sense, the intervention of the EC in order to prevent the enforcement of the
Novenergía award before US courts illustrates its strong opposition to intra-EU
arbitration under the ECT.
It should be recalled that while the EC can defend its position on illegal state aid
derived from awarding compensation, EU courts and tribunals can reject this position.
However, we must inevitably take into account the recent Judgement issued by the
General Court of the EU in the Micula case. With respect to the intra-EU aspect of the
applicable BIT, the General Court further distinguished, very briefly, the Micula case
from Achmea, ruling that the arbitral tribunal in the former case was not bound to
apply EU law to events occurring prior to the host state’s accession to it. For that
reason, the EC exceeded its powers since, in its Decision, it did not draw a distinction
between the period prior to and post accession. Likewise, every international arbitral
tribunal that has considered the argument that EU law prohibits international arbitra-
tion in intra-EU disputes under the ECT has rejected it, including in decisions rendered
after Achmea (Novenergía, Masdar, Antin and REEEF).
Last, but not least, the uncertainty about how ICSID tribunals will react and the
limited grounds for annulment under the New York Convention, especially when
enforcement is sought in a non-EU member state (i.e. US), still constitute important
aspects that prevent an accurate assessment of the impact of the Achmea judgment on
ECT arbitrations Spain faces for cuts in the renewable energy sector.

References

Ali AH (2013) In the eye of the storm: Spain’s nexus to investment disputes. Revista del Club
Español del Arbitraje 18:5–36
Barausova V (2018) Slovak Republic v. Achmea from a public international law perspective: is
state consent to arbitrate under intra-EU BITS still valid? Eur Invest Law Arbitr Rev 3
(1):129–153
Bermann GA (2012) Navigating EU law and the law of international arbitration. Arbitr Int 28
(3):397–445
Bilanová A, Kudrna J (2018) Achmea: the end of investment arbitration as we know it? Eur Invest
Law Arbitr Rev 3(1):261–281
Cavedon A, Weber S (2019) Digging deeper: summary of the hearing before the CJEU in the
Achmea case. Eur Invest Law Arbitr Rev 3(1):223–241
222 M. Requena Casanova

Cimiotta E (2018) The first ever interpretative preliminary ruling concerning the validity of an
international agreement between EU member states: the Achmea Case. Eur Pap 3(1):337–334
Contartese C, Andenas M (2019) EU autonomy and investor-state dispute settlement under inter se
agreement between EU member states: Achmea. Common Mark Law Rev 56(1):157–192
de Stefano C (2019) The circulation of international investment awards under the New York
Convention. In: Fach Gómez K, López Rodriguez AM (eds) 60 Years of the New York
Convention. Key Issues and Future Challenges, Netherlands, Kluwer, pp 441–455
Fernández Masiá E (2017) España ante el arbitraje internacional por los recortes a las energías
renovables: una representación en tres actos, por ahora. Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional 9
(2):666–676
Gaillard E (2018) L’affaire Achmea ou les conflits de logiques. Revue critique de droit international
privé 3:616–630
Gourgourinis A (2018) After Achmea: maintaining the EU law compatibility of intra-EU BITS
through treaty interpretation. Eur Invest Law Arbitr Rev 3(1):282–315
Hernández Mendible VR (2017) El Tratado sobre la Carta de la Energía y el arbitraje internacional
de inversiones en fuentes de energías renovables. Caso Charanne B.V. y Construction Invest-
ments S.a.r.l. vs. Reino de España. Revista de Administración Pública 202:223–253
Hindelang S (2013) The Limited Immediate Effects of CJEU’s Achmea Judgment, VerfBlog, pp
1–6, 9 March 2018. Available at https://verfassungsblog.de/the-limited-immediate-effects-of-
cjeus-achmea-judgement/
Iruretagoyena Agirrezabalaga I (2018) La sentencia del TJUE en el asunto Achmea: el adiós al
arbitraje de inversiones de los APPRI intra-UE en la Unión Europea (y algo más). La Ley Unión
Europea 60(junio):1–23
López Escudero M (2014) Arbitrajes de inversiones contra España por los recortes en los incentivos
a la generación eléctrica mediante energías renovables. In: España y la práctica del Derecho
internacional: LXXV Aniversario de la Asesoría Jurídica Internacional del MAEC, Madrid,
MAEC, pp 223–265
Overduin D (2018) Turning tides: the landmark decision in the Achmea case – the ecosystem of EU
law means the end of intra-EU BITS. Eur Invest Law Arbitr Rev 3(1):242–260
Paschalidis P (2019) Challenges under EU law to the enforcement of arbitral awards under the
New York Convention. In: Fach Gómez K, López Rodriguez AM (eds). 60 Years of the
New York Convention Key Issues and Future Challenges, Netherlands, Kluwer, pp 219–235
Pinna A (2018) The Incompatibility of intra- EU BITs with European Union Law, annotation
following ECJ, 6 March 2018, Case 284/16, Slovak Republic v. Achmea BV, Cahiers de
l’arbitrage (1):73–95
Rao G (2018) The withdrawal of a European state from the ECT in light of the Achmea case. Eur
Invest Law Arbitr Rev 3(1):154–182
Stier A (2015) The jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal in intra-EU investment treaty disputes after
the decision in Electrabel v Hungary. Arbitr Int 31(1):163–170
Verburg C, Lavranos N (2018) Recent awards in Spanish reneawable energy cases and the potential
consequences of the Achmea judgement for intra-EU ECT arbitrations. Eur Invest Law Arbitr
Rev 3(1):197–222

Millán Requena Casanova is a lecturer in Public International Law and International Relations at
the University of Alicante (Spain). Guest Professor at the University of Lisbon since 2013 to
present. He is Jean Monnet Professor, title awarded by the European Commission, since 2011 to
present. Professor Requena is specialized in international commercial arbitration and investment
arbitration by the American University (Washington D.C.). Former Secretary of the Faculty of Law
at the University of Alicante (2012–2016). He has published numerous articles in the field of
international law, investment arbitration and European Union law.
Using GATS Article II to Resort
to Investment Arbitration

Sébastien Manciaux

Contents
1 Introduction: Is It Possible to Use a WTO Rule to Resort to Investment Arbitration? . . . . 224
2 Discussions Based on the Drafting of GATS Article II and on the Nature of WTO
Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
2.1 Are WTO Rules Directly Invocable by Private Persons? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
2.2 Is an Offer to Arbitrate a “Measure by a Member Affecting Trade in Services”? . . 228
2.3 A Commitment to Be Respected Only in the Future? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
3 Discussions Based on the Relationship Between WTO Law and Investment Law . . . . . . . 230
3.1 What Were the States’ Intentions at the Time the GATS Was Adopted? . . . . . . . . . . . 231
3.2 Is the Ejusdem Generis Principle a Bar to Using GATS Article II to Attract the ISDS
Clause of a BIT? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
3.3 Systemic Consequences of Using GATS Article II to Resort to Investment
Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

Abstract It is widely known that links between international investment law and
World Trade Organization (WTO) rules—which are part of competition law at the
global level—are numerous. But is it possible to use a WTO rule to resort to
investment arbitration? This is what a corporation from Luxembourg attempted to
do recently as a consequence of a dispute arising from an investment made in the
airport sector in Senegal. Since Luxembourg had no investment treaty with the
investor’s host state, the claimant sought to establish the jurisdiction of an invest-
ment tribunal by combining the most-favoured-nation clause provided in General
Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) Article II and the investor-state dispute
settlement (ISDS) clause contained in a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) concluded
between the host state and a third country. This case has given rise to extensive
arguments and exchanges between the claimant and the respondent on this issue and
eventually to the 2016 Menzies v. Senegal award declining jurisdiction. This paper

S. Manciaux (*)
University of Burgundy, Dijon, France
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 223

K. Fach Gómez et al. (eds.), International Investment Law and Competition Law,
European Yearbook of International Economic Law,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33916-6_11
224 S. Manciaux

will address some of the arguments developed by the parties and in the tribunal’s
award that shed some light on the links between global competition law and
international investment law.

1 Introduction: Is It Possible to Use a WTO Rule to Resort

to Investment Arbitration?

The history of competition law reaches back over two millennia. Roman Emperors
and medieval monarchs used tariffs to stabilise prices or to supporting local produc-
tion. But economic competition between states has only been studied as a whole
since the eighteenth century, notably thanks to Adam Smith.1 Modern competition
law started to develop at the domestic level at the end of the nineteenth century,
notably in the United States with the Shearman Anti-Trust Act of 1890. The first
rules seeking to regulate competition at the global level did not appear until the
second half of the twentieth century, first thanks to the entry into force of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and later with the creation of the World
Trade Organization (WTO). With more than 160 WTO Member States to date, WTO
rules play a major role in keeping all over the world states’ trade policies within
agreed limits, with the overriding purpose of reducing obstacles to international trade
and ensuring a level playing field.
Non-discrimination as a tool for fair trade is based on two major principles: the
most-favoured-nation (MFN) rule, and the national treatment (NT) rule. Both are
embedded in the GATT, the General Agreement on Trade in services (GATS) and
the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), even if their
precise scope and nature differ across these three agreements.2
The MFN rule requires that a product made in one member country be treated no
less favourably than a “like” product that originates in any other country.3 The NT
rule requires that foreign goods, once they have satisfied applicable border measures,
be treated no less favourably—notably in terms of internal (indirect) taxation—than
like or directly competitive domestically produced goods. Obviously, fair interna-
tional trade requires many other rules developed outside the WTO (in order to
regulate cartels, dominant positions and the like) but these two WTO rules are
essential to ensure a level playing field in world trade.

1
Smith (1776).
2
For a clear presentation of the history and functions of WTO, see for instance Hoekman (2002),
pp. 41–49.
3
For instance, if a State decides to apply a 7% tariff to a specific produce coming from another state,
this rate must be applied immediately and unconditionally to imports of this good originating in all
WTO members.
Using GATS Article II to Resort to Investment Arbitration 225

Roots of international investment law are also old if one considers the protection
of foreigners and their properties, addressed by Hugo de Groot (Grotius) in the
seventeenth century4 as the beginnings of what is now an autonomous and
flourishing branch of international economic law. Interestingly enough, the
non-discrimination principle was also at the heart of Grotius’ works on the treatment
of foreigners.
Currently, international trade law and international investment law share common
objectives and rules despite having been dissimilarly regulated for decades.5 Their
common objective is to help market traders, producers of goods and services, and
investors to develop their business abroad in fair conditions. Therefore, it is hardly
surprising to find both the MFN and the NT rules in almost all international
investment agreements (IIAs) for more than 50 years.6 It could be added that the
predictability and the transparency of the rule of law is a major concern both within
the WTO system and in IIAs.
The failure to create the International Trade Organization (ITO) following the
conclusion in 1948 of the Havana Charter certainly explains that international trade
law and international investment law followed different paths in the past. The
Havana Charter did contain an important article XII entitled “International Invest-
ment for Economic Development and Reconstruction” that provided rules for the
regulation of foreign investments. As the ITO never came into being, further
negotiations only led to the adoption of GATT, leaving international investment
law to develop in another forum through the adoption of other instruments, essen-
tially bilateral investment treaties (BITs). Distinct evolutionary pathways have led to
variances in treaty form, institutional culture, and dispute settlement.
Through the late twentieth to early twenty-first centuries, those weak boundaries
have become more and more meaningless. Investing abroad is indeed another way to
practice international trade. As a result, free trade agreements with an “investment”
chapter started to “supersede” BITs at the end of the twentieth century. Another
illustration of this phenomenon is given by the expansion of European Union
(EU) competences, originally limited to international trade and extended in 2009
with the Lisbon Treaty to foreign direct investment. As the European Commis-
sion (EC) explained in a 2010 Communication entitled Towards a comprehensive
European international investment Policy, “[i]nvestment presents itself as a new
frontier for the common commercial policy. [. . .] The Treaty grants the Union
exclusive competence to that effect”.7

4
Grotius (1625).
5
Broude (2013), p. 139; Garcia-Bolivar (2010), Kurtz (2004), p. 861; Alford (2014), and
Puig (2015).
6
OECD (2004), Dimascio and Pauwelyn (2008), p. 71; Kurtz (2005), p. 525.
7
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions—Towards a comprehensive
European international investment policy, COM/2010/0343 final.
226 S. Manciaux

If there is today a clear and natural rapprochement between international invest-

ment law and WTO law, is this evolution sufficient justification to allow the use of a
WTO rule to resort to investment arbitration? This is what a corporation from
Luxembourg attempted to do in 2015 in Menzies Middle East and Africa S.A. and
Aviation Handling Services International Ltd. v. Senegal. Since Luxembourg had no
investment treaty with the Republic of Senegal, the claimant sought to establish the
jurisdiction of an investment tribunal by combining the MFN clause in GATS
Article II and the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) clause contained in the
Netherlands-Senegal BIT.8 The Menzies v. Senegal case has given rise to extensive
arguments and exchanges between the claimant and the respondent and eventually
led to an award declining jurisdiction by an investment tribunal acting under the
auspices of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).9
The purpose of this chapter is to present some of the arguments developed by the
parties and the award rendered by this ICSID tribunal that shed some light on the
links between global competition law and international investment law.10 The
remainder of this chapter will explore in turn arguments based on the drafting of
GATS Article II and on the nature of WTO rules (Sect. 2) and arguments based on
the relationship between WTO law and investment law (Sect. 3).

2 Discussions Based on the Drafting of GATS Article II

and on the Nature of WTO Rules

Discussions based on the drafting of GATS Article II and on the nature of WTO
rules mainly focused on the direct invocability of WTO rules by non-state actors, on
the question of whether an offer to arbitrate contained in an investment treaty is a
“measure by a member affecting trade in services”, and on the on temporal scope and
legal effectiveness of GATS Article II.

8
The MFN treatment has been defined as follows by the International Law Commission: “Most-
favoured- nation treatment is a treatment accorded by the granting State to the beneficiary State, or
to persons or things in a determined relationship with that State, not less favourable than treatment
extended by the granting State or to a third State or to persons or things in the same relationship with
that third State”, Article 5 of the Draft Articles on Most-Favoured-Nation Clauses (ILC Draft), in
Yearbook of the international Law Commission, 1978, Vol. II, Part Two, p. 21. For an overall
presentation of the MFN Clause, see “Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment in International Investment
Law”, OECD Working Papers on International Investment, 2004/02, OECD Publishing.
9
Menzies Middle East and Africa S.A. and Aviation Handling Services International
Ltd. v. Senegal, ICSID Case No ARB/15/21, Award (rendered in French), 5 August 2016, hereafter
Menzies v. Senegal. The arbitral tribunal was composed as follows: Hamid G. Gharavi (arbitrator
appointed by the claimants), Pierre Mayer (arbitrator appointed by the Respondent) and Bernard
Hanotiau (president of the tribunal appointed by the parties).
10
The author must disclose that he acted as legal adviser for Senegal in this case. Nevertheless, the
following developments seek to be as objective as possible.
Using GATS Article II to Resort to Investment Arbitration 227

2.1 Are WTO Rules Directly Invocable by Private Persons?

This is a key issue. If the reply is “WTO rules are not invocable by private persons”,
there is not much to discuss: foreign investors cannot use WTO rules in general and
GATS Article II in particular, for any purpose, notably for establishing state consent
to investment arbitration. Obviously, Senegal argued that WTO member states never
agreed to allow WTO rules to be directly invoked by private persons.11 To the
contrary, the claimant argued that GATS gives rise to an individual right of action for
the benefit of service providers.12
WTO rules do not contain any specific provision on this issue because private
persons whether individuals or companies are not actors (stakeholders) of the WTO
system, nor are they the direct recipients of the rules that are elaborated within this
international organisation. Moreover, it is generally accepted that private parties
have no direct access to any of the WTO Geneva-based bodies to complain about
government practices that allegedly infringe on a WTO agreement, nor can they rely
on rights granted by WTO law before domestic courts, since they lack direct effect.13
Only one WTO panel has thus far addressed the issue of whether WTO rules have a
direct effect or not. It was in 1999 in United States—Sections 301–310 of the Trade
Act of 1974, and the WTO panel held as follows14:
Under the doctrine of direct effect, which has been found to exist most notably in the legal
order of the EC (now EU) but also in certain free trade area agreements, obligations
addressed to States are construed as creating legally enforceable rights and obligations for
individuals. Neither the GATT nor the WTO has so far been interpreted by GATT/WTO
institutions as a legal order producing direct effect. Following this approach, the GATT/
WTO did not create a new legal order with subjects comprising both contracting parties or
Members and their nationals.15

On the EU side, the European Council in the Preamble of its decision 94/800/EC
of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Com-
munity, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the

11
Menzies v. Senegal, Award, para. 75.
12
Menzies v. Senegal, Award para. 103.
13
Alemanno (2004), p. 202; Ruiz-Fabri (2014), p. 154; Berkey (1998), p. 633; Bourgeois (2000),
p. 71; Cottier (1998), p. 325; Snyder (2003), p. 365.
14
Report of the panel in United States—Sections 301–310 of the Trade Act of 1974, 22 December
1999, WT/DS152/R, para.7.72.
15
The Panel continued as followed: “We make this statement as a matter of fact, without implying any
judgment on the issue. We note that whether there are circumstances where obligations in any of the
WTO agreements addressed to members would create rights for individuals which national courts must
protect, remains an open question, in particular in respect of obligations following the exhaustion of
Dispute Settlement Understanding procedures in a specific dispute see Eeckhout (1997), p. 11; Berkey
(1998), p. 626. The fact that WTO institutions have not to date construed any obligations as producing
direct effect does not necessarily preclude that in the legal system of any given member, following
internal constitutional principles, some obligations will be found to give rights to individuals. Our
statement of fact does not prejudge any decisions by national courts on this issue”.
228 S. Manciaux

Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986–1994) held that “by its nature, the
Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization, including the Annexes
thereto, is not susceptible to being directly invoked in Community or Member
State courts”. The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)
is consistent with this interpretation for decades, starting with International Fruit
Company NV.16 On the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act enacted by the US Congress in December 1994 provides that:
No person other than the United States (A) shall have any cause of action or defense under
any of the Uruguay Round Agreements or by virtue of congressional approval of such an
agreement.17

To the best of our knowledge, until the present moment no domestic court
decision of a WTO member state gives direct effect to WTO rules.18 The arbitral
tribunal in Menzies did not expressly take a position on this issue. But it did so
indirectly, by analysing other arguments of the claimant based on the content and
meaning of GATS Article II. For instance, the tribunal asked whether GATS Article
II contained consent to arbitration. The arbitrators noted that such was not the case.
But raising this question only makes sense if it is admitted, as a prerequisite, that
GATS Article II can be directly invoked by foreign investors. It seems then that,
according to this tribunal, WTO rules, or at least GATS rules, are directly invocable
by private persons. This is not the only curiosity that one can find in this award.

2.2 Is an Offer to Arbitrate a “Measure by a Member

Affecting Trade in Services”?

As GATS Article I:1 provides that “[t]his Agreement applies to measures by

Members affecting trade in services”, the following question arises: is an offer to
arbitrate contained in an investment treaty a “measure by a Member affecting trade in
services”? This question is twofold. First, is an offer to arbitrate provided by an
investment treaty a “measure”? Answering this question is not that difficult: GATS

16
International Fruit Company NV, CJEU, 12 December 1972, C-21 to 24–72, p. 1225; Germany
v. Council of the European Union UECJ, 5 October 1994, C-280/93, § 36; Portugal v. Council of
the European Union, CJEU 23 November 1999, C-149/96; LVP NV v. Belgische Staat, CJEU,
18 December 2014, C-306/13, and Uruguay Round Agreements Act 108 Stat. 4815.
17
Public Law 103-465, 12 August 1994, 108 Stat. 4815, Title I, 102.c.1.A.
18
However, in the event of a member violating WTO rules, private companies can petition their
governments to have recourse to the WTO Dispute Settlement System to challenge the legality of
the measure with the WTO agreements. Both the US and the EU have created trade remedy
mechanisms that allow private parties to complain about illegal practices of third countries and to
request their trade authorities (US Trade Department; the EU Commission), to intervene before the
WTO. As for the US trade mechanism, see Morrison and Hudec (1993), p. 130; as for the EU, see
Bronckers and McNelis (2001), p. 427.
Using GATS Article II to Resort to Investment Arbitration 229

Article XXVIII (a) contains a broad list (rather than a definition) of what the term
“measure” means:
For the purpose of this Agreement: “measure” means any measure by a Member, whether in
the form of a law, regulation, rule, procedure, decision, administrative action, or any
other form.

It seems difficult to argue that the ISDS provision of a BIT is not a measure
when such a broad meaning is given to this concept.19 It is interesting to note that the
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) follows a similar approach in its
Article 201: “Measure includes any law, regulation, procedure, requirement or
practice”. Applying this rule, some investment tribunals have already adopted a
broad interpretation within the NAFTA framework, deciding for instance that this
term encompasses a domestic court ruling (in Loewen Group Inc. and Raymond
L. Loewen v. United States of America)20 or a law not yet into force (in Ethyl Corp. v.
Canada).21
Secondly, is an offer to arbitrate a “measure affecting trade in services”? This is a
more difficult question. It could be said that the offer to arbitrate disputes does not
directly affect trade in services, making no difference between service providers that
benefit from it and service providers that do not. The rationale of this interpretation is
that an arbitration clause is only a procedural rule that applies only in case of a
dispute (which is not supposed to happen too often), with no guarantee that the
outcome of the arbitral proceeding will be more favourable than the ruling rendered
by a domestic court.
Nevertheless, the possibility of resorting to international arbitration against a state
in the event of a dispute, rather than bringing the case before its courts, is generally
considered as a clear advantage. More precisely, the legal security conferred by the
arbitration clause allows service providers that can rely on it the possibility to offer
services at a lower price, giving them a real advantage over other service providers.
That was precisely an argument developed by the claimant.22 This discussion is very
much linked to a well-known debate in investment law: is an arbitration clause a
simple procedural provision or a part of the treatment granted to foreign investors
subject to the MFN clause? This is an interesting topic that exceeds the limits of this
chapter. But it is clear that choosing one of these interpretations over another will
also answer the question of whether an offer to arbitrate is, or not, a measure
affecting trade in services.

19
Menzies v. Senegal, claimant’s argument, Award, para. 118.
20
Loewen Group Inc. and Raymond L. Loewen v. United States of America, ICSID Case No ARB
(AF)/98/3, Decision on Jurisdiction, 9 January 2001, para. 39.
21
Ethyl Corp. v. Canada, ad hoc arbitral proceedings with application of the UNCITRAL Arbitra-
tion Rules, Decision on Jurisdiction, 24 June 1998, para. 728.
22
Menzies v. Senegal, Award, para. 117.
230 S. Manciaux

2.3 A Commitment to Be Respected Only in the Future?

The claimant argued that GATS gives rise to an individual and effective right of
action to the benefit of the service provider. This argument was disputed by the
respondent state. The tribunal engaged in a grammatical analysis of GATS Article
II:1 (Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment).23 The latter provides:
With respect to any measure covered by this Agreement, each Member shall accord
immediately and unconditionally to services and service suppliers of any other Member
treatment no less favourable than that it accords to like services and service suppliers of any
other country.

The tribunal observed that GATS Article II:1 provides “shall accord”, thus only
creating commitments to be respected in the future. This analysis is not convincing.
First, in English, the term “shall”—such as in other languages e.g. in French the
future tense—is routinely used by rule-makers to create present commitments.24
Secondly, in its analysis the tribunal made a particular interpretation of Article II:1
that provides precisely that “each Member shall accord immediately [. . .]”. The least
that can be said is that the difference between the present tense and “shall” is a very
narrow one.
In order to strengthen its reasoning, the arbitral tribunal added that within the
WTO system, it is possible for states not to abide by the commitment they took, as a
consequence of their sovereignty. The tribunal conceded that it was better for states
to meet their commitments, but that they were free not to do so, being then only
subject to a procedure before the WTO dispute settlement system.25 This argument
appears strange, especially coming from arbitrators whose function is to enforce the
rule of law. Fortunately, the part of the award dedicated to the relationship between
WTO law and investment law is far more convincing.

3 Discussions Based on the Relationship Between WTO

Law and Investment Law

The discussions between the parties focused in particular on the states’ intentions
(at the time the GATS was adopted) regarding the relationship between WTO law
and investment law, as well as on the effect of the ejusdem generis principle and on
the systemic consequences of the interpretation of GATS Article II proposed by the
investor.

23
Menzies v. Senegal, Award, paras 136–137.
24
For instance, Articles I to IV and VII (English and French versions) of the New York Convention
on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958).
25
Menzies v. Senegal, Award, para. 137.
Using GATS Article II to Resort to Investment Arbitration 231

3.1 What Were the States’ Intentions at the Time the GATS
Was Adopted?

The respondent claimed that by becoming a WTO member state, Senegal never
intended to extend the scope of the MFN clause of GATS Article II to investor-state
disputes. The respondent added that an MFN clause cannot be used in order to create
consent to arbitrate when this consent does not exist,26 quoting in this sense the
Plama v. Bulgaria decision on jurisdiction.27
The claimant relied on a discussion that took place during the Uruguay Round
negotiations. The Secretariat raised the issue of whether ISDS clauses included in
investment treaties could affect the GATS non-discrimination principle in the sense
that these clauses would provide another forum for asserting a right under the GATS.
Several members, such as Canada, Chile and Poland, have included the arbitration
offers contained in BITs to the Article II exemption list. These exemption lists were
circulated to members of the Negotiating Group on Services, including Senegal, and
became part of the GATS According to the claimant, despite being aware of the
scope of the GATS MFN clause, Senegal did not include in its list of exemptions the
arbitration offers contained in the BITs that it had already concluded with other
states.28
The arbitral tribunal noticed that during the negotiations on GATS, the delega-
tions did not reach an agreement on whether BITs and investment arbitration are
within the scope of the GATS. The discussions ended with no clear reply on this
issue.29 The tribunal added that the position taken by states in 1994 should not be
over-interpreted as, at that time, investment arbitration was at its very beginning.30
Indeed, at the end of 1994, the SPP and the AAPL awards had just been made public
and AMT v. Democratic Republic of Congo was still pending.31 At that time, one
needed to be a visionary to predict the fantastic development of investment arbitra-
tion. Thus, according to the tribunal, it is impossible to infer from the GATS

26
Menzies v. Senegal, state’s argument, award, para. 90.
27
“It is one thing to add to the treatment provided in one treaty more favourable treatment provided
elsewhere. It is quite another thing to replace a procedure specifically negotiated by parties with an
entirely different mechanism. [. . .][A]n MFN provision in a basic treaty does not incorporate by
reference dispute settlement provisions in whole or in part set forth in another treaty, unless the
MFN provision in the basic treaty leaves no doubt that the Contracting Parties intended to
incorporate them.”, Plama Consortium Limited v. Bulgaria, ICSID Case No ARB/03/24, Decision
on Jurisdiction, 8 February 2005, paras 209 and 223.
28
Menzies v. Senegal, Claimant’s argument, award, para. 116.
29
On this issue, see for instance Allen and Soave (2014), p. 13.
30
Menzies v. Senegal, Award, paras 147 and following.
31
Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) v. Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/84/3, Decisions on
Jurisdiction, 27 November 1985 and 14 April 1988, first published (abstracts) in 16 Y.B.Com. Arb.,
1991, 19; Asian Agricultural Products Ltd. v. Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No ARB/87/3, Award,
27 June 1990, first published in 6 ICSID Rev.-FILJ, 1991, 526; American Manufacturing & Trading
Inc. v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, ICSID Case No ARB/93/1, Award, 21 February 1997.
232 S. Manciaux

negotiation the states’ clear will to consent to investment arbitration through the
MFN clause of GATS Article II.

3.2 Is the Ejusdem Generis Principle a Bar to Using GATS

Article II to Attract the ISDS Clause of a BIT?

The ejusdem generis principle is the rule according to which an MFN clause can only
attract matters belonging to the same subject-matter or the same category of subject
as the clause. Invoking Maffezini v. Spain, the respondent submitted that the ejusdem
generis principle allows MFN clauses to be applied only to the same subject-matter
or the same category of subjects as those to which the clause relates. However, the
GATS and the Senegal-Netherlands BIT are two international instruments with
distinct objects. Moreover, the GATS is only an annex and a part of a bigger
multilateral agreement while the Senegal-Netherlands BIT is a bilateral agreement.
Additionally, according to the respondent, the GATS only contains rules for states
while the Senegal-Netherlands BIT essentially contains rules for the foreign inves-
tors covered by this treaty. Furthermore, GATS does not create rights directly
invocable by private persons, when the Senegal-Netherlands BIT allows its direct
invocation. As a final argument on this issue, the respondent claimed that the
purpose of the GATS is to liberalize international trade in services, while the
Senegal-Netherlands BIT protects investment in general, with no specific provisions
dedicated to service providers.32
The claimant relied on a more accurate interpretation of the ejusdem generis
principle, stressing that what was to be taken into account was not the object of the
treaty but that of the clause.33 According to the claimant, since GATS Article II
concerns treatment and as the arbitration clause is a part of foreign investors’
treatment, the ISDS clause falls within the scope of application of the MFN clause.
The tribunal did not explicitly decide between these two approaches, but the
award shows a clear reluctance to accept the claimant’s argument. The tribunal
considered that it was asked by the claimant to create consent to arbitration by
sticking disparate pieces, some coming from the WTO world, others coming from
investment treaties.34 The tribunal concluded that this exercise was a manifest
example of an equivocal and doubtful “consent” to arbitration when such consent
has to be clear.

32
Menzies v. Senegal, Respondent’s argument, Award, para. 87.
33
Menzies v. Senegal, Investor’s argument, Award, para. 115.
34
Menzies v. Senegal, Award, para. 135.
Using GATS Article II to Resort to Investment Arbitration 233

3.3 Systemic Consequences of Using GATS Article II

to Resort to Investment Arbitration

The respondent highlighted the systemic consequences of the thesis developed by

the claimant.35 Indeed, if it were possible to build consent to arbitration through the
GATS MFN clause, this would mean that it would be sufficient for one WTO
member state to have entered into a single BIT to be bound through that BIT to
the 161 other WTO member states. To put it in another way, it would mean that an
investor coming from one of these 161 other countries would be able to use the MFN
clause in GATS Article II to claim application of the material and procedural rules
included in a BIT to which its home state is not party. Such a thesis would lead either
to the advent of a global multilateral system for international investments or, more
probably, to the collapse of the network of international investment treaties on which
international investment law is built. The claimant did not really contest this
argument and the arbitral tribunal shared the respondent’s views on this issue and
stressed that such intentions of the WTO member states did not appear to exist.36 No
doubt this reasoning weighed heavily in the tribunal’s decision not to uphold
jurisdiction.

4 Conclusion

The award rendered in Menzies v. Senegal is not convincing in all its aspects, even if
its outcome can be seen as satisfactory. As the question of the direct invocability of
WTO rules by non-state actors is widely disputed, it is unlikely that this award will
be considered a leading case on this point. Direct effect of the WTO rules is indeed a
key issue. Consequences of any interpretation on the possible combination of WTO
rules and investment law rules, especially for procedural issues, must be carefully
taken into account because of the systemic outcome they may produce.

References

Alemanno A (2004) Private parties and WTO dispute settlement system. Cornell Law School Inter-
University Graduate Student Conference Papers. Paper 1:1–33
Alford RP (2014) The convergence of international trade and investment arbitration. Santa Clara J
Int Law 12(1):35–63
Allen BE, Soave T (2014) Jurisdictional overlap in WTO dispute settlement and investment
arbitration. Arbitr Int 30(1):1–58

35
Menzies v. Senegal, Respondent’s argument, Award, para. 89.
36
Menzies v. Senegal, Award, paras 143 et seq.
234 S. Manciaux

Berkey JO (1998) The European Court of Justice and direct effect for the GATT: a question worth
revisiting. Eur J Int Law 9:629–633
Bourgeois JHJ (2000) The European Court of Justice and the WTO: problems and challenges. In:
Weiler JHH (ed) The EU, The WTO and the NAFTA. Toward a common law of international
trade, Collected courses of the Academy of European Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 9
(1):71–124
Bronckers M, McNelis N (2001) The EU trade barriers regulation comes of age. J World Trade 35
(4):427–482
Broude T (2013) Investment and trade: the “Lottie and Lisa” of international economic law? In:
Echandi R, Sauvé P (eds) Prospects in international investment law and policy: world trade
forum. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 139–155
Cottier T (1998) Dispute settlement in the world trade organization: characteristics and structural
implications for the European Union. Common Mark Law Rev 35(2):325–378
Dimascio N, Pauwelyn J (2008) Non-discrimination in trade and investment treaties: worlds apart
or two sides of the same coin. Am J Int Law 102(1):48–89
Eeckhout P (1997) The domestic legal status of the WTO agreement: interconnecting legal systems.
Common Mark Law Rev 34(1):11–58
Garcia-Bolivar O (2010) Comparing arbitrator standards of conduct in international commercial,
trade and investment disputes. In: AAA/ICRD (ed) AAA handbook on international arbitration
practice, New York, pp 251–269
Grotius H (1625) De jure belli ac pacis, libri lres. In: Scott JB (ed) (trans: Kelsey FW). Clarendon
Press, Oxford, p 1925
Hoekman B (2002) The WTO, functions and basic principles. In: Hoekman B, English P, Mattoo A
(eds) Development, trade and the WTO: a handbook. The World Bank, Washington, DC, pp
41–49
Kurtz J (2004) The MFN standard and foreign investment: an uneasy fit? J World Invest Trade 5
(6):861–886
Kurtz J (2005) The delicate extension of the most-favoured-nation treatment to foreign investors:
Maffezini v. Kingdom of Spain. In: Weiler T (ed) International investment law and arbitration:
leading cases from the ICSID, NAFTA, bilateral treaties and customary international law.
Cameron, London, pp 525–555
Morrison FL, Hudec RE (1993) Judicial protection of individual trade rights in the US. In: Hilf M,
Petersmann EU (eds) National constitutions and international economic law. Kluwer, The
Hague, pp 91–133
OECD (2004) Most-Favoured-Nation treatment in international investment law. In: OECD Work-
ing papers on international investment. OECD
Puig S (2015) The merging of international trade and investment law. Berkeley J Int Law 33
(1):1–59
Ruiz-Fabri H (2014) Is there a case – legally and politically – for direct effect of WTO obligations?
Eur J Int Law 25(1):151–173
Smith A (1776) An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Strahan W and
Cadell, London
Snyder F (2003) The gatekeepers: the European Courts and WTO law. Common Mark Law Rev 40
(2):313–367
Using GATS Article II to Resort to Investment Arbitration 235

Sébastien Manciaux is Law Professor at the University of Burgundy, France, and a member of the
Research Centre on Investment and International Trade Law (CREDIMI). He teaches International
Investment Law, International Trade Law and International Arbitration to graduated students in
France and abroad (Tunis, Marrakech, Quebec, Rio de Janeiro, Tehran, Kobe). He has written many
articles and contributions dealing with International Arbitration and/or Investment Law in French,
English and Spanish. He has been called as expert or counsel in several arbitration proceedings
(ICSID, ICSID (AF), ICC or ad hoc arbitration proceedings).
The Use of Evidence Obtained Through
a State’s Special Antitrust Powers
in Investment Arbitration

Krystle M. Baptista and Bianca M. McDonnell

Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
2 Special Powers of State Agencies to Gather Information: A Brief Comparative
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
2.1 Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
2.2 France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
2.3 United States of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
2.4 Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
3 The Use of State Agency’s Special Powers in the Context of Investment Arbitration . . . . 245
3.1 The Rule of Law and the Prohibition of a Misuse of Powers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
3.2 International Due Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
4 The State’s Defence Under International Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
4.1 State as a Single Body Under International Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
4.2 Differing Treatment of State’s Subdivisions Under Domestic Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
4.3 Misuse of a State’s Domestic Powers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
5 Is Document Production the Solution? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

Abstract This chapter explores the use of evidence obtained by states in investment
arbitration. In particular, it examines whether a state may use information it obtains
through special powers of supervision, investigation and seizure granted to the
antitrust agency, to defend itself against an investor’s claim in an investment
arbitration. The chapter finds that such use of a state’s special powers constitutes a
misuse of power under domestic law and a violation of due process in investment
arbitration. Further, the treatment of a state as a single body for the purpose of
establishing standing for international claims, does not entitle the state to blur
domestic divisions of state powers to allow a special power to be used in a way
that would contradict its intended purpose under domestic law. States should use the

K. M. Baptista (*) · B. M. McDonnell

Armesto y Asociados, Madrid, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 237

K. Fach Gómez et al. (eds.), International Investment Law and Competition Law,
European Yearbook of International Economic Law,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33916-6_12
238 K. M. Baptista and B. M. McDonnell

proper procedure for obtaining documents in an international arbitration: document

production.

1 Introduction

This chapter explores the use of evidence obtained by states in investment arbitra-
tion. In particular, the chapter examines whether a state may use information it
lawfully obtains through the state’s special antitrust powers of supervision, investi-
gation and seizure (special powers), to defend itself against an investor’s claim in an
investment arbitration.
The factual background that gives rise to the topic is simple. The state conducts an
antitrust investigation against a company owned wholly or partially by a foreign
investor. Through the state’s sweeping powers prescribed by domestic law, the
antitrust agency collects numerous documents and information throughout the
investigation. Unrelated to the investigation the foreign investor files an investment
arbitration against the state. The antitrust agency finds that some of the seized
documents could be helpful to the state attorneys in defending the state in the
investment arbitration, and provides such documents to the state’s defence team.1
The question that arises is the following: Can the state use evidence and information
obtained during the domestic antitrust investigation to defend itself in the investment
arbitration?
The chapter argues that the state should not be allowed to use evidence obtained
in antitrust investigations to defend itself in an investment arbitration. After a brief
comparative analysis of special powers to state agencies, the chapter argues that such
use of evidence obtained in antitrust investigations is prevented by domestic rule of
law (Sect. 3.1) and basic principles of fairness, good faith and equality of arms (Sect.
3.2). A state’s classification as a single body for the purpose of establishing state
responsibility does not change this conclusion (Sect. 4). Instead, states should rely
on the procedure of document production to properly obtain documents in an
investment arbitration (Sect. 5).

1
One can imagine certain variations to this fact pattern that will give rise to the same question,
i.e. the antitrust state agency conducts its investigation and seizes documents once the arbitration
has started.
The Use of Evidence Obtained Through a State’s Special Antitrust. . . 239

2 Special Powers of State Agencies to Gather Information:

A Brief Comparative Analysis

In many jurisdictions an administrative body known as an antitrust agency is in

charge of enforcing antitrust laws. To fulfill its function of protecting the national
economy from anticompetitive conduct, the law usually endows such agencies with
powers of inspection, vigilance and control over antitrust matters; this includes the
power to carry out inspections, to seize documents during such inspections and to
request information, reports, books and financial papers (special powers). It is
usually very clear from the domestic law of the state that the antitrust agency is
only empowered to exercise its special powers for the specific purpose articulated by
law: to investigate individuals or companies for suspected breaches of antitrust laws
and anticompetitive conduct. Both civil and common law jurisdictions entrust
similar special powers to antitrust agencies, as evident through an examination of
the following distinct jurisdictions:

2.1 Spain

The Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (National Commission

on Markets and Competition) (CNMC)2 is the administrative agency that enforces
antitrust law in Spain.3 To fulfill its function of protecting the Spanish economy from
anticompetitive conduct, Articles 27, 28 and 29 of Law 3/2013 of June 4, grant the
CNMC powers of inspection, vigilance and control in antitrust matters. This includes
the power to carry out inspections, to seize documents and close premises during
such inspections, to request information, reports, books and commerce papers, and
obtain copies of all documents.4 Spanish law specifies that data and information
obtained during inspections carried out by the CNMC may only be used by the

2
https://www.cnmc.es. All websites included in the Chapter were last accessed on 4 May 2019.
3
Article 1(2) of Law 3/2013, on the creation of the Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la
Competencia: “La Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia tiene por objeto
garantizar, preservar y promover el correcto funcionamiento, la transparencia y la existencia de
una competencia efectiva y de una regulación eficiente en todos los mercados y sectores
productivos, en beneficio de los consumidores y usuarios”.
4
Articles 27, 28 and 29 of Law 3/2013, on the creation of the Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y
la Competencia:
Artículo 27 Facultades de inspección
1. El personal funcionario de carrera de la Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la
Competencia, debidamente autorizado por el director correspondiente, tendrá la
condición de agente de la autoridad y podrá realizar cuantas inspecciones sean necesarias
en las empresas y asociaciones de empresas para la debida aplicación de esta Ley.
2. El personal habilitado a tal fin tendrá las siguientes facultades de inspección:
240 K. M. Baptista and B. M. McDonnell

agency for the purpose provided for in the antitrust laws, Law 3/2013 of June 4 and
Law 15/2007 of July 3.5

2.2 France

In France the agency in charge of monitoring anticompetitive behaviour is the

Autorité de la concurrence (Competition Authority),6 regulated in the fourth book

a) Acceder a cualquier local, instalación, terreno y medio de transporte de las empresas

y asociaciones de empresas y al domicilio particular de los empresarios,
administradores y otros miembros del personal de las empresas. Asimismo podrán
controlar los elementos afectos a los servicios o actividades que los operadores o
quienes realicen las actividades a las que se refiere esta Ley, de las redes que instalen
o exploten y de cuantos documentos están obligados a poseer o conservar.
b) Verificar los libros, registros y otros documentos relativos a la actividad de que se
trate, cualquiera que sea su soporte material, incluidos los programas informáticos y
los archivos magnéticos, ópticos o de cualquier otra clase.
c) Hacer u obtener copias o extractos, en cualquier formato, de dichos libros o
documentos.
d) Retener por un plazo máximo de diez días los libros o documentos mencionados en
la letra b).
e) Precintar todos los locales, libros o documentos y demás bienes de la empresa
durante el tiempo y en la medida en que sea necesario para la inspección.
f) Solicitar a cualquier representante o miembro del personal de la empresa o de la
asociación de empresas explicaciones sobre hechos o documentos relacionados con
el objeto y la finalidad de la inspección y guardar constancia de sus respuestas [. . .].
Artículo 28 Requerimientos de información, deber de secreto y acceso a los registros
estatales
1. Toda persona física o jurídica y los órganos y organismos de cualquier Administración
Pública quedan sujetos al deber de colaboración con la Comisión Nacional de los
Mercados y la Competencia en el ejercicio de la protección de la libre competencia y
están obligados a proporcionar, a requerimiento de ésta y en plazo, toda clase de datos e
informaciones de que dispongan y que puedan resultar necesarias para el desarrollo de las
funciones de dicha Comisión [. . .].
Artículo 29 Potestad sancionadora
1. La Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia ejercerá la potestad
de inspección y sanción [. . .]. Martinez Sánchez and Rodríguez Ordóñez (2015),
pp, 293–303.
5
Article 6 of the Law 3/2013, on the creation of the Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la
Competencia: “Los datos e informaciones obtenidos sólo podrán ser utilizados por la Comisión
Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia para las finalidades previstas en esta Ley y en la Ley
15/2007, de 3 de julio”. Also Guerra Fernández and Vélez Fraga (2013), pp. 33–34. Guillén
Caramés (2015), pp. 41–89.
6
http://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr.
The Use of Evidence Obtained Through a State’s Special Antitrust. . . 241

of the Code of Commerce.7 The agents of l’Autorité are authorized to carry out all
investigations necessary to enforce the antitrust regulations.8 In particular, they may
carry out searches and seizures of books, receipts, professional documents of all
nature and all other documents that may aid their mission.9
A recent European Union (EU) Directive10—applicable to both Spain and
France—empowers the competition authorities of the member states to be more
effective enforcers of antitrust laws and to ensure the proper functioning of the
internal market. This Directive, which shall be transposed by February 2021,
requires the member states to ensure that the national competition authorities are
granted sweeping investigative powers,11 which at a minimum permit them12:
(a) to enter any premises, land, and means of transport of undertakings and associ-
ations of undertakings;
(b) to examine the books and other records related to the business irrespective of the
medium on which they are stored, and to have the right to access any information
which is accessible to the entity subject to the inspection;
(c) to take or obtain, in any form, copies of or extracts from such books or records
and, where they consider it appropriate, to continue making such searches for
information and the selection of copies or extracts at the premises of the national
competition authorities or at any other designated premises;
(d) to seal any business premises and books or records for the period and to the
extent necessary for the inspection;

7
Similar to what occurs in Spain, some antitrust competencies are regulated at the EU level.
8
Article L450-1 of the French Code of Commerce: “I.-Les agents des services d’instruction de
l’Autorité de la concurrence habilités à cet effet par le rapporteur général peuvent procéder à toute
enquête nécessaire à l’application des dispositions des titres II et III du présent livre. Ils peuvent
également, pour l’application du titre VI du présent livre, mettre en œuvre les pouvoirs d’enquête
définis à l’article L. 450-3. [. . .]
II.-Des fonctionnaires habilités à cet effet par le ministre chargé de l’économie peuvent procéder
aux enquêtes nécessaires à l’application des dispositions du présent libre [. . .]”.
9
Article L450-3 of the French Code of Commerce: “Les agents peuvent exiger la communication et
obtenir ou prendre copie, par tout moyen et sur tout support, des livres, factures et autres documents
professionnels de toute nature, entre quelques mains qu’ils se trouvent, propres à faciliter
l’accomplissement de leur mission. Ils peuvent exiger la mise à leur disposition des moyens
indispensables pour effectuer leurs vérifications. Ils peuvent également recueillir, sur place ou sur
convocation, tout renseignement, document ou toute justification nécessaire au contrôle”. Nicinski
(2009), pp. 1237–1247. Laigneau (2013), repère 2.
10
Directive (EU) 2019/1 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 to
empower the competition authorities of the Member States to be more effective enforcers and to
ensure the proper functioning of the internal market, complete text: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri¼CELEX:32019L0001&from¼EN#d1e633-3-1.
11
For an analysis on the limits of the European Commission’s requests for information see:
González and Contreras (2016), pp. 331–338.
12
Article 6 of the Directive (EU) 2019/1 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
11 December 2018 to empower the competition authorities of the Member States to be more
effective enforcers and to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market.
242 K. M. Baptista and B. M. McDonnell

(e) to ask any representative or member of staff of the undertaking or association of

undertakings for explanations on facts or documents relating to the subject
matter and purpose of the inspection and to record the answers.

2.3 United States of America

In the United States of America anticompetitive conduct is regulated through state

and federal laws. The main federal statutes are the Sherman Antitrust Act, the
Clayton Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act.13 The Antitrust Division of
the Department of Justice, including the Office of the Assistant Attorney General,
has jurisdiction to enforce such acts through criminal and civil enforcement actions,
whilst the Federal Trade Commission’s jurisdiction is restricted to civil enforcement
actions. Both bodies have wide reaching powers to obtain evidence for suspected
breaches of domestic or international antitrust laws.
The Federal Trade Commission Act provides that unfair methods of competition
in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts affecting commerce, are
unlawful, and empowers the Federal Trade Commission to prevent persons, partner-
ships, or corporations, from using unfair methods of competition and unfair or
deceptive acts affecting commerce.14 The Federal Trade Commission has the
power to “gather and compile information concerning, and to investigate from
time to time the organization, business, conduct, practices, and management of
any person, partnership, or corporation engaged in or whose business affects com-
merce”.15 If the Commission encounters evidence which indicates that a breach of a
Federal criminal law may have occurred, it is permitted to transmit such evidence to
the Attorney General, who may institute criminal proceedings under the appropriate
statute.16
The United States plays a role in the gathering of evidence for alleged breaches of
foreign antitrust statutes. Antitrust mutual assistance agreements are created between
the United States Government and foreign states to allow for the collection and
sharing of evidence relating to potential breaches of foreign antitrust laws. If the
Attorney General or the Federal Trade Commission obtain evidence that could be of
use to a foreign antitrust authority in determining whether a person has violated or is
about to violate a foreign antitrust law, or in enforcing a foreign antitrust law, such

13
U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division (2017), Antitrust Laws and You, https://www.
justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you.
14
Section 45(a)(1)-(2) of the U.S. Code Title 15.
15
Section 46(a) of the U.S. Code Title 15.
16
Section 46(k)(1) of the U.S. Code Title 15: “Whenever the Commission obtains evidence that any
person, partnership, or corporation, either domestic or foreign, has engaged in conduct that may
constitute a violation of Federal criminal law, to transmit such evidence to the Attorney General,
who may institute criminal proceedings under appropriate statutes. Nothing in this paragraph affects
any other authority of the Commission to disclose information.”
The Use of Evidence Obtained Through a State’s Special Antitrust. . . 243

evidence can be provided to the foreign antitrust authority by virtue of the antitrust
mutual assistance agreements.17 In addition, foreign antitrust authorities are permit-
ted to submit requests for investigative assistance to the US Attorney General, who
along with the Federal Trade Commission, is empowered to conduct and obtain
evidence related to possible violations of foreign antitrust laws, and provide such
antitrust evidence to the foreign antitrust authority.18
The United States has concluded antitrust mutual assistance agreements with
many states, one example being the Agreement Between the Government of the
United States of America and the Government of Australia on Mutual Antitrust
Enforcement Assistance. Pursuant to this agreement the antitrust authority is
empowered to execute searches at the request of a foreign antitrust authority, to
take the testimony or statements of individuals, to obtain documents, records, or
other forms of documentary evidence, and to locate or identify persons or things.19
Under the Sherman Act the Attorney General can apply to a US district court to
obtain an order requiring an individual to provide a testimony or statement, or to
produce a document or other thing, in determining whether a person has violated or
is about to violate any of the foreign antitrust laws, or in enforcing any foreign
antitrust laws.20
The Sherman Act provides that evidence received by the Commission from a
foreign law enforcement agency which was obtained through the investigation or
enforcement of a foreign criminal law, may be used for the purpose of investigating,
prosecuting, or preventing violations of US criminal laws.21 This implies that such
evidence should only be used for the specific purpose for which it was obtained, to
investigate, prosecute or prevent violations of criminal laws.

2.4 Australia

In Australia the main statute regulating competition law is the Federal Competition
and Consumer Act 2010, which established the Australian Competition and Con-
sumer Commission (ACCC),22 an independent non-corporate Commonwealth entity
responsible for monitoring anticompetitive behaviour.

17
Section 6201 of the U.S. Code Title 15.
18
Section 6202 of the U.S. Code Title 15.
19
Article 2(E) of the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the
Government of Australia on Mutual Antitrust Enforcement Assistance.
20
Section 6203(a) of the U.S. Code Title 15.
21
Section 46(k)(2) of the U.S. Code Title 15: “The Commission shall endeavor to ensure, with
respect to memoranda of understanding and international agreements it may conclude, that material
it has obtained from foreign law enforcement agencies acting to investigate or pursue the enforce-
ment of foreign criminal laws may be used for the purpose of investigation, prosecution, or
prevention of violations of United States criminal laws.” (Emphasis added)
22
https://www.accc.gov.au.
244 K. M. Baptista and B. M. McDonnell

The ACCC has wide powers to investigate antitrust violations. Like most antitrust
authorities, the ACCC has the power to order documents or information to be
produced,23 enter premises either by consent or through a search warrant, and
seize evidential material with the consent of the owner or through a search warrant.24
When executing a search warrant an officer may operate electronic equipment on the
premises and take data believed to be evidential material,25 require a person at the
premises to answer questions or produce evidential material to which the warrant
relates (the right against self-incrimination will not excuse an individual from
answering such questions).26 Further, an executing officer is permitted to use
“such force against persons and things as is necessary and reasonable in the
circumstances”.27

23
Section 155 of the Federal Competition and Consumer Act 2010: “[. . .] if the Commission, the
Chairperson or a Deputy Chairperson has reason to believe that a person is capable of furnishing
information, producing documents or giving evidence relating to a matter that constitutes, or may
constitute, a contravention of this Act [. . .] a member of the Commission may, by notice in writing
served on that person, require that person: (a) to furnish to the Commission, by writing signed by
that person or, in the case of a body corporate, by a competent officer of the body corporate, within
the time and in the manner specified in the notice, any such information; (b) to produce to the
Commission, or to a person specified in the notice acting on its behalf, in accordance with the
notice, any such documents; or (c) to appear before the Commission, or before a member of the staff
assisting the Commission who is an SES employee or an acting SES employee and who is specified
in the notice, at a time and place specified in the notice to give any such evidence, either orally or in
writing, and produce any such documents.”
24
Section 154(E) of the Federal Competition and Consumer Act 2010: “(1) The inspector or an
assistant may do any of the following after entering premises under this Division:
(a) search the premises, and anything on the premises, for the evidential material;
(b) make copies of the evidential material found on the premises;
(c) operate electronic equipment at the premises to see whether the evidential material is accessible
by doing so;
(d) remove the evidential material from the premises with the consent of the owner of the material;
(e) secure the evidential material, pending the obtaining of a search warrant to seize it;
(f) take equipment and material onto the premises, and use it, for any of the above purposes”.
25
Section 154F of the Federal Competition and Consumer Act 2010: “(1) If: (a) an inspector or an
assistant enters premises under this Division; and (b) he or she believes on reasonable grounds that
any data accessed by operating electronic equipment at the premises (including data not held at the
premises) might constitute evidential material; he or she may do only 1 of 2 things.
Removal of documents
(2) One thing he or she may do is operate the equipment or other facilities at the premises to put
the data in documentary form and remove the documents so produced from the premises.
Removal of disk, tape or other storage device
(3) The other thing he or she may do is operate the equipment or other facilities at the premises to
transfer the data to a disk, tape or other storage device that: (a) is brought to the premises for the
exercise of the power; or (b) is at the premises and the use of which for the purpose has been agreed
to in writing by the occupier of the premises; and remove the disk, tape or other storage device from
the premises.”
26
Section 154R of the Federal Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
27
Section 154L of the Federal Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
The Use of Evidence Obtained Through a State’s Special Antitrust. . . 245

The ACCC is only empowered to exercise its special powers of investigation and
enforcement in pursuit of the purpose for which it is empowered under the law, that
is, to investigate whether a contravention of the FCCA has occurred.28

3 The Use of State Agency’s Special Powers in the Context

of Investment Arbitration

As the examples from different jurisdictions illustrate, states are generally

empowered by law to obtain large amounts of information and evidence during
antitrust investigations, including many documents that might be irrelevant to the
antitrust investigation, but that may be useful to other state agencies for different
proceedings. The question then arises, may the state use information lawfully
obtained by the antitrust agency through its special powers, to defend itself against
an investor’s claim in an investment arbitration.
The authors submit that the state should not be permitted to use such information
to defend itself in an investment arbitration for two principal reasons: The state’s
domestic rule of law (Sect. 3.1) and due process in investment arbitration pro-
ceedings (Sect. 3.2).

3.1 The Rule of Law and the Prohibition of a Misuse

of Powers

Domestic rule of law requires that the use of special powers entrusted by law to
antitrust agencies always be purpose oriented29: administrative agencies are only

28
See for example, Section 154 of the Federal Competition and Consumer Act 2010: “This Part sets
out an enforcement regime for the purposes of finding out whether there has been a contravention of
this Act”, and Section 155 of the Federal Competition and Consumer Act 2010: “[I]f the Commis-
sion, the Chairperson or a Deputy Chairperson has reason to believe that a person is capable of
furnishing information, producing documents or giving evidence relating to a matter that consti-
tutes, or may constitute, a contravention of this Act [. . .] a member of the Commission may, by
notice in writing served on that person, require that person:
(a) to furnish to the Commission, by writing signed by that person or, in the case of a body
corporate, by a competent officer of the body corporate, within the time and in the manner
specified in the notice, any such information;
(b) to produce to the Commission, or to a person specified in the notice acting on its behalf, in
accordance with the notice, any such documents [. . .]
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the matter must be a matter that: (a) constitutes, or may
constitute, a contravention of: (i) this Act [. . .]”.
29
Martínez Useros (1955), pp. D11, 25, 29, 30, 33. López Mendoza (2013), pp. 302, 304, 311.
246 K. M. Baptista and B. M. McDonnell

permitted to use their special powers within the confines of their legally mandated
mission, as articulated by the law empowering the agency.30 In the domestic sphere,
a misuse of special powers can occur if a state agency uses its special powers for a
purpose different to that entrusted to it by law. In that case, the state incurs in an
administrative irregularity known in civil law systems as a desviación de poder31 or
détournement de pouvoir,32 literally a deviation or a misuse of power. The legal
concept of misuse of powers is considered a vice or irregularity of administrative
acts, which must be corrected by judicial review.33 The regulation of this concept has
evolved over time:
The legal concept was initially created by the French Conseil d’Etat.34 The
leading case under French administrative law is Lesbats.35 In that case, the Conseil
d’Etat annulled a decision by Foantainebleau’s Prefect that prohibited a motorist
from parking in the train station’s parking, because, although there was a prior law
(of 15 November 1848) that allowed public authorities to regulate parking of
vehicles, public authorities could not exceed their police powers by exercising
them for purposes other than the maintenance of transit order and organisation.36
And in this case, it was proven that the annulled decision intended to ensure the
monopoly of private transportation companies.
The concept was quickly imported to other civil law systems. In Spanish law the
concept was officially codified in the Municipal Statute of 1924, adding to a similar
but limited principle which already existed.37 The modern version of the legal
principle is wide spread in civil law systems. For example, the legislation regulating
judicial review in Spain defines desviación de poder as: the exercise of administra-
tive powers for a purpose other than those set by legislation.38 In Argentina the
concept is derived from Article 28 of the Constitution.39

30
See examples cited in Sect. 2 above.
31
García de Enterría and Fernández (2011), p. 489. Fierro Rodríguez (2014). Decision of the
Spanish Tribunal Supremo 11-11-93, EDJ 10146; Decision of the Spanish Tribunal Supremo
14-7-95, EDJ 4348.
32
Hauriou (1921), p. 455. Aucoc (1878), pp. 197, 531. Laferriere (1896), p. 548. Décision -
Ministre de l’agriculture c/ Dame Lamotte Accueil, 17 février 1950 (http://www.conseil-etat.fr/
Decisions-Avis-Publications/Decisions/Les-decisions-les-plus-importantes-du-Conseil-d-Etat/17-
fevrier-1950-Ministre-de-l-agriculture-c-Dame-Lamotte).
33
Martínez Useros (1955), pp. D33. Fierro Rodríguez (2014).
34
Martínez Useros (1955), pp. D31. Fierro Rodríguez (2014). López Mendoza (2013), p. 302.
35
Conseil d’Etat, 25 février 1864, Lesbats, rec. p. 210.
36
French Conseil d’Etat, session of 15 February 1864, Sirey, refont T 9, III, p. 46 cited in López
Mendoza (2013), pp. 299–315.
37
Municipal Statute of 8 March 1924 (Real Decreto Ley de 8 de marzo de 1924), which states in the
Explanatory Memorandum of the Law “la actividad de los Ayuntamientos, si careciese de cauce y
freno preventivos, cuando toca a los intereses particulares de contribuyentes, podría degenerar en
peligrosa arbitrariedad, difícilmente subsanable a posteriori con recursos judiciales que a lo sumo
corregirán el caso individual, nunca el error de principio o el absurdo técnico.”
38
Article 70(2) of the Act 29/1998 of 13 July.
39
López Mendoza (2013), pp. 313–315.
The Use of Evidence Obtained Through a State’s Special Antitrust. . . 247

EU law provides that a misuse of powers will be subject to the judicial review of
the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Article 263 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) ensures that the CJEU shall: “have
jurisdiction in actions [. . .] on grounds of lack of competence, infringement of an
essential procedural requirement, infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law
relating to their application, or misuse of powers.”40 (Emphasis added)
In the United States judicial review has been the main instrument used to control
the exercise of administrative power. In the words of Coughlin41:
First, judicial review functions to protect the legislative intent behind the statutory authori-
zation of the exercise of administrative power. Pursuant to the conventional model, an
administrative agency exercises restricted legislative and judicial functions under judicial
scrutiny to insure compliance with congressional intent. Judicial review insures that ‘a
congressional delegation of power. . . must be accompanied by discernible standards, so
that the delegatee’s action can be measured for its fidelity to the legislative will’. Addition-
ally, the opportunity for judicial review of administrative action corrects and prevents abuses
of government power exercised by non-elected bureaucrats and administrators such as
corruption and bribery, incompetence, inaction, bias and prejudice.

Antitrust agencies—like any other administrative state agency—must use the

powers provided to it by law, to act in pursuit of the goal entrusted to it by the
law: the protection of a fair market. Thus, if an administrative agency were to
provide documents obtained during an antitrust investigation to the state’s attorneys
to be used in the defence of the state in an investment arbitration, it would incur in a
desviación de poder, as it would be using its special powers for a purpose different
than the one for which it is empowered by law. As the above jurisdictions illustrate,
most domestic legal systems (including the EU through the power given to the CJEU
to review misuses of power) would not condone the use of evidence that is obtained
for a specific antitrust purpose, to be used for the different purpose of defending the
state in an investment arbitration.42

3.2 International Due Process

The following section analyses the reason why from an international perspective, the
state should not be allowed to use evidence obtained through an antirust agency’s
special powers to defend itself in investment arbitration.

40
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2012/C 326/01).
41
Coughlin (2001–2002), p. 92.
42
Since the factual topic that inspires this article is fictional, the authors have been unable to find
domestic jurisprudence with a similar factual pattern. However, the review of administrative acts
based on a misuse of powers is well established also with regards to antitrust agencies. See for
example the webpage of the CNMV where the agency makes available several judicial decisions
dealing with a misuse of power by the agency: https://www.cnmv.es/portal/legislacion/
LibroJurisprudencia/ArbolSentencias.aspx?id¼2&page¼440.
248 K. M. Baptista and B. M. McDonnell

3.2.1 Fairness and Good Faith

In investment arbitrations claimants are investors that are often private companies,
whilst respondents are generally sovereign states, whose various agencies and
branches enjoy, by law, special powers to investigate and sanction administrative
misbehaviour. Arbitral tribunals have consistently held that parties have an obliga-
tion to arbitrate in good faith43 and fairly, and that arbitral tribunals have the inherent
power to enforce this obligation.44
The arbitral tribunal in Libananco expressed this principle in the following
terms45:
Nor does the Tribunal doubt for a moment that, like any other international tribunal, it must
be regarded as endowed with the inherent powers required to preserve the integrity of its own
process – even if the remedies open to it are necessarily different from those that might be
available to a domestic court of law in an ICSID Member State. The Tribunal would express
the principle as being that parties have an obligation to arbitrate fairly and in good faith and
that an arbitral tribunal has the inherent jurisdiction to ensure that this obligation is complied
with; this principle applies in all arbitration, including investment arbitration, and to all
parties, including States (even in the exercise of their sovereign powers).

In Methanex the tribunal expressed itself in similar terms, precisely in the context
of introduction of evidence—in that case—illegally obtained by the claimant46:
In the Tribunal’s view, the Disputing Parties each owed in this arbitration a general legal
duty to the other and to the Tribunal to conduct themselves in good faith during these
arbitration proceedings and to respect the equality of arms between them, the principles of
“equal treatment” and procedural fairness being also required by Article 15(1) of the
UNCITRAL Rules. As a general principle, therefore, just as it would be wrong for the
USA ex hypothesi to misuse its intelligence assets to spy on Methanex (and its witnesses)
and to introduce into evidence the resulting materials into this arbitration, so too would it be
wrong for Methanex to introduce evidential materials obtained by Methanex unlawfully.

3.2.2 Equality of Arms

Linked to the parties’ obligation to arbitrate in good faith,47 is the principle of

equality of arms—a founding procedural principle of investment arbitration,48

43
Bédard et al. (2010), p. 738; Newcombe (2010).
44
Cementownia “Nowa Huta” S.A. v. Turkey, ICSID Case ARB(AF)/06/2, Award (17 September
2009), para. 153.
45
Libananco Holdings Co. Limited v. Turkey, ICSID Case ARB/06/8, Decision on Preliminary
Issues (23 June 2008), para. 78.
46
Methanex Corporation v. United States of America, UNCITRAL Final Award of the Tribunal on
Jurisdiction and Merits (3 August 2005), para. 54, Part II—Chapter I—p. 26.
47
Wälde (2010a), p. 161. For a comprehensive analysis of the principle of good faith in investment
arbitration, Sipiorski (2016), pp. 349–350.
48
Wälde (2010a), p. 161. Euler (2016), p. 356.
The Use of Evidence Obtained Through a State’s Special Antitrust. . . 249

which attempts to balance the natural inequalities faced by a private investor against
a state with wide-ranging powers.
In Tadic v. Prosecutor the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) conducted an in-depth analysis of the
principle of equality of arms. In that case, the Appeals Chamber relied on jurispru-
dence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to conclude that equality of
arms means that each party must have a reasonable opportunity to present its case—
including evidence49—“under conditions which do not place him at a substantial
disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent”.50 Based on such jurisprudence, the Appeals
Chamber concluded that “equality of arms obligates a judicial body to ensure that
neither party is put at a disadvantage when presenting its case.”51
The principle of equality of arms implies a proactive duty of the tribunal to create
a situation of material equality, or to restore it if necessary, “in particular if affected
by the abuse of a state respondent of its dual role as both equal party to an arbitration
and, simultaneously, sovereign state with the ability to unleash its police powers to
penalize the claimant and reduce its chances of prevailing in a fair arbitration.”52

3.2.3 Marshaling of Evidence in Good Faith and Taking into

Consideration Equality of Arms

The parties’ obligation to arbitrate in good faith and respect the principle of equality
of arms extends to the collection and marshalling of evidence and creates an
obligation on states and investors to obtain evidence only through proper means.53
Whilst a foreign investor’s capacity to obtain evidence from a state party through
improper means is significantly low, the duty not to engage in such conduct applies
equally to the foreign investor.54
Under the International Bar Association Rules on the Taking of Evidence in
International Arbitration (IBA Rules), arbitral tribunals are generally authorised to
exclude evidence from the record for compelling reasons of “fairness or equality of
the Parties”.55 The IBA Rules are a soft law instrument, which provides guidance to
the parties and the tribunal on the taking of evidence in an arbitration, and is widely

49
Appeals Chamber ICTY, Judgment of 15 July 1999, paras 51–52.
50
Appeals ICTY, Judgment of 15 July 1999, para. 48, citing Kaufman v. Belgium, 50 DR 115.
51
Appeals Chamber ICTY, Judgment of 15 July 1999, para. 48.
52
Wälde (2010b), p. 1087.
53
Wälde (2010b), p. 1087; Appeals Chamber ICTY, Judgment of 15 July 1999, paras 51–52.
54
Methanex Corporation v. United States of America, UNCITRAL Final Award of the Tribunal on
Jurisdiction and Merits (3 August 2005), para. 54, Part II—Chapter I—p. 26.
55
Article 9.2(g) of the IBA Rules.
250 K. M. Baptista and B. M. McDonnell

regarded as reflecting an almost universal standard of document production.56 The

IBA Rules can apply by virtue of the parties’ agreement, and they may elect to be
bound or merely guided by the Rules, which are then used in conjunction with the
applicable institutional or ad hoc rules of procedure.57
In addition, Article 17(1) of the United Nations Commission on International
Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Rules 2010 provides that the tribunal must treat the parties
with equality and maintain procedural fairness:
Subject to these Rules, the arbitral tribunal may conduct the arbitration in such manner as it
considers appropriate, provided that the parties are treated with equality and that at an
appropriate stage of the proceedings each party is given a reasonable opportunity of
presenting its case. The arbitral tribunal, in exercising its discretion, shall conduct the
proceedings so as to avoid unnecessary delay and expense and to provide a fair and efficient
process for resolving the parties’ dispute. (Emphasis added)

The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Arbitra-

tion Rules do not have a similar provision, merely providing that the tribunal is the
judge of the admissibility of evidence and of its probative value.58 However, the
Proposals for Amendment of the ICSID Rules—Working Paper #259 recommend the
inclusion of an article that imposes on the parties the duty to conduct the proceedings
in good faith and recognises that parties shall be treated equally and be provided a
reasonable opportunity to present their case.60 The proposed rule would only codify
in the ICSID Rules, established principles of international arbitration, whereby the
tribunal has an obligation to ensure that the parties are treated equally and are given a
fair opportunity to be heard.61
Whilst states are capable of legally forcing evidence from investors by exercising
their special powers, such evidence should only be used for the purpose for which it
was obtained: to further the antitrust investigation. To allow the state to marshal such
evidence to defend itself in investment arbitration would allow the state to violate its
duty to arbitrate in good faith and disrupt the equality of arms between the parties.62

56
The IBA Rules were adopted by a resolution of the IBA Council on the 29 May 2010, are
considered to be an “almost universally recognized [. . .] international standard for and effective . . .
document production regime”; Blackaby et al. (2009), para. 6.107.
57
Foreword of IBA Rules, p. 2.
58
Rule 34(1) of the ICSID Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings (the ICSID Arbitration
Rules).
59
Working Paper #2 was discussed at a meeting of State experts in Washington, DC on April 7–9,
2019. The Center hopes to propose a final text in the summer of 2019. The amendment process can
be followed at https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/amendments.
60
The proposed text of the Rule is as follows: “Rule 2 General Duties (1) The parties shall conduct
the proceeding and implement the Tribunal’s orders and decisions in good faith. (2) The Tribunal
shall treat the parties equally and provide each party with a reasonable opportunity to present its
case. (3) The Tribunal and the parties shall conduct the proceeding in an expeditious and cost-
effective manner”.
61
Proposals for Amendment of the ICSID Rules—Working Paper # 1 Comment to Rule 11, paras
185–186, available here https://icsid.worldbank.org/en/Documents/III.Amendments_Vol_3_AR.
pdf.
62
Wälde (2010a), p. 163.
The Use of Evidence Obtained Through a State’s Special Antitrust. . . 251

The breach of the arbitral tribunal’s duty to proactively ensure a fair proceeding and
the parties’ equality of arms, could place the award at risk of annulment under
Article 52 of the ICSID Convention as a “serious departure from a fundamental rule
of procedure.”63
If tribunals were to admit into the record evidence gathered through the special
powers of a state’s antitrust agency in unrelated administrative procedures, this
would open the gate to the admission of evidence obtained by other administrative
agencies with similar powers, such as the tax authority or the securities and exchange
authority. This could create a perverse incentive: to commence administrative
investigations once a dispute with an investor arises, in order for the state to
capitalise on search and seizure powers of its administrative authorities, a power
not available to investors.
Therefore, arbitral tribunals should not permit a state to use evidence obtained
through its own administrative powers and to marshal it thereafter in an investment
arbitration; to do so would violate the obligation on tribunals to ensure that the power
balance and equality of arms between the parties is maintained. This conclusion
preserves two intersecting principles with contradictory objectives: First, that invest-
ment arbitration should not limit a government’s inherent and legitimate powers of
enforcement; and second, that the government cannot be permitted to enhance its
litigation position by misusing its special powers.64

4 The State’s Defence Under International Law

States may attempt to argue that the classification of a state as a subject of interna-
tional law and as a single body for the purpose of establishing liability, means that
the state must be viewed as a whole, entitling it to use all domestic powers available
to it to mount its defence in an investment arbitration. This includes making use of
special powers to search and seize evidence from a claimant investor, normally
reserved for administrative agencies. The idea derives from the treatment of a state as
a single body for the purpose of establishing responsibility for internationally
wrongful acts; however, such treatment does not entitle the state to bypass its

63
Wälde (2010b), p. 1087.
64
It should be noted that this conclusion is focused on the use of evidence obtained by a state’s
antitrust agencies, but may additionally extend to other administrative agencies with similar special
powers (such as, tax agencies or securities and exchange commissions). However, the authors have
not included an analysis of the consequences of a state obtaining evidence through criminal
proceedings, which has had a different treatment in ICSID jurisprudence, with most tribunals
acknowledging that the state is free to conduct a criminal investigation and that evidence gathered
therein may be of interest to the arbitral tribunal. The authors also clarify that documents and
information obtained by the state during antitrust investigations that indicate behaviour which may
constitute a criminal offence, should be handed over to the relevant authorities (Quiborax S.A., Non
Metallic Minerals S.A. and Allan Fosk Kaplún v. Bolivia, ICSID Case ARB/06/2, Decision on
Provisional Measures (26 February 2010), para. 123).
252 K. M. Baptista and B. M. McDonnell

domestic separation of powers to utilise the special powers provided to its antitrust
agency, for a purpose other than that prescribed by law.
This section explains the treatment of a state as a single body under international
law (Sect. 4.1), as opposed to the distinct classification of a state’s constituent
subdivisions under domestic law (Sect. 4.2), and then explains why the treatment
of a state as a single body does not entitle it to misuse its domestic special powers to
mount its defence in an investment arbitration (Sect. 4.3).

4.1 State as a Single Body Under International Law

A cornerstone of the law of state responsibility is the principle that the conduct of
any state organ or official that is attributable to the state, will result in liability on
behalf of the state if a breach of an international obligations occurs.65 This is because
international law treats a state as a single body66; it has one legal personality, with
full capacity to bring international claims in the name of the state, and have claims
brought against it.67 In this way, a state is viewed in the abstract, as comprised of its
various constituent organs, levels of government and state officials, which take
action on behalf of the state.68 Such organs and officials have different rights and
duties under domestic law, as proscribed by the state’s Constitution and administra-
tive law.69 However, under international law, the actions of a state’s organs and
officials bind the state on an international level, as if they were carried out by the
state itself. For example, if a local government commits an expropriatory act towards
a foreign investor, the state cannot claim a lack of knowledge to escape liability for
the conduct of its local government.70
This principle is articulated in the International Law Commission’s Articles on
the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ILC Articles), which
is regarded as codifying customary international law.71 Article 4 of the ILC Articles

65
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43, p. 2,
para. 385; Articles 2 and 4 of the ILC Articles; Crawford (2006), p. 1; Hobér (2008), pp. 550 and
554; Momtaz (2010), p. 237; Dolzer and Schreuer (2012), p. 216.
66
Crawford (2006), p. 1.
67
Commentary to Article 2 of the ILC Articles, p. 35, para. 5.
68
Article 4 of the ILC Articles; Commentary to Article 2 of the ILC Articles, p. 35, para. 5;
Crawford (2006), p. 1; France and Mexico: Mixed Claims Commission (1929); Gertrude Parker
Massey (USA) v. Mexico, RIAA iv. 155 (15 April 1927), p. 159, para. 18; Crawford (2012),
pp. 437–438.
69
Commentary to Article 2 of the ILC Articles, p. 35, para. 6.
70
Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentina, ICSID Case
ARB/97/3, Award (21 November 2011), para. 49 and references cited therein.
71
Crawford (2012), p. 540.
The Use of Evidence Obtained Through a State’s Special Antitrust. . . 253

provides that regardless of the internal position of a state organ, its actions will bind
the state:
1. The conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of that State under international
law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions,
whatever position it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever its character as an
organ of the central Government or of a territorial unit of the State.
2. An organ includes any person or entity which has that status in accordance with the
internal law of the State.

This reflects the principle of objective responsibility: a breach of a responsibility

of the state will be established through the occurrence of a breach committed by its
official organs.72 This well-established principle was expressed by the President of
the Franco-Mexican Claims Commission73:
[T]he doctrine of the objective responsibility of the State, that is to say, a responsibility for
those acts committed by its official or its organs, and which they are bound to perform,
despite the absence of faute on their part. . . The State also bears an international responsi-
bility for all acts committed by their officials or its organs which are delictual according to
international law.

In addition, in Massey v. Mexico, Commissioner Nielsen stated that it is a74:

[S]ound general principle that, whenever misconduct on the part of any such persons [within
the state service], whatever may be their particular status or rank under domestic law, results
in the failure of a nation to perform its obligations under international law, the nation must
bear the responsibility for the wrongful acts of its servants.

Thus, a breach of a duty arising from an act or omission of an organ or official of a

state, will result in the responsibility of the state, provided that agency and causal
connection can be established.75

4.2 Differing Treatment of State’s Subdivisions Under

Domestic Law

The legal treatment of a state’s internal subdivisions differs under domestic law and
international law. Domestically, state organs are treated as different legal persons,
which possess distinct powers, obligations and rights. For example, federalist states
such as Australia provide state governments with the exclusive competence to
legislate over certain areas, whilst the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction
over other areas.76

72
Crawford (2012), pp. 437–438.
73
France and Mexico: Mixed Claims Commission (1929).
74
Gertrude Parker Massey (USA) v. Mexico, RIAA iv. 155 (15 April 1927), p. 159, para. 18.
75
Crawford (2012), pp. 437 and 445.
76
Article I, Sections 8–10 of the Constitution of the United States of America.
254 K. M. Baptista and B. M. McDonnell

The Australian Constitution provides that the legislative power of the Common-
wealth shall be vested in the federal Parliament, consisting of the Queen, the Senate
and the House of Representatives.77 Article 51 of the Australian Constitution
empowers the federal Parliament to make laws for the peace, order and good
government of the Commonwealth in defined areas, such as trade and commerce,
taxation, and marriage. The executive power of the Australian Government is vested
in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General and extends to the
maintenance and enforcement of the laws and constitution.78 The judicial power is
vested in the High Court of Australia, and in such other federal courts created by
Parliament.79
France is not a federal state, but power is also divided into three branches:
executive, legislative and judicial. The executive power is exercised by the President
of the Republic80 and the Government.81 The power to legislate lies with Parliament,
comprised of the National Assembly and the Senate.82 It votes on the budget, passes
statutes and controls the executive branch. The judiciary is divided into a judicial
branch (dealing with civil and criminal law) and an administrative branch (dealing
with appeals against executive decisions), each with their own supreme court: the
Cour de Cassation (judiciary) and the Conseil d’Etat (administrative courts).83
France also has independent agencies (Autorités Administratives Independents),
such as the Autorité de la Concurrence.
Whilst domestically these various facets of government act independently and
only within the sphere of their allocated powers, for the purpose of state responsi-
bility for internationally wrongful acts, a state is viewed differently. Internal gov-
ernment structures and domestic separation of powers are not considered by
international courts or tribunals when judging a state’s conduct against international
standards. Instead, a state is viewed as one whole body which is comprised of all
levels of government.84 An act by a local government agency would be treated the

77
Article 1 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.
78
Article 61 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.
79
Article 71 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.
80
Articles 5–19 of the French Constitution.
81
Articles 20–23 of the French Constitution.
82
Articles 24–33 of the French Constitution.
83
Articles 64–66(1) of the French Constitution.
84
Article 4 of the ILC Articles; Crawford (2006), p. 1; France and Mexico: Mixed Claims
Commission (1929); Gertrude Parker Massey (USA) v. Mexico, RIAA iv. 155 (15 April 1927),
p. 159, para. 18; Crawford (2012), pp. 437–438.
The Use of Evidence Obtained Through a State’s Special Antitrust. . . 255

same as an act of the head of state for the purpose of determining responsibility for
internationally wrongful acts.85
Further, it is irrelevant whether an act is committed by a component unit of a
federal state or an autonomous area for it to be attributable to the state; this is true
even where a state’s internal law prohibits the federal government from exercising
control to compel a competent unit to comply with the state’s international obliga-
tion.86 As outlined by the arbitral tribunal in Vivendi v. Argentina87:
Under international law, and for purposes of jurisdiction of this Tribunal, it is well
established that actions of a political subdivision of [a] federal state, such as the Province
of Tucumán in the federal state of the Argentine Republic, are attributable to the central
government. It is equally clear that the internal constitutional structure of a country can not
alter these obligations. Finally, the Special Rapporteur of the International Law Commis-
sion, in discussing the proposed Commentary that confirms the attribution of conduct of
political subdivisions to the federal State, has referred to the “established principle” that a
federal state “cannot rely on the federal or decentralized character of its constitution to limit
the scope of its international responsibilities.

This principle is reflected in the reasoning of the International Court of Justice

(ICJ) in LaGrand and Avena, in relation to the international obligation of states
under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR).88 The ICJ ruled that a
state’s obligations under the VCCR must be complied with irrespective of its
Constitutional limitations, and a federalist state will incur liability for the wrongful
acts of its subdivisions.89

4.3 Misuse of a State’s Domestic Powers

Against this international law background, respondent states may be tempted to raise
the following defence: if the state is to be regarded as a single body for the purposes
of establishing international responsibility for the actions of its domestic organs, it
should therefore be entitled to use the powers given to such organs by domestic law
to defend itself against an international claim; this would entail the use of special
powers entrusted to a state’s antitrust agency to investigate domestic antitrust
violations, to search and seize evidence helpful for the state’s defence in an invest-
ment arbitration, or to use documents obtained by a different state agency through its
special powers.

85
Article 4 of the ILC Articles; Crawford (2012), pp. 437–438; Gertrude Parker Massey (USA)
v. Mexico, RIAA iv. 155 (15 April 1927), p. 159, para. 18.
86
Commentary to Article 4 of the ILC Articles, p. 41, para. 9.
87
Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentina, ICSID Case
ARB/97/3, Award (21 November 2011), para. 49 and references cited therein.
88
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963).
89
LaGrand (Germany v. US), ICJ Reports (2001), pp. 446 and 514; Avena and Other Mexican
Nationals (Mexico v. US), ICJ Reports (2014), pp. 12 and 65–66.
256 K. M. Baptista and B. M. McDonnell

However, the reason behind this classification of a state must be analysed. The
law of state responsibility was created for the purpose of ensuring that states are held
accountable for breaches of international obligations. In order to ensure that a
wronged individual is not left without a remedy under international law, a state
will be held responsible for internationally wrongful acts, regardless of whether the
wrongful act was perpetrated by a state organ which would not have standing to have
an international claim brought against it, as only the state itself has standing under
international law.90 As put plainly by Higgins, “the law of jurisdiction is about
entitlements to act, the law of state responsibility is about obligations incurred when
a state does act.”91 The abstract classification of a state as a single unit is therefore
intended as a sword to ensure that the state does not escape liability, not as a shield to
enhance the state’s position in an investment arbitration. A state should not be
permitted to use this principle as a tool to justify the blurring of domestic divisions
of a state’s special powers.

5 Is Document Production the Solution?

States will naturally be tempted to marshal documents obtained by an antitrust

agency to enhance their defence in an investment arbitration. The use of such
documents will generally be incompatible with domestic administrative law as it
would constitute a misuse of power. The burden would fall on the respondent state to
prove the contrary, and for the tribunal to examine whether the use of the documents
is permissible under the relevant domestic law.92
In principle, documents which were obtained through a misuse of domestic
special powers, or an improper sharing of documents from a legitimate antitrust
investigation, should not be allowed by an arbitral tribunal. Nevertheless, the
resolution of this issue must be analysed on a case-by-case basis. Based on the
facts, the tribunal must weigh the alleged relevance and materiality of the documents
with the issues in dispute, with the need to respect due process and the equality of
arms between the parties.

90
Article 4 of the ILC Articles; Commentary to Article 4 of the ILC Articles, pp. 40–42; Commen-
tary to Article 2 of the ILC Articles, p. 35, paras 5–6; Hobér (2008), pp. 550, 554; Momtaz (2010),
p. 237; Dolzer and Schreuer (2012), p. 216; Crawford (2006), p. 1; Crawford (2012), pp. 437–439;
Higgins (1995), p. 147; France and Mexico: Mixed Claims Commission (1929); Gertrude Parker
Massey (USA) v. Mexico, RIAA iv. 155 (15 April 1927), p. 159, para. 18.
91
Higgins (1995), p. 146.
92
It is important to note that the situation can occur in the reverse. A claimant investor may request
the production of documents in possession of the state obtained by virtue of the legitimate use of its
anti-trust powers. However, the state may use its domestic administrative law as a defence for the
production of the documents, based on the fact that it is not empowered to transfer documents
obtained by one state agency to another. This can be rebutted by the claimant investor with the
argument that the state is considered as a single body under international law, and therefore has an
obligation to produce the documents.
The Use of Evidence Obtained Through a State’s Special Antitrust. . . 257

To avoid the potential of having such documents excluded from the record, a state
should use the appropriate process to obtain documents in arbitral proceedings:
document production. Parties in ICSID arbitration proceedings are empowered to
request documents from the other party, pursuant to Article 43(a) of the ICSID
Convention,93 Rule 34 of the ICSID Arbitration Rules,94 and Article 3 of the IBA
Rules (in the event that the IBA Rules apply to the proceedings). The tribunal
controls the document production process by ensuring that it only grants a state’s
request for the production of documents if it fulfils the specific requirements for
document production. The state must establish that the requested documents are
relevant to the case and material to its outcome,95 and are not in its possession,
custody or control (in situations where the documents are held by a different branch
of government the state should explain that whilst the documents are within the
state’s control, they cannot be delivered to the state’s legal team without incurring in
an administrative violation).96 If the documents fulfill such requirements and are not
covered by legal or settlement privilege,97 commercial or technical confidentiality,98
or special political or institutional sensitivity,99 the tribunal should order their
production and the documents should be produced by the investor.

93
Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other
States, formulated in Washington, on March 18, 1965 (the ICSID Convention): “Article 43: Except
as the parties otherwise agree, the Tribunal may, if it deems it necessary at any stage of the
proceedings, (a) call upon the parties to produce documents or other evidence [. . .]”.
94
ICSID Arbitration Rules:
Rule 34 Evidence: General Principles
(1) The Tribunal shall be the judge of the admissibility of any evidence adduced and of its
probative value.
(2) The Tribunal may, if it deems it necessary at any stage of the proceeding:
(a) call upon the parties to produce documents, witnesses and experts; and
(b) visit any place connected with the dispute or conduct inquiries there.
(3) The parties shall cooperate with the Tribunal in the production of the evidence and in the
other measures provided for in paragraph (2). The Tribunal shall take formal note of the
failure of a party to comply with its obligations under this paragraph and of any reasons
given for such failure.
(4) Expenses incurred in producing evidence and in taking other measures in accordance
with paragraph (2) shall be deemed to constitute part of the expenses incurred by the
parties within the meaning of Article 61(2) of the Convention.
95
Articles 3.3(b) and 9.2(a) of the IBA Rules.
96
Article 3.3(c) (i) and (ii) of the IBA Rules.
97
Article 9.2(b) and 9.3 (b) of the IBA Rules.
98
Article 9.2(e) of the IBA Rules.
99
Article 9.2(f) of the IBA Rules.
258 K. M. Baptista and B. M. McDonnell

However, the process of document production does not necessarily cure all
inequalities: a respondent state that possesses, or is aware of the existence of
documents or information obtained as a result of domestic (internal) investigations
or which may be in the custody of its antitrust agency as a result of it exercising its
special powers, could target its document requests to obtain such documents. Thus,
the document production process would be used as a legitimate means of gaining
access to the documents, in order to use them in the arbitral proceeding.
Detecting and preventing such a situation becomes difficult for the tribunal. In
most cases the tribunal will not know that a state has acquired knowledge of the
existence of documents through a blurring of domestic state powers. In the event that
the tribunal does possess such knowledge, should it reject a document production
request solely on this basis? The tribunal has the duty to maintain the equality
between the parties, and under the IBA Rules it may reject a request if it considers
that production would be detrimental to the fairness or equality of the parties.100
However, the tribunal additionally has an obligation to review relevant evidence to
understand the facts underlining the dispute, in order to ensure that the dispute is
resolved in a just way. The tribunal will have to resolve the procedural issue by
weighing, on the one hand, the need to maintain fairness and the equality of arms
between the parties, and on the other, the need to discover the truth of the events that
transpired in the interests of achieving justice.

6 Conclusion

In investment arbitration proceedings an inherent power imbalance exists between a

respondent state and an investor. The arbitral tribunal is entrusted with the role of
ensuring that this power imbalance is minimised, and that both parties are provided
with an equal opportunity to present and defend their case. Tribunals are therefore
tasked with preventing the use of tactics which disrupt the equality of arms between
the parties. A respondent state’s use of its domestic antitrust agency’s special powers
to gain access to information and documents to use as evidence in an investment
arbitration, which it would otherwise not be able to access, is an example of such
improper conduct. The rule of law requires that special powers entrusted by law to an
antitrust agency always be purpose oriented: any exercise of special powers for a
purpose outside the confines of the agency’s legal mandate will constitute a domestic
misuse of power in many jurisdictions. Further, to allow evidence obtained through a
misuse of a state’s special powers to be marshalled in an investment arbitration,
would constitute a violation of the state’s obligation to arbitrate fairly and with
equality of arms, and would allow the state to obtain an unfair advantage in the
proceeding.

100
Article 9.2(g) of the IBA Rules.
The Use of Evidence Obtained Through a State’s Special Antitrust. . . 259

A state’s treatment as a single unit under international law does not entitle the
state to bypass the domestic separation of powers and utilise the special powers
provided to its antitrust agency for a purpose other than that prescribed by law. To
prevent an imbalance of powers and to ensure that equality of arms between the
parties is maintained, arbitral tribunals should refuse to admit evidence obtained
through a state’s misuse of its domestic special powers, and instead only admit
evidence that is legally obtained by a party on its own accord, or through the
document production process.

References

Aucoc L (1878) Conférences sur l’ administración et le droit administratif. 3rd edn. vol I. Paris
Bédard J, Nelson T, Raymond Kalantirsky A (2010) Arbitrating in good faith and protecting the
integrity of the arbitral process. Paris J Int Arbitr 2010(3):737–756
Blackaby N et al (2009) Redfern and Hunter on international arbitration, 5th edn. Oxford University
Press, Oxford/New York
Coughlin JJ (2001–2002) The history of the judicial review of administrative power and the future
of regulatory governance. Idaho Law Rev 38:89–133. Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.
edu/law_faculty_scholarship/736
Crawford J (2006) State responsibility, Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law.
Oxford University Press
Crawford J (2012) Brownlie’s principles of public international law, 8th edn. Oxford University
Press, Oxford
Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University
Press, Oxford
Euler D (2016) Transparency rules and the Mauritius Convention: a favourable haircut of the state’s
sovereignty in investment arbitration? ASA Bull 34(2):355–374
Fierro Rodríguez D (2014) La desviación de poder en el derecho administrativo. El Jurista.
Available at: http://www.eljurista.eu/2014/12/01/la-desviacion-de-poder-en-el-derecho-
administrativo/
García de Enterría E, Fernández TR (2011) Curso de derecho administrativo I, 15th edn.
S.L. Civitas, Madrid
González H, Contreras M (2016) Límites a los requerimientos de información de la Comisión
Europea (II). In: Recuerda Cirela M-A(Dtr) Problemas prácticos y actualidad del Derecho de la
Competencia [Anuario de Derecho de la Competencia 2016], pp 331–338
Guerra Fernández A, Vélez Fraga M (2013) Guía práctica de la Ley 3/2013, de 4 de junio, de
creación de la Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia, Uría Menéndez, pp
33–34. Available at: https://www.uria.com/documentos/publicaciones/3842/documento/
guiaPractica4Junio2013.pdf?id¼4641
Guillén Caramés J (2015) Régimen jurídico de los requerimientos de información efectuados por las
autoridades de competencia. Revista de Administración Pública 197:41–89
Hauriou M (1921) Précis de droit administratif et de droit public à l’usage des étudiants en licence
(2e et 3e années) et en doctorat, Librairie de la Société du Recueil Sirey, Paris
Higgins R (1995) Problems and process: international law and how we use it. Oxford University
Press, Oxford
Hobér K (2008) State responsibility and attribution. In: Muchlinski PT, Ortino F, Schreuer C (eds)
The Oxford handbook of international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford,
pp 549–582
260 K. M. Baptista and B. M. McDonnell

Laferriere E (1896) Traité de la jurisdiction administrative et des recours contentieux. 2nd edn. vol
II. Paris Nancy: Berger-Levrault, Paris
Laigneau M (2013) Inspections surprise des autorités de concurrence (“Dawn raid”) : l’expérience
d’EDF. Revue juridique de l’économie publique 705, repère 2
López Mendoza JA (2013) La desviación de poder. In: Alonso Regueira EM (ed) Estudios de
derecho público. Asociación de Docentes UBA, Buenos Aires, pp 299–315. Available at http://
www.derecho.uba.ar/docentes/pdf/estudios-de-derecho/003-edp-2-lopez-mendoza.pdf
Martínez Sánchez A, Rodríguez Ordóñez J (2015) Inspecciones de competencia y consentimiento
informado de la empresa investigada (comentario a la STS de 15/6/2015, “Montibello”)
Comunicaciones en propiedad industrial y derecho de la competencia 76 (septiembre-
diciembre):293–303
Martínez Useros E (1955) Desviación de poder. Anales de la Universidad de Murcia (Derecho),
1955–1956, pp D5–D65. Available at http://www.derecho.uba.ar/docentes/pdf/estudios-de-
derecho/003-edp-2-lopez-mendoza.pdf
Momtaz D (2010) Attribution of conduct to the state: state organs and entities empowered to
exercise elements of governmental authority. In: Crawford J, Pellet A, Olleson S, Parlett K (eds)
The law of international responsibility. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 237–246
Newcombe A (2010) The obligation to arbitrate fairly and in good faith in investment treaty
arbitration, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, April 19. Available at: http://arbitrationblog.
kluwerarbitration.com/2010/04/19/the-obligation-to-arbitrate-fairly-and-in-good-faith-in-invest
ment-treaty-arbitration/
Nicinski S (2009) L’autorité de la concurrence. Revue française de droit administrative 25(6):
1237–1247
Sipiorski E (2016) Evidence and the principle of good faith in investment arbitration: finding
meaning in public international law. In: Moura Vicente D (ed) Towards a universal justice?
Putting international courts and jurisdictions into perspective. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston,
pp 347–362
Wälde T (2010a) Equality of arms in investment arbitration: procedural challenges. In: Yannaca-
Small K (ed) Arbitration under international investment agreements: a guide to key issues.
Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 161–188
Wälde T (2010b) Procedural challenges in investment arbitration under the shadow of the dual role
of the state: asymmetries and tribunals’ duty to ensure, pro-actively, the equality of arms.
Arbitr Int 26(1):3–42

Krystle M. Baptista is a lawyer and arbitrator specialized in international arbitration. She

intervenes as arbitrator and tribunal secretary in commercial and investment arbitration cases. She
is of-counsel at Armesto & Asociados (Madrid) as well as an associate professor at IE Law School
and the University of Navarra. She completed her law degree at the University of Navarra
graduating at the top of her class with diplomas in Anglo-American Law and Global Law. Mrs
Baptista holds an LLM in International Legal Studies from New York University. She is admitted to
practice in Madrid and New York. Mrs. Baptista is fluent in Spanish and English, and has an
intermediate level of French and Portuguese.

Bianca M. McDonnell is an associate at Armesto & Asociados in Madrid where she works as
assistant and secretary to the tribunal in investment arbitrations and commercial arbitrations with
state entities. She obtained her Bachelor of Laws with First Class Honours from the University of
Technology, Sydney and received her LL.M. in International Legal Studies from Georgetown Law,
graduating with Distinction and on the Dean’s Merit List. She previously worked as a judicial
assistant for the President of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia (ICTY) Judge Carmel Agius. She is a lawyer in Australia and is eligible for admission
in New York. Bianca is fluent in English, Spanish and has an intermediate level of French.
Competition and Investment: The Case
for 21st Century WTO Law

Thomas Cottier

Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
2 The Triangle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
3 Taking Stock in the WTO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
4 The Changing Structure of International Economic Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
4.1 From Trade Liberalisation to Trade Regulation and Behind-the-Border Issues . . . . . 267
4.2 The Facts of International Trade and the Limits of Bilateralism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
5 How Much Regulatory Cooperation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
6 Implications for Competition and Investment Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
6.1 Competition Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
6.2 Investment Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
7 The TRIPS Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
7.1 Restructuring Competition Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
7.2 Restructuring International Investment Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
8 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284

Abstract This chapter expounds on the close relationship of trade regulation,

competition and investment law. Taking stock of current linkages, it argues in favour
of integrating the three areas within the law of the World Trade Organization (WTO)
and thus returning to conceptual foundations laid out the Havana Charter at the
outset of the Post World War II international economic order but ever since forgotten
in a history of fragmentation. Future integration of the three areas is argued on the
factual basis of global value chains, predominant trade in components and thus an
increasing need to address what are called behind-the-border issues calling for
enhanced common and approximated rules in international economic law. Accord-
ingly, the chapter also argues in favour of an integrated system of dispute settlement
within the WTO for trade, investment and competition based upon rules which could
be modelled after the approach of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of

T. Cottier (*)
World Trade Institute, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 261

K. Fach Gómez et al. (eds.), International Investment Law and Competition Law,
European Yearbook of International Economic Law,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33916-6_13
262 T. Cottier

Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), setting out standards which members are
obliged to implement in domestic law.

1 Introduction

After World War II, and in a clean-slate, the Havana Charter laid out the foundations
of future international economic law and relations. It comprised provisions on trade,
investment and competition law, and also included labour standards.1 Next to the
Bretton Woods institutions of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World
Bank Group, it drew the lessons learnt from failures produced after World War I and
the Great Depression in the 1930s. The United Nations, succeeding the League of
Nations, aspired to provide the multilateral framework of international peace and
security, placing the protection of human rights at the heart of it. It was a remarkable
and farsighted design towards international cooperation, the international law of
cooperation, starkly departing from European traditions of imposed peace treaties
which often bore the nucleus of future conflict and war. We know how the project
worked out. The ideological debate between communism and capitalism, between
authoritarian and democratic governance, hampered the post-War framework from
the very beginning. The Havana Charter did not materialise, mainly due to opposi-
tion from the United States and concerns that it would overly restrict the power of the
new hegemon at the time. Human rights protection remained without effective
enforcement at the global level.
The areas of trade, investment and competition departed and fell back into modes
of traditional fragmentation of public international law. Trade rules were broken out
of the Havana Charter project and established in the provisional framework of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1947. Investment protection
first followed the traditions of customary international law, in particular addressing
communist expropriations in the 1950s. Efforts to create a new multilateral frame-
work in the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and in the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) repeatedly failed and resulted by
2019 in a wide range of 2932 bilateral investment treaties (BITs) of which 2343 were
in force.2 These agreements sought and still seek to secure what Carl Schmitt had
called securing dominium in the process of decolonization and transition of impe-
rium.3 As to competition law, it essentially remained a matter of domestic law,
dominated by the United States and the European Union (EU), both extensively

1
United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment, held at Havana, Cuba, from November
21, 1949 to March 24, 1948, Final Act and Related Documents, Charter for an International Trade
Organization; https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/prewto_legal_e.htm.
2
https://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/IIA.
3
Slobodian (2018), p. 10.
Competition and Investment: The Case for 21st Century WTO Law 263

applying the doctrine of extraterritorial effects and thus creating internationally

effective regimes of their own. Trade law and customary law on investment were
largely framed on intergovernmental law, while competition policy has remained the
prerogative on domestic law. The three pillars of economic law thus operate on
different levels of governance. A common roof, however, was created in regional
law. The European Economic Community, founded in 1957, englobed all three
elements: free trade in goods, competition rules and investment protection by
means of freedom of capital flows and of services. It extended judicial protection
to individuals. Eventually, external trade policy prerogatives of the EU also included
investment protection and competition law. But for most countries around the world,
the three essential components of economic law form part of national law, but follow
different patterns in international relations, creating synergies and legal conflict and
tensions alike.
This chapter argues that the time has come to review the state of play of
fragmentation in light of the changing structure of international economic law. It
sets out the arguments in support of creating a common and comprehensive frame-
work for trade, investment and competition under the roof and umbrella of the World
Trade Organization (WTO) founded in 1995, integrating the GATT 1947 and
multilateral agreements developed in the course of eight major trade rounds. The
experience of the EU, operating under a single jurisdiction and under the auspices of
the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) encourages us to identify the
benefits of creating a common framework within the WTO, its negotiating structure,
committee work and dispute settlement system. It sets out what 21st WTO law
should develop and comprise, harnessing globalisation and an integrated world
economy.

2 The Triangle

Trade, investment and competition undoubtedly form the core of economic law
shaping the framework for market and mixed economies and operators alike. The
same holds true defining international economic law.4 In the process of globalisa-
tion, operators depend upon the rule of law in international trade for cross-border
sales. They depend upon the rule of law and predictability for investment and
production abroad. And they depend upon clear rules framing conditions of compe-
tition within countries by means of anti-trust law. To a substantial part, these
disciplines overlap and are mutually supportive.5 Trade regulation, competition
and investment law and policy are essentially based upon the idea of

4
They form the core of international economic law, Cottier and Nakakvukaren (2017). Much of the
background information on the triangle of trade, investment and competition and further references
can be found is that volume.
5
Anderson and Müller (2017).
264 T. Cottier

non-discrimination and the creation of equal conditions of competition irrespective

of the origin of the product (goods and services). Some fields are motivated and
informed by all three areas and distinctions are difficult to draw. This is in particular
true for disciplines on services which serve both trade and investment. The same
holds true for intellectual property protection.
The current fragmentation between different layers of legal governance, however,
also creates difficult problems of interfacing and coordinating different legal
regimes.6 Or, disciplines in one area, such as intellectual property, may allegedly
conflict with legitimate expectations and fair and equitable treatment (FET).7 The
protection of intellectual property rights may also conflict with competition law and
restrictions of monopolies and of parallel importation. Similar effects may be
deployed by import restrictions for goods, services, and labour. Investment protec-
tion may conflict with competition rules prohibiting cartels, mergers and market
segmentation. To some extent, such conflicts can be resolved on the basis of treaty
interpretation in accordance with the rules of the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties. To some extent, tensions remain as courts of law may have to operate under
limited jurisdiction and a hierarchy of sources, unable to take into account a full
range of rules and considerations with a view to achieve a fair and equitable result.
Conflicts may be solved to the detriment of one of the fields involved. Finally, the
fragmentation also results in different institutions and departments being responsible
for the field. It leads to the usual and frequently observed policy incoherence and
lack of coordination among government departments and international organisations
within limited responsibilities assigned to them in the tradition of functionalism.
Could they be brought under one roof? We start by taking stock of rules relating to
investment and competition in the WTO’s multilateral trade regime.

3 Taking Stock in the WTO

The WTO was built upon the tradition of GATT which essentially deals with cross
border trade. Tariffs, quantitative restrictions and trade remedies come to mind.
Most-favoured-nation (MFN) treatment secures that all countries are equally dealt
with, subject to regional integration and free trade agreement. The reduction of
tariffs, from an average of 40% down to 4% on industrial goods, increased compe-
tition among domestic and imported products by reducing restrictions at the border.

6
For an example of such complexity see Vattenfall AB and others v. Germany, ICSID Case No
ARB/12/12 (pending) and corresponding judgments by the German Constitutional Court BvR
2821/11, 321/12, 1465/12 of 6 December, 2016 and the CJEU in Slovak Republic v Achmea BV
(C-284/16) in 6 March, 2018.
7
Eli Lilly and Company v. Canada, UNCITRAL, ICSID Case No. UNCT/14/2, Award of March
16, 2017; https://www.italaw.com/cases/1625.
Competition and Investment: The Case for 21st Century WTO Law 265

The field, however, is much broader today and increasingly overlaps with areas
traditionally pertaining to investment protection and competition.8
Firstly, WTO rules essentially focus on condition of competition within national
or regional markets. MFN treatment secures that products from all countries are dealt
with on par. The disciplines of national treatment in Article III of the GATT, Article
XVII of the GATS and Article 4 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) are at the centre of the system. It secures
treatment no less favourable of imported products within markets, once goods pass
customs clearance and national treatment is scheduled for services. These rules also
address competition law and restrictive business practices and investment law to the
extent that governments are involved.9 The WTO disciplines on state trading and
monopolies in Articles XVII of the GATT and VIII of the GATS and the ban on
import restrictions in Article XI of the GATT inherently relate to competition.
Article IX of the GATS explicitly recognises detrimental effects of restrictive
business practices. Regulatory space to deviate for purposes of public policy and
non-trade concerns in Article XX of the GATT and Article XIV of the GATS, such
as environmental protection or domestic regulations, including competition law, is at
the heart of WTO dispute settlement.
Secondly, while trade in goods is inherently cross-border, the disciplines on
services also comprise the establishment of operations within a jurisdiction in
modes 3 and 4, and thus equally pertain to investment protection. Levels of market
access achieved and secured by means of non-discrimination, conditional or not,
define terms for international trade and for investment protection alike. The GATS
explicitly addresses disciplines of competition in the reference paper related to
telecommunication services.10
Thirdly, the TRIPS Agreement with its minimal, but extensive standards of
protection and enforcement of rights equally shapes cross-border trade of protected
goods as much as the production of such goods under terms of foreign direct
investment. For example, a protected trade mark impacts exports, imports and
local production by foreign direct investors. And these rights are explicitly subject
to disciplines of competition law of the law of members under Article 40(2) of the
TRIPS Agreement. These rules mainly relate to licensing and restrictive business
practices as applied to exclusive intellectual property rights. The TRIPS Agreement
also includes principles of unfair competition entailed in Article 10bis of the Paris
Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property as incorporated, obliging all
members to protect companies against unfair, confusing and deceptive commercial
practices.11 This provision also provides the basis for the protection of core labour

8
For a comprehensive discussion of the system and its components see Cottier and Oesch (2005).
9
Japan – Measures Affecting Consumer Photographic Film and Paper, WT/DS44/R (March
31, 1998).
10
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/telecom_e/tel23_e.htm.
11
These provisions are extensively discussed in Australia – Certain Measures concerning Trade-
marks, Geographical Indications and other Plain Packaging Requirements applicable to Tobacco
266 T. Cottier

standards and traditional knowledge12 and the enforcement of corporate social

responsibility.13
Fourthly, the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMS)
focuses on national treatment and transparency but also entails an illustrative list of
practices which are deemed to be inconsistent with the Agreement, in particular
relating to local content requirements.14 These provisions directly support foreign
direct investment and protect the modes of production of foreign direct investors.
Fifthly, the revised Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) defines
conditions and requirements which governments and public entities, often in a
monopolistic position, need to follow in procuring goods and services in a fair
manner.15 The Agreement essentially serves the purpose of creating equal conditions
of competition between local and foreign providers of such goods and services.
Sixthly, Article 11 of the Agreement on Safeguards prohibits voluntary export
restrictions (VERs) and orderly marketing agreements induced governments.16 It is
thus closely related to competition policy.
Finally, WTO law is no longer limited to the protection of goods but extends to
the protection of persons. The GATS also addresses the rights of service providers. It
is not limited to services as a product. The TRIPS Agreement only protects right-
holders of intellectual property as its focal point, rather than goods and services.
These differences should not be exaggerated as in practice the system protects the
interests of traders. Most disputes are incited by trading companies, seeking redress
and governments to complain in an intergovernmental dispute. Yet, it is remarkable
that rights or individual companies no longer are limited to competition law
and BITs.
Both investment and competition beyond the achievement of the Uruguay Round
were tabled in the Doha Development Agenda in 2001 for further elaboration and
work under the so-called Singapore Issues. In competition law, a working group,
supported by the WTO secretariat, produced a host of interesting materials and
reflections.17 However, the Ministerial Conference in 2003 in Cancun decided to
discontinue the effort. Developing countries increasingly felt uneasy about taking up
an area without sufficient domestic experience. They were not willing, at the time, to
repeat the experience of negotiating the TRIPS Agreement which essentially worked
from standards developed by industrialised countries. Moreover, the United States
was not keen on reducing the impact of the extraterritorial effect of the Sherman Act

Products and Packaging, pp. 766–806, WT/DS435/R, WT/DS441/R, WT/DS458/R, WT/DS467/R,

joint Report of the Panels (June 28, 2018).
12
Riffel (2016).
13
Cottier and Wermelinger (2014).
14
https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/18-trims_e.htm.
15
https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/rev-gpr-94_01_e.htm.
16
https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/25-safeg_e.htm.
17
WTO, Working Group on the Interaction between Trade and Competition Policy (WGTCP)—
History, Mandates and Decisions; https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/comp_e/history_e.htm.
Competition and Investment: The Case for 21st Century WTO Law 267

and to submit to international disciplines, similarly to the Havana Charter. Negoti-

ations on TRIMS faced increasing resistance as developing countries questioned the
restrictiveness of local content rules in the WTO.
Linkages to competition law, however, clearly emerged in negotiations on access
to essential drugs following the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public
Health in 2001, adopted prior the opening of the Doha Development Agenda.18 The
introduction of patent protection for pharmaceuticals in emerging countries, in
particular Brazil and India, excluded the exportation of generic human immunode-
ficiency viruses (HIV) drugs off-patent protection to other developing countries in
need and curbed competition from generic producers. Developing countries, in
particular South Africa, increasingly addressed the problem in terms of competition
law,19 while others relied upon a waiver and eventual amendment of Article 31
(f) TRIPS Agreement, which banned compulsory licensing for the purpose of
exportation. The amendment of the TRIPS Agreement with Article 31bis allowing
such exports enhanced competition and essentially encouraged research companies
to reduce prices for exported drugs.20 Today, these costs no longer are the main
problem and obstacle in combatting epidemics.
Investment and competition issues thus are inherent to WTO law as the overall
system seeks to establish equal conditions of competition for imported and domestic
products. The question arises whether these linkages should be made more explicit
and more coherent by integrating multilateral disciplines on competition law and
investment into the multilateral system. The main issue will be whether they should
include rights and obligations of private actors beyond governments. How to address
the issue of standing of corporations in international trade law? Should the triangle
be formally linked and the fragmentations overcome? We think so due to the
changing structure of international economic law. There has been a shift to behind-
the-border issues (BBIs) and to trade in components in global value chains.

4 The Changing Structure of International Economic Law

4.1 From Trade Liberalisation to Trade Regulation

and Behind-the-Border Issues

After World War II, international trade law evolved in different regulatory genera-
tions.21 At the outset, the main task was to reduce high levels of inter-war tariffs,
amounting on average to 40% on industrial goods in 1945. The GATT essentially

18
https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min01_e/mindecl_trips_e.htm.
19
Abbott et al. (2014).
20
Entered into force 23 January 2017, https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news17_e/trip_
23jan17_e.htm.
21
Cottier and Oesch (2005), pp. 58–65. This section essentially draws on Cottier (2018a).
268 T. Cottier

focused on the process and law of tariff reductions, entailing non-discrimination and
necessary flanking measures to secure the effectiveness of tariff reductions. While
GATT was conceived as a provisional agreement pending the entry into force of the
comprehensive economic Havana Charter, it became one of the most successful and
effective international agreements. In eight trade rounds, the average level of
industrial tariffs was reduced to some 4% by 1995, greatly enhancing international
trade and its share in gross domestic product (GDP) in particular of smaller and
medium-sized countries. The emphasis at the time was on tariff reduction and
elimination of quantitative restrictions.22 It was a matter of deregulation, and it is
here that the term free, or freer, trade was fully appropriate.
The successful reduction of tariffs under the MFN principle shifted attention to
non-tariff barriers to trade. A second generation of rules refined disciplines on
dumping and subsidisation and addressed increasingly emerging technical barriers
to trade. The emphasis was no longer on deregulation, but rather on reregulation. It
was a matter of defining common disciplines and thresholds for domestic regulation
in addressing differences in product regulation in order to avoid unnecessary trade
barriers and thus to bring about trade facilitation. Increasingly, the process was
accompanied by enhanced recognition of non-trade concerns, resulting in high
non-discriminatory levels of protection and regulation, subject to the disciplines of
WTO law.
A third generation finally turned to regulatory areas essentially unrelated to
border issues but traditionally pertaining to domestic affairs and thus the preroga-
tives of parliament and government. Indeed, modern and water-front trade policy
today is mainly concerned with regulatory issues.23 They are increasingly called
BBIs. Except for trade in agriculture where tariffs continue to play a dominant role,
attention mainly moved to non-tariff barriers ever since the GATT Kennedy Round
in the 1960s. It culminated in the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement (TBT) and
the Agreement on Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures, the
inclusion of services (GATS) and intellectual property (TRIPS) and of government
procurement in the GATT Uruguay Round. All pillars of the WTO today mainly
focus on domestic regulation rather than on border measures and customs.24
It should be noted that the importance of product standards for goods and services
will further increase in the future. In the context of climate change mitigation and
adaptation, production and process methods (PPMs) will take centre stage in
distinguishing sustainably produced products from conventional like and

22
Jackson (1969).
23
WTO, World Trade Report 2012, Trade and public policies: A closer look at non-tariff measures
in the 21st century, https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/anrep_e/world_trade_report12_e.
pdf.
24
Cottier (2014).
Competition and Investment: The Case for 21st Century WTO Law 269

substitutable products.25 More and more, in determining treatment in trade law how
products are made will matter more than their physical properties.
BBIs address regulatory barriers inside jurisdictions, traditionally pertaining to
domestic affairs. Politically, they are highly sensitive to concerns of sovereignty and
self-determination, the prerogatives of parliament and the electorate. They are
structurally not different from addressing anti-trust disciplines or conditions for
investors in domestic law. It is not a coincidence that international efforts to deal
with these issues have been under attack by nationalist and populist movements for
some time. These efforts impinge upon traditional perceptions of national sover-
eignty and independence. Modern standards also entail problems of extraterritorial
effects to the extent that they address production and process methods (PPMs) that
leave no traces in the final product. At the same time, removing such barriers is
essential for cross-border trade, in particular for SMEs which do not operate in
vertically integrated value chains and private standards.
Most of the modern regulatory challenges lie within the realm of BBIs. The same
holds true for virtually all the impending and future topics of trade negotiations,
currently including electronic commerce and fisheries’ subsidies. Equally, negotia-
tions on private standards (food technology), climate change related topics (tech-
nology diffusion, reduction of fossil fuel subsidies, interconnection of renewable
energy production and grids, labour standards, human rights, financial regulations
and monetary affairs all amount to essentially behind-the-border issues. Coming to
terms with the ownership of electronic data and personality protection in cyberspace
calls for common global rules, albeit the matter pertains to the domain of traditional
legislation of nation states. True, the current trade war between the United States and
China plays out on tariffs. Yet, the underlying issue to be addressed relates to
defining rules on state capitalism, state trading, subsidisation and control of infor-
mation technologies and property rights to Big Data—all are behind-the-border
issues of a complex regulatory nature which no longer can be dealt with in isolation
in domestic law. They are structurally not different from addressing anti-trust
disciplines or conditions for investors in domestic law.
The shift of traditional regulatory matters to the realm of international law is the
primary significant structural change to be noted. Another and related one deploys
significant effects upon the treaty system. Due to MFN obligations, but also the
nature of regulation, additional disciplines negotiated in bilateral and plurilateral
agreements and implemented in domestic law normally deploy general effects and
equally affect trade with third countries. Other than tariffs, they are rarely preferen-
tial in effect. Whatever the source, domestic regulation is, in most instances, applied
uniformly to all persons and nations alike. Regulation of non-tariff barriers in
bilateral or plurilateral agreements thus has significant spill-over effects in the field
of non-tariff barriers (NTBs) on third parties other than tariff preferences limited to
the parties of an agreement, they lift the water for all boats alike and reduce
discrimination. At the same time, non-tariff barrier regulations they often refer to

25
Holzer (2014).
270 T. Cottier

WTO law for reasons discussed below. The two cannot be separated. They are
complementary and jointly form what I call the common law of international trade.26

4.2 The Facts of International Trade and the Limits

of Bilateralism

Contemporary international trade is essentially characterised by trade in compo-

nents. More than 60% of goods cross borders at least twice before reaching final
consumers.27 Complex products identifiable on a purely national basis are increas-
ingly rare. Companies operate in regional or global value chains, and operations are
increasingly mixing goods and services in the age of information technology; trade
in goods and services no longer can be neatly separated.28 We speak of
“servicification” of goods and their production. Moreover, trade it is increasingly
entangled with intellectual property and foreign direct investment and a complex
web of technical standards relating to products and to modes of production. Intel-
lectual Property Rights (IPRs) and production of goods often differ geographically
and thus in terms of jurisdictions. Trade increasingly depends upon close coordina-
tion of legal rules of different countries trading with each other.
These structures and interdependencies evolved over time due to trade liberali-
zation. They are essential to the process of globalization and modern division of
labour. They are both a cause and a foundation of enhanced global welfare, but also
of the accompanying problems and challenges addressed below. The structures are
unlikely to return to previous patterns of domestic industrialization. More important
in changes to value chains is the process of automation. To the extent that production
can be effected by robots and three dimensional printing of component, labour and
production costs will be reduced and production may be repatriated.
Mercantilist trade policies witnessed in current US trade policy and the call for an
independent trade policy by Brexiters in the United Kingdom (UK) fail to take these
facts into consideration.29 The introduction of border measures and quantitative
restrictions, advocated by President Trump’s Administration, harms consumers, in
particular the lower income strata. Such measures reduce trade in components and
privilege more expensive domestic products, reducing the purchasing power of
domestic consumers. Border measures moreover will affect domestic jobs, as they
hurts domestic industries dependent upon the export of incorporated imported
components, as much as it harms companies exporting components, disrupting
established value chains. Moreover, import restrictions do not take into account

26
Cottier (2015).
27
In 2009, the total of export share of final goods and services amounted to 34% (World) and 47%
(China), Baldwin and Lopez-Gonzales (2013), p. 13.
28
Elms and Low (2013).
29
Cottier (2018b).
Competition and Investment: The Case for 21st Century WTO Law 271

the importance and relevance of transnational services in running the supply chains.
Restrictions on service providers will further disrupt value chains and modes of
production.
Mercantilist trade policies thus may reduce or eliminate global value chains, but
they are hardly able to bring back traditional structures and jobs outsourced as they
may impair the creation of new jobs in new industries as access to competitive labour
and components are restricted. Traditional trade policy instruments are largely
unable to deliver the results promised in the US electoral and the Brexit campaigns.
Consumers will face more expensive products and will find less on offer. Share-
holders will see the value of their assets being reduced. Voters, finally, will turn
away from mercantilism once they learn that it increases prices but does not bring
back jobs promised.
As set out, the true challenges in international trade law are elsewhere. They
mainly lie in the field of regulatory cooperation, which is of key importance for
growth and job creation as production is based upon interdependent international
markets and products. Such cooperation inherently is multilateral or plurilateral. It
cannot be achieved bilaterally or unilaterally except for dominant markets. The same
holds true for international law on competition. Unless it results in unilateral
adjustment to a particular system of one of the parties, true international disciplines
cannot be addressed in bilateral agreements. They require at least plurilateral
approaches and are best addressed in the WTO.
The WTO provides a robust and solid framework to address domestic regulations
that limit market access without sufficient justification. The GATT and the TBT
Agreement offer legal guidance to discern what is excessive and protectionist from
legitimate domestic regulations.30 But the latter does not offer mutual recognition or
harmonization of domestic regulation. WTO law generally does not engage in
prescribing recognition of foreign rules for market approval or in harmonising
domestic legal standards. An exception to this the TRIPS agreement which estab-
lishes global minimal standards for the protection of IPRs, Another exception is the
SPS Agreement for binding food standards, in combination with World Health
Organization (WHO)/Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Codex
Alimentarius standards, yet subject to more restrictive domestic rules. Finally,
joint regulation of services in the GATS Agreement are still is in its infant stage,
mainly codifying domestic standards in members’ schedules of commitment. Trade
in Services Agreement (TISA) may bring some further progress to this effect.
It is important to note that most of the existing bilateral preferential trade
agreements do not go much beyond multilateral non-tariff rules and standards.31
Behind-the-border issues are merely partly addressed in PTAs. The agreements
essentially rely upon WTO rules or build upon them, if at all. Technical barriers to
trade going beyond WTO TBT disciplines are typically addressed in preferential
Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs). They reciprocally allow testing market

30
van den Bossche and Zdoug (2017).
31
Molina and Khoreshvina (2015).
272 T. Cottier

conformity with export destinations by home institutions and thus facilitating con-
formity assessment and reducing costs. Additional provisions on intellectual prop-
erty rely upon the TRIPs Agreement.
Essential reliance of BBIs upon multilateral rules is not a coincidence. Bilateral
harmonization of rules and extension of mutual recognition are of limited advantage
as they formally are merely applicable to the parties to the PTA. They are not
extended to third parties and thus merely add to the complexity of production
standards of a country. Or, they must be extended, as in the case of IPRs, on the
basis of MFN, yet without obtaining privileges in return. Such limitations may be the
prime reason why most bilateral agreements have remained of limited added value
beyond WTO rules affecting BBIs.
Instead, BBIs are essentially addressed in non-reciprocal configurations of pref-
erential trade agreements (PTAs) which entail one large and dominant market to
which others adjust. In particular the EU, the US, and increasingly China, are in a
position to impose and export their own domestic standards due to market size and
market power. To the extent that PTAs address non-tariff barriers and BBIs, they
usually adopt the standards of the larger market. For example, Switzerland and other
European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Members within the European Economic
Area (EEA) largely align their rules to those of the EU and ensure consistency with
them both in preferential agreements and autonomous regulation.32 Even in the
absence of an obligation, reliance on European Union rules is chosen to avoid
unnecessary trade barriers and burdens on production within the country. The
same holds true for Canada in relation to the United States under North America
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement
(USMCA) rules. When Canada called for greater regulatory cooperation in
NAFTA talks,33 it is likely to adjust to US standards in the end. The same would
happen in the context of EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agree-
ment (CETA) in relations to the EU.
In current preferential agreements, there is little genuine negotiation on new
approaches to regulation of BBIs, comparable to what was achieved for example
in the TRIPS Agreement, merging European and American legal traditions. Instead,
the preferential trade agreements normally follow a hub and spike approach. Com-
promise and new and innovative standards are the exception. It is the same in
competition law and investment protection. Both essentially follow templates set
out by industrialised countries in bilateral treaty negotiations. And they do not
deploy effects beyond the parties unless MFN obligations are included.

32
E.g. Cottier et al. (2015).
33
Canada pushing regulatory cooperation in second round of NAFTA talks, Inside US Trade,
September 3, 2017; https://insidetrade.com/daily-news/canada-pushing-regulatory-cooperation-sec
ond-round-nafta-talks.
Competition and Investment: The Case for 21st Century WTO Law 273

5 How Much Regulatory Cooperation?

The shift of regulatory powers to international law and the opposition it faces begs
the question how much regulatory convergence can and should be achieved. The
issue is essentially related to the question of division of labour and transnational
value chains. On what level should matters best be addressed? On what level can
public goods best be produced in order to fulfil its regulatory purposes? The
experience of TTIP, even before it was stalled, and those with many other agree-
ments shows that this controversial issue ever since has been at the heart of trade
policy debate. The same holds true for the experience made with the negotiations and
adoption of CETA. These issues go to the heart of regulatory powers, self-
determination, sovereignty and democracy.
Regulatory convergence greatly varies among different areas, from the absence of
common rules (such as for electrical plugs still requiring travellers to use adapters) to
full harmonization (such as interconnection and telecommunication). The OECD
lists no less than 12 different stages, from exchange of information to full harmoni-
zation. They comprise (1) regulatory dialogue, exchange of information, (2) soft law,
guidelines, principles, (3) recognition of international standards, (4) domestic stan-
dards based upon international standards, (5), transnational networks, (6) intergov-
ernmental organizations, (7) mutual recognition agreements, (8) regulatory
partnerships between countries, (9) specific conventions and treaties, (10) mutual
recognition (11) economic regionalism, and (12) harmonization.34
Mutual recognition and harmonization are most developed in the EU and federate
states while much less frequently applied in international trade relations. They
require certain level of mutual confidence which is generally absent outside of
customs unions. Yet, even within the EU, and even within federate states, the
allocation of regulatory powers amounts to one of the most controversial and
constantly debated issues in politics and in constitutional law.35 It is even more
difficult on the international realm. Yet, the shift towards behind-the-border issues
and towards global value chains structurally shifts rule-making into international law
in the long run. Modern theories relating to sovereignty thus stress the concept and
idea of shared and cooperative sovereignty, and the allocation of powers among
different layers of government as the essence of modern sovereignty within an
overall global legal system.36

34
OECD, International Regulatory Cooperation – Better rules of Globalisation, http://www.oecd.
org/gov/regulatory-policy/irc.htm.
35
Anderson (2012).
36
Jackson (2006), Cottier and Hertig (2003) and Cottier (2011).
274 T. Cottier

6 Implications for Competition and Investment Law

These reflections made on trade regulation may also be applied as indicated to

competition law and investment law. It is generally recognised that they form
important components of the international trading system and are frequently
addressed in trade policy reviews of the WTO and in accession protocols calling
for the establishment of anti-trust rules. Both areas are classical behind-the-border
issues, much like intellectual property and services. Main regulations pertain to
domestic law. To what extent can the needs still be met with decentralised rules on
anti-trust and myriad of bilateral investment protection agreements? To what extent
is harmonization and approximation required in order to serve the levels of division
of labour and global and regional value chains? How are they affected by fragmen-
tation? It is submitted, for structural reasons discussed above and a closer examina-
tion below, that they need to be addressed multilaterally or in plurilateral
agreements.

6.1 Competition Law

Competition law in terms of anti-trust and merger control is a classical field of

domestic economic law. Disciplines relating to the conduct of private actors have
essentially remained in this realm. Rules on cartels, restrictive business practices,
abuse of dominant positions and merger regulation pertains to domestic law, includ-
ing the law of the EU. Efforts to address restrictive business practices such as price
fixing and geographical limitations or boycotts, has not gone beyond soft law. The
shift to behind-the-border issues in international economic law and the fact of global
value chains depending on the interface and compatibility of different legal regimes
increasingly questions this tradition. Extraterritorial application of domestic law is
not properly able to address the problem of export cartels as domestic markets are not
affected. Many questions arise, for example: How to deal with private export
restrictions on pharmaceuticals imposed on the basis of patent rights to low cost
markets? How to square and effectively balance an extensive international agree-
ment on IPRs without competition law? Is it sufficient to rely upon domestic law?
Does the multilateral TRIPS Agreement not beg the question for rules on the same
regulatory level with a view to bring about an overall balance?37 Some problems
apparently call for greater convergence. Transnational problems caused by informa-
tion technology and the internet are difficult to address nationally in a coherent
manner. How to deal, for example, with geo-blocking of sales in the internet without
international cooperation? How to address the problem of excessive roaming charges
for transnational telecommunication services? How do different competition rules
affect the regulation of Big Data and the internet which is inherently transnational?

37
Cottier and Meitinger (1999).
Competition and Investment: The Case for 21st Century WTO Law 275

How to combat the abuse of dominant positions by global information technology

(IT) companies if standards are not harmonised?
Indeed, the application of diverging standards of competition law in different
jurisdictions may cause significant problems. Different rules may produce market
segmentation and the disruptions of value chains. If a merger is accepted on one
jurisdiction, but rejected in another or subject to different conditions, it renders
structuring the new company difficult. As decision by different anti-trust authorities
are not taken at the same time, and often with considerable delays, restructuring
companies becomes exceedingly difficult. If conditions imposed are not met, the
company cannot operate in, and export to, this jurisdiction. Similar problems arise in
the operation of cartel rules. One jurisdiction may consider cooperation in research
and development (R&D) between two or more companies acceptable. Others may
reject. The result is that this company and its assets in one jurisdiction will be subject
to fines and products cannot be imported, while its activity is lawful elsewhere.
Differences of regulatory standards on competition law may influence foreign direct
investment. Companies may choose to invest where protection is low and eventually
confront difficulties on exporting markets due the extraterritorial application of
competition law. Obviously, global companies are affected by such implications.
But they equally affect small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) dependent upon
transnational value chains.
Finally, problems of enforcing anti-trust rules exist without the existence of
administrative and judicial cooperation. Anti-trust investigations heavily depend
upon credible foreign evidence. Without the possibility to access it lawfully, pro-
cedures cannot be successfully completed. They depend upon cooperation and
harmonization.38 Countries, for such purposes enter into bilateral agreements. But
their effects do not extend to operators in third states.
For all such reasons, domestic law no longer is the most suitable and exclusive
layer of governance to deal with competition law. High levels of division of labour in
the international economy and global value chains call for a more coherent frame-
work of anti-trust rules. The issue has been increasingly addressed in international
relations beyond the European Union. Regional Trade Agreements increasingly
entail disciplines on competition policy. Efforts at the OECD and UNCTAD on
restrictive business practices and good corporate governance set out guiding recom-
mendations. The International Competition Network (ICN) strongly contributed to
the evolution of soft law addressing issues of interfacing different regimes and
enforcing anti-trust rules internationally. A Multilateral Framework on Procedures
in Competition Law Investigations and Enforcement was proposed by the US
Department of Justice in August 2018.39 These standards may eventually inform a
new agenda in the WTO for the twenty-first century. A 2018 WTO working paper
suggests taking up again the work of the suspended Committee on Trade and

38
Merkt (2000).
39
International antitrust cooperation in the age of Trump; https://trustinip.com/is-enhanced-interna
tional-cooperation-on-antitrust-procedure-soon-to-come/#more-1361.
276 T. Cottier

Competition Law and sets out the following agenda points worth fully quoting for
further work within the WTO40:
a) The relevance of the WTO’s core principles of non-discrimination, transparency, and
procedural fairness (also referred to as due process) to competition law enforcement. As
we have seen, this interest derives from the arising challenges related to ensuring
impartiality of competition law enforcement and potential conflicts of jurisdictions.
The work of the original WTO Working Group, much subsequent work in the ICN and
at the level of national competition policies, the recently-developed Multilateral Frame-
work on Procedures in Competition Law Investigation and Enforcement and provisions
in RTAs are all relevant in this regard.
b) Further codification of generally agreed norms, such as the general commitments by
WTO Members relating to action against hard-core cartels and international coopera-
tion. Again, this element is common to both the work of the original WTO Working
Group and the subsequent developments in RTAs and in related discussions as well as
in the work of the ICN. It also acknowledges the priority given to these arrangements in
the work of competition agencies themselves. The case for common action or commit-
ments in relation to cross-border anti-competitive practices, including in digital markets.
The difficulty of detecting such practices calls for cooperative action and information
sharing. In this regard, existing provisions of the TRIPS Agreement (such as Articles
40 and 67) may play a potential role. While significant efforts have been undertaken in
the framework of the ICN and RTAs, high-level discussions on the international level
could be needed in order to find effective solutions. Potentially, jurisdictional issues
concerning the application of competition law to export cartels. Potentially, this issue
unites interest from developing countries and at least some elements of the business
community. Fox suggests that the cartel externality problem has a natural home in
the WTO.
c) An even broader array of issues is evident with respect to the interaction of trade and
competition policy recognizing that the distinction between law and policy is certainly
not watertight). These would include, at a minimum, measures addressing the following:
c1) The treatment of SOEs and the concept of competitive neutrality. This concern
already figured importantly in the original work of the WTO Working Group. It has
only been amplified in the subsequent norm setting in RTAs and in the work of
other international organizations such as the OECD. The latter provides a concep-
tual framework for relevant discussions. As we have seen, there is also a clear link
to elements of the existing WTO agreements.
c2) The relationship between competition policy and industrial policy merits discus-
sion/reflection. As suggested by Fox, work might be done at the WTO to narrow the
bounds of permissible trade remedies laws and subsidies in view of their distortion
of international trade and particular harm to developing countries.
c3) The significance for competition policy of governmental barriers to participation in
public procurement markets. This issue is ripe for consideration at the international
level. As we have seen, the area of government procurement is already a dynamic
and vital one in the WTO. The issues manifest important confluence between the
interests of export-oriented businesses (seeking access to foreign procurement
markets) and those of competition authorities (who know that closed markets
both intrinsically limit competition and facilitate bid rigging).
c4) The potential significance of competition policy-related disciplines such as those
contained in the WTO Reference Paper on Basic Telecommunications for other
infrastructure sectors, and for trade in services more generally. As discussed, the

40
Anderson et al. (2018), pp. 57/58.
Competition and Investment: The Case for 21st Century WTO Law 277

Reference Paper is arguably the area of the WTO agreements in which competition
policy concepts have been used most explicitly and which goes the furthest in
committing Members to action against anti-competitive practices. Yet, other infra-
structure sectors (for example, electrical energy) share, or arguably share, similar
structural problems.
c5) The competition policy and IP interface is arguably an area of competition law that
requires additional guidelines at the multilateral level in order to balance out any
differences in international regulation between the two policy areas. The TRIPS
Agreement specifically invokes concerns about the impact of anti-competitive
licensing practices and anticipates the application of competition rules. Still, the
relevant provisions offer only very limited guidance on questions such as (i) the set
of anticompetitive practices that attract particular scrutiny (beyond the three exam-
ples mentioned); (ii) the standards under which such practices are to be evaluated
(per se or rule of reason); and (iii) the remedies that may be adopted in particular
cases, beyond making clear that any measures adopted must be consistent with
other relevant provisions of the Agreement.

It will be interesting to square, in further research, the relationship of this agenda

with the general debate on BBIs and the impact of global value chains. Both are
likely to support the agenda, stressing the need for harmonization or approximation.
We note that the appropriate form and level of approximation for each of the issues
remains to be identified in accordance with the doctrine of multilevel governance.
The same holds true for particular linkages with investment protection in the
triangle.

6.2 Investment Protection

Comparable normative challenges exist in the field of investment protection. While

focusing on conditions in a particular jurisdiction and the conduct of authorities,
differences in levels of protection lead to favouring locations protected by a BIT,
while others are left out. The need to conclude BITs with main capital exporting
countries in competing for investment and inclusive global value chains forced
developing countries to accept high standards of protection at the expense of
domestic policy space. Also, they were forced to accept private-state arbitration,
replacing ordinary courts of law in the application of international law obligations
incurred. The bilateral avenue stresses the asymmetries of economic power between
industrialised and developing countries. Newer trends are only due to extending
investment disciplines between industrialised countries, such as NAFTA or CETA,
resulting in enhanced policy space of host countries.
The law of investment protection in international law is founded in customary
law, developing rules on expropriation and regulatory taking. Efforts to developing
more stringent rules resulted in bilateral BITs, but failed to develop multilateral
disciplines beyond GATS, TRIPS and TRIMS discussed before. The fragmentation
was mainly caused by the level of ambition by capital exporting countries vis-à-vis
developing countries. In particular, the 1998 OECD draft Multilateral Agreement on
278 T. Cottier

Investment (MAI)41 failed due to insufficient inclusiveness of developing country

interests.
With progressing development, developing county governments are increasingly
wary of BITs. Brazil, despite being a major market, never entered such agreements,
and other decided to withdraw existing agreements in the light of costly experiences
made.42 With the extension of investment disciplines to bilateral trade and cooper-
ation agreements among industrialised states, beginning with NAFTA, the scope of
policy space of host states gradually increased.43 At the same time, private-state
dispute settlement is increasingly questioned. These developments, in return, pro-
vide further incentives to revise or even withdraw from existing earlier agreements.
Moreover, the multitude of 2346 diverging BITs in force (2019) renders the task
difficult to bring about a body of precedents and case law which guide the overall
field. Agreements vary in their terms, and transportation of case law in trade law and
under other investment agreements remains difficult. For a long time, transparency
was secured as many arbitration awards were not published. Standards varied and
lacked common understanding. A 2004 OECD Report worth quoting summarised
the then development of case law on FET44:
a) There is diversity in the way the “fair and equitable treatment” standard is formulated in
investment agreements. Certain agreements, in particular some BITs, expressly define
the standard by reference to international law while others do not make such reference to
international law.
b) Because of the differences in its formulation, the proper interpretation of the “fair and
equitable treatment” standard depends on the specific wording of the particular treaty, its
context, the object and purpose of the treaty, as well as on negotiating history or other
indications of the parties’ intent. For example, some treaties include explicit language
linking or, in some cases limiting, fair and equitable treatment to the minimum standard
of international customary law. Other treaties which either link the standard to interna-
tional law without specifying custom, or lack any reference to international law, could,
depending on the context of the parties’ intent, for example, be read as giving the
standard a scope of application that is broader than the minimum standard as defined by
international customary law.
c) Independently of the way governments interpret the “fair and equitable treatment”
standard, it is understood that the minimum standard refers to an evolving international
customary law which is not “frozen” in time, but may evolve over time depending on the
general and consistent practice of states and opinio juris, as may be reflected in
jurisprudence related to the interpretation and application of these treaties.
d) An analysis of the opinions of the arbitral tribunals which have attempted to interpret
and apply the “fair and equitable treatment” standard identified a number of elements

41
OECD, Multilateral Agreement on Investment; http://www.oecd.org/investment/
internationalinvestmentagreements/multilateralagreementoninvestment.htm.
42
Baker McKenzie, Withdrawal from Investment Treaties: an Omen for Waning Investor Protection
in AP? (Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador and South Africa, Indonesia, India); https://www.
bakermckenzie.com/en/insight/publications/2017/05/withdrawal-from-investment-treaties.
43
For a discussion of CETA provisions, e.g. Cottier (2019).
44
OECD (2004), “Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in International Investment Law”, OECD
Working Papers on International Investment, 2004/03, OECD Publishing, at 40; https://doi.org/10.
1787/675702255435.
Competition and Investment: The Case for 21st Century WTO Law 279

which, singly or in combination, have been treated as encompassed in the standard of

treatment. Most of the arbitral opinions in the present survey mention two elements, due
diligence and due process (including non-denial of justice and lack of arbitrariness),
while only a few mention transparency and good faith. Due diligence and due process
including non-denial of justice and lack of arbitrariness are elements well-grounded in
international customary law while transparency is an element which is often defined in
international agreements as an obligation under a separate provision. Good faith seems
to be considered more a basic principle underlying an obligation rather than a distinct
obligation owed to investors pursuant to the “fair and equitable treatment” standard.
e) The identified elements appear to have sufficient legal content to allow cases to be
judged on the basis of law in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties, and decisions are not made by a process approaching ex aequo et bono.
f) It would be inappropriate at this stage to establish a definitive interpretation of the “fair
and equitable treatment” standard. The jurisprudence which has applied it and identified
elements of its normative content is relatively recent and is not uniform, and therefore
does not allow for a firm and conclusive list.

The situation has been changing in the meantime due to enhanced electronic
publication of awards. Comparative analysis may eventually allow bringing about
common and coherent standards. Such efforts have been studied by the OECD and
are essentially negotiated in a newer generation of investment rules within compre-
hensive economic and trade agreements among developed countries, in particular
CETA between Canada and the EU. These standards may eventually influence the
overall relationship of protection and domestic policy space in case law, but leaves
divergences with existing and older agreements untouched.45
The main reason, however, to review bilateral investment agreements relies in the
facts of trade in components and global value chains. Investment law is shifting from
investment protection to investment promotion and cooperation.46 Countries are
keen to participate in global value chains but secure, at the same time, against the
risk of volatile and mobile investment. They seek to secure adequate policy space
which, due to power asymmetries, they cannot secure bilaterally. Industrial coun-
tries, on the other hand, are increasingly called upon to assume responsibilities at
home for the conduct of incorporated corporations and nationals in host countries, in
particular for human rights abuses and violations.47 Liability rules have become an
important component in realizing and enforcing corporate social responsibility
abroad.
It would seem that much work so far, in particular in the WTO working group on
trade and investment, focuses on cooperation between WTO and UNCTAD in
assisting developing and developed countries.48 Recent work focused on investment

45
Cottier (2019), p. 135.
46
Polanco (2019).
47
Simons and Macklin (2014).
48
WTO, Future WTO-UNCTAD Secretariat Cooperation in the Area of Investment on Technical
Assistance and Capacity-Building for Developing and Least Developed Countries, Note by the
WTO and UNCTAD Secretariats WTI/WG/GTI/W/161/(May 27, 2003). Other than committee
reports, working papers on the topic no longer are available on the WTO website.
280 T. Cottier

promotion in the context of the new Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA).49 In April
2017, an informal group of “Friends of Investment and Facilitation for Develop-
ment” (FIFD) called for work in the WTO on improving regulatory transparency,
streamlining administrative procedures, enlarging international cooperation and
addressing, inter alia, corporate social responsibility.50 While the new TFA focuses
on facilitating transboundary trade, it is apparent that its underlying effort will also
benefit foreign direct investment in a world of global value chains and trade in
components. Particular disciplines on investment protection and promotion can
build upon this record in the WTO. Increasingly, trade and investment issues need
to be developed in tandem. No longer are they substitutes, but complement each
other. In addition, they need to take into consideration rules and disciplines on
competition law in integrating the triangle in international economic law.
In conclusion, multilateral negotiations on investment need to go beyond the
classical issues of FET and expropriation. The WTO is best placed to bring about
adequate coordination of all these topics. It is supported by effective dispute
settlement and offers with the TRIPS Agreement a successful model for regulatory
convergence.

7 The TRIPS Approach

The TRIPS Agreement was the first agreement addressing regulatory convergence
by setting out ambitious minimal standards for the protection of intellectual property
rights.51 With hind sight, it was much ahead of its time and developed a successful
model for legal approximation and particular harmonization.52 The TRIPS approach
obliges members to implement the minimal standards on substantive standards and
enforcement in their legislation. It does not harmonize IPRs, but leaves members
ample space to shape their rules in accordance with public policy goals. The
principles and rules of the Agreement inform domestic law, and are subject to the
jurisdiction of domestic courts in monist countries. To the extent that domestic law
fails to properly implement these rules, Members of the WTO can file complaints
before the DSB and seek the establishment of a panel. The ruling of the panel is
subject to appeal and cross-appeal before the Appellate Body of the WTO. Since the
TRIPS Agreement entered into force, an important body of case law emerged,

49
Agreement on Trade Facilitation, adopted November 27, 2017, entered into force February
22, 2017; https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tradfa_e/tradfa_e.htm.
50
WTO, Investment Facilitation: Relationship of Trade and Investment; https://www.wto.org/
english/thewto_e/minist_e/mc11_e/briefing_notes_e/bfinvestfac_e.htm.
51
E.g. Cottier (2005).
52
Taubman and Jayashree (2015).
Competition and Investment: The Case for 21st Century WTO Law 281

offering guidance as to the exact meaning of different provisions.53 Compared to

other areas of WTO law, TRIPs cases, however, are less numerous and mainly relate
to disputes among industrialised countries. It proofs the quality of the approach and
of the agreement. The case law, in return, further informs the interpretation of
domestic law and should be taken into account under the doctrine of consistent
interpretation by national courts, both under monist and dualist systems of law.
It is submitted that the TRIPS approach could also be used for competition and
investment law. Both areas will be dealt with in tandem, and overlapping issues can
be addressed accordingly. Most countries, in flexible coalitions, will find themselves
in a better position to defend their interest and if left to extraterritorial effects of large
jurisdictions or bilateral agreements negotiated in asymmetric power relations.
Based upon the experience with TRIPS and TRIPSplus commitments in subse-
quent preferential trade agreements, the TRIPS approach, however, should also
include the notion and concept of maximum standards and of graduation.54 Interna-
tional rules not only provide for minimal standards, but partly prohibit countries
from adopting excessive protection. Also treaties should consider levels of social
and economic development and define appropriate thresholds as to when specific
obligations may take effect.

7.1 Restructuring Competition Law

The future multilateralization of competition law can build upon work of OECD,
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the Munich
Group Draft International Anti-Trust Rules and other proposals, developed in the
1990s.55 They provide the basis for common standards in an agreement on compe-
tition law within the WTO. Following the TRIPS approach, an agreement on
competition law would establish mandatory standards forming the basis upon
which domestic law would be built and enforced. These standards relate to cartels
and restrictive business practices, but also enforcement and legal assistance. They
would also elaborate on unfair competition law principles of Article 10bis of the
Paris Convention. Developing countries, reluctant to take the matter up, today are
much better prepared as most of them were able to gain experience in past decades in
the field. They would be able to come to the table to secure their own interest and
goals. The risk that the agreement would result from copying and pasting EU and US
law is much smaller today. For example, and given the experience of access to drugs,
developing countries could stress the importance of human rights in assessing anti-
trust, going beyond economic efficiency and consumer welfare. State trading and the

53
For the extensive and detailed case law on IPRs in the WTO see https://www.wto.org/english/
tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_agreements_index_e.htm.
54
Kur and Grosse Ruse-Khan (2009) and Grosse Ruse-Khan (2017).
55
For a comprehensive review: Taylor (2006), Anderson and Sen (2017) and Martynsiszyn (2017).
282 T. Cottier

role of government-controlled companies will be an important component of a work

agenda.
Again, it goes beyond the scope of this paper to assess to what extent standards
should be uniform and harmonized, and to what extent they should be left to
domestic law. Defining policy space will be at the heart of work. The standards of
the agreement provide the basis for domestic law. Assessment of domestic law and
case would be subject to WTO dispute settlement before panels and the Appellate
Body (AB). As to mergers and acquisitions of large transnational corporations, it is
conceivable to create a supranational body, securing participatory procedures and
making a single determination, taking into account the particular needs of different
jurisdictions. The agreement would also define thresholds for mergers and acquisi-
tions which are directly assessed and dealt with under WTO law achieving a single
determination, taking into consideration particular needs of particular jurisdictions.
It is here that supranational standards for global companies would directly operate
and bind companies. Accordingly, procedures need to include direct participation of
the governments and companies concerned. Much would be gained from achieving a
single international decision for mergers and acquisitions with implications for
global value chains.
Private rights would essentially operate on the level of domestic law and are
indirectly protected as States are able to file complaints before the WTO if such
standards are not met in domestic law and practice. Private actors could be granted a
right to petition their governments to take up a case, as provided for today in US and
EU law.56

7.2 Restructuring International Investment Law

A WTO multilateral investment agreement would go beyond existing disciplines of

BITs for reasons discussed above. It needs achieving an appropriate balance between
investment protection and investment promotion and cooperation in the triangle of
home state, host state and investor. Other than competition law, it cannot readily
build upon existing templates and needs to stress cooperation. It should be termed
investment cooperation agreement.
We submit that the TRIPS model offers a suitable foundation to work on a
multilateral investment cooperation agreement within the WTO. The agreement
sets forth substantive and procedural standards (both minimum and maximum) on

56
US Trade Act of 1974 § 301. Section 301 cases can be initiated as a result of a petition filed by an
interested party with the USTR or initiated by the USTR; Regulation (EU) No 654/2014 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 concerning the exercise of the Union’s
rights for the application and enforcement of international trade rules and amending Council
Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 laying down Community procedures in the field of the common
commercial policy in order to ensure the exercise of the Community’s rights under international
trade rules, in particular those established under the auspices of the World Trade Organization.
Competition and Investment: The Case for 21st Century WTO Law 283

the level of international law which domestic law must respect and enforce. Much
emphasis will be paid to securing judicial independence of domestic courts. The
agreement thus would strongly contribute to reinforce the rule of law.
Placing such standards under the roof of the WTO with a multilateral investment
cooperation agreement, would thus alter private-state arbitration. While the private
sector and corporate lawyers (often involved in cases alternatively as counsel and
arbitrator) continue to emphasise the importance of it, governments are increasingly
seeking to channel arbitration to ordinary courts of law. The compromise resulted in
CETA established a two-tear international court system which is still pending
implementation. It is questionable whether such a system will generate sufficient
work and allow building an expensive institutional framework and memory neces-
sary to develop consistent case law comparable to the WTO. The effort thus should
best be seen as a precursor to embedding judicial review of investment related
decision within the WTO dispute settlement mechanism, benefitting from critical
mass of an experienced institution.
Under a WTO investment cooperation agreement, disputes would be subject to
WTO dispute settlement. Cases not satisfactorily settled before domestic courts in
accordance with internationally agreed and domestic standards, could be challenged
before the WTO, much like anti-dumping, safeguards or countervailing duties
(CVD) determinations, or assessments of intellectual property protection in the
light of TRIPS rights and obligations. Domestic courts would primarily be respon-
sible for dispensing justice. Should they fail to do within tight timelines defines by
the investment agreement, the matter would be adjudicated by a WTO panel and
possibly the AB of the WTO. In such a way, domestic and international arbitration
can be combined without circumventing domestic courts of law in building the rule
of law around the globe.
As a substitute to private state arbitration, the investment agreement could
prescribe that members introduce the right to petition the government to take up a
dispute commensurate to existing procedures under US and EU law. The agreement
would extend remedies to include financial damages to companies and private actors
concerned, but also the obligation to adjust legislation found incompatible with
WTO law.

8 Conclusions

Trade, investment and competition were found to be addressed in different fora and
different regulatory levels. While trade is multilateralised, investment protection is
part of customary law and bilateral investment agreements. Competition law has
almost entirely remained in the realm of domestic law, but is the subject of an
international network. The shift in trade regulation to behind-the-border issues and
facts of predominant trade in components and international value chains renders the
three areas functionally much closer. They should form coherent parts of interna-
tional economic law under the same roof. There is no longer a structural difference
284 T. Cottier

between the three areas. All three essentially pertain to behind-the-border issues and
regulation. It is suggested that the TRIPS Agreement provides an appropriate and
successful model to integrate competition and investment law in the WTO. Com-
mensurate with the different layers of regulatory cooperation, it will a matter to study
to what extent these behind-the-border issues should be taken up, and if yes, on what
level of regulatory cooperation best results in advancing welfare can be achieved
both in the fields of competition and investment law. The inclusion of private
operators, their rights and obligations, will be at the heart of the problem. The
TRIPs approach, however, shows an appropriate way as to how the needs of
governments to control foreign policy and international economic relations can be
accommodated with the needs of private operators mainly protected in domestic law.
Obviously, these propositions are at odds with current populist policies, stressing
national sovereignty and reducing global value chains. They are not made for this
time. They are written for the future when the high costs and detrimental effects of
populist policies will materialise and people rethink and learn to move ahead,
recalling the lessons drawn after World War II and the proposals of the Havana
Charter. They continue to provide a farsighted and hopeful agenda for international
economic law in the twenty-first century.

References

Abbott F, Flynn S, Correa C, Berger J, Nyak N (2014) Using competition law to promote access to
health technologies: a guidebook for low- and middle-income countries. UNDP, New York.
http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/documents/s21764en/s21764en.pdf
Anderson G (ed) (2012) Internal markets and multi-level governance: the experience of the
European Union, Australia, Canada, Switzerland, and the United States. Oxford University
Press, Oxford
Anderson RD, Müller AC (2017) Relationship of competition law to trade and investment rules. In:
Cottier T, Nakakvukaren Schefer K (eds) Elgar encyclopedia of international economic law.
Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 476–477
Anderson RD, Sen N (2017) The role of the OECD in competition policy. In: Cottier T,
Nakakvukaren Schefer K (eds) Elgar encyclopedia of international economic law. Elgar,
Cheltenham, pp 488–489
Anderson RD, Kovacic WE, Müller CA, Sporysheva N (2018) Competition policy, trade and the
global economy: existing WTO elements, commitments in regional trade agreements, current
challenges and issues for reflection, WTO Staff Working Paper ERSD-2018-12, pp 57–58
Baldwin R, Lopez-Gonzales J (2013) Supply-chain trade: a portrait of global patterns and several
testable hypothesis. National Bureau of Economic Research, WP 18957, Cambridge,
MA. http://www.nber.org/papers/w18957.pdf
Cottier T (2005) The agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights. In: Macror
PFJ, Appleton AE, Plummer MG (eds) The World Trade Organization: legal, economic and
political analysis, vol I. Springer, New York, pp 1041–1120
Cottier T (2011) Towards a five-storey house. In: Joerges, Petersmann EU (eds) Constitutionalism,
multilevel trade governance and international economic law. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp
495–532
Cottier T (2014) International economic law in transition from trade liberalization to trade regula-
tion. J Int Econ Law 17:671–677
Competition and Investment: The Case for 21st Century WTO Law 285

Cottier T (2015) The common law of international trade and the future of the World Trade
Organization. J Int Econ Law 18:3–20
Cottier T (2018a) The changing structure of international trade law. Zeitschrift für Europarechtliche
Studien 21:421–436
Cottier T (2018b) Trade policy in the age of populism: why the new bilateralism will not work,
Brexit: the international legal implications, Paper No 12. Centre for International Governance
Innovation (CIGI), British Institute of International and Comparative Law, Waterloo, London.
https://www.cigionline.org/publications/trade-policy-age-populism-why-new-bilateralism-will-
not-work, pp 71–84
Cottier T (2019) The prospect of equity in international law. In: Prévost D, Alexovicicovà I, Pohl JH
(eds) Restoring trust in trade. Liber Amicorum Peter van den Bossche. Hart Publishing, Oxford,
pp 119–138
Cottier T, Hertig M (2003) The prospects of 21st century constitutionalism. Max Planck United
Nations Yearbook, pp 261–328
Cottier T, Meitinger I (1999) The TRIPs agreement without a competition agreement?, Fondazione
Eni Enrico Mattei Working Paper No. 65-99. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_
id¼200622
Cottier T, Nadakavukaren S (eds) (2017) Elgar encyclopedia of international economic law.
Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Cottier T, Oesch M (2005) International trade regulation: law and policy in the WTO, the European
Union and Switzerland. Cameron May, Staempfli, Bern and London
Cottier T, Wermelinger G (2014) Implementing and enforcing corporate social responsibility: the
potential of unfair competition rules in international law. In: Hilty RM, Henning-Bodewig F
(eds) Corporate social responsibility. Verbindliche Standards des Wettbewerbsrechts? 21 MPI
Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law 21). Heidelberg - New York - Dordrecht -
London, pp 81–97
Cottier T, Diebold N, Kölliker I, Liechti-McKee R, Oesch M, Payosova T, Wüger D (2015) Die
Rechtsbeziehungen der Schweiz und der Europäischen Union. Staempfli, Bern
Elms DK, Low P (eds) (2013) Global value chains in a changing world (WTO et al 2013). https://
www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/aid4tradeglobalvalue13_e.pdf
Grosse Ruse-Khan H (2017) Towards ceilings and graduation of intellectual property rights. In:
Cottier T, Nakakvukaren Schefer K (eds) Elgar encyclopedia of international economic law.
Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 534–536
Holzer K (2014) Carbon-related border adjustment and WTO law. Elgar, Cheltenham
Jackson JH (1969) World Trade and the law of GATT: a legal analysis of the general agreement on
tariffs and trade. Bobbs-Merill, Indianapolis
Jackson JH (2006) Sovereignty, the WTO, and changing fundamentals of international law.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Kur A, Grosse Ruse-Khan H (2009) Enough is enough: the notion of binding ceilings in interna-
tional intellectual property protection. 9 (1) Max Planck Papers on Intellectual Property,
Competition and Tax Law, Munich
Martynsiszyn M (2017) The role of UNCTAD in competition law and policy. In: Cottier T,
Nakakvukaren Schefer K (eds) Elgar encyclopedia of international economic law. Elgar,
Cheltenham, pp 489–490
Merkt B (2000) Harmonisation internationale et entraide administrative internationale en droit de la
concurrence. Droit du GATT/OMC, droit européen, accords bilatéraux et perspectives pour le
droit suisse, Peter Lang, Bern
Molina AC, Khoreshvina V (2015) (WTO Secretariat), TBT provisions in regional trade agree-
ments: to what extent do they go beyond the WTO TBT Agreement?, WTO Secretariat, Geneva,
December 2015. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd201509_e.pdf
Polanco R (2019) The return of the home state to investor-state disputes: bringing back diplomatic
protection? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
286 T. Cottier

Riffel C (2016) Protection against unfair competition in the WTO TRIPS agreement: the scope and
prospects of article 10bis of the Paris convention for the protection of industrial property. Brill
Nijhoff, Leiden Boston
Simons P, Macklin A (2014) The governance gap: extractive industries, human rights and the home
state advantage. Routledge, London, New York
Slobodian Q (2018) Globalists: the end of empire and the birth of neoliberalism. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge
Taubman A, Jayashree J (eds) (2015) The making of the TRIPS agreement. WTO, Geneva
Taylor MD (2006) International competition law: a new dimension for the WTO? Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge
van den Bossche P, Zdoug W (2017) The law and policy of the World Trade Organization: text,
cases and materials, 4th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Thomas Cottier is Professor emeritus of European and International Economic Law at the
University of Bern, a senior research fellow at the World Trade Institute, adjunct professor at the
University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He was the founder and managing director of the World
Trade Institute from 1999 to 2015 and of the SNF National Centre of Competence NCCR on
International Trade Regulation. Previously, he was the Deputy Director General of the Swiss
Intellectual Property Office and legal advisor to the Swiss Department of Foreign Economic Affairs.
He served on the Swiss negotiating team of the Uruguay Round and on EFTA-EU EEA negotia-
tions. He has been a member and chair of several GATT and WTO panels. He has published widely
in international economic law.