Critically evaluate the international investment laws of a country of your choice. How has this legal regime affected foreign direct investment flows to and from this country?
Introduction
Legal sovereignty of a nation entitles it to “exclude” aliens- both property and people who are not possession and subject of the state[1]. However most countries do not use this power and rather award certain rights and favours to aliens. These actions are help the nations to benefit from mutual trade and commerce. The United states of America is world’s biggest recipient of foreign direct investment (FDI) as well it has world’s largest foreign direct investments in other countries. This essay critically evaluate the international investment laws of the United States of America. This study provides an overview of historical development of the US international investment laws. It evaluated different areas of legislation related to investment laws and includes famous acts and laws. Each area of laws is briefly explained and criticaly analysed using explaes from the US legal history, especially cases involving areas of investment laws. Analysis from a point of view of these acts and laws being helpful and beneficial in increasing foreign direct investment (FDI) has been carried out. Later part of the essay gives a detailed analysis of impact of international investment laws on inflow of FDI in the country. It provides a summary of historical background of the foreign direct investment and then it critically analyses role of current legal regime in case of FDIs. A conclusion in the end is based on analysis in previous sections of this study.
Historical Background:The US Investment Laws
The United States international investment laws have their roots into legal documents of the Greeks, the Romans and the English. The Greek city-states were actively involved in treatises and agreements. The English, forefathers of the US legislators and merchants, rigorously worked on trade and merchandise laws. For example, Clause XXX of the Magna Carta allows the merchants to leave Englang and come back and pass though the country by land and water safely and they can involve to sales and purchase of goods[2]. The same legal document promises security of the merchants and their goods until and unless they are not consipiring against the state. Most of the US bilateral treaties developed after the First World War. These Friendship, Commerce and Navigation (FCN) opened new chapter in the international laws related to“fair and equitable treatment” and protection of investments of aliens. The United States was one of 53 countries which signed the Havana Charter in 1948[3]. It was formally known as the Final Act of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Employment. It was perpetrated by International Trade Organization (ITO) but it was not enforced because the United States government didn’t took it to their senate. They had some reservations regarding American interests in Asian countries and in the North America.
Economic agreement of Bogotá was recognised by the American states in 1948. This agreement covered many aspects of foreign investments. Article 22 of this agreement assured foreign investors that all the states would protect security of foreign investments[4]. This article promised that no unjustified and unreasonable law would be made that will discriminate business interests of foreign nationals. The Bogotá Agreement was never enforced fully like the Havana Charter failed in the same year.
US started negotiating investment treaties with developing countries in late 1960s. One of most famous feature of these treaties was “equity” in relationships with foreign investors. This was standard language for treaties with the majority of BITs but it was not same in case of Asian Nations such as Pakistan, Singapore and Saudi Arabia etc. “Fair and Equitable Treatment” didn’t remain same as soon ‘national Treatment” took over the bilateral investment treaties. The United States is founding member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The country was one of the preparatory of the Marrakesh Agreement which established WTO. Since then it has actively entered into many agreements and carried out legislation in various areas of foreign investment laws.
Contemporary International Investment Laws
The United States of America has a very complex and rigorous framework of international investment laws. These are product of an evoltuoin but major advancements were made in later half of the previous century as a result of the rise of Non-US multinationals, especially Japanese and Chinese investments in the counry. Below is a critical analysis of important areas of the US international investment laws.
Bilateral Investment Treaties, Regional Trade Agreements and Multilateralism
Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) as well as Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) are the United States’ binding legal set of rules which provide framework for country’s treatment of foreign investments of other countries in its territory.
Currently the United States has several legally binding BITs with 40 independent countries of the world. Similarly there are some FTAs with 17 nations[5]. BITs have been signed to protect private investments mostly. These agreements have influential in increasing trade volume of the US every year[6].
Examples of multilateral agreements are ‘the North American Free Trade Agreement’ and the ‘Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement’. There are also the Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFAs). These later agreements have been signed to resolve investment issues with foreign investors in their earlier issues.
Recently the United States along with other members of the WTO is involved in Doha Development Round to further its interests in the Middle East. Also, there have been heated discussions on the forums of the OECD and G-8 to bring in foreign investments in the country.
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) is responsible to review foreign investments which can threat national security of the country. It is an interagency committee under the Department of the Treasury. The United States’ participation in current international war on terror requires it carefully assess its allies and their economic interests in the country. Such committees and reviews also make it difficult for the country to maintain an open and favourable environment for foreign investment. Some recent opposition from political leaders in case of high profile FDI activity such as Dubai Ports World controversy in 2006 has made people believe that the United States has stopped welcoming foreign direct investments and do not have an open door policy as it had in the past. But some major FDIs in recent years negate this image. For example the committee’s approval of sale of Smithfield Foods to Shuanghui International Holdings Ltd to a Chinese investor is considered largest sale of a US company to a Chinese purchaser in the US history.
National Treatment And Most Favoured Nation Standards
In a bilateral agreement, most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) clause ensures that the designated nation would get an extra favour in case of investment and trade opportunities as compared other nations. China has been designated as the most favoured nation in the past. China was extended permanent ‘Normal Trade Relations’ status in 2000. The United States officially introduced the term ‘Normal Trade Relations’ for MFN status in 1998[7]. This was done to ensure that some countries do not get discriminatory favours as the clause misled general public in believing so. So, the United States officially does not recognises the applicability of this term. Its acts and laws prohibit it from awarding a nation MFN status.
Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET), Full Protection And Security And Free Transfer Of Capital
Since First World War, Friendship, Commerce and Navigation (FCN) concept in multilateral agreements opened new chapter in the international laws related to “fair and equitable treatment” and protection of investments of aliens in the United States. Current laws of the United States exclude any favours in cases of criminal and civil lawsuits to the foreign investors and businesses. Similarly “full protection” standard states that each party will be provided due police protection but under the customary law. Article 5 of the United States’ bilateral agreements with Rwanda and Bahrain explicitly states that “fair and equitable treatment” and “full protection and security “do not mean that there will be additional substantive rights created to the parties involved[8]. Nearly all BITs require investors receive a fair and equitable treatment although the term itself has not been well defined in any of the formal agreement in the legal infrastructure of the country[9]. Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) standards of international Investment Agreements are often applied in the cases. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) cases have exposed certain difficulties in applying FET concept when it comes to treatment of individuals and not the businesses.
Expropriation and Compensation
Expropriation is an action when foreign state when it takes rights of someone’s property. The legitimacy of the action is related to its sovereignty. In most of the cases, international laws allow expropriation if the state compensate that individual. According to the US laws related to expropriation and compensation, there should be a “prompt, adequate, and effective” compensation awarded to the affected party. The United States fully condemned and boycotted Mexican products after the Mexican government carried out Expropriation of Mexican Oil. The expropriation itself was not the issue but the company stakeholders were not “compensated” fully. The US devised its own laws so in case of such expropriation in America, companies are fully compensated[10]. In case of Banco Nacional De Cuba v. Chase Manhattan Bank, the US Court of Appeals referred to international laws of investment because there was no sufficient law in the local framework[11].As compared to many European and most of the communist-socialist states, expropriation laws asks for full compensation.
Dispute Settlement under US Investment Laws
Dispute resolution cases under international investment laws have been in conflict with the US local legal framework. Local legal standards have been applied by the US courts. There have been many cases when businesses and individuals have make allegations against department of justice for not complying with international investment laws. Under Chapter 11, Article 1102 and 1105, Apotex Inc. raised allegations against the US courts that courts made an error in interpretation of the federal laws. Their interpretation was against above mentioned NAFTA articles regarding “national treatment” and “minimum standard treatment” under internationally recognised investment laws[12].
Chapter 11 of NAFTA has come under severe criticism especially its clauses related to expropriation and dispute resolution process between individual investors and state[13]. Section V and VI have under frequent debate. There are problems when it is in conflict with country’s sovereignty and other regulatory matters. Investor takes matters to international tribunals according to the rules of ICSID and UNCITRAL so it compromises authority of local US courts while matter is related to local affairs.
Chapter 11 of Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (ASFTA), signed in 2004, deals with investor-state relationship dispute resolution. There were many law suits brought against Australian government by the US investors. Article 11.16 states that if there is change of circumstances during the period of dispute, there will be third party consultation. Consultation is discussed in Chapter 21 of the agreement.
Laws Dealing with Public Interest Issues: The Environment, Human Rights and Culture
Section 712 of Restatement of the Law of Third Foreign Relations of the United States specifically mentions that the state will not provide and discriminatory treatment to international businesses and foreign investments that will adversely impact on “the bona fide general taxation, regulations and forfeiture for crime”. So laws in this regard are much clear that public interest would not be compromised even if foreign investments are protected by internal laws and a dispute arises between the two. In case of Too v. Greater Modesto Insurance Associates[14], a dispute between Iran and the US was brought before the arbitration tribunal. The judgement favoured the States because the country cannot be held responsible for decrease in value of the assets of a company due bona fide general taxation rules. The judgement held that laws designed in public interest were not specifically designed to hurt any specific investor or foreign investment. In case of Sedco, Inc. v. National Iranian Oil Co. a similar judgement was made in the case of Sedco, Inc. v. National Iranian Oil Co[15]. It stated that any economic loss due to administrative authorities and procedure of police will not be attributed to state and it cannot be held responsible for that.
The United States has introduced the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) for the accountability of foreign companies if there are cases of human rights violations. In case of Doe v Unocal[16], the defendant violated human rights by aiding the local government. The company turned a “blind eye” to human rights violations by the state because it increased company’s profits. Beside ATCA there is the Torture Victims Protection Act as well as the Racketeer Influenced and “”Corrupt Organizations Act” which is made to stop any kinds of human rights violations by the foreign companies on the US soil or the US companies in foreign lands. Famous oil giants such as ExxonMobil, Chevron and Occidental Petroleum all have faced law suits under ATCA. All US local laws primarily comply with fundamental human rights and international investment law standards in this field.
In recent years there have been many disputes of investors’ rights vs protection of culture and heritage. Some investors have claim that US cultural heritage protection laws negatively affect their economic interests. But standards in International Investment Laws themselves protect cultural heritage of a country and any such claims breach international investment treaties. However there have been some tensions on investor and cultural protection levels.
New US Foreign Investment Act 2007
In the wake of war on terrorism and national security, the United States introduced a new act, called Foreign Investment Act 2007 along with National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA)[17]. Under this act, there has been some changes and investment reviews are more detailed and rigorous. This is specifically true in case of sensitive sectors such as technologies, defence industries and critical infrastructure. This was done specifically in the wake of some important important investments such as nation wide opposition of CNOOC transaction (2005). Article 2 of the act explicitly states that foreign investor would not be less favourable treated as compared to domestic investors, only in case of ownership of land. Land ownership is under special law. According this act, foreign invest is explicitly prohibited in the areas mentioned below:
- Defence, the Public Order and State Security
- Banking which involves the Central Bank
- Matters which are only reserved for State
Third point does not specifically defines range of matters so it is grey area where investors can find themselves lost and also it provides legitimacy to the state and it can stop any foreign investment from entering in the US.
This act also ensures protection from expropriation and nationalisattion. Any investment or right will not be acquired by the state. Foreign direct investments (FDIs) will be treated with no discriminatory manner. In case of any such step, but in the best interest of american public, investments would be paid in full. An investment propoal can be rejected by the cabinet due to its legal nature. If the investor is found non-comlaint with the legal requirements, it would be considered voilation and the investor is taken to international arbitration tribunal.
Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs) and US International Investment Laws
The United States international investment laws regarding foreign direct investmens (FDIs) have evolved over a period of time. Below is a detailed analysis of the impacc of this evolution on foreign direct investments in the country.
History and Importance of Foreign Investment in the US
Main purpose of founding the American colonies was to collect money and earn profits for investors based in England and other European countries[18]. As soon as the the War of Independence ended, new government moved to gt rid of the foreign claims. Developing credit worthiness and inviting foreign investors were major tasks that the new nation trived to achive. The Jay Treaty committed to compensate the British for destroyed property during the revolution. Alexander Hamilton, in his report, titled “A Report Manufacturers” proposed the new government to keep its doors open for foreign investments as it would help them built their economies.
Flexible laws were made to encourage foreign investments. As a result of this flexibility, foreigners held half of the total federal debt in the middle of 19th century. California Gold Rush brought huge foreign investments in 1849[19]. Real state was most famous amongst the foreign investors. Soon oil became important and companies like as Royal Dutch Shell started investing in the US soil. Foreign investments decreased a lot during the First World War. Taxation on the foreign capital started by the end of 18th centruty when first bank was created in 1791 and another in 1816. An alien was not allowed to sit on the board of directos of the banks and other national companeis.
The Alien Land Law of 1887 didn’t allow foreigners (aliens) to own federal lands. The Know-Nothing Party tried to trigger a debate regarding discriminatory tax laws for the foreigners. Congress passed a number of statutes to restrict FDIs in certain industries such as communications and shipping.
Since 1970, there has been a dramatic increase in the foreign investment of the US. Main reason behind this was the US adopting an open door policy in case of FDIs to compete with its rival communist bloc. Also there have been many debates regaridng restrictions on certain industries and areas of investments to protect American businesses.
As mentioned earlier, the United States is the world’s largest recipient of the foreign direct investment (FDI), it is considered blood for the US economy. Due to these investments, exports of the US increase every year, millions of jobs are created and productivity improves.
In order benefit from all these “dividends for the economy”, it is important to protect investors and investments. Many US agencies have this statutory responsibility to ensure smooth inflow of the foreign direct investment. For example the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is responsible to make sure that investments are encouraged while taking care of the public interests at the same time. Investment agreements under the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIU) is responsible to review the legality of agreements and makes sure that agreements comply with the standards of international investment laws.
Impact of Contemporary Legal Regime on Foreign Direct Investment
Restriction of FDI and Constitutional Limitations
Although there are general provisions in the federal constitution that restrict the investments by foreigners in certain industries, but the United States of America has no explicit constitutional restrictions on the foreign direct investments in the country. This might be one reason why the country remains biggest recipient of FDIs in the world. There is a legal validation for these statutes. Similarly states have their own legal framework to deal with the foreign investments. But all these restrictions are justified by some other powers of the states mentioned in the constitution. Three important bases for such kind of legislation are naturalisation of the aliens, regulation of foreign commerce and providence of national defence.
Power of Congress to Exclude Aliens
As mentioned earlier, like all sovereign states, the US has legal sovereignty to exclude aliens. The aliens are Non-US persons and property. But since its inception, no state in the world has ever exercised these powers fully. No legislation has ever been made to expel aliens and thus discourage foreign investors and investments. As an independent nation, the US allows aliens to stay and operate on its soil to benefit from mutual trade and commerce. The congress however regulates the behaviour of aliens. This regulation can be in relation to ownership and acquisition of certain assets of its territory.
In case of Zschernig v. Miller[20] the Supreme Court disqualified an Oregon statute which allowed a non-resident alien to own the investment of a resident alien in the United States. The Congress can put condition on entry and stay of aliens a power which it has exercised sometimes in its history. Congress thus has powers to regulate foreign direct investments in the country. The argument presented was that only federal government had the authority to determine state’s relationship with the foreigners and their ownership rights in the US investments.
Foreign Investment and the Trust Indenture Act of 1939
The securities that have been registered under the act of 1933 have restriction to be sold to any foreign investor. Only case when a buyer can invest in the company is when these securities have been issued under the under an indenture. There should be at least a US trustee under this law and the business should be conducting itself under US laws. It is also required that business should be registered as corporation with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
These are laws of company incorporation and the Great Depression era when security was of much concern to the state. The law still affects people who want to invest in huge companies which are almost a century old. Still revisions are required in the act and the SEC should look into these.
The Investment Company Act of 1940
Under this act, a company who is doing business in the United States should register itself with US Securities and Exchange Commission. Only those companies who have been created under the laws of the United States or a state are able to sell their shares in case of interstate businesses. This act has been instrumental in restricting FDI in the form of company investment. A foreign national has to register his business in the US and provide all necessary data about his business.
Treaties and Free Movement of Capital
An overview of the US Agreements and Treaties in previous section shows that the US has signed many BITs and FTAs with other countries of the world. Due to these treaties, the country has seen dramatic rise in the FDIs in 1970s and later decades. These treaties provide a foreign nation the right to invest and establish its presence in this country. Due to these treaties movement of capital has been much increased and the country is destination to largest FDI inflow. These treaties are flexible and with many nations around the world on almost every continent and every part of the world. This provides American companies and businesses a strategic alliance with businesses around the world.
Chapter 11 of NAFTA provides member countries guarantee of any discrimination against their investors and similar favours will be provided as compared to the local investors.
Statutes Restricting Foreign Direct Investments
There are four major status which can be instrumental in putting restrictions on FDI inflow in the country. These statutes are classified as information gathering or “Disclosure Statutes”. These are given below:
International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act of 1976
The congress supported this statute so that there is a very clearly defined presidential power to collect data on international investments in the US. He can order an investigation or collect information through various agencies to assess the impact of these investments and make judgement. This is especially done in cas of the investments which are directly owned and influenced by foreign governments. He is then reponsible for conveying his analysis to the Congress. The exective agencies are the citizens of the US are revealed these information also so they know why there has been a decision to restrict certain investment in the country. The president also delegate this power to the Dommerce department to study an FDI or to the the Treasury Department if the FDI has a portfolio of investments. There were amendments to the act made in 1990 which oblige the president to publish any such information for the benefit of the general public. If a foreign government holds more than 50% of the stake in a business which is sensitive, a report is requested to the the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) so a judgement is made about the motives of the foreign government or the persons.
Domestic and Foreign Investment Improved Disclosure Act of 1977
This also information gathering statute and it actually an amendment to Section 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934[21]. According to this statute, any person who would own 5% or more interest in a company which is registered under securities and exchange commission (SEC), he or she or that entity must disclose some required information. These include citizenship and residence details etc. This statute specifically has been used to investigate foreign investors and gather data about them.
Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of 1978
This act has two important requirements; first if an alien has intention to acquire any interest in the agricultural land, he muct provide a detailed report to the Secretary of Agriculture. Final deadline is 90 days if the land has already been acquired. Secondly. All interest holders already in possession of agricultural land have 180 days to submitt their report to concerned department for evaluation.
Financial Data Improvements Act of 1990 and FDI
This act was passed so that Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) has all the access it needed to gayher data from the Bureau of the Census so its analysis is accurate as well as useful based on the factual data. The report that is presented to the US citizens should be accurate and information should be based on actual resources. The foreign direct investments (FDIs) were subject to an analysis under the act .
Chapter 10 of this act requires FDIs to provide information to the Bureau of the Census and then this data is exchanged with BEA for analysis applying powers awarded by the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act. It is also requiement of Data Improvement Act 1990 that such reports will be prepared by the Comptroller General and then it is presented to the congress for final analysis and debate.
These statutes have been used and specifically for information gathering in cases of foreigners. Also, these provide basisi for almost any type data collection on foreign investors. Three of these were passed in 1970s when huge foreign direct investments were pouring in. Although these statutes discouraged many investors as they were afraid of any government investigations and any unnecessary intervention on behalf of the government, this was necessary to keep check and balance on the investors from rival communist bloc in 1970s. Also, congress believed that certain industries are sensitive and data should be carefully analyzed about the foreign investors in these industries. For security reasons many investments were considered alarming such as the investments in banking, shipping and power. This didn’t stop FDI inflow from other countries, especially from Europe and Japan[22].
Post 9/11 Foreign Direct Investment Restrictions
World Trade Centre tragedy of 9/11 has proved to be very instrumental in changing FDI open door policy to a more restricted policy. Post 9/11 War on Terror has also has its impact in deivising policies by the US government accpeting or rejecting foreign investments. This ipact can be seen from decrease in FDI in recent years (Fig 01 in the appendix. There are many US concerns over foreign investments and scandals like the Dubai Ports World have alarmed reviewing committees. Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 regarding FDI regulation is result of such scandals.
Dubai Ports World scandal and the Act Foreign Investment of 2007
There were significant amendments in the review process of foreign investments by Committee on Foreign Investments of the US (CFIUS) due to famous Dubai Ports World scandal. There was a huge political opposition from within the US and a harsh criticism by the politicians of the western world over an Arab firm’s bid of acquisition of major US ports. Most of the them were of the view that such acquisitions and investments would increase terrorist attacks like 9/11 .
The deal had been previously approved by the President George W. Bush as well as by CFIUS. Due to this scandal, there were certain changes in legal system of the US regarding foreign investment laws. These included:
- Expansion in the legal meaning of the term “National Security”
- Amendement in 2001 USA Patriot Act by including critical infrastructure as part of national security threats
- Introduction of Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FISNA)
The act (FISNA) now requires the committee to review and investigate all previous deals as well as work on the framwork to establish a framework for evaluation of such deals. Especially review would be conducted of the investments which are owned by any foreign power or country in the rival block. Security risks would be measured and concerns would be answered.
Changes in basic acts and laws are going to effect the FDI inflow negatively. These chnages have been making prominence in past 3-4 years. Since the introduction this act, FDI inflow decreased after a record increase of decadesin 2006 (Fig.01 in Appendix). This act discouraged the foreign investor because it seems the US is no more interested in welcoming foreign investments with an open door policy.
Mergers, Acquisitions, and Takeovers
There are less concerns in case of a a new investment because the US has developed a omprehensive in frastructure in case of greenfield investment. There are acts (FISNA) and committes to review each and every detail but laws related to mergers, acquisitions, and takeovers need revision in order to comply with international investment laws. there have been many conflicts in the US courts regarding transparency and corruption of government involved investments.
Many argue that the US policy of restrictions on FDI inflows will trigger other nations to introduce similar laws and instead of becoming a global village[23], the world will again divert to be divided into blocs. As a leader of the free world, the US’s commitment to free market economy is important.
Impact on Asian investment
Asian companies, especially China and Japan have made heavy investments in the US companies and businesses. But the regime has made further investments more difficult. For example CFIUS opposed Hutchison Whampoa’s influence in Global Crossing and forced it to take out its investment in 2003.
Citing threat of national security and terrorism, the regime has made significant laws to restrict FDI inflow from influential Chinese businesses and other Asian nations. Though FISNA imposed some reforms and also made positive promises, it made CFIUS more restrictive. Figure 03 in the Appendix shows US’s restrictiveness as compared to its peers. Many countries of the world have now more open door policy as compared to the United States of America.
Conclusion
The US has very comprehensive framework for BITs and FTAs that has helped the country enter into profitable FDI agreements with other countries of the world. This framwork is result of years of evolutionary developments in the international investment laws of the United States. As compared to many European countries, there less chances of a company being nationalised by the US without full compnsation. There are certain concerns regarding dispute resolution mechanisms under international laws as the US courts have applied local or state level legislation to resolve issues related to foreign investments. As compared to peer countries, the United States’ current FDI regime is relatively restrictive. Especially after 9/11 restrictions on international investments have increased and reviews are more comprehensive and strict. This has discouraged foreign investors and thus FDI inflow has decreased over the years. Some of the reasons include equity limitations and mechanisms for screening foreign investments.
Appendix
Fig-01: FDI in the United states and US Foreign Investment ($billions)
Source: Council on Foreign Relations[24]
Fig-02: Acquisitions of US firms by Foreign Investors
Source: Council on Foreign Relations
Fig-03: FDI Restriction
Source: OECD
References
Amensty International,’HUMAN RIGHTS, TRADE AND INVESTMENT MATTERS’ (2006 The Human Rights Action Centre) PP 25
Council on Foreign Relations, ‘Foreign Investment and U.S. National Security’.(2013) <http://www.cfr.org/foreign-direct-investment/foreign-investment-us-national-security/p31477> accessed 2 May 2014.
D Yergin, ‘The Prize, the Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power’ (Free Press. 2ndedn,2009)
Fair and Equitable Treatment: Methanex vs. United States and the Nar- rowing Scope of Nafta article 1105”, Law and Policy in International Business Review 34 (2002), 343 et seq. (390)
J Holliday, ‘Rush for riches; gold fever and the making of California. Oakland, California, Berkeley and Los Angeles’ (1999 University of California Press)PP 60
J J Ferber,‘The US Foreign Direct Investment Policy: The Quest for Uniformity’ (1993 Marquette Law Review)
K Smith, ‘THE LAW OF COMPENSATION FOR EXPROPRIATED COMPANIES AND THE VALUATION METHODS USED TO ACHIEVE THAT COMPENSATION’. <https://users.wfu.edu/palmitar/Law&Valuation/Papers/2001/Smith.htm>accessed 1st May 2014.
N D Fagan, ‘The U.S. Regulatory and Institutional Framework for FDI’[2013] New York: Vale Columbia Center on Sustainable International Investment
OECD, .’Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in International Investment Law’(2005), Washington: OECD
OECD, ‘Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment in International Investment Law’, s.l.: (2008)Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
M Segger, W M Gehring, and A Newcombe,’Sustainable Development in World’ (2010 Kluwer Law International) Alphen aan den Rijn
M V Seitzinger, ‘Foreign Investment in the United States:Major Federal Statutory Restrictions’, (2013 Congressional Research Service)
Q Zhang, ‘On Public Interest in International Investment Agreements’ (2012) <http://dosya.marmara.edu.tr/huk/Sempozyumyay%C4%B1nlar%C4%B1/ipekyolucanlan%C4%B1yor/Prof.Dr.QinglinZHANG.pdf> accessed 3rd May 2014
R Dolzer and C Schreue ‘Principles of International Investment Law (2008), Oxford: World Investment Report’, UNCTAD
S Singh and S Sooraj, ‘Investor-State Dispute Settlement Mechanism: The Quest for a Workable Roadmap’[2013] PL88
UNCTAD, ‘FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT: UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II’, (2012),UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT: New York
US State Department.’Apotex Inc. v. United States of America(2010) <http://www.state.gov/s/l/c27648.htm> accessed 2nd May 2014
USGAO, ‘Laws and Policies Regulating Foreign Investment in 10 Countries’(2008, United States Government Accountability Office)
USTR, ’ Investment: The Office of the United States Trade Representative’ (2014) <http://www.ustr.gov/trade-topics/services-investment/investment> accessed 29 April 2014.
W Lavey, and A Schlager, ‘New US Foreign Investment Act’(2009) http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/cbl/US_Foreign_Invest_Act.pdf>accessed 30 04 2014
WTO, .’ Pre-WTO Legal Texts’ (2014) <http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/prewto_legal_e.htm> Accessed 1st May 2014.
[1] M Segger, M Gehring and A Newcombe, ‘Sustainable Development in World’ (2010 Kluwer Law International) Alphen aan den Rijn
[2] USGAO, ‘Laws and Policies Regulating Foreign Investment in 10 Countries’(2008, United States Government Accountability Office)
[3] WTO, .’ Pre-WTO Legal Texts’ (2014) <http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/prewto_legal_e.htm> Accessed 1st May 2014
[4] OECD, .’Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in International Investment Law’(2005), Washington: OECD
[5] USTR, ’ Investment: The Office of the United States Trade Representative’ (2014) <http://www.ustr.gov/trade-topics/services-investment/investment> accessed 29 April 2014.
[6] R Dolzer and C Schreue, ‘Principles of International Investment Law (2008), Oxford: World Investment Report’, UNCTAD
[7] OECD, ‘Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment in International Investment Law’, s.l.: (2008)Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
[8] UNCTAD, ‘FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT: UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II’, (2012),UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT: New York
[9] Fair and Equitable Treatment: Methanex vs. United States and the Nar- rowing Scope of Nafta article 1105”, Law and Policy in International Business Review 34 (2002), 343 et seq. (390)
[10] D Yergin, ‘The Prize, the Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power’ (Free Press. 2ndedn,2009)
[11] K Smith, ‘THE LAW OF COMPENSATION FOR EXPROPRIATED COMPANIES AND THE VALUATION METHODS USED TO ACHIEVE THAT COMPENSATION’. <https://users.wfu.edu/palmitar/Law&Valuation/Papers/2001/Smith.htm>accessed 1st May 2014.
[12] US State Department.’Apotex Inc. v. United States of America(2010) <http://www.state.gov/s/l/c27648.htm> accessed 2nd May 2014
[13] S Singh and S Sooraj, ‘Investor-State Dispute Settlement Mechanism: The Quest for a Workable Roadmap’[2013] PL88
[14] Q Zhang,‘On Public Interest in International Investment Agreements’ (2012) <http://dosya.marmara.edu.tr/huk/Sempozyumyay%C4%B1nlar%C4%B1/ipekyolucanlan%C4%B1yor/Prof.Dr.QinglinZHANG.pdf> accessed 3rd May 2014
[15] Q Zhang, ‘On Public Interest in International Investment Agreements’ (2012) <http://dosya.marmara.edu.tr/huk/Sempozyumyay%C4%B1nlar%C4%B1/ipekyolucanlan%C4%B1yor/Prof.Dr.QinglinZHANG.pdf> accessed 3rd May 2014
[16] Amensty International,’HUMAN RIGHTS, TRADE AND INVESTMENT MATTERS’ (The Human Rights Action Centre 2006) 25
[17] W Lavey, and A Schlager, ‘New US Foreign Investment Act’(2009) http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/cbl/US_Foreign_Invest_Act.pdf>accessed 30th April 2014
[18]M V Seitzinger, ‘Foreign Investment in the United States:Major Federal Statutory Restrictions, (2013 Congressional Research Service)
[19] J Holliday, ‘Rush for riches; gold fever and the making of California. Oakland, California, Berkeley and Los Angeles’ (1999 University of California Press)PP 60
[20] J J Ferber,‘The US Foreign Direct Investment Policy: The Quest for Uniformity’ (1993 Marquette Law Review)
[21] J Holliday, ‘Rush for riches; gold fever and the making of California. Oakland, California, Berkeley and Los Angeles’ (1999 University of California Press)PP 60
[22] N D Fagan, ‘The U.S. Regulatory and Institutional Framework for FDI’[2013] New York: Vale Columbia Center on Sustainable International Investment
[23] USGAO ‘Laws and Policies Regulating Foreign Investment in 10 Countries’(2008, United States Government Accountability Office)
[24] Council on Foreign Relations, ‘Foreign Investment and U.S. National Security’.(2013) <http://www.cfr.org/foreign-direct-investment/foreign-investment-us-national-security/p31477> accessed 2 May 2014.
Research Zone 