- Table of Cases
- Table of International Treaties and Conventions
- Table of Rules and Resolutions
- Table of Legislation
- List of Contributors
- Policy Issues
- Investment, Investor, Nationality, and Shareholders
- Applicable Law
- Multilateral Investment Rules Revisited
- Interactions Between Investment and Non-investment Obligations
- Trade and Investment
- Admission and Establishment
- Standards of Treatment
- Coverage of Taxation Under Modern Investment Treaties
- Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment
- Emergency Exceptions: State of Necessity and <i>Force Majeure</i>
- Investment Insurance
- State Responsibility and Attribution
- Regulatory Transparency
- Corporate Social Responsibility
- Methods of Dispute Resolution
- Procedural Transparency
- Independence, Impartiality, and Duty of Disclosure of Arbitrators.
- Consent to Arbitration
- Jurisdiction and Admissibility
- The Jurisdictional Threshold of a Prima-Facie Case
- The Relationship between International Tribunals and Domestic Courts
- Parallel Proceedings
- Compensation, Damages, and Valuation
- Review of Awards
- An Appellate System in International Investment Arbitration?
- Compliance and Enforcement
- A Doctrine of Precedent?
- Tribunal's Powers versus Party Autonomy
Abstract and Keywords
Today, international investment law arbitrations include claims for two broad categories of state responsibility: nondiscrimination and fair and equitable treatment. It is these two categories of treatment owed by states to investors to which this article is devoted. A recent bilateral investment treaty award, Saluka v Czech Republic, may be demonstrative of this trend. Saluka was a classical non-discrimination award that was not based upon a non-discrimination provision, such as national treatment, because one was missing from the treaty. The tribunal based its findings for the successful claimant upon the treaty's minimum standard of treatment provision instead. The goal of this article is merely to note that, as a matter of doctrine, it is becoming increasingly difficult to discern any difference between the ways in which non-discrimination and minimum standard provisions are actually being interpreted and applied.
Todd Grierson-Weiler, Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary and the Washington College of Law.
Ian A. Laird is Special Legal Consultant, Fulbright & Jaworski LLP, Washington, DC.
Access to the complete content on Oxford Handbooks Online requires a subscription or purchase. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription.
If you have purchased a print title that contains an access token, please see the token for information about how to register your code.