Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T05:35:57.939Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2020

August Reinisch  and
Christoph Schreuer
August Reinisch
Affiliation:
University of Vienna
Christoph Schreuer
Affiliation:
Zeiler Partners, Vienna
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
International Protection of Investments
The Substantive Standards
 , pp. 999 - 1039
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abdala, Manuel A. and Spiller, Pablo T., ‘Damage Valuation of Indirect Expropriation in International Arbitration Cases’ (2003) 14 American Review of International Arbitration 447–60.Google Scholar
Abs, Hermann and Shawcross, Hartley, ‘Draft Convention on Investment Abroad’ in ‘The Proposed Convention to Protect Private Foreign Investment: A Round Table’ (1960) 9 Journal of Public Law 115–24.Google Scholar
Acconci, Pia, ‘Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment and International Law on Foreign Investment’ in Muchlinski, Peter, Ortino, Frederico and Schreuer, Christoph (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law 363–406 (Oxford University Press, 2008).Google Scholar
Acconci, Pia, ‘Most-favoured-nation Treatment’ in Qureshi, Asif and Gao, Xuan (eds.), International Economic Law, vol. IV (Routledge, 2011) 232–76.Google Scholar
Adede, Andronico, ‘A Fresh Look at the Meaning of the Doctrine of Denial of Justice under International Law’ (1976) 14 Canadian Yearbook of International Law 73–95.Google Scholar
Aguilar Alvarez, Guillermo and Montt, Santiago, ‘Investments, Fair and Equitable Treatment and the Principle of Respect for the Integrity of the Law of the Host State: Toward a Jurisprudence of Modesty in Investment Treaty Arbitration’ in Arsanjani, Mahnoush H., Cogan, Jacob Katz, Sloane, Robert D. and Wiessner, Siegfried (eds.), Looking to the Future: Essays on International Law in Honor of W. Michael Reisman (Brill/Nijhoff, 2010) 579–606.Google Scholar
Aldrich, George H., The Jurisprudence of the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal: An Analysis of the Decisions of the Tribunal (Clarendon Press, 1996).Google Scholar
Aldrich, George H., ‘What Constitutes a Compensable Taking of Property? The Decisions of the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal’ (1994) 88 American Journal of International Law 585–610.Google Scholar
Alexandrov, Stanimir A., ‘Breaches of Contract and Breaches of Treaty: The Jurisdiction of Treaty-based Arbitration Tribunals to Decide Breach of Contract Claims in SGS v. Pakistan and SGS v. Philippines’ (2004) 5 Journal of World Investment & Trade 555–77.Google Scholar
Alexandrov, Stanimir A., ‘The Evolution of the Full Protection and Security Standard’ in Kinnear, Meg, Fischer, Geraldine, Almeida, Jara Minguez, Torres, Luisa Fernanda, and Bidegain, Mairée Uran (eds.), Building International Investment Law: The First 50 Years of ICSID (Wolters Kluwer, 2016) 319–29.Google Scholar
Ali, Arif and Tallent, Kassi, ‘The Effect of BITs on the International Body of Investment Law: The Significance of Fair and Equitable Treatment Provisions’ in Rogers, Catherine A., Alford, Roger P. (eds.), The Future of Investment Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2009) 199–226.Google Scholar
AlQurashi, Zeyad A., ‘Indirect Expropriation in the Field of Petroleum’ (2004) 5 Journal of World Investment & Trade 897–926.Google Scholar
Alvarez, Guillermo Aguilar and Park, William W., ‘The New Face of Investment Arbitration: NAFTA Chapter 11’ (2003) 28 Yale Journal of International Law 365–408.Google Scholar
Alvarez, José E., ‘A Bit on Custom’ (2009) 42 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 17–80.Google Scholar
Alvarez-Jiménez, Alberto, ‘Minimum Standard of Treatment of Aliens, Fair and Equitable Treatment of Foreign Investors, Customary International Law and the Diallo Case Before the International Court of Justice’ (2008) 9 Journal of World Investment & Trade 51–70.Google Scholar
Alvarez-Jimenez, Alberto, ‘The Methanex Final Award: An Analysis from the Perspectives of Environmental Regulatory Authorities and Foreign Investors’ (2006) 23 Journal of International Arbitration 427–34.Google Scholar
Amerasinghe, Chittharanjan F., ‘Issues of Compensation for the Taking of Alien Property in the Light of Recent Cases and Practice’ (1992) 31 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 22–65.Google Scholar
Amerasinghe, Chittharanjan F., ‘Some Aspects of the Quantum of Compensation Payable Upon Expropriation’ (1993) Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law) 477–83.Google Scholar
American Law Institute, Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, vol. II (1986).Google Scholar
Andenas, Mads and Zleptnig, Stefan, ‘Proportionality: WTO Law in Comparative Perspective’ (2007) 42 Texas International Law Journal 372–423.Google Scholar
Angelet, Nicolas, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment’ in Wolfrum, Rüdiger (ed.), International Economic Law. The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015) 254–64.Google Scholar
Antony, Jude, ‘Umbrella Clauses Since SGS v. Pakistan and SGS v. Philippines – A Developing Consensus’ (2013) 29 Arbitration International 607–39.Google Scholar
Anzilotti, Dionisio, ‘La responsabilité internationale des États a raison des dommages soufferts par des étrangers’ (1906) 13 Revue générale de droit international public 5.Google Scholar
Anzorena, C. Ignacio Suarez, Wisner, Robert, Coe, Jack J. Jr and Salomon, Claudia T., ‘International Commercial Dispute Resolution’ (2006) 40 International Lawyer 251–62.Google Scholar
Appleton, Barry, ‘MFN and International Investment Treaty Arbitration: Have We Lost Sight of the Forest Through the Trees?’ (2005) 1 Appleton’s International Investment Law & Arbitration News 10–24.Google Scholar
Arenhart, Fernando Santos, ‘International Investment Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard and the Role of Good Faith’ (2013) 10 Brazilian Journal of International Law 154–70.Google Scholar
Ascensio, Hervé, Droit International économique (Themis droit /Presses Universitaires de France, 2018).Google Scholar
Atik, Jeffery, ‘Fairness and Managed Foreign Direct Investment’ (1994–1995) 32 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 1–42.Google Scholar
Attanasio, David and Sainati, Tatiana, ‘Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v. The Argentine Republic ICSID’ (2017) 111 American Journal of International Law 744–50.Google Scholar
Baetens, Freya, ‘Discrimination on the Basis of Nationality: Determining Likeness in Human Rights and Investment Law’ in Schill, Stephan W. (ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (Oxford University Press, 2010) 279–315.Google Scholar
Ball, Markham, ‘Assessing Damages in Claims by Investors Against States’ (2001) 16 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 408–29.Google Scholar
Banifatemi, Yas, ‘The Emerging Jurisprudence on the Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment in Investment Arbitration’ in Bjorklund, Andrea K., Laird, Ian A. and Ripinsky, Sergey (eds.), Investment Treaty Law, Current Issues III: Remedies in International Investment Law: Emerging Jurisprudence of International Investment Law (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2008) 239–72.Google Scholar
Banks, Kevin, ‘NAFTA’s Article 1110: Can Regulation Be Expropriation?’ (1999) 5 NAFTA: Law & Business Review of the Americas 499–521.Google Scholar
Batifort, Simon and Heath, J. Benton, ‘The New Debate on the Interpretation of MFN Clauses in Investment Treaties: Putting the Brakes on Multilateralization’ (2017) 111 American Journal of International Law 873–913.Google Scholar
Baughen, Simon, ‘Expropriation and Environmental Regulation: The Lessons of NAFTA Chapter 11’ (2006) 18 Journal of Environmental Law 207–28.Google Scholar
Beauvais, Joel C., ‘Regulatory Expropriations Under NAFTA: Emerging Principles & Lingering Doubts’ (2002) 10 NYU Environmental Law Journal 245–96.Google Scholar
Been, Vicki, ‘Does an International “Regulatory Takings” Doctrine Make Sense?’ (2002) 11 NYU Environmental Law Journal 49–63.Google Scholar
Been, Vicki and Beauvais, Joel C., ‘The Global Fifth Amendment? NAFTA’s Investment Protections and the Misguided Quest for an International “Regulatory Takings” Doctrine’ (2003) 78 New York University Law Review 30–143.Google Scholar
Been, Vicki, Golove, David, Legum, Bart, Perezcano, Hugo, Kinnear, Meg, Wallach, Lori, Lew, Darryl and Kum, Mattias, ‘Roundtable Discussion on Domestic Challenges if Multilateral Investment Treaties are Interpreted to Expand the Compensation Requirements for Regulatory Expropriation Beyond a Signatory State’s Domestic Law’ (2002) 11 NYU Environmental Law Journal 208–63.Google Scholar
Beharry, Christina L., ‘Lawful Versus Unlawful Expropriation: Heads I Win, Tails You Lose’ (2016) 3 Journal of Damages in International Investment Arbitration 57–97.Google Scholar
Ben Hamida, Walid, ‘Clause de la Nation la Plus Favorisée et mécanismes de règlement des différends: Que dit l’histoire?’ (2007) 4 Journal de Droit International 1127–62.Google Scholar
Ben Hamida, Walid, ‘La clause relative au respect des engagements dans les traités d’investissement’ in Leben, Charles (ed.), Contentieux arbitral transnational relatif à l’investissement international: Nouveaux développements (Pedone, 2006) 53–106.Google Scholar
Ben Hamida, Walid, ‘MFN Clauses and Procedural Rights’ in Weiler, Todd (ed.), Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law, vol. I (JurisNet, 2008) 231–46.Google Scholar
Bernal-Corredor, Diego, ‘Regulatory Expropriation Developments: Did Metaclad Comply With All the Dark Premonitions?’ (2009) 15 International Law, Revista Colombiana de Derecho Internacional 279–314.Google Scholar
Bernardini, Piero, ‘Investment Protection under Bilateral Investment Treaties and Investment Contracts’ (2001) 2 Journal of World Investment & Trade 235–47.Google Scholar
Bernasconi-Osterwalder, Nathalie, ‘Giving Arbitrators Carte Blanche – Fair and Equitable Treatment in Investment Treaties’ in Lim, Chin Leng (ed.), Alternative Visions of the International Law on Foreign Investment: Essays in Honour of Muthucumaraswamy Sornarajah (Cambridge University Press, 2016) 324–45.Google Scholar
Bishop, Doak R., Crawford, James and Reisman, Michael, Foreign Investment Disputes: Cases, Materials and Commentary (Kluwer Law International, 2005).Google Scholar
Bishop, Doak R., Crawford, James and Reisman, Michael, Foreign Investment Disputes: Cases, Materials and Commentary, 2nd ed. (Kluwer Law International, 2014).Google Scholar
Bjorklund, Andrea K., ‘National Treatment’ in Reinisch, August (ed.), Standards of Investment Protection (Oxford University Press, 2009) 29–58.Google Scholar
Bjorklund, Andrea K., ‘Reconciling State Sovereignty and Investor Protection in Denial of Justice Claims’ (2005) 45 Virginia Journal of International Law 809–45.Google Scholar
Bjorklund, Andrea K., ‘The National Treatment Obligation’ in Yannaca-Small, Katia (ed.), Arbitration Under International Investment Agreements: A Guide to the Key Issues (Oxford University Press, 2010) 411–44.Google Scholar
Blades, Bryan W., ‘The Exhausting Question of Local Remedies: Expropriation Under NAFTA Chapter 11’ (2006) 8 Oregon Review of International Law 31–132.Google Scholar
Bonnitcha, Jonathan, Poulsen, Lauge N. Skovgaard, and Waibel, Michael, The Political Economy of the Investment Treaty Regime (Oxford University Press, 2017).Google Scholar
Bonnitcha, Jonathan, Substantive Protection under Investment Treaties: A Legal and Economic Analysis (Cambridge University Press, 2014).Google Scholar
Boone Barrera, Enrique, ‘The Case for Removing the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard from NAFTA’ (2017) CIGI Papers No. 128 – April 2017.Google Scholar
Borchard, Edwin M., ‘“Responsibility of States”, at the Hague Codification Conference’ (1930) 24 American Journal of International Law 517–40.Google Scholar
Borchard, Edwin M., The Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad or The Law of International Claims (The Banks Law Publishing Co., 1925).Google Scholar
Borchard, Edwin M., ‘The Law of Responsibility of States for Damage Done in their Territory to the Person or Property of Foreigners’ (1929) 23 American Journal of International Law. Special Supplement 131–239.Google Scholar
Borchard, Edwin M., ‘The “Minimum Standard” of the Treatment of Aliens’ (1940) 38 Michigan Law Review 445–61.Google Scholar
Braumann, Céline and Reinisch, August, ‘Effet Utile’ in Klingler, Joseph, Parkhomenko, Yuri and Salonidis, Constantinos (eds.), Between the Lines of the Vienna Convention? Canons and Other Principles of Interpretation in Public International Law (Wolters Kluwer, 2019) 47–72.Google Scholar
Brower, Charles H., ‘S.D. Myers, Inc. v. Canada, and Attorney General of Canada v. S.D. Myers, Inc., [2004] F.C. 38’ (2004) 98 American Journal of International Law 339–48.Google Scholar
Brower, Charles, ‘Structure, Legitimacy and NAFTA’s Investment Chapter’ (2003) 36 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 37–94.Google Scholar
Brower, Charles H., Belman, Murray, Thomas, Christopher and Coe, Jack, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment under NAFTA’s Investment Chapter’ (2002) 96 Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law 9–22.Google Scholar
Brower, Charles N. and Brueschke, Jason D., The Iran–United States Claims Tribunal (Martinus Nijhoff, 1998).Google Scholar
Brower, Charles H. II, ‘Structure, Legitimacy and NAFTA’s Investment Chapter’ (2003) 37 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 37–94.Google Scholar
Brower, Charles H. II, ‘Why the FTC Notes of Interpretation Constitute a Partial Amendment of NAFTA Article 1105’ (2006) 46 Virginia Journal of International Law 347–64.Google Scholar
Brown, Chester (ed.), Commentaries on Selected Model Investment Treaties (Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Brown, Chester, ‘Factory at Chorzów (Germany v. Poland) (1927–1928)’ in Bjorge, Eirik and Miles, Cameron (eds.), Landmark Cases in Public International Law (Hart Publishing, 2017) 61–88.Google Scholar
Brownlie, Ian, ‘Legal Status of Natural Resources in International Law (Some Aspects)’ (1979) 162 Recueil des Cours 245–317.Google Scholar
Brownlie, Ian, Principles of Public International Law, 7th ed. (Oxford University Press, 2008).Google Scholar
Brunetti, Maurizio, ‘The Iran–United States Claims Tribunal, NAFTA Chapter 11, and the Doctrine of Indirect Expropriation’ (2000) 2 Chicago Journal of International Law 203–212.Google Scholar
Bücheler, Gebhard, Proportionality in Investor–State Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2015).Google Scholar
Bullington, John P., ‘Problems of International Law in the Mexican Constitution of 1917’ (1927) 21 American Journal of International Law 685–705.Google Scholar
Burns, Sara Sargeantson, ‘Murphy Exploration & Production Company – International v. The Republic of Ecuador, UNCITRAL Final Award, February 10, 2017’ (2017) 4 Journal of Damages in International Arbitration 125–38.Google Scholar
Byrne, Katharina A., ‘Regulatory Expropriation and State Intent’ (2000) Canadian Yearbook of International Law 89–120.Google Scholar
Calamita, N. Jansen and Zelazna, Ewa, ‘Most-Favoured-Nation Clauses and the Centrality and Limits of General Principles’ in Gattini, Andrea, Tanzi, Attila and Fontanelli, Filippo (eds.), General Principles of Law and International Investment Arbitration (Brill – Nijhoff, 2018) 398–428.Google Scholar
Calvo, Carlos, Le Droit International théorique et practique, 3rd ed. (Guillaumin, 1881).Google Scholar
Campbell, Christopher, ‘House of Cards: The Relevance of Legitimate Expectations under Fair and Equitable Treatment Provisions in Investment Treaty Law’ (2013) 30 Journal of International Arbitration 361–79.Google Scholar
Carfagnini, Michael, ‘Too Low a Threshold: Bilcon v Canada and the International Minimum Standard of Treatment’ (2016) 53 Canadian Yearbook of International Law 244–77.Google Scholar
Carmody, Chios, ‘Obligations versus Rights: Substantive Difference between WTO and International Investment Law’ (2017) 12 Asian Journal of WTO & International Health Law and Policy 75–104.Google Scholar
Caron, David D. and Shirlow, Esmé, ‘Most-Favored-Nation Treatment: Substantive Protection: MTD v. Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7’ in Kinnear, Meg, Fischer, Geraldine R., Almeida, Jara Mínguez, Torres, Luisa Fernanda and Bidegain, Mairée Uran (eds.), Building International Investment Law: The First 50 Years of ICSID (Kluwer Law International, 2016) 399–414.Google Scholar
Casanova, Millán Requena, ‘La Solución de controversias en los modelos de APPRI: Cláusulas tradicionales y nuevas tendencias’ (2012) 24 Revista Electrónica de Estudios Internacionales 1–35.Google Scholar
Castaneda, Jorge, ‘La Charte des Droits et devoirs économiques des états, note sur son processus d’élaboration’ (1974) 20 Annuaire Français de Droit International 31–56.Google Scholar
Cavazos Villanueva, Gabriel, The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard: The Mexican Experience (VDM Verlag, 2008).Google Scholar
Cazala, Julien, ‘La clause de respect des engagements’ in Leben, Charles (ed.), Droit international des investissements et de l’arbitrage transnational (Pedone, 2015) 347–73.Google Scholar
Chalamish, Efraim, ‘The Future of Bilateral Investment Treaties: A De Facto Multilateral Agreement?’ (2009) 34 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 303–54.Google Scholar
Charpentier, Jean, ‘De la non-discrimination dans les investissements’ (1963) 9 Annuaire Français de Droit International 35–63.Google Scholar
Chauvel, Louis-Marie, ‘The Influence of General Exceptions on the Interpretation of National Treatment in International Investment Law – A influência das exceções gerais na interpretação do tratamento nacional no direito internacional dos investimentos’ (2017) 14 Brazilian Journal of International Law 140–59.Google Scholar
Cheng, Bin, ‘Expropriation in International Law’ (1954) 21 The Solicitor 98–100.Google Scholar
Cheng, Bin, ‘The Rationale for Compensation for Expropriation’ (1958) 44 Transactions of the Grotius Society 267–310.Google Scholar
Choharis, Peter Charles, ‘U.S. Courts and the International Law of Expropriation: Toward a New Model for Breach of Contract’ (2006) 80 Southern California Law Review 1–87.Google Scholar
Choi, Won-Mog, ‘Like Products’ in International Trade Law: Towards a Consistent GATT/WTO Jurisprudence (Oxford University Press, 2003).Google Scholar
Chong, Yee Leong and Neelakantan, Vivekananda, ‘Non-discrimination between Foreign and Domestic Investment in ASEAN’ (2015) 32 Journal of International Arbitration 387–412.Google Scholar
Choudhury, Barnali, ‘Evolution or Devolution? – Defining Fair and Equitable Treatment in International Investment Law’ (2005) 6 Journal of World Investment & Trade 297–320.Google Scholar
Choukroune, Leïla, ‘National Treatment in International Investment Law and Arbitration: A relative Standard for Autonomous Public Regulation and Sovereign Development’ in Sanders, Anselm Kamperman (ed.), The Principle of National Treatment in International Economic Law: Trade, Investment and Intellectual Property (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014) 189–90.Google Scholar
Christie, George C., ‘What Constitutes a Taking of Property under International Law’ (1962) 33 British Yearbook of International Law 307–38.Google Scholar
Chukwumerije, Okezie, ‘Interpreting Most-Favoured-Nations Clauses in Investment Treaty Arbitrations’ (2007) 8 Journal of World Investment & Trade 597–646.Google Scholar
Clagett, Brice M., ‘The Expropriation Issue Before the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal: Is “Just Compensation” Required by International Law or Not?’ (1984) 16 Law and Policy in International Business 813–91.Google Scholar
Clough, Daniel, ‘Regulatory Expropriations and Competition under NAFTA’ (2005) 6 Journal of World Investment & Trade 553–84.Google Scholar
Çoban, Ali R., Protection of Property Rights within the European Convention on Human Rights (Ashgate Aldershot, 2004).Google Scholar
Coe, Jack Jr, ‘Taking Stock of NAFTA Chapter 11 in its Tenth Year: An Interim Sketch of Selected Themes, Issues and Methods’ (2003) 36 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 1381–460.Google Scholar
Coe, Jack Jr and Rubins, Noah, ‘Regulatory Expropriation and the Tecmed Case: Context and Contributions’ in Weiler, Todd (ed.), International Investment Law and Arbitration: Leading Cases from the ICSID, NAFTA, Bilateral Treaties and Customary International Law (Cameron May, 2005) 597–668.Google Scholar
Cole, Tony, ‘The Boundaries of Most Favored National Treatment in International Investment Law’ (2012) 33 Michigan Journal of International Law 537–86.Google Scholar
Collins, David, ‘National treatment in emerging market investment treaties’ in Sanders, Anselm Kamperman (ed.), The Principle of National Treatment in International Economic Law: Trade, Investment and Intellectual Property (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014) 169–70.Google Scholar
Comeaux, Paul E. and Kinsella, N. Stephan, Protecting Foreign Investment Under International Law, Legal Aspects of Political Risk (Oceana Publications, 1997).Google Scholar
Cordero Moss, Giuditta, ‘Full Protection and Security’ in Reinisch, August (ed.), Standards of Investment Protection (Oxford University Press, 2008) 131–50.Google Scholar
Correa, Carlos M., ‘Investment Protection in Bilateral and Free Trade Agreements: Implications for the Granting of Compulsory Licences’ (2004) 26 Michigan Journal of International Law 331–53.Google Scholar
Cottier, Thomas and Krajewski, Markus, ‘What Role for Non-Discrimination and Prudential Standards in International Financial Law?’ (2010) 13 Journal of International Economic Law 817–35.Google Scholar
Coulombe, Louis-Philippe, ‘Duplicating the Umbrella Clause? Some Thoughts on Contractual Expectations and the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard’ in Laird, Ian A., Sabahi, Borzu, Sourgens, Frédéric G. and Weiler, Todd J. (eds.), Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law (JurisNet, 2014) 101–32.Google Scholar
Coulombe, Louis-Philippe and Bandali, Sabrina A., ‘Energy Contracts and BITs – Is it Fair and Equitable to be Under the Umbrella?’ in Laird, Ian A., Sabahi, Borzu, Sourgens, Frédéric G. and Weiler, Todd J. (eds.), Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law (JurisNet, 2014) 165–91.Google Scholar
Crawford, James, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law, 8th ed. (Oxford University Press, 2012).Google Scholar
Crawford, James, ‘Treaty and Contract in Investment Arbitration’ (2008) 24 Arbitration International 351–74.Google Scholar
Crawford, James and Mertenskötter, Paul, ‘Chapter 3: The Use of the ILC’s Attribution Rules in Investment Arbitration’ in Kinnear, Meg, Fischer, Geraldine, Almeida, Jara Minguez, Torres, Luisa Fernanda and Bidegain, Mairée Uran (eds.), Building International Investment Law: The First Fifty Years of ICSID (Kluwer Law International, 2015) 27–42.Google Scholar
Cremades, Bernardo M. and Cairns, David J. A., ‘Contract and Treaty Claims and Choice of Forum in Foreign Investment Disputes’ in Horn, Norbert and Kröll, Stefan M. (eds.), Arbitrating Foreign Investment Disputes: Procedural and Substantive Legal Aspects (Kluwer Law International, 2004) 325–51.Google Scholar
Crépet-Daigremont, Claire, La clause de la nation la plus favorisée (Éditions Pedone, 2015).Google Scholar
Cumming, Joseph and Froehlich, Robert, ‘NAFTA Chapter XI and Canada’s Environmental Sovereignty: Investment Flows, Article 1110 and Alberta’s Water Act’ (2007) 65 University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review 107–35.Google Scholar
Davitti, Daria, ‘On the Meanings of International Investment Law and International Human Rights Law: The Alternative Narrative of Due Diligence’ (2012) 12 Human Rights Law Review 421–53.Google Scholar
Dawson, Frank Griffith and Weston, Burns H., ‘“Prompt, Adequate and Effective”: A Universal Standard of Compensation?’ (1962) 30 Fordham Law Review 727–59.Google Scholar
De Arechaga, Eduardo Jiminez, ‘State Responsibility for the Nationalization of Foreign Owned Property’ (1978) 11 New York University Journal of International Law and Policy 179–95.Google Scholar
De Brabandere, Eric, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment and (Full) Protection and Security in African Investment Treaties between Generality and Contextual Specificity’ (2017) 18 Journal of World Investment & Trade 530–55.Google Scholar
De Brabandere, Eric, ‘States’ Reassertion of Control over International Investment Law: (Re)Defining “Fair and Equitable Treatment” and “Indirect Expropriation”’ in Kulick, Andreas (ed.), Reassertion of Control over the Investment Treaty Regime (Cambridge University Press, 2017) 285–308.Google Scholar
De Nanteuil, Arnaud, Droit international de l’investissement (Éditions Pedone, 2014).Google Scholar
De Nanteuil, Arnaud, Droit international de l’investissement, 2nd ed. (Éditions Pedone, 2017).Google Scholar
De Nanteuil, Arnaud (ed.), L’accès de l’investisseur à la justice arbitrale. Réflexions sur la procéduralisation du droit international de l’investissement (Éditions Pedone, 2015).Google Scholar
De Sousa Nunes Vicente, Marta, ‘What is the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard?: Content and Sources’ (2015) 9 World Arbitration and Mediation Review 51–83.Google Scholar
De Souza Fleury, Raúl Pereira, ‘Umbrella Clauses: A Trend Towards Its Elimination’ (2015) 31 Arbitration International 679–91.Google Scholar
De Vietri, Raphael, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment for Foreign Investment: What is the Current Standard at International Law?’ (2011) 14 International Trade and Business Law Review 414–21.Google Scholar
De Visscher, Charles, ‘Le déni de justice en droit international’ (1935) 52 Recueil des Cours 365–442.Google Scholar
Del Duca, Patrick, ‘The Rule of Law: Mexico’s Approach to Expropriation Disputes in the Face of Investment Globalization’ (2003) 51 UCLA Law Review 35–141.Google Scholar
Delaney, Jo, ‘“Expropriation” and “Fair and Equitable Treatment” Standards in Recent ICSID Jurisprudence’ in Hofmann, Rainer and Tams, Christian J. (eds.), The International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID): Taking Stock after Forty Years (Nomos, 2007) 73–8.Google Scholar
Denza, Eileen, ‘Bilateral Investment Treaties and EU Rules on Free Transfer: Comment on Commission v. Austria, Commission v. Sweden and Commission v. Finland’ (2010) 35 European Law Review 263–74.Google Scholar
Deutsch, Richard D., ‘An ICSID Tribunal Values Illegal Expropriation Damages from Date of the Award: What Does This Mean for Upcoming Expropriation Claims? A Case Note and Commentary on ADC v. Hungary’ (2007) 4(3) Transnational Dispute Management 1–12.Google Scholar
Dhooge, Lucien J., ‘Foreign Investors versus Environmentalists: Whose Green Counts in the North American Free Trade Agreement?’ (2001) 10 Minnesota Journal of Global Trade 209–89.Google Scholar
Dhooge, Lucien J., ‘The Revenge of the Trail Smelter: Environmental Regulation as Expropriation Pursuant to the North American Free Trade Agreement’ (2001) 38 American Business Law Journal 475–558.Google Scholar
Diebold, Nicolas F, ‘Standards of Non-Discrimination in International Economic Law’ (2011) 60 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 831–65.Google Scholar
Diehl, Alexandra, The Core Standard of International Investment Protection: Fair and Equitable Treatment (Kluwer Law International, 2012).Google Scholar
DiMascio, Nicholas and Pauwelyn, Joost, ‘Nondiscrimination in Trade and Investment Treaties: Worlds Apart or Two Sides of the Same Coin?’ (2008) 102 American Journal of International Law 48–89.Google Scholar
Dimsey, Mariel, The Resolution of International Investment Disputes: Challenges and Solutions (Eleven International Publishing, 2008) 54–64.Google Scholar
Dinstein, Yoram, ‘Deprivation of Property of Foreigners under International Law’ in Ando, Nisuke, McWhinney, Edward and Wolfrum, Rüdiger (eds.), Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda (Brill, 2002) 849–69.Google Scholar
Djajic, Sanja, ‘Contractual Claims in Treaty-based Arbitration – with or without Umbrella and Forum Selection Clauses’ (2011) 14 International Arbitration Law Review 173–81.Google Scholar
Dolzer, Rudolf, Eigentum, Enteignung und Entschädigung im geltenden Völkerrecht (Springer, 1985).Google Scholar
Dolzer, Rudolf, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment: A Key Standard in Investment Treaties’ (2005) 39 The International Lawyer 87–106.Google Scholar
Dolzer, Rudolf, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment: Today’s Contours’ (2013) 12 Santa Clara Journal of International Law 7–33.Google Scholar
Dolzer, Rudolf, ‘Indirect Expropriation of Alien Property’ (1986) 1 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 41–65.Google Scholar
Dolzer, Rudolf, ‘Indirect Expropriations: New Developments?’ (2002) 11 NYU Environmental Law Journal 64–93.Google Scholar
Dolzer, Rudolf, ‘Meistbegünstigungsklauseln in Investitionsschutzverträgen’ in Bröhmer, Jürgen (ed.), Internationale Gemeinschaft und Menschenrechte: Festschrift für Georg Ress zum 70. Geburtstag am 21. Januar 2005 (Carl Heymanns Köln, 2005) 47–54.Google Scholar
Dolzer, Rudolf, ‘New Foundations of the Law of Expropriation of Alien Property’ (1981) 75 American Journal of International Law 553–89.Google Scholar
Dolzer, Rudolf, ‘Schirmklauseln in Investionsschutzverträgen’ in Dupuy, Pierre-Marie, Fassbender, Bardo, Shaw, Malcolm N. and Sommermann, Karl-Peter (eds.), Festschrift Christian Tomuschat, Common Values of International Law (N.P. Engel Verlag, 2006) 281–96.Google Scholar
Dolzer, Rudolf, ‘Transfer of Funds: Investment Rules and Their Relationship to Other International Agreements’ in Giovanoli, Mario and Devos, Diego (eds.), International Monetary and Financial Law (Oxford University Press, 2010) 533–44.Google Scholar
Dolzer, Rudolf and Myers, Terry, ‘After Tecmed: Most-Favored-Nation Clauses in Investment Protection Agreements’ (2004) 19 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 49–60.Google Scholar
Dolzer, Rudolf and Schreuer, Christoph, Principles of International Investment Law (Oxford University Press, 2008).Google Scholar
Dolzer, Rudolf and Schreuer, Christoph, Principles of International Investment Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2012).Google Scholar
Dolzer, Rudolf and Stevens, Margrete, Bilateral Investment Treaties (Martinus Nihoff Publishers, 1995) 60–1.Google Scholar
Dolzer, Rudolf and von Walter, André, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment: Lines of Jurisprudence on Customary Law’ in Ortino, Federico, Liberti, Lahra, Sheppard, Audley and Warner, Hugo (eds.), Investment Treaty Law Current Issues, Volume II: Nationality and investment treaty claims. Fair and equitable treatment in investment treaty law (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2007) 99–116.Google Scholar
Domke, Martin, ‘Foreign Nationalisations, Some Aspects of Contemporary International Law’ (1961) 55 American Journal of International Law 585–616.Google Scholar
Domke, Martin, ‘On the Nationalization of Foreign Shareholders’ Interests’ (1958) 4 New York Law Forum 46–58.Google Scholar
Domke, Martin and Baade, Hans W., ‘Nationalization of Foreign Owned Property and the Act of State Doctrine: Two Speeches’ (1963) 1963 Duke Law Journal 281–303.Google Scholar
Douaire de Bondy, Christophe, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment, Arbitral Jurisprudence and the Implications of State Treaty Practice’ in Laird, Ian and Weiler, Todd Grierson (eds.), Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law (JurisNet, 2009) 233–53.Google Scholar
Douglas, Zachary, ‘Nothing If Not Critical for Investment Treaty Arbitration: Occidental, Eureko and Methanex’ (2006) 22 Arbitration International 27–52.Google Scholar
Douglas, Zachary, ‘Property Rights as the Object of an Expropriation – Emmis v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/2’ in Kinnear, Meg, Fischer, Geraldine R., Almeida, Jara Mínguez, Torres, Luisa Fernanda and Bidegain, Mairée Uran (eds.), Building International Investment Law: The First Fifty Years of ICSID (Kluwer Law International, 2016) 331–48.Google Scholar
Douglas, Zachary, The International Law of Investment Claims (Cambridge University Press, 2009).Google Scholar
Douglas, Zachary, ‘The MFN Clause in Investment Arbitration: Treaty Interpretation Off the Rails’ (2011) 2 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 97–113.Google Scholar
Draguiev, Deyan, ‘Bad Faith Conduct of States in Violation of the “Fair and Equitable Treatment” Standard in International Investment Law and Arbitration’ (2014) 5 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 273–305.Google Scholar
Dralle, Tilman Michael, ‘Der Fair and Equitable Treatment-Standard im Investitionsschutzrecht am Beispiel des Schiedsspruchs Glamis Gold v. United States’ (Beiträge zum Transnationalen Wirtschaftsrecht, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, 2011).Google Scholar
Dugan, Christopher F., Wallace, Don Jr, Rubins, Noah D. and Sabahi, Borzu, Investor–State Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2008).Google Scholar
Dumberry, Patrick, A Guide to State Succession in International Investment Law (Edward Elgar Publishing 2018).Google Scholar
Dumberry, Patrick, ‘Are BITs Representing the “New” Customary International Law in International Investment Law?’ (2010) 28 Penn State International Law Review 675–701.Google Scholar
Dumberry, Patrick, ‘Expropriation Under NAFTA Chapter 11 Investment Dispute Settlement Mechanism: Some Comments on the Latest Case Law’ (2001) 4 International Arbitration Law Review 96–104.Google Scholar
Dumberry, Patrick, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment’ in Mbengue, Makane Moïse and Schacherer, Stefanie (eds.), Foreign Investment Under the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) (Springer, 2019) 95–126.Google Scholar
Dumberry, Patrick, Fair and Equitable Treatment: Its Interaction with the Minimum Standard and Its Customary Status (Brill, 2018).Google Scholar
Dumberry, Patrick, ‘Has the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard Become a Rule of Customary International Law?’ (2017) 8 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 155–78.Google Scholar
Dumberry, Patrick, ‘Moving the Goal Post!: How Some NAFTA Tribunals have Challenged the FTC Note of Interpretation on the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard under NAFTA Article 1105’ (2014) 8 World Arbitration and Mediation Review 251–93.Google Scholar
Dumberry, Patrick, ‘Shopping for a Better Deal: The Use of MFN Clauses to Get ‘Better’ Fair and Equitable Treatment Protection’ (2017) 33 Arbitration International 1–16.Google Scholar
Dumberry, Patrick, The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard: A Guide to NAFTA Case Law on Article 1105 (Kluwer Law International, 2013).Google Scholar
Dumberry, Patrick, ‘The Importation of the FET Standard through MFN Clauses: An Empirical Study of BITs’ (2017) 32 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 116–37.Google Scholar
Dumberry, Patrick, ‘The Meaning of the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard under NAFTA Article 1105 in Light of the General Rules of Treaty Interpretation’ (2013) 16 International Arbitration Law Review 121–34.Google Scholar
Dumberry, Patrick, ‘The Practice of States as Evidence of Custom: An Analysis of Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard Clauses in States’ Foreign Investment Laws’ (2016) 2 McGill Journal of Dispute Resolution 66–81.Google Scholar
Dumberry, Patrick, ‘The Prohibition against Arbitrary Conduct and the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard under NAFTA Article 1105’ (2014) 15 Journal of World Investment & Trade 117–51.Google Scholar
Dumberry, Patrick, ‘The Protection of Investors’ Legitimate Expectations and the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard under NAFTA Article 1105’ (2014) 31 Journal of International Arbitration 47–74.Google Scholar
Dumberry, Patrick, ‘The Quest to Define “Fair and Equitable Treatment” for Investors under International Law: The Case of the NAFTA Chapter 11 Pope & Talbot Awards’ (2002) 3 Journal of World Investment & Trade 657–91.Google Scholar
Ebner, Josef, La clause de la nation la plus favorisée en droit international public (LGDJ, 1931).Google Scholar
Eckardt, Melanie N., ‘The Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) Standard in International Investment Law’ (2012) 9(3) Transnational Dispute Management 1–42.Google Scholar
Edsall, Rachel D., ‘Indirect Expropriation Under NAFTA and DR-CAFTA: Potential Inconsistencies in the Treatment of State Public Welfare Regulations’ (2006) 86 Boston University Law Review 931–62.Google Scholar
Egli, Gabriel, ‘Don’t Get Bit: Addressing ICSID’s Inconsistent Application of Most-Favored-Nation Clauses to Dispute Resolution Provisions’ (2007) 34 Pepperdine Law Review 1045–84.Google Scholar
Elcombe, Joshua, ‘Regulatory Powers vs. Investment Protection under NAFTA’s Chapter 1110: Metalclad, Methanex, and Glamis Gold’ (2010) 68 University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review 71–98.Google Scholar
Elkins, Zachary, Guzman, Andrew T. and Simmons, Beth A., ‘Competing for Capital: The Diffusion of Bilateral Investment Treaties’ (2006) 60 International Organization 811–46.Google Scholar
Enriquez, Raymundo E., ‘Expropriation under Mexican Law and Its Insertion into a Global Context Under NAFTA’ (2000) 23 Hastings International & Comparative Law Review 385–92.Google Scholar
Escarcena, Sebastián López, Indirect Expropriation in International Law (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014).Google Scholar
Essig, Holger, ‘Balancing Investors’ Interests and State Sovereignty: The ICSID-Decision on Jurisdiction Plama Consortium Ltd. v. Republic of Bulgaria’ (2007) 4(5) Transnational Dispute Management 1–32.Google Scholar
Eustathiadès, Constantin T, La responsabilité international de l’état pour les actes des organes judiciares et le problème du déni de justice en droit international (A. Pédone, 1936).Google Scholar
Fachiri, Alexander P., ‘Expropriation and International Law’ (1925) 6 British Yearbook of International Law 159–72.Google Scholar
Fatouros, Arghyrios A., Government Guarantees for Foreign Investors (Columbia University Press, 1962).Google Scholar
Fatouros, Arghyrios A., (ed.), Transnational Corporations: The International Legal Framework (Routledge, 1994).Google Scholar
Feit, Michael, ‘Attribution and the Umbrella Clause: Is There a Way out of the Deadlock?’ (2012) 21 Minnesota Journal of International Law 21–41.Google Scholar
Fernández de la Cuesta González, Isabel, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment: Evolution or Revolution?’ in Laird, Ian and Grierson Weiler, Todd (eds.), Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law (JurisNet, 2009) 219–32.Google Scholar
Fernández Masiá, Enrique, ‘Atribución de competencia a través de la cláusula de nación más favorecida: Lecciones extraídas de la reciente práctica arbitral en materia de inversiones extranjeras’ (2007) 13 Revista Electrónica de Estudios Internacionales 1–20.Google Scholar
Fietta, Stephen, ‘Expropriation and the “Fair and Equitable” Standard: The Developing Role of Investor “Expectations” in International Investment Arbitration’ (2006) 23 Journal of International Arbitration 375–99.Google Scholar
Fietta, Stephen, ‘Expropriation and the “Fair and Equitable Treatment” Standard’ in Ortino, Federico, Liberti, Lahra, Sheppard, Audley and Warner, Hugo (eds.), Investment Treaty Law Current Issues, Volume II: Nationality and Investment Treaty claims. Fair and Equitable Treatment in Investment Treaty Law (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2007) 183–94.Google Scholar
Fietta, Stephen, ‘Most Favoured Nation Treatment and Dispute Resolution under Bilateral Investment Treaties: a Turning Point?’ (2005) 8 International Arbitration Law Review 131–8.Google Scholar
Fietta, Stephen, ‘The Developing Role of Investors’ “Expectations” in International Investment Arbitration’ (2006) 23 Journal of International Arbitration 375–99.Google Scholar
Fietta, Stephen, ‘The Legitimate Expectations Principle under Article 1105 NAFTA International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v. Mexico’ (2006) 7 Journal of World Investment & Trade 423–32.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, Gerald, ‘The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice: Treaty Interpretation and Certain Other Treaty Points’ (1951) 28 British Yearbook of International Law 1–28.Google Scholar
Flores, Gonzalo, ‘Emilio Agustín Maffezini v. Kingdom of Spain (ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7) – Introductory Note’ (2000) 16 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 203–6.Google Scholar
Foighel, Isi, Nationalization, A Study of the Protection of Alien Property in International Law (Praeger, 1982).Google Scholar
Footer, Mary E., ‘Umbrella Clauses and Widely-Formulated Arbitration Clauses: Discerning the Limits of ICSID Jurisdiction’ (2017) 16 The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 87–107.Google Scholar
Fortier, Yves, ‘Caveat Investor: The Meaning of Expropriation and the Protection Afforded Investors Under NAFTA’ (2003) 20 News from ICSID 1, 10–13.Google Scholar
Fortier, Yves L. and Drymer, Stephen L., ‘Indirect Expropriation in the Law of International Investment: I Know It When I See It, or Caveat Investor’ (2004) 19 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 293–327.Google Scholar
Fortier, Yves L. and Drymer, Stephen L., ‘Indirect Expropriation in the Law of International Investment: I Know It When I See It, or Caveat Investor’ (2005) 12 Asia Pacific Law Review 79–110.Google Scholar
Fortier, Yves L. and Drymer, Stephen L., ‘Indirect Expropriation – Santa Elena SA v. Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB/96/1, TECMED v. Mexico, ARB(AF)/00/2, Generation Ukraine v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/9’ in Kinnear, Meg, Fischer, Geraldine R., Almeida, Jara Mínguez, Torres, Luisa Fernanda and Bidegain, Mairée Uran (eds.), Building International Investment Law: The First Fifty Years of ICSID (Kluwer Law International, 2016) 349–58.Google Scholar
Foster, David, ‘Umbrella Clauses—a Retreat from the Philippines?’ (2006) 9 International Arbitration Law Review 100–8.Google Scholar
Foster, George K., ‘Recovering “Protection and Security”: The Treaty Standard’s Obscure Origins, Forgotten Meaning, and Key Current Significance’ (2012) 45 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 1095–156.Google Scholar
Foster, Nicole D., ‘Philip Morris Brands Sàrl v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay’ (2016) 110 American Journal of International Law 774–81.Google Scholar
Fowles, John B., ‘Swords into Plowshares: Softening the Edge of NAFTA’s Chapter 11 Regulatory Expropriation Provisions’ (2005/2006) 36 Cumberland Law Review 83–102.Google Scholar
Francioni, Francesco, ‘Compensation for Nationalisation of Foreign Property: The Borderland Between Law and Equity’ (1975) 24 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 255–83.Google Scholar
Franck, Susan D., ‘International Decision: Occidental Exploration & Production Co. v. Republic of Ecuador’ (2005) 99 American Journal of International Law 675–81.Google Scholar
Freeman, Elyse M., ‘Regulatory Expropriation under NAFTA Chapter 11: Some Lessons from the European Court of Human Rights’ (2003) 42 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 177–215.Google Scholar
Freyer, Dana H. and Herlihy, David, ‘Most-Favored-Nation Treatment and Dispute Settlement in Investment Arbitration: Just How “Favored” is “Most-Favored”?’ (2005) 20 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 58-83.Google Scholar
Friedland, Paul D. and Wong, Eleanor, ‘Measuring Damages for Deprivation of Income-Producing Assets: ICSID Case Studies’ (1991) 6 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 400–30.Google Scholar
Friedman, Samy, Expropriation in International Law (Stevens, 1953).Google Scholar
Frowein, Jochen Abraham, ‘The Protection of Property’ in Macdonald, Ronald St J., Matscher, Franz and Petzold, Herbert (eds.), The European System for the Protection of Human Rights (Nijhoff Dordrecht, 1993) 515–30.Google Scholar
Gadelshina, Elvira R., ‘Hermeneutic Reflections on the Specific Purpose of Umbrella Clauses’ (2013) 14 Journal of World Investment & Trade 804–28.Google Scholar
Gaffney, John P. and Loftis, James L., ‘The “Effective Ordinary Meaning” of BITs and the Jurisdiction of Treaty-Based Tribunals to Hear Contract Claims’ (2007) 8 Journal of World Investment & Trade 5–67.Google Scholar
Gaillard, Emmanuel, ‘Establishing jurisdiction through a Most-Favored-Nation Clause’ (June 2005) 233(105) New York Law Journal: International Arbitration Law 1–3.Google Scholar
Gaillard, Emmanuel, ‘Investment Treaty Arbitration and Jurisdiction over Contract Claims: The SGS Cases Considered’ in Weiler, Todd (ed.), International Investment Law and Arbitration: Leading Cases from the ICSID, NAFTA, Bilateral Treaties and Customary International Law (Cameron May, 2005) 325–46.Google Scholar
Gaillard, Emmanuel, ‘L’arbitrage sur le fondement des traités de protection des investissements’ (2003) 3 Revue de l’Arbitrage 853–75.Google Scholar
Gaillard, Emmanuel, ‘Treaty-based Jurisdiction: Broad Dispute Resolution Clauses’ (6 October 2005) 234(68) New York Law Journal 1–3.Google Scholar
Gallagher, Norah and Shan, Wenhua (eds.), Chinese Investment Treaties: Policies and Practice (Oxford University Press, 2009).Google Scholar
Gallus, Nick, ‘An Umbrella Just for Two? BIT Obligations Observance Clauses and the Parties to a Contract’ (2008) 24 Arbitration International 157–70.Google Scholar
Gallus, Nick, ‘National Grid P.L.C. v. Argentine Republic: Arbitral Award on Fair and Equitable Treatment of Investments Under a Bilateral Investment Treaty: UNCITRAL Arbitral Tribunal, November 3, 2008’ (2009) 103 American Journal of International Law 722–7.Google Scholar
Gallus, Nick, ‘Plama v. Bulgaria and the Scope of Investment Treaty MFN Clauses’ (2005) 2(3) Transnational Dispute Management 1–20.Google Scholar
Gallus, Nick, ‘The “Fair and Equitable Treatment” Standard and the Circumstances of the Host State’ in Brown, Chester and Miles, Kate (eds.), Evolution in Investment Treaty Law and Arbitration (Cambridge University Press, 2011) 223–45.Google Scholar
Gallus, Nick, ‘The Influence of the Host State’s Level of Development on International Investment Treaty Standards of Protection’ (2005) 6 Journal of World Investment & Trade 711–29.Google Scholar
Gantz, David A., ‘Environmental Takings under Chapter 11: Does NAFTA Require Compensation for Environmental Takings?’ (C.B.A. Conf., March 2000).Google Scholar
Gantz, David A., ‘Potential Conflicts Between Investor Rights and Environmental Regulation under NAFTA’s Chapter 11’ (2001) 33 George Washington International Law Review 651–752.Google Scholar
García Corona, Irene Gabriela, Arbitraje de inversión: La cláusula de la nación más favorecida en derechos adjetivos (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México 2013).Google Scholar
Garcia-Amador, Francisco V., ‘ILC Fourth Report on State Responsibility, Responsibility of the State for Injuries Caused in its Territory to the Person or Property of Aliens: Measures Affecting Acquired Rights’ (1959) 2 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1–37.Google Scholar
Garcia-Amador y Rodriguez, Francisco V., Sohn, Louis B. and Baxter, Richard R., Recent Codification of the Law of State Responsibility for Injuries to Aliens (Oceana Publications, 1974).Google Scholar
Gardiner, Richard, Treaty Interpretation (Oxford University Press, 2008).Google Scholar
Gaukrodger, David, ‘Addressing the Balance of Interests in Investment Treaties: The Limitation of Fair and Equitable Treatment Provisions to the Minimum Standard of Treatment under Customary International Law’ (2017) OECD Working Papers on International Investment 2017/03.Google Scholar
Gazzini, Tarcisio, Interpretation of International Investment Treaties (Hart Publishing, 2016).Google Scholar
Gazzini, Tarcisio, ‘The Role of Customary International Law in the Field of Foreign Investment’ (2007) 8 Journal of World Investment & Trade 691–715.Google Scholar
Gazzini, Tarcisio and Tanzi, Attila, ‘Handle with Care: Umbrella Clauses and MFN Treatment in Investment Arbitration’ (2013) 14 Journal of World Investment & Trade 978–94.Google Scholar
Gazzini, Tarcisio and Radi, Yannick, ‘Practice and Interpretation of “Umbrella Clauses” in the Latin American Experience’ in Tanzi, Attila, Asteriti, Alessandra, Lazo, Rodrigo Polanco and Turrini, Paolo (eds.), International Investment Law in Latin America / Derecho Internacional de las Inversiones en América Latina (Brill Nijhoff, 2016) 341–69.Google Scholar
Gelinsky, Katja, Der Schutz des Eigentums gemäß Art. 1 des Ersten Zusatzprotokolls zur Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention (Duncker & Humblot, 1996).Google Scholar
Gerhart, Peter M. and Baron, Michael S., ‘Understanding National Treatment: The Participatory Vision of the WTO’ in Qureshi, Asif H. and Gao, Xuan (eds.), International Economic Law: Critical Concepts in Law (Routledge, 2011) 77–127.Google Scholar
Geva, Benjamin, ‘Global and Cross-Border Credit Transfers: The Role of Legislation in Addressing Legal Risk for Participants’ in Giovanoli, Mario and Devos, Diego (eds.), International Monetary and Financial Law (Oxford University Press, 2010) 545–74.Google Scholar
Gharavi, Hamid G., ‘Discord Over Judicial Expropriation’ (2018) 33 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 349–57.Google Scholar
Giardina, Andrea, ‘Legal Aspects of Recourse to Arbitration by an Investor Against the Authorities of the Host State under Inter-State Treaties’ in Institut de Droit International, Yearbook of Institute of International Law – Tokyo Session 13 September 2013 – Draft Works, available at www.idi-iil.org/idiE/annuaireE/2013/Question3_Giardina.pdf.Google Scholar
Gill, Judith, Gearing, Matt and Birt, Gemma, ‘Contractual Claims and Bilateral Investment Treaties: A Comparative Review of the SGS Cases’ (2004) 21 Journal of International Arbitration 397–412.Google Scholar
Goco, Jonell B., ‘Non-Discrimination, “Likeness”, and Market Definition in World Trade Organization Jurisprudence’ (2006) 40 Journal of World Trade 315.Google Scholar
Godshall, Lauren E., ‘In the Cold Shadow of Metalclad: The Potential for Change to NAFTA’s Chapter Eleven’ (2002) 11 NYU Environmental Law Journal 264–316.Google Scholar
Greenwood, Christopher, ‘Most Favoured Nation Clauses in BITs: What is Their Real Purpose (and Their Real Effect)? – 3rd Annual EFILA Lecure’ in Mistelis, Loukas and Lavranos, Nikos (eds.), European Investment Law and Arbitration Review (Brill – Nijhoff, 2018) 343–56.Google Scholar
Greenwood, Christopher, ‘Reflections on “Most Favoured Nation” Clauses in Bilateral Investment Treaties’ in Caron, David D., Schill, Stephan W., Smutny, Abby Cohen and Triantafilou, Epaminontas E. (eds.), Practising Virtue: Inside International Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2015) 556–64.Google Scholar
Greenwood, Christopher, ‘State Responsibility for the Decisions of National Courts’ in Fitzmaurice, Malgosia and Sarooshi, Dan (eds.), Issues of State Responsibility before International Judicial Institutions (Hart Publishing, 2004) 55–74.Google Scholar
Griebel, Jörn, Internationales Investitionsrecht: Lehrbuch für Studium und Praxis (C.H. Beck, 2008).Google Scholar
Grierson-Weiler, Todd J. and Laird, Ian A., ‘Standards of Treatment’ in Muchlinski, Peter, Ortino, Frederico and Schreuer, Christoph (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law (Oxford University Press, 2008) 259–304.Google Scholar
Gritón Salias, María C., ‘Do Umbrella Clauses Apply to Unilateral Undertakings?’ in Binder, Christina, Kriebaum, Ursula, Reinisch, August and Wittich, Stephan (eds.), International Investment Law for the 21st Century: Essays in Honour of Christoph Schreuer (Oxford University Press, 2009) 490–6.Google Scholar
Gritsenko, Maria, ‘Relevance of the Host State’s Development Status in Investment Treaty Arbitration’ in Baetens, F. (ed.), Investment Law within International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2013) 341–51.Google Scholar
Gudofsky, Jason L., ‘Shedding Light on Article 1110 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Concerning Expropriations: An Environmental Case Study’ (2000) 21 Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business 243–315.Google Scholar
Gunton, David L., ‘Liability Begins at Home: An Alternative Compensation Scheme for NAFTA Expropriations’ (2007) 40 New York University Journal of International Law and Policy 219–57.Google Scholar
Gutbrod, Max and Hindelang, Steffen, ‘Externalization of Effective Legal Protection against Indirect Expropriation’ (2006) 7 Journal of World Investment & Trade 59–83.Google Scholar
Haeri, Hussein, ‘A Tale of Two Standards: “Fair and Equitable Treatment” and the Minimum Standard in International Law’ (2011) 27 Arbitration International 27–45.Google Scholar
Halonen, Laura, ‘Containing the Scope of the Umbrella Clause’ in Weiler, Todd J. Grierson (ed.), Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law (JurisNet, 2008) 27–38.Google Scholar
Hamamoto, Shotaro, ‘Parties to the “Obligations” in the Obligations Observance (“Umbrella”) Clause’ (2015) 30 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 449–64.Google Scholar
Hamrock, Kurt J., ‘The ELSI Case: Toward an International Definition of “Arbitrary Conduct”’ (1992) 27 Texas International Law Journal 837–64.Google Scholar
Hanna, John Jr, ‘Is Transparency of Governmental Administration Customary International Law in Investor–Sovereign Arbitrations? Courts and Arbitrators May Differ’ (2005) 21 Arbitration International 187–210.Google Scholar
Happ, Richard, ‘Dispute Settlement under the Energy Charter Treaty’ (2002) 45 German Yearbook of International Law 331–62.Google Scholar
Hasic, Halil, ‘Article 1110 of NAFTA: Investment Barriers to “Upward Harmonization” of Environmental Standards’ (2005) 12 Southwestern Journal of Law and Trade in the Americas 137–58.Google Scholar
Haynes, Jason, ‘The Evolving Nature of the Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) Standard: Challenging Its Increasing Pervasiveness in Light of Developing Countries’ Concerns – The Case for Regulatory Rebalancing’ (2013) 14 Journal of World Investment & Trade 114–46.Google Scholar
Heiskanen, Veijo, ‘Arbitrary and Unreasonable Measures’ in Reinisch, August (ed.), Standards of Investment Protection (Oxford University Press, 2008) 87–110.Google Scholar
Heiskanen, Veijo, ‘The Doctrine of Indirect Expropriation in Light of the Practice of the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal’ (2007) 8 Journal of World Investment & Trade 215–31.Google Scholar
Henckels, Caroline, Proportionality and Deference in Investor–State Arbitration: Balancing Investment Protection and Regulatory Autonomy (Cambridge University Press, 2015).Google Scholar
Hepburn, Jarrod, Domestic Law in International Investment Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2017).Google Scholar
Herdegen, Matthias, Principles of International Economic Law (Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Hernu, Rémy, Principe d’egalité et principe de non-discrimination dan la jurisprudence de la Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes (LGDJ, 2003).Google Scholar
Herrera Ramírez, Viviana, ‘Efectos sorpresivos de la cláusula de la nación más favorecida (CNMF) en materia de inversiones extranjeras’ (2009) 9 Revista Civilizar Ciencias Sociales y Humanas 41–56.Google Scholar
Herz, John H., ‘Expropriation of Foreign Property’ (1941) 35 American Journal of International Law 243–62.Google Scholar
Hestermeyer, Holger, ‘Art. III GATT, paras. 48–63’ in Wolfrum, Rüdiger, Stoll, Peter-Tobias and Hestermeyer, Holger (eds.), Max Planck Commentaries on World Trade Law, vol. V (Brill – Nijhoff, 2011).Google Scholar
Higgins, Rosalyn, ‘The Taking of Foreign Property by the State’ (1982) 176 Recueil des Cours 259–392.Google Scholar
Hilf, Meinhard and Geiß, Robin, ‘Most-Favoured-Nation Clause’ in Wolfrum, Rüdiger (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol. VII (Oxford University Press, 2012) 384–95.Google Scholar
Hindelang, Steffen, ‘Bilateral Investment Treaties, Custom and a Healthy Investment Climate – The Question of Whether BITs Influence Customary International Law Revisited’ (2004) 5 Journal of World Investment & Trade 789–809.Google Scholar
Hindelang, Steffen, Free Movement of Capital and Foreign Direct Investment: The Scope of Protection in European Union Law (Oxford University Press, 2009).Google Scholar
Hird, Rachel, ‘Thomas W Wälde and Fair and Equitable Treatment’ (2009) 27 Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law 377–403.Google Scholar
Hirsch, Moshe, ‘Between Fair and Equitable Treatment and Stabilization Clause: Stable Legal Environment and Regulatory Change in International Investment Law’ (2011) 12 Journal of World Investment & Trade 783–806.Google Scholar
Ho, Jean, ‘Singapore’ in Brown, Chester (ed.), Commentaries on Selected Model Investment Treaties (Oxford University Press, 2013), 623–50.Google Scholar
Hobér, Kaj, ‘Compensation: a Closer Look at Cases Awarding Compensation for Violation of the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard’ in Yannaca-Small, Katia (ed.), Arbitration under International Investment Agreements: a Guide to the Key Issues (Oxford University Press, 2010) 573–99.Google Scholar
Hobér, Kaj, ‘“Fair and Equitable Treatment”: Determining Compensation’ in Hofmann, Rainer and Tams, Christian J. (ed.), The International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID): Taking Stock after Forty Years (Nomos, 2007) 79–102.Google Scholar
Hobér, Kaj, Investment Arbitration in Eastern Europe: In Search of a Definition of Expropriation (JurisNet, 2007).Google Scholar
Hobér, Kaj, ‘Investment Arbitration in Eastern Europe. Recent Cases on Expropriation’ (2003) 14 The American Review of International Arbitration 377–446.Google Scholar
Hobér, Kaj, ‘MFN Clauses and Dispute Resolution in Investment Treaties: Have We Reached the End of the Road?’ in Binder, Christina, Kriebaum, Ursula, Reinisch, August and Wittich, Stephan (eds.), International Investment Law for the Twenty-First Century: Essays in Honour of Christoph Schreuer (Oxford University Press, 2009) 31–41.Google Scholar
Hobér, Kaj, ‘State Responsibility and Attribution’ in Muchlinski, Peter, Ortino, Federico and Schreuer, Christoph (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law (Oxford University Press, 2008) 549–83.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Anne, ‘Indirect Expropriation’ in Reinisch, August (ed.), Standards of Investment Protection (Oxford University Press, 2008) 151–70.Google Scholar
Honlet, Jean-Christophe and Borg, Guillaume, ‘The Decisions of the ICSID Ad Hoc Committee in CMS v. Argentina Regarding the Conditions of Application of an Umbrella Clause: SGS v. Philippines Revisited’ (2008) 7 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 1–327.Google Scholar
Horn, Henrik and Mavrodis, Petros C., ‘Still Hazy after All These Years: The Interpretation of National Treatment in the GATT/WTO Case-Law on Tax Discrimination’ (2004) 15 European Journal of International Law 39–69.Google Scholar
Hornbeck, Stanley K., ‘The Most-Favored-Nation Clause: Part One’ (1909) 3 American Journal of International Law 395–422.Google Scholar
Houde, Marie-France and Pagani, Fabrizio, ‘Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment in International Investment Law’ in OECD (ed.), International Investment Law: A Changing Landscape (OECD Publishing, 2005) 127–61.Google Scholar
Howse, Robert and Chalamish, Efraim, ‘The Use and Abuse of WTO Law in Investor–State Arbitration: A Reply to Jürgen Kurtz’ (2010 ) 20 European Journal of International Law 1087–94.Google Scholar
Hsu, Locknie, ‘MFN and Dispute Settlement: When the Twain Meet’ (2006) 7 Journal of World Investment & Trade 25–37.Google Scholar
Hudec, Robert E., ‘Science and “Post-Discriminatory” WTO Law’ (2003) 26 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review 185–95.Google Scholar
Huerta-Goldman, Jorge A., ‘Cross-cutting Observations on National Treatment’ in Huerta-Goldman, Jorge A., Romanetti, Antoine and Stirnimann, Franz X. (eds.), WTO Litigation, Investment Arbitration, and Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer Law International, 2013) 263–72.Google Scholar
Institut de Droit International, ‘La clause de la nation la plus favorisée dans les conventions multilaterals’ (10 September 1969) (1969) 53 Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International 361–2.Google Scholar
Institut de Droit International, ‘Les effets de la clause de la nation la plus favorisée en matière de commerce et de navigation’ (23 April 1936) (1936) 39 Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International 289–92.Google Scholar
International Law Association, Final Report of the International Committee on Diplomatic Protection of Persons and Property (Toronto, 2006).Google Scholar
International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection, Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Fifty-Eighth Session, UN GAOR, 61st Sess., Supp. No. 10, UN Doc. A/61/10 (2006).Google Scholar
International Law Commission, Final report – Study Group on the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause (4 May–5 June and 6 July–7 August 2015) UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.852.Google Scholar
International Law Commission, Most-Favoured-Nation Clause – Report of the Working Group (20 July 2007) UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.719.Google Scholar
Iruretagoiena Agirrezabalaga, Iñigo, ‘Contract claims y treaty claims: Relación entre las cláusulas umbrella y los acuerdos contractuales de atribución de competencia exclusiva (Bureau Veritas, Inspection, Valuation, Assessment and Control, BIVAC B.V. / República de Paraguay, Caso CIADI No. ARB/07/9)’ (2010) 3 Revista de aribtraje commercial y de inversions 797–810.Google Scholar
Ishikawa, Tomoko, ‘Interpreting the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Interpretation as a Process of Creating an Obligation?’ in Sampford, Charles, Zifcak, Spencer and Derya Aydin Okur (eds.), Rethinking International Law and Justice (Ashgate, 2015) 127–48.Google Scholar
Jackson, John H., The World Trading System: Law and Policy of International Economic Relations, 2nd ed. (The MIT Press, 1997).Google Scholar
Jacob, Marc, ‘Investments, Bilateral Treaties’ in Wolfrum, Rüdiger (ed.), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol. VI (Oxford University Press, 2012) 317–28.Google Scholar
Jacob, Marc and Schill, Stephan W., ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment: Content, Practice, Method’ in Bungenberg, M., Griebel, Jörn, Hobe, Stephan and Reinisch, August (eds.), International Investment Law. A Handbook (Beck/Nomos/Hart, 2015) 700–63.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Benjamin W., ‘The Next Generation of Chilling Uncertainty: Indirect Expropriation Under CAFTA and Its Potential Impact on Environmental Protection’ (2007) 12 Ocean and Coastal Law Journal 269–304.Google Scholar
Jennings, Robert Y., ‘State Contracts in International Law’ (1961) 37 British Yearbook of International Law 156–82.Google Scholar
Jennings, Robert Y. and Sir Watts, Arthur, Oppenheim’s International Law, 9th ed., (Oxford University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
Jensen, J. Ole, ‘Die Auslegung von Investitionsschutzabkommen am Beispiel der “umbrella clause”’ (2016) 24 Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft 277–85.Google Scholar
Jonckheere, Katherine, ‘Practical Implications from an Expansive Interpretation of Umbrella Clauses in International Investment Law’ (2015) 11 South Carolina Journal of International Law and Business 143–62.Google Scholar
Kahn, Jordan C., ‘Striking NAFTA Gold: Glamis Advances Investor–State Arbitration’, (2009) 33 Fordham International Law Journal 101–55.Google Scholar
Kalicki, Jean and Medeiros, Suzana, ‘Fair, Equitable and Ambiguous: What Is Fair and Equitable Treatment in International Investment Law?’ (2007) 22 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 24–54.Google Scholar
Kantor, Mark, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment: Echoes of FDR’s Court-Packing Plan in the International Law Approach Towards Regulatory Expropriation’ (2006) 5 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 231–56.Google Scholar
Katselas, Anna, ‘Do Investment Treaties Prescribe a Deferential Standard of Review? A Comparative Analysis of the U.S. Administrative Procedure Act’s Arbitrary and Capricious Standard of Review and the Fair and Equitable Treatment and Arbitrary or Discriminatory Measures Treaty Standards’ (2012) 34 Michigan Journal of International Law 87–150.Google Scholar
Kaufmann-Kohler, Gabrielle, ‘Interpretation of Treaties: How Do Arbitral Tribunals Interpret Dispute Settlement Provisions Embodied in Investment Treaties?’ in Mistelis, Loukas A. and Lew, Julian D. M. QC (eds.), Pervasive Problems in International Arbitration (Kluwer Law International, 2006) 257–76.Google Scholar
Kaufmann-Kohler, Gabrielle, ‘Interpretive Powers of the NAFTA Free Trade Commission: Necessary Safety Valve or Infringement of the Rule of Law?’ in Bachand, Frédéric (ed.), Fifteen Years of NAFTA Chapter 11 Arbitration (JurisNet, 2011) 175–94.Google Scholar
Kern, Carsten, Schiedsgericht und Generalklausel. Zur Konkretisierung des Gebots des fair and equitable treatment in der internationalen Investitionsschiedsgerichtsbarkeit (Mohr Siebeck, 2018).Google Scholar
Kern, Carsten, ‘Transfer of Funds’ in Bungenberg, Marc, Griebel, Jörn, Hobe, Stephan and Reinisch, August (eds.), International Investment Law (Nomos, 2015) 870–86.Google Scholar
Khachvani, David, ‘Compensation for Unlawful Expropriation: Targeting the Illegality’ (2017) 32 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 385–403.Google Scholar
Kill, Theodore, ‘Don’t Cross the Streams: Past and Present Overstatement of Customary International Law in Connection with Conventional Fair and Equitable Treatment Obligations’ (2008) 106 Michigan Law Review 853–80.Google Scholar
Benedict, Kingsbury and Schill, Stephan W., ‘Investor–State Arbitration as Governance: Fair and Equitable Treatment, Proportionality and the Emerging Global Administration Law’ in Jan van den, Albert Berg, (ed.), Fifty Years of the New York Convention: ICCA International Arbitration Conference Series, Volume 14 (Kluwer Law International, 2009) 5–86.Google Scholar
Kingsbury, Benedict and Schill, Stephan W., ‘Public Law Concepts to Balance Investors’ Rights with State Regulatory Actions in the Public Interest: The Concept of Proportionality’ in Schill, Stephan W. (ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (Oxford University Press, 2010) 75–104.Google Scholar
Kinnear, Meg, ‘A Further Update on Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment: In Search of a Constant Jurisprudence’ in Rovine, Arthur W. (ed.), Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration and Mediation: The Fordham Papers 2009 (Martinus Nijhoff, 2010) 15–82.Google Scholar
Kinnear, Meg, ‘The Continuing Development of the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard’ in Bjorklund, Andrea K., Laird, Ian A. and Ripinsky, Sergey (eds.), Investment Treaty Law, Current Issues III: Remedies in International Investment Law. Emerging Jurisprudence of International Investment Law (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009) 209–40.Google Scholar
Kinnear, Meg N., Bjorklund, Andrea K. and Hannaford, John F. G., Investment Disputes Under NAFTA: An Annotated Guide to NAFTA Chapter 11 (Kluwer Law International, 2006).Google Scholar
Kinnear, Meg N., Bjorklund, Andrea K. and Hannaford, John F. G., Investment Disputes Under NAFTA: An Annotated Guide to NAFTA Chapter 11, 2007 Update (Kluwer Law International, 2007).Google Scholar
Kinnear, Meg N., Bjorklund, Andrea K. and Hannaford, John, Investment Disputes Under NAFTA: An Annotated Guide to NAFTA Chapter 11, 2009 Update (Kluwer Law International, 2009).Google Scholar
Kinsella, Stephan and Rubins, Noah, International Investment, Political Risk and Dispute Resolution: A Practitioner’s Guide (Oceana Publications, 2005).Google Scholar
Kirkman, Courtney, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment: Methanex v. United States and the Narrowing Scope of NAFTA Article 1105’ (2002) 34 Law and Policy in International Business 343–92.Google Scholar
Kishoiyian, Bernard, ‘The Utility of Bilateral Investment Treaties in the Formulation of Customary International Law’ (1994) 14 Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business 327–75.Google Scholar
Kiss, Alexandre-Charles, ‘La convention européenne d’établissement et la clause de la nation la plus favorisée’ (1957) 3 Annuaire francais de droit international 478–89.Google Scholar
Kjos, Hege E., Applicable Law in Investor–State Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Kläger, Roland, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment: A Look at the Theoretical Underpinnings of Legitimacy and Fairness’ (2010) 11 Journal of World Investment & Trade 435–55.Google Scholar
Kläger, Roland, Fair and Equitable Treatment in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2011).Google Scholar
Kläger, Roland, ‘Revising Treatment Standards: Fair and Equitable Treatment in Light of Sustainable Development’ in Hindelang, Steffen and Krajewski, Markus (eds.), Shifting Paradigms in International Investment Law: More Balanced, Less Isolated, Increasingly Diversified (Oxford University Press, 2016) 65–80.Google Scholar
Klein Bronfman, Marcela, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment: An Evolving Standard’ (2006) 10 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 609–80.Google Scholar
Knahr, Christina, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment and its Relationship with Other Treatment Standards’ in Klausegger, Christian, Klein, Peter, Kremslehner, Florian, Petsche, Alexander, Pitkowitz, Nikolaus, Power, Jenny, Welser, Irene and Zeiler, Gerold (eds.), Austrian Arbitration Yearbook 2009 (C.H. Beck, Stämpfli & Manz, 2009) 493–513.Google Scholar
Knahr, Christina, ‘Indirect Expropriation in Recent Investment Arbitration’ (2009) 6(1) Transnational Dispute Management 1–18.Google Scholar
Knoll-Tudor, Ioana, ‘The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard and Human Rights Norms’ in Dupuy, Pierre-Marie, Francioni, Francesco and Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich (eds.), Human Rights in International Investment Law and Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2009) 310–43.Google Scholar
Kolo, Abba, ‘Transfer of Funds: The Interaction Between the IMF Articles of Agreement and Modern Investment Treaties: A Comparative Law Perspective’ in Schill, Stephan W. (ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (Oxford University Press, 2010) 345–74.Google Scholar
Kolo, Abba and Wälde, Thomas, ‘Capital Transfer Restrictions under Modern Investment Treaties’ in Reinisch, August (ed.), Standards of Investment Protection (Oxford University Press, 2008) 205–43.Google Scholar
Kolo, Abba and Wälde, Thomas, ‘Economic crises, capital transfer restrictions and investor protection under modern investment treaties’ (2008) 3 Capital Markets Law Journal 154–85.Google Scholar
Korzun, Vera, ‘The Right to Regulate in Investor–State Arbitration: Slicing and Dicing Regulatory Carve-Outs’ (2016) 50 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 355–414.Google Scholar
Kotera, Akira, ‘Regulatory Transparency’ in Muchlinski, Peter, Ortino, Federico and Schreuer, Christoph (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law (Oxford University Press, 2008) 617–36.Google Scholar
Koutrakos, Panos, ‘Annotation on Case C-205/06, Commission v. Austria and Case C-249/06, Commission v. Sweden’ (2009) 46 Common Market Law Review 2059–76.Google Scholar
Kreindler, Richard H., ‘Perspectives on State Party Arbitration: The Future of BITS – The Practitioner’s Perspective’ (2007) 23 Arbitration International 43–62.Google Scholar
Kriebaum, Ursula, ‘Arbitrary/Unreasonable or Discriminatory Measures’ in Bungenberg, Marc, Griebel, Jörn, Hobe, Stephan and Reinisch, August (eds.), International Investment Law (Beck/Hart/Nomos, 2015) 790–806.Google Scholar
Kriebaum, Ursula, ‘Are Investment Treaty Standards Flexible Enough to Meet the Needs of Developing Countries?’ in Baetens, F. (ed.), Investment Law within International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2013) 330–40.Google Scholar
Kriebaum, Ursula, ‘Partial Expropriation’ (2007) 8 Journal of World Investment & Trade 69–84.Google Scholar
Kriebaum, Ursula, ‘Regulatory Takings: Balancing the Interests of the Investor and the State’ (2007) 8 Journal of World Investment & Trade 717–44.Google Scholar
Kriebaum, Ursula, ‘The Relevance of Economic and Political Conditions for the Protection under Investment Treaties’ (2011) 10 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 383–404.Google Scholar
Kriebaum, Ursula, Eigentumsschutz im Völkerrecht: Eine vergleichende Untersuchung zum internationalen Investitionsrecht sowie zum Menschenrechtsschutz (Duncker & Humblot, 2008).Google Scholar
Kriebaum, Ursula and Reinisch, August, ‘Property, Right to, International Protection’ in Wolfrum, Rüdiger (ed.), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol. VIII (Oxford University Press, 2012) 522–33.Google Scholar
Kühn, Wolfgang and Wiegel, Ulrike, ‘The Application of International Law and Treaty Provisions by Arbitrators’ (2003) 4 Journal of World Investment & Trade 451–72.Google Scholar
Kunoy, Bjørn, ‘Developments in Indirect Expropriation Case Law in ICSID Transnational Arbitration’ (2005) 6 Journal of World Investment & Trade 467–91.Google Scholar
Kunoy, Bjørn, ‘Singing in the Rain: Developments in the Interpretation of Umbrella Clauses’ (2006) 7 Journal of World Investment & Trade 275–300.Google Scholar
Kunoy, Bjørn, ‘The Notion of Time in ICSID’s Case Law on Indirect Expropriation’ (2006) 23 Journal of International Arbitration 337–49.Google Scholar
Kurtz, Jürgen, ‘Balancing Investor Protection and Regulatory Freedom in International Investment Law: The Necessary, Complex and Vital Search for State Purpose’ in Bjorklund, Andrea K. (ed.), Yearbook of International Investment Law and Policy 2013–2014 (Oxford University Press, 2015) 251–304.Google Scholar
Kurtz, Jürgen, ‘National Treatment’ in Kurtz, Jürgen, The WTO and International Investment Law: Converging Systems (Cambridge University Press, 2016) 79–135.Google Scholar
Kurtz, Jürgen, ‘National Treatment, Foreign Investment and Regulatory Autonomy: The Research for Protectionism or Something More?’ in Kahn, Philippe and Wälde, Thomas (eds.), Les aspects nouveaux du droit des investissements internationaux/New Aspects of International Investment Law (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007) 311–51.Google Scholar
Kurtz, Jürgen, ‘On the Evolution and Slow Convergence of International Trade and Investment Law’ in Sacerdoti, Giorgio (ed.), The General Interests of Host States in International Investment Law (Cambridge University Press, 2013) 104–29.Google Scholar
Kurtz, Jürgen, ‘The Delicate Extension of Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment to Foreign Investors: Maffezini v Kingdom of Spain’ in Weiler, Todd (ed.), International Investment Law and Arbitration (Cameron May, 2005) 523–55.Google Scholar
Kurtz, Jürgen, ‘The Merits and Limits of Comparativism: National Treatment in International Investment Law and the WTO’ in Schill, Stephan W. (ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (Oxford University Press, 2010) 243–78.Google Scholar
Kurtz, Jürgen, ‘The MFN Standard and Foreign Investment: An Uneasy Fit?’ (2004) 6 Journal of World Investment & Trade 861–86.Google Scholar
Kurtz, Jürgen, ‘The Use and Abuse of WTO Law in Investor–State Arbitration: Competition and Discontents’ (2009) 20 European Journal of International Law 749–71.Google Scholar
Labidi, Hind, ‘Où va la clause de la nation la plus favorisée en droit international des investissements?’ in Horchani, Ferhat (ed.), Où va le droit de l’investissement? Désordre normatif et recherche d’équilibre (Éditions Pedone, 2006) 31–44.Google Scholar
Lalive, Pierre A., ‘The Doctrine of Acquired Rights’ in South Western Legal Foundation, Selected Readings on the Protection of Foreign Investments (M. Bender, 1964).Google Scholar
Lamm, Carolyn, Giorgetti, Chiara and Uran-Bidegain, Mairée, ‘The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes’ in Giorgetti, Chiara (ed.), The Rules, Practice, and Jurisprudence of International Courts and Tribunals (Brill, 2012) 77–110.Google Scholar
Lauterpacht, Elihu, ‘International Law and Private Foreign Investment’ (1997) 4 Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 259–76.Google Scholar
Lauterpacht, Hersch, ‘Restrictive Interpretation and the Principle of Effectiveness in the Interpretation of Treaties’ (1949) 26 British Yearbook of International Law 48.Google Scholar
Lavranos, Nikos, ‘Commission v. Austria. Case C-205/06. Judgment; Commission v. Sweden. Case C-249/06. Judgment’ (2009) 103 American Journal of International Law 716–22.Google Scholar
Lawrence, Jessica C., ‘Chicken Little Revisited: NAFTA Regulatory Expropriations after Methanex’ (2006) 41 Georgia Law Review 261–310.Google Scholar
Leben, Charles, ‘L’évolution de la notion de contrat d’Etat Les Etats dans le contentieux économique international’ (2003) (3) Revue de l’Arbitrage 629–46.Google Scholar
Lee, Jaemin, ‘Putting a Square Peg into a Round Hole? Assessment of the “Umbrella Clause” from the Perspective of Public International Law’ (2015) 14 Chinese Journal of International Law 341–73.Google Scholar
Leite, Kendra, ‘Comment: The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard: A Search for a Better Balance in International Investment Agreements’ (2016) 32 American University International Law Review 363–401.Google Scholar
Lemaire, A., ‘Traitement juste et équitable’ (2004) 124 Gazette du Palais, Les Cahiers de l’Arbitrage 43.Google Scholar
Levashova, Yulia, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment and the Protection of the Environment: Recent Trends in Investment Treaties and Investment Cases’ in Levashova, Yulia, Lambooy, Tineke and Dekker, Ige (eds.), Bridging the Gap between International Investment Law and the Environment (Eleven International Publishing, 2016) 53–86.Google Scholar
Lévesque, Céline, ‘Distinguishing Expropriation and Regulation under NAFTA Chapter 11: Making Explicit the Link to Property’ in Kennedy, Kevin C. (ed.), The First Decade of NAFTA: The Future of Free Trade in North America (Brill/Nijhoff 2004) 293–324.Google Scholar
Levy, Tali, ‘Note, NAFTA’s Provisions for Compensation in the Event of Expropriation: A Reassessment of the “Prompt, Adequate and Effective” Standard’ (1995) 31 Stanford Journal of International Law 423–53.Google Scholar
Liberti, Lahra, ‘Arbitrato ICSID: Clausola della nazione più favorita e problemi di attribuzione’ (2004) Rivista dell’arbitrato 561–89.Google Scholar
Liddell, Kathleen and Waibel, Michael, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment and Judicial Patent Decisions’ (2016) 19 Journal of International Economic Law 145–74.Google Scholar
Lillich, Richard B., ‘The Current Status of the Law of State Responsibility for Injuries to Aliens’ in Lillich, Richard B. (ed.), International Law of State Responsibility for Injuries to Aliens (University Press of Virginia, 1983) 1–60.Google Scholar
Lillich, Richard B. (ed.), The Valuation of Nationalized Property in International Law (University Press of Virginia, 1972).Google Scholar
Lillich, Richard B. and Daniel, Barstow Magraw (eds.), The Iran–United States Claims Tribunal: Its Contribution to the Law of State Responsibility (Transnational, 1998).Google Scholar
López Escarcena, Sebastián, ‘La Aplicación de la Cláusula de la Nación Más Favorecida y del Trato Justo y Equitativo en la Jurisprudencia internacional en Materia de Inversión Extranjera. El Caso MTD’ (2005) 32 Revista Chilena de Derecho 79–88.Google Scholar
Lorz, Ralph Alexander, ‘Protection and Security (Including the NAFTA Approach)’ in Bungenberg, Marc, Griebel, Jörn, Hobe, Stephan and Reinisch, August (eds.), International Investment Law (C.H. Beck/Hart/Nomos, 2015) 764–89.Google Scholar
Lowe, Vaughan, ‘Arbitrary and Discriminatory Treatment’ in Kinnear, Meg, Fischer, Geraldine, Almeida, Jara Minguez, Torres, Luisa Fernanda and Bidegain, Mairée Uran (eds.), Building International Investment Law: The First Fifty Years of ICSID (Wolters Kluwer, 2016) 307–18.Google Scholar
Lowe, Vaughan, ‘Regulation or Expropriation?’ (2002) 55 Current Legal Problems 447–66.Google Scholar
Lowenfeld, Andreas F., International Economic Law (Oxford University Press, 2002).Google Scholar
Lowenfeld, Andreas F., International Economic Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2008).Google Scholar
Lupo-Pasini, Federico, ‘Monetary Policy Measures in Investment Law: The Uneasy Relationship between Monetary Stability and Investment Protection’ in Cottier, Thomas, Lastra, Rosa M., Tietje, Christian and Satragno, Lucia (eds.), The Rule of Law in Monetary Affairs (Cambridge University Press, 2014) 570–92.Google Scholar
Lyonnet, Geoffroy, ‘La clause de la nation la plus favorisée en droit des investissements: bilan et perspectives’ (2015) 119 Revue générale de droit international public 19–45.Google Scholar
Maniruzzaman, Abul F. M., ‘Expropriation of Alien Property and the Principle of Non-discrimination in International Law of Foreign Investment: An Overview’ (1998) 8 Journal of Transnational Law & Policy 57–77.Google Scholar
Mann, Frederick A., ‘British Treaties for the Promotion and Protection of Investments’ (1981) 52 British Yearbook of International Law 241–54.Google Scholar
Mann, Frederick A., ‘Money in Public International Law’ (1959) 96 Recueil des Cours 1–128.Google Scholar
Mann, Howard, ‘The Final Decision in Methanex v. United States: Some New Wine in Some New Bottles’ available at www.iisd.org/pdf/2005/commentarymethanex.pdf (International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2005).Google Scholar
Marboe, Irmgard, ‘Compensation and Damages in International Law: The Limits of “Fair Market Value”’ (2006) 7 Journal of World Investment & Trade 723–59.Google Scholar
Marboe, Irmgard, Calculation of Compensation and Damages in International Investment Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2017).Google Scholar
Marlies, Justin R., ‘Public Purpose, Private Losses: Regulatory Expropriation and Environmental Regulation in International Investment Law’ (2007) 16 Journal of Transnational Law & Policy 275–336.Google Scholar
Matsushita, Mitsuo, Schoenbaum, Thomas, Mavroidis, Petros C. and Hahn, Michael, The World Trade Organization: Law, Practice, and Policy, 3rd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2015).Google Scholar
Mattoo, Aaditya, ‘National Treatment in the GATS: Corner-Stone or Pandora’s Box’ (1997) 31 Journal of World Trade 107–35.Google Scholar
Maupin, Julie, ‘MFN-Based Jurisdiction in Investor–State Arbitration: Is There any Hope for a Consistent Approach?’ (2011) 14 Journal of International Economic Law 157–90.Google Scholar
Mayeda, Graham, ‘Playing Fair: The Meaning of Fair and Equitable Treatment in Bilateral Investment Treaties’ (2007) 41 Journal of World Trade 273–91.Google Scholar
McLachlan, Campbell, Shore, Laurence and Weiniger, Matthew (eds.), International Investment Arbitration: Substantive Principles (Oxford University Press, 2007).Google Scholar
McLachlan, Campbell, Shore, Laurence and Weiniger, Matthew (eds.), International Investment Arbitration: Substantive Principles, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2017).Google Scholar
McNair, Arnold, The Law of Treaties, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 1961).Google Scholar
Menon, Sundaresh, ‘The Transnational Protection of Private Rights: Issues, Challenges, and Possible Solutions’ (2014) 108 Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting 219–42.Google Scholar
Mereminskaya, Elina, ‘La cláusula paraguas: Lecciones de convivencia para los sistemas jurídicos’ (2009) 11 Revista Internacional de Arbitraje 13–59.Google Scholar
Mereminskaya, Elina and Mascareño, Aldo, ‘Collisions of Legal Regimes in World Society. The Umbrella Clause as a Substantive and Procedural Mechanism of Legal Coordination’ in Arias, David and Fernández-Ballesteros, Miguel A. (eds.), Liber Amicorum Bernardo Cremades (Wolters Kluwer, 2010) 819–41.Google Scholar
Merkouris, Panos, ‘In Dubio Mitius’ in Klingler, Joseph, Parkhomenko, Yuri and Salonidis, Constantinos (eds.), Between the Lines of the Vienna Convention? Canons and Other Principles of Interpretation in Public International Law (Wolters Kluwer, 2019) 259–306.Google Scholar
Merrill, Thomas W., ‘Incomplete Compensation for Takings’ (2002) 11 NYU Environmental Law Journal 110–35.Google Scholar
Miles, Craig S., ‘Where’s My Umbrella? – An “Ordinary Meaning” Approach to Answering Three Key Questions That Have Emerged from the “Umbrella Clause” Debate’ in Weiler, Todd J. Grierson (ed.), Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law (JurisNet, 2008) 3–26.Google Scholar
Miles, Kate, ‘Sustainable Development, National Treatment and Like Circumstances in Investment Law’ in Segger, Marie-Claire Cordonier, Gehring, Markus W. and Newcombe, Andrew (eds.), Sustainable Development in World Investment Law (Kluwer Law International, 2011) 265–94.Google Scholar
Miron, Smaranda, ‘In Love and War Anything is Fair – and in Arbitration?: An Overview of ICSID Awards on the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard’ (2011) 14 Zeitschrift für Europarechtliche Studien 197–211.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Andrew D., Heaton, David and Henckels, Caroline, Non-Discrimination and the Role of Regulatory Purpose in International Trade and Investment Law (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016).Google Scholar
Mitchell, Andrew D. and Munro, James, ‘Someone Else’s Deal: Interpreting International Investment Agreements in the Light of Third-Party Agreements’ (2017) 28 European Journal of International Law 669–95.Google Scholar
Mittelberger, Philipp, Der Eigentumsschutz nach Art. 1 des ersten Zusatzprotokolls zur EMRK im Lichte der Rechtsprechung der Strassburger Organe (Stämpfli Bern, 2000).Google Scholar
Molinuevo, Martín, Protecting Investment in Services: Investor–State Arbitration versus WTO Dispute Settlement (Kluwer Law International, 2011) 93–134.Google Scholar
Montt, Santiago, State Liability in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Global Constitutional and Administrative Law in the BIT Generation (Hart Publishing, 2009).Google Scholar
Moreiro González, Carlos J., ‘The Convergence of Recent International Investment Awards and Case Law on the Principle of Legitimate Expectations: Towards Common Criteria Regarding Fair and Equitable Treatment?’ (2017) 42 European Law Review 402–19.Google Scholar
Mosk, Richard M., ‘Expropriation: What To Do About It?’ (1993) 5 California International Practioner 11.Google Scholar
Mouri, Allahyar, The International Law of Expropriation as Reflected in the Work of the Iran–US Claims Tribunal (Martinus Nijhoff, 1994).Google Scholar
Mouzas, Stefanos and Furmston, Michael, ‘From Contract to Umbrella Agreement’ (2008) 67 Cambridge Law Journal 37–50.Google Scholar
Muchlinski, Peter, ‘“Caveat Investor”? The Relevance of the Conduct of the Investor under the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard’ (2006) 55 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 527–57.Google Scholar
Muchlinski, Peter, ‘Negotiating New Generation International Investment Agreements: New Sustainable Development Oriented Initiatives’ in Hindelang, Steffen and Krajewski, Markus (eds.), Shifting Paradigms in International Investment Law: More Balanced, Less Isolated, Increasingly Diversified (Oxford University Press, 2016) 41–64.Google Scholar
Muchlinski, Peter T., Multinational Enterprises and the Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2007).Google Scholar
Müller-Michaels, Olaf, Grundrechtlicher Eigentumsschutz in der Europäischen Union (Duncker & Humblot, 1997).Google Scholar
Munro, Marc A., ‘Expropriating Expropriation Law: The Implications of the Metalclad Decision on Canadian Expropriation Law and Environmental Land-Use Regulation’ (2005) 5 Asper Review of International Business and Trade Law 75–131.Google Scholar
Murase, Shinya, ‘The Most-Favored-Nation Treatment in Japan’s Treaty Practice During the Period 1854–1905’ (1976) 70 The American Journal of International Law 273–97.Google Scholar
Muse-Fisher, Michael, ‘CAFTA–DR and the Iterative Process of Bilateral Investment Treaty Making: Towards a U.S. Taking Framework for Analysing International Expropriation Claims’ (2006) 19 Pacific McGeorge Global Business and Development Law Journal 495–531.Google Scholar
Mutis Téllez, Felipe, ‘Conditions and Criteria for the Protection of Legitimate Expectations Under International Investment Law’ (2012) 27 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 432–42.Google Scholar
Nadakavukaren Schefer, Krista, International Investment Law: Text, Cases and Materials (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013) 327-360.Google Scholar
Newcombe, Andrew, Regulatory Expropriation, Investment Protection and International Law: When is Government Regulation Expropriatory and When Should Compensation Be Paid? (Thesis Toronto, 1999).Google Scholar
Newcombe, Andrew, ‘The Boundaries of Regulatory Expropriation in International Law’ (2005) 20 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 1–57.Google Scholar
Newcombe, Andrew and Paradell, Lluis, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standards of Treatment (Kluwer Law International, 2009).Google Scholar
Newmark, Chris and Poulton, Edward, ‘Siemens –v– Argentina: Most Favoured Nation Clause (Re)visited’ (2005) 3 Zeitschrift für Schiedsverfahren – German Arbitration Journal 30–3.Google Scholar
Nikièma, Suzy H., ‘The Most-Favoured-Nation Clause in Investment Treaties’ (2017) IISD Best Practice Series 1–25, available at www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/mfn-most-favoured-nation-clause-best-practices-en.pdf.Google Scholar
Nolde, Boris, ‘Droits et technique des traités de commerce’ (1924) 3 Recueil des Cours 295–461.Google Scholar
Nolde, Boris, ‘La clause de la nation la plus favorisée et les tarifs préférentiels’ (1932) 39 Recueil des Cours 5–130.Google Scholar
Norton, Patrick M., ‘A Law of the Future or a Law of the Past? Modern Tribunals and the International Law of Expropriation’ (1991) 85 American Journal of International Law 474–505.Google Scholar
Nouvel, Yves, ‘Les mesures équivalent à une expropriation dans la pratique récente des tribunaux arbitraux’ (2002) 106 Revue générale de droit international public 79–102.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, Arthur, ‘Arbitration Between the Lena Goldfields Ltd. and the Soviet Government’ (1950) 36 Cornell Law Review 31–53.Google Scholar
OECD, ‘Indirect Expropriation’ and the ‘Right to Regulate’ in International Investment Law, Working Papers on International Investment November 2004/4 (September 2004).Google Scholar
OECD, National Treatment for Foreign-Controlled Enterprises (2010), available at www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/21/1954854.pdf.Google Scholar
Oluwaseun Sadiq, Lawal, ‘Variability of Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard According to the Level of Development, Governance Capacity and Resources of Host Countries’ (2014) 9 Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology 229–35.Google Scholar
Orakhelashvili, Alexander, ‘The Normative Basis of “Fair and Equitable Treatment”: General International Law on Foreign Investment?’ (2008) 46 Archiv des Völkerrechts 74–105.Google Scholar
Orrego Vicuña, Francisco, ‘Bilateral Investment Treaties and the Most-Favored-Nation Clause: Implications for Arbitration in the Light of a Recent ICSID Case’ in Kaufmann-Kohler, Gabrielle (ed.), Investment Treaties and Arbitration: ASA Swiss Arbitration Association Conference in Zurich of January 25, 2002 (ASA Special Series, 2002) 133–58.Google Scholar
Orrego Vicuña, Francisco, ‘Customary International Law in Action: From the International Minimum Standard to Fair and Equitable Treatment’ in Hestermeyer, Holger et al. (ed.), Coexistence, Cooperation and Solidarity: Liber Amicorum Rüdiger Wolfrum (Nijhoff, 2012) 181–98.Google Scholar
Orrego Vicuña, Francisco, ‘Regulatory Authority and Legitimate Expectations: Balancing the Rights of the State and the Individual under International Law in a Global Society’ (2003) 5 International Law Forum 188–97.Google Scholar
Ortino, Federico, ‘Italy’ in Brown, Chester (ed.), Commentaries on Selected Model Investment Treaties (Oxford University Press, 2013), 321–46.Google Scholar
Ortino, Federico, ‘Non-discriminatory Treatment in Investment Disputes’ in Dupuy, Pierre-Marie, Francioni, Francesco and Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich (eds.), Human Rights in International Investment Law and Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2009) 344–66.Google Scholar
Ostřanský, Josef, ‘An Exercise in Equivocation: A Critique of Legitimate Expectations as a General Principle of Law under the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard’ in Gattini, Andrea, Tanzi, Attila and Fontanelli, Filippo (eds.), General Principles of Law and International Investment Arbitration (Brill Nijhoff, 2018) 344–77.Google Scholar
Owen Verrill, Charles, ‘Are WTO Violations also Contrary to the Fair and Equitable Treatment Obligations in Investor Protection Agreements’ (2005) 11 ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law 287–95.Google Scholar
Palombino, Fulvio Maria, Fair and Equitable Treatment and the Fabric of General Principles (T.M.C. Asser Press, 2018).Google Scholar
Palombino, Fulvio Maria, Il trattamento ‘giusto ed equo’ degli investimenti stranieri (il Mulino, 2008).Google Scholar
Pandya, Abhijit P. G. and Mood, Andy, ‘Legitimate Expectations in Investment Treaty Arbitration: An Unclear Future’ (2010/2011) 15 Tilburg Law Review 93–121.Google Scholar
Paparinskis, Martins, ‘MFN Clauses and International Dispute Settlement: Moving beyond Maffezini and Plama?’ (2011) 26 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 14–58.Google Scholar
Paparinskis, Martins, ‘MFN Clauses and Substantive Treatment: A Law of Treaties Perspective of the “Conventional Wisdom”’ (2018) 112 AJIL Unbound 49–54.Google Scholar
Paparinskis, Martins, ‘Regulatory Expropriation and Sustainable Development’ in Cordonier Segger, Marie-Claire, Gehring, Markus W., Newcombe, Andrew P. (eds.), Sustainable Development in World Investment Law (Wolters Kluwer, 2011) 295–328.Google Scholar
Paparinskis, Martins, The International Minimum Standard and Fair and Equitable Treatment (Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Paradell, Lluís, ‘The BIT Experience of the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard’ in Ortino, Federico, Liberti, Lahra, Sheppard, Audley and Warner, Hugo (eds.), Investment Treaty Law Current Issues, Volume II: Nationality and investment treaty claims. Fair and equitable treatment in investment treaty law (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2007) 117–46.Google Scholar
Parisi, Michael G., ‘Moving Toward Transparency? An Examination of Regulatory Takings in International Law’ (2005) 19 Emory International Law Review 383–426.Google Scholar
Park, William W., ‘Arbitration and the Fisc: NAFTA’s “Tax Veto”’ (2001) 2 Chicago Journal of International Law 231–41.Google Scholar
Park, William W., ‘Expropriation and Taxation Under the NAFTA’ in Weiler, Todd (ed.), NAFTA Investment Law and Arbitration: Past Issues, Current Practice, Future Prospects 93 (Brill/Nijhoff, 2004).Google Scholar
Parker, Stephanie L., ‘A BIT at a Time: The Proper Extension of the MFN Clause to Dispute Settlement Provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties’ (2012) 2 The Arbitration Brief 30–63.Google Scholar
Paulsson, Jan, Denial of Justice in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2005).Google Scholar
Paulsson, Jan, ‘Indirect Expropriation: Is the Right to Regulate at Risk?’ (2006) 3(2) Transnational Dispute Management 1–13.Google Scholar
Paulsson, Jan and Douglas, Zachary, ‘Indirect Expropriation in Investment Treaty Arbitrations’ in Horn, Norbert and Kröll, Stefan (eds.), Arbitrating Foreign Investment Disputes (Kluwer Law International, 2004) 145–59.Google Scholar
Pellonpää, Matti, ‘Compensable Claims before the Tribunal: Expropriation Claims’ in Lillich, Richard B. and Magraw, Daniel B. (eds.), The Iran–United States Claims Tribunal: Its Contribution to the Law of State Responsibility (Brill, 1998) 185–266.Google Scholar
Pellonpää, Matti and Fitzmaurice, Malgosia, ‘Taking of Property in the Practice of the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal’ (1988) 19 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 53–178.Google Scholar
Perera, Srilal M., ‘Equity-Based Decision-Making and the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard: Lessons From the Argentine Investment Disputes – Part I’ (2012) 13 Journal of World Investment & Trade 210–55.Google Scholar
Perera, Srilal M., ‘Equity-Based Decision-Making and the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard: Lessons From the Argentine Investment Disputes – Part II’ (2012) 13 Journal of World Investment & Trade 442–85.Google Scholar
Pérez Cortés, Ignacio and Etchegorry, María Alejandra, ‘El consentimiento al arbitraje internacional de inversión y la Cláusula de Nación Más Favorecida’ in Soto Coaguila, Carlos Alberto (ed.), Tratado de derecho arbitral : El convenio arbitral – Tomo I (Instituto Peruano de Arbitraje, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Grupo Editorial Ibanez, 2011) 247–73.Google Scholar
Pérez-Aznar, Facundo, ‘The Fictions and Realities of MFN Clauses in International Investment Agreements’ (2018) 112 AJIL Unbound 55–9.Google Scholar
Pérez-Aznar, Facundo, ‘The Use of Most-Favoured-Nation Clauses to Import Substantive Treaty Provisions in International Investment Agreements’ (2017) 20 Journal of International Economic Law 777–805.Google Scholar
Perkams, Markus, ‘The Concept of Indirect Expropriation in Comparative Public Law: Searching for Light in the Dark’ in Schill, Stephan W. (ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (Oxford University Press, 2010) 107–50.Google Scholar
Pescatore, Pierre ‘La clause de la nation la plus favorisée dans les conventions multilatérales’ (1969) 53 Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International 1–292.Google Scholar
Peukert, Wolfgang, ‘Artikel 1 des 1. ZP’ in Frowein, Jochen A. and Peukert, Wolfgang (eds.), Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention: EMRK-Kommentar (Engel Kehl, 1996) 763–827.Google Scholar
Picherack, J. Roman, ‘The Expanding Scope of the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard: Have Recent Tribunals Gone Too Far?’ (2008) 9 Journal of World Investment & Trade 255–91.Google Scholar
Piot, Alice, ‘La clause de la nation la plus favorisée’ (1956) 45 Revue critique de droit international privé 17–40.Google Scholar
Porterfield, Matthew C., ‘A Distinction Without a Difference? The Interpretation of Fair and Equitable Treatment Under Customary International Law by Investment Tribunals’ (2013) International Institute for Sustainable Development (Investment Treaty News), available at www.iisd.org/itn/2013/03/22/a-distinction-without-a-difference-the-interpretation-of-fair-and-equitable-treatment-under-customary-international-law-by-investment-tribunals/.Google Scholar
Potestà, Michele, ‘Legitimate Expectations in Investment Treaty Law: Understanding the Roots and the Limits of a Controversial Concept’ (2013) 28 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 88–122.Google Scholar
Potts, Jonathan B., ‘Stabilizing the Role of Umbrella Clauses in Bilateral Investment Treaties: Intent, Reliance, and Internationalization’ (2011) 51 Virginia Journal of International Law 1005–46.Google Scholar
Price, Daniel M., ‘An Overview of the NAFTA Investment Chapter: Substantive Rules and Investor–State Dispute Settlement’ (1993) 27 The International Lawyer 727–37.Google Scholar
Price, Daniel M., ‘Chapter 11 – Private Party vs. Government, Investor–State Dispute Settlement: Frankenstein or Safety Valve?’ (2000) 26 Canada–United States Law Journal 107–114.Google Scholar
Radi, Yannick, ‘The Application of the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause to the Dispute Settlement Provisions of Bilateral Investment Treaties: Domesticating the Trojan Horse’ (2007) 18 European Journal of International Law 757−74.Google Scholar
Rajput, Aniruddha, ‘Problems with the Jurisprudence of the Iran–US Claims Tribunal on Indirect Expropriation’ (2015) 30 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 589–615.Google Scholar
Rajput, Aniruddha, Protection of Foreign Investment in India and Investment Treaty Arbitration (Wolters Kluwer, 2018).Google Scholar
Rajput, Aniruddha, Regulatory Freedom and Indirect Expropriation in Investment Arbitration (Wolters Kluwer, 2018).Google Scholar
Ranjan, Prabhash, ‘Comparing Investment Provisions in India’s FTAs with India’s Stand-Alone BITs: contributing to the Evolution of New Indian BIT Practice’ (2015) 16 Journal of World Investment & Trade 899–930.Google Scholar
Ranjan, Prabhash, ‘Most Favoured Nation Provision in Indian Bilateral Investment Treaties: A Case for Reform’ (2015) 55 Indian Journal of International Law 39–64.Google Scholar
Ranjan, Prabhash, ‘Police Powers, Indirect Expropriation in International Investment Law, and Article 31(3)(c) of the VCLT: A Critique of Philip Morris v. Uruguay’ (2018) Asian Journal of International Law 1–27.Google Scholar
Ratner, Steven R., ‘Compensation for Expropriations in a World of Investment Treaties: Beyond the Lawful/Unlawful Distinction’ (2017) 111 American Journal of International Law 7–56.Google Scholar
Reed, Lucy and Bray, Daina, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment: Fairly and Equitably Applied in Lieu of Unlawful Indirect Expropriation?’ in Rovine, Arthur W. (ed.), Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration and Mediation: The Fordham Papers 2007 (Nijhoff, 2008) 13–27.Google Scholar
Reinisch, August, ‘Austria’ in Brown, Chester (ed.), Commentaries on Selected Model Investment Treaties (Oxford University Press, 2013), 15–51.Google Scholar
Reinisch, August, ‘European Court of Justice: Commission of the European Communities v. Austria and Sweden (March 3, 2009) Introductory Note’ (2009) 48 International Legal Materials 470–2.Google Scholar
Reinisch, August, ‘Expropriation’ in Muchlinski, Peter, Ortino, Federico and Schreuer, Christoph (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law (Oxford University Press, 2008) 407–58.Google Scholar
Reinisch, August, ‘From Contested Jurisdiction to Indirect Expropriation and Fair and Equitable Treatment – Developments in ICSID Arbitration in 2004’ in Capaldo, Giuliana Ziccardi (ed.), The Global Community. Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence (Oxford University Press, 2005) 1653–70.Google Scholar
Reinisch, August, ‘From Rediscovered Waiting Periods to Ever More Activist Annulment Committees – ICSID Arbitration in 2010’ in Capaldo, Giuliana Ziccardi (ed.), The Global Community. Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence 2011 (Oxford University Press, 2012) 933–56.Google Scholar
Reinisch, August, ‘From Reshaping the Salini Criteria to Solidifying the Elements of Fair and Equitable Treatment – ICSID Arbitration in 2012’ in Capaldo, Giuliana Ziccardi (ed.), The Global Community. Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence 2013 (Oxford University Press, 2014) 915–40.Google Scholar
Reinisch, August, ‘From the First Bondholders’ Claim Held to be Outside the Jurisdiction of ICSID to the Legality Requirement for Lawful Expropriations and Various Elements of Fair and Equitable Treatment – ICSID Arbitration in 2015’ in Capaldo, Giuliana Ziccardi (ed.), The Global Community. Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence 2016 (Oxford University Press, 2017) 713–33.Google Scholar
Reinisch, August, ‘How Narrow are Narrow Dispute Settlement Clauses in Investment Treaties?’ (2011) 2 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 115–74.Google Scholar
Reinisch, August, ‘ICSID: Plama Consortium Limited v. Republic of Bulgaria. Introductory Note’ (2005) 44 International Legal Materials 717–58.Google Scholar
Reinisch, August, ‘Is Expropriation Ripe for Codification? – The Example of the Non-discrimination Requirement for Lawful Expropriations’ in Bjorklund, Andrea K. and Reinisch, August (eds.), International Investment Law and Soft Law (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2012) 271–304.Google Scholar
Reinisch, August, ‘Legality of Expropriations’ in Reinisch, August (ed.), Standards of Investment Protection (Oxford University Press, 2008) 171–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinisch, August, ‘Maffezini v Spain Case’ in Wolfrum, Rüdiger (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol. VI (Oxford University Press, 2012) 973–8.Google Scholar
Reinisch, August, ‘Most Favoured Nation Treatment’ in Bungenberg, Marc, Griebel, Jörn, Hobe, Stephan and Reinisch, August (eds.), International Investment Law. A Handbook (Beck/Nomos/Hart, 2015) 807–45.Google Scholar
Reinisch, August, ‘National Treatment’ in Bungenberg, Marc, Griebel, Jörn, Hobe, Stephan and Reinisch, August (eds.), International Investment Law. A Handbook (Beck/Nomos/Hart, 2015) 846–69.Google Scholar
Reinisch, August, ‘National Treatment: Bayindir v. Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/29’ in Kinnear, Meg, Fischer, Geraldine R., Almeida, Jara Mínguez, Torres, Luisa Fernanda and Bidegain, Mairée Uran (eds.), Building International Investment Law: The First Fifty Years of ICSID (Kluwer Law International, 2016) 389–98.Google Scholar
Reinisch, August, Recent Developments in International Investment Law (Pedone, 2009).Google Scholar
Reinisch, August, ‘The EU on the Investment Path – Quo Vadis Europe? The Future of EU BITs and Other Investment Agreements’ (2014) 12 Santa Clara Journal of International Law 111–57.Google Scholar
Reinisch, August and Stifter, Lukas, ‘Expropriation in the Light of the UNCTAD Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development’ in Hindelang, Steffen and Krajewski, Markus (eds.), Shifting Paradigms in International Investment Law (Oxford University Press, 2016) 81–96.Google Scholar
Reisman, W. Michael and Arsanjani, Mahnoush H., ‘The Question of Unilateral Governmental Statements as Applicable Law in Investment Disputes’ (2004) 19 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 328–43.Google Scholar
Reisman, W. Michael and Sloane, Robert D., ‘Indirect Expropriation and its Valuation in the BIT Generation’ (2003) 74 British Yearbook of International Law 115–50.Google Scholar
Ribeiro, Renato, Nationalization of Foreign Property in International Law (Brazilian Embassy, 1977).Google Scholar
Rigo Sureda, Andrés, Investment Treaty Arbitration Judging under Uncertainty (Cambridge University Press, 2012) 86–92.Google Scholar
Rivas, José Antonio, ‘Application of Substantive Treaty Obligations via the Most-Favored-Nation Clause: ICSID Case Law Evolution’ in Sabahi, Borzu, Birch, Nicholas J., Laird, Ian and Rivas, José Antonio (eds.), A Revolution in the International Rule of Law: Essays in Honor of Don Wallace, Jr. (JurisNet, 2014) 433–54.Google Scholar
Rivas, José Antonio, ‘Colombia’ in Brown, Chester (ed.), Commentaries on Selected Model Investment Treaties (Oxford University Press, 2013) 183–244.Google Scholar
Robert-Cuendet, Sabrina, Droits de l’investisseur étranger et protection de l’environnement: Contribution à l’analyse de l’expropriation indirecte (Brill, 2010).Google Scholar
Rodriguez, Alejandro Faya, ‘The Most-Favoured-Nation Clause in International Investment Agreements: A Tool for Treaty Shopping?’ (2008) 25 Journal of International Arbitration 89–102.Google Scholar
Rossillion, Claude, ‘La clause de la nation la plus favorisée dans la jurisprudence de la Cour internationale de Justice’ (1955) 82 Journal du droit international 76.Google Scholar
Roth, Andreas H., The Minimum Standard of International Law Applied to Aliens (A. W. Sijthoff, 1949).Google Scholar
Royalty, Kent and Ross, Dianna, ‘NAFTA Chapter 11: “Tantamount to Expropriation”: Tantamount to Explosive’ (2007) 21 The International Trade Journal 299–327.Google Scholar
Rubins, Noah, ‘MFN Clause, Procedural Rights, and a Return to the Treaty Text’ in Weiler, Todd (ed.), Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law, vol. I (JurisNet, 2008) 213–32.Google Scholar
Rubins, Noah D., ‘Must the Victorious Investor–Claimant Relinquish Title to Expropriated Property?’ (2003) 4 Journal of World Investment & Trade 481–91.Google Scholar
Rubins, Noah and Kinsella, N. Stephan, International Investment, Political Risk and Dispute Resolution: A Practitioner’s Guide (Oceana Publications, 2005).Google Scholar
Rubins, Noah and Love, Ben, ‘The Scope of Application of International Investment Agreements – Ratione Temporis’ in Bungenberg, Marc, Griebel, Jörn, Hobe, Stephan and Reinisch, August (eds.), International Investment Law. A Handbook (Beck/Nomos/Hart, 2015) 481–94.Google Scholar
Ruffert, Matthias, ‘The Protection of Foreign Direct Investment by the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2000) 43 German Yearbook of International Law 116–48.Google Scholar
Ryan, Margaret Clare, ‘Glamis Gold, Ltd. v. The United States and the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard’ (2011) 56 McGill Law Journal 919–58.Google Scholar
Sabahi, Borzu, Compensation and Restitution in Investor–State Arbitration. Principles and Practice (Oxford University Press, 2011).Google Scholar
Sabahi, Borzu, ‘National Treatment: Is Discriminatory Intent Relevant?’ in Weiler, Todd (ed.), Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law (JurisNet, 2008) 269–97.Google Scholar
Sacco, Sabina and Fernández-Fonseca, Mónica C., ‘National Treatment in Investment Arbitration’ in Huerta-Goldman, Jorge A., Romanetti, Antoine and Stirnimann, Franz X. (eds.), WTO Litigation, Investment Arbitration, and Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer Law International, 2013) 239–62.Google Scholar
Sacerdoti, Giorgio, ‘Bilateral Treaties and Multilateral Instruments on Investment Protection’ (1997) 269 Recueil des Cours 379–405.Google Scholar
Sacerdoti, Giorgio, ‘Havana Charter’ in Wolfrum, Rüdiger (ed.), International Economic Law. The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015) 335–43.Google Scholar
Sachs, Klaus and Häusler, Susanne, ‘Import of Umbrella Clauses by Way of Invoking Most-Favored-Nation-Treatment Clauses in International Investment Treaty Law’ in Geimer, Reinhold, Kaissis, Athanassios and Thümmel, Roderich C. (eds.), Ars aequi et boni in mundo: Festschrift für Rolf A. Schütze zum 80. Geburtstag (C.H. Beck, 2014) 499–509.Google Scholar
Salacuse, Jeswald W., The Law of Investment Treaties (Oxford University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
Salacuse, Jeswald W., The Law of Investment Treaties, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2015).Google Scholar
Salatino, Gregorio, ‘Overview of Umbrella Clauses’ (2012) 13 Business Law International 51.Google Scholar
Sampliner, Gary H., ‘Arbitration of Expropriation Cases under US Investment Treaties – A Threat to Democracy or the Dog that Didn’t Bark?’ (2003) 18 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 1–43.Google Scholar
Sandrino, Gloria L., ‘The NAFTA Investment Chapter and Foreign Direct Investment in Mexico: A Third World Perspective’ (1994) 27 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 259–328.Google Scholar
Sands, Phillippe, ‘Searching for Balance: Concluding Remarks’ (2002) 11 NYU Environmental Law Journal 198–207.Google Scholar
Sarzo, Matteo, ‘The National Treatment Obligation’ in Gattini, Andrea, Tanzi, Attila and Fontanelli, Filippo (eds.), General Principles of Law and International Investment Arbitration (Brill/Nijhoff 2018) 378–97.Google Scholar
Sattorova, Mavluda, ‘Denial of Justice Disguised? Investment Arbitration and the Protection of Foreign Investors from Judicial Misconduct’ (2012) 61 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 223–46.Google Scholar
Sauvignon, Edouard, La clause de la nation la plus favorisée (Presses Universitaires de Grenoble, 1972).Google Scholar
Schachter, Oscar, ‘Compensation for Expropriation’ (1984) 78 American Journal of International Law 121–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schernbeck, Andrea, Der Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in internationalen Investitionsschutzabkommen (Nomos, 2013).Google Scholar
Schill, Stephan W., ‘“Fair and Equitable Treatment” as an Embodiment of the Rule of Law’ in Hofmann, Rainer, Tams, Christian J. (eds.), The International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID): Taking Stock after Forty Years (Nomos, 2007) 31–72.Google Scholar
Schill, Stephan, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment under Investment Treaties as an Embodiment of the Rule of Law’ (2006) 6 Institute for International Law and Justice Working Paper 1–39.Google Scholar
Schill, Stephan, ‘Revisiting a Landmark: Indirect Expropriation and Fair and Equitable Treatment in the ICSID Case Tecmed’ (2006) 3(2) Transnational Dispute Management 1–16.Google Scholar
Schill, Stephan W., ‘Allocating Adjudicatory Authority: Most-Favoured-Nation Clauses as a Basis of Jurisdiction – A Reply to Zachary Douglas’ (2011) 2 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 353–71.Google Scholar
Schill, Stephan W., ‘Enabling Private Ordering, Function, Scope and Effect of Umbrella Clauses in International Investment Treaties’ (2009) 18 Minnesota Journal of International Law 1–97.Google Scholar
Schill, Stephan W., ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment, the Rule of Law and Comparative Public Law’ in Schill, Stephan W. (ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (Oxford University Press, 2010) 151–82.Google Scholar
Schill, Stephan W. ‘Maffezini v. Plama: Reflections on the Jurisprudential Schism in the Application of Most-Favored-Nation Clauses to Matters of Dispute Settlement: Maffezini v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7, Plama v. Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24’ in Kinnear, Meg, Fischer, Geraldine R., Almeida, Jara Mínguez, Torres, Luisa Fernanda and Bidegain, Mairée Uran (eds.), Building International Investment Law: The First Fifty Years of ICSID (Kluwer Law International, 2016) 251–65.Google Scholar
Schill, Stephan W., ‘MFN Clauses as Bilateral Commitments to Multilateralism: A Reply to Simon Batifort and J. Benton Heath’ (2017) 111 American Journal of International Law 914–35.Google Scholar
Schill, Stephan W., ‘Multilateralizing Investment Treaties through Most-Favoured-Nation Clauses’ (2009) 27 Berkeley Journal of International Law 496–569.Google Scholar
Schill, Stephan W., The Multilateralization of International Investment Law (Cambridge University Press, 2009).Google Scholar
Schill, Stephan W., ‘Umbrella Clauses as Public Law Concepts in Comparative Perspective’ in Schill, Stephan W. (ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (Oxford University Press, 2010) 317–44.Google Scholar
Schmid, Michael, ‘Swiss Investment Treaties and their Umbrella Clauses’ in Hoffmann, Anne K. (ed.), Protection of Foreign Investment Through Modern Treaty Arbitration (ASA Special Series, 2010) 7–27.Google Scholar
Schmid, Michael, ‘Switzerland’ in Brown, Chester (ed.), Commentaries on Selected Model Investment Treaties (Oxford University Press, 2013), 651–96.Google Scholar
Schramke, Hein-Jürgen, ‘Umbrella Clause in Bilateralen Investitionsschutzabkommen’ (2006) 4 Zeitschrift für Schiedsverfahren – German Arbitration Journal 249–58.Google Scholar
Schreuer, Christoph, ‘Calvo’s Grandchildren: The Return of Local Remedies in Investment Arbitration’ (2005) 4 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 1–17.Google Scholar
Schreuer, Christoph, ‘Decisions Ex Aequo et Bono Under the ICSID Convention’ (1996) 11 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 37–63.Google Scholar
Schreuer, Christoph, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET): Interactions with Other Standards’ in Coop, Graham and Ribeiro, Clarisse (eds.), Investment Protection and the Energy Charter Treaty (JurisNet, 2008) 63–100.Google Scholar
Schreuer, Christoph, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment in Arbitral Practice’ (2005) 6 Journal of World Investment & Trade 357–86.Google Scholar
Schreuer, Christoph, ‘Full Protection and Security’ (2010) 1 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 353–69.Google Scholar
Schreuer, Christoph, ‘Investment Treaty Arbitration and Jurisdiction over Contract Claims – the Vivendi Case’ in Weiler, Todd (ed.), International Investment Law and Arbitration: Leading Cases from the ICSID, NAFTA, Bilateral Treaties and Customary International Law (Cameron May, 2005) 299–301.Google Scholar
Schreuer, Christoph, ‘Investments, International Protection’ in Wolfrum, Rüdiger (ed.), International Economic Law. The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, 2012) 559–78.Google Scholar
Schreuer, Christoph, ‘Protection against Arbitrary or Discriminatory Measures’ in Rogers, Catherine and Alford, Roger (eds.), The Future of Investment Arbitration, vol. VI (Oxford University Press, 2009) 328–45.Google Scholar
Schreuer, Christoph H., ‘Shareholder Protection in International Investment Law’ in Dupuy, Pierre M., Fassbender, Bardo, Shaw, Malcolm N., Sommermann, Karl P. (eds.), Common Values in International Law: Essays in Honour of Christian Tomuschat (Engel, 2006) 601–19.Google Scholar
Schreuer, Christoph H., ‘The Concept of Expropriation under the ETC and Other Investment Protection Treaties’ (2005) 2(5) Transnational Dispute Management 1–39.Google Scholar
Schreuer, Christoph H., ‘The Concept of Expropriation under the ETC and Other Investment Protection Treaties’ in Ribeiro, Clarisse (ed.), Investment Arbitration and the Energy Charter Treaty (Juris Huntington NY, 2006) 108–59.Google Scholar
Schreuer, Christoph, ‘Travelling the BIT Route: Of Waiting Periods, Umbrella Clauses and Forks in the Road’ (2004) 5 Journal of World Investment & Trade 231–56.Google Scholar
Schreuer, Christoph and Kriebaum, Ursula, ‘At What Time Must Legitimate Expectations Exist?’ in Werner, Jacques and Ali, Arif Hyder (eds.), A Liber Amicorum: Thomas Wälde. Law Beyond Conventional Thoughts (Cameron May, 2009) 265–76.Google Scholar
Schreuer, Christoph H. and Kriebaum, Ursula, ‘The Concept of Property in Human Rights Law and International Investment Law’ in Breitenmoser, Stephan, Ehrenzeller, Bernhard, Sassoli, Marco, Stoffel, Walter and Wagner Pfeifer, Beatrice (eds.), Liber Amicorum Luzius Wildhaber. Human Rights Democracy and the Rule of Law (Nomos, 2007) 743–62.Google Scholar
Schrijver, Nico, Sovereignty over Natural Resources: Balancing Rights and Duties (Cambridge University Press, 1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarze, Jürgen, ‘The Principle of Proportionality and the Principle of Impartiality in European Administrative Law’ (2003) 1 Rivista trimestrale di diritto publico 53–75.Google Scholar
Schwarzenberger, Georg, Foreign Investments and International Law (Stevens, 1969).Google Scholar
Schwarzenberger, Georg, ‘The Abs-Shawcross Draft Convention on Investment Abroad: A Critical Commentary’ (1960) 9 Journal of Public Law 147–71.Google Scholar
Schwarzenberger, Georg, ‘The Most-Favoured-Nation Standard in British State Practice’ (1945) 22 British Yearbook of International Law 96–121.Google Scholar
Schwarzenberger, Georg, ‘The Principles and Standards of International Economic Law’ (1966) 117 Recueil des Cours 1–98.Google Scholar
Schwarzenberger, Georg, ‘The Province and Standards of International Economic Law’ (1948) 2 The International Law Quarterly 402–20.Google Scholar
Schwebel, Stephen M., International Arbitration: Three Salient Problems (Grotius Publications, 1987).Google Scholar
Schwebel, Stephen, ‘Is Neer Far From Fair and Equitable?’ (2011) 27 Arbitration International 555–61.Google Scholar
Schwebel, Stephen M., ‘On Whether the Breach by a State of a Contract with an Alien Is a Breach of International Law’ in Schwebel, Stephen M., Justice in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 1994) 425–35.Google Scholar
Schwebel, Stephen, ‘The Influence of Bilateral Investment Treaties on Customary International Law’ (2005) 2(5) Transnational Dispute Management 26–30.Google Scholar
Sedigh, Hassan, ‘What Level of Host State Interference Amounts to a Taking under Contemporary International Law?’ (2001) 4 Journal of World Investment & Trade 631–84.Google Scholar
Seidl-Hohenveldern, Ignaz, ‘Communist Theories on Confiscation and Expropriation. Critical Comments’ (1958) 7 American Journal of Comparative Law 541–71.Google Scholar
Seidl-Hohenveldern, Ignaz, International Economic Law (Kluwer Law International, 1999).Google Scholar
Seidl-Hohenveldern, Ignaz, ‘International Economic Law. General Course on Public International Law’ (1986) 198 Recueil des Cours 9–126.Google Scholar
Seidl-Hohenveldern, Ignaz, Internationales Konfiskations- und Enteignungsrecht (De Gruyter, 1952).Google Scholar
Seidl-Hohenveldern, Ignaz, ‘The Abs-Shawcross Draft Convention to Protect Private Foreign Investment: Comments on the Round Table’ (1961) 10 Journal of Public Law 100–12.Google Scholar
Seriki, Hakem, ‘Umbrella Clauses and Investment Treaty Arbitration: All Encompassing or a Respite for Sovereign States and State Entities’ (2007) Journal of Business Law 570–81.Google Scholar
Setser, Vernon G., ‘Did Americans Originate the Conditional Most-Favored-Nation Clause?’ (1933) 5 The Journal of Modern History 319–323.Google Scholar
Shan, Wenhua (ed.), The Legal Protection of Foreign Investment (Hart Publishing, 2012).Google Scholar
Shan, Wenhua, ‘Umbrella Clauses and Investment Contracts under Chinese Bits: Are the Latter Covered by the Former?’ (2010) 11 Journal of World Investment & Trade 135–67.Google Scholar
Shan, Wenhua and Gallagher, Norah, ‘China’ in Brown, Chester (ed.), Commentaries on Selected Model Investment Treaties (Oxford University Press, 2013) 131–82.Google Scholar
Shan, Wenhua, Gallagher, Norah and Zhang, Sheng, ‘National Treatment for Foreign Investment in China: A Changing Landscape’ (2012) 27 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 120–44.Google Scholar
Shany, Yuval, ‘Contract Claims vs. Treaty Claims: Mapping Conflicts between ICSID Decisions on Multisourced Investment Claims’ (2005) 99 American Journal of International Law 835–51.Google Scholar
Shaw, Malcolm, International Law, 6th ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2008).Google Scholar
Shea, Donald R., The Calvo Clause – A Problem of Inter-American and International Law and Diplomacy (University of Minnesota Press, 1955).Google Scholar
Shenkman, Ethan and File, Jason, ‘Contract Claims in Investment Treaty Arbitrations: Recent Umbrella Clause Case Developments’ in Global Legal Group Ltd (ed.), The International Comparative Legal Guide to: International Arbitration, 6th ed. (Global Legal Group, 2009).Google Scholar
Sheppard, Audley, ‘The Distinction between Lawful and Unlawful Expropriation’ in Ribeiro, Clarisse (ed.), Investment Arbitration and the Energy Charter Treaty (JurisNet, 2006) 169–200.Google Scholar
Shihata, Ibrahim F. I., ‘Applicable Law in International Arbitration: Specific Aspects in Case of the Involvement of State Parties’ in Shihata, Ibrahim F. I. and Wolfensohn, James D. (eds.), The World Bank in a Changing World: Selected Essays and Lectures, vol. II (Brill Academic Publishers, 1995) 595–601.Google Scholar
Shuster, Milan R., The Public International Law of Money (Oxford University Press, 1973).Google Scholar
Silver, Nicole Y., ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment – Bedrock Protection for the Rule of International Law or Frankenstein Chimera and Unpredictable Threat to National Sovereignty?’ in Laird, Ian A., Sabahi, Borzu, Sourgens, Frédéric G. and Weiler, Todd J. (eds.) Investment Treaty Arbitration (JurisNet, 2017) 199–220.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Anthony, ‘Bridging the Contract/Treaty Divide’ in Binder, Christina, Kriebaum, Ursula, Reinisch, August and Wittich, Stephan (eds.), International Investment Law for the 21st Century: Essays in Honour of Christoph Schreuer (Oxford University Press, 2009) 92–104.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Anthony, ‘The Origins of the Umbrella Clause in the International Law of Investment Protection’ (2004) 20 Arbitration International 411–34.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Anthony, ‘The Umbrella Clause Debate’ in Bjorklund, Andrea K., Laird, Ian A. and Ripinsky, Sergey (eds.), Investment Treaty Law, Current Issues Volume III: Remedies in International Investment Law: Emerging Jurisprudence of International Investment Law (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009) 273–312.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Anthony, ‘Umbrella Clauses’ in Bungenberg, Marc, Griebel, Jörn, Hobe, Stephan and Reinisch, August (eds.), International Investment Law, (Beck/Hart/Nomos, 2015) 887–958.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Ian, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 2nd ed. (Manchester University Press, 1984).Google Scholar
Siwy, Alfred, ‘Indirect Expropriation and the Legitimate Expectations of the Investor’ in Klausegger, Christian, Klein, Peter, Kremslehner, Florian, Petsche, Alexander, Pitkowitz, Nikolaus, Power, Jenny, Welser, Irene and Zeiler, Gerold (eds.), Austrian Arbitration Yearbook 2007 (Beck/Stämpfli/Manz, 2007) 355–77.Google Scholar
Slade, Alexander, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment – An Evolutionary International Standard or Artificial Legal Fiction? Where Did It Come From and Does FET Have a Future?’ in Laird, Ian A., Sabahi, Borzu, Sourgens, Frédéric G. and Weiler, Todd J. (eds.), Investment Treaty Arbitration (JurisNet, 2017) 175–98.Google Scholar
Słok-Wódkowska, Magdalena, ‘Most-Favoured Nation and National Treatment in the EU and US Regional Trade Agreements – Tools for Equal or Discriminatory Treatment?’ in Pazartzis, Photini, Gavouneli, Maria, Gourgourinis, Anastasios and Papadaki, Matina (eds.), Reconceptualising the Rule of Law in Global Governance, Resources, Investment and Trade (Hart Publishing, 2016) 447–64.Google Scholar
Smutny, Abby Cohen, ‘Compensation for Expropriation in the Investment Treaty Context’ (2006) 3(3) Transnational Dispute Management 1–12.Google Scholar
Smutny, Abby Cohen, ‘State Responsibility and Attribution: When Is a State Responsible for the Acts of State Enterprises? Emilio Agustín Maffezini v. The Kingdom of Spain’ in Weiler, Todd (ed.), International Investment Law and Arbitration (Cameron May, 2005) 17–45.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, Elizabeth, ‘Protecting Investors’ Legitimate Expectations – Recognizing and Delimiting a General Principle’ (2006) 21 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 1–58.Google Scholar
Snyder, Richard Carlton, The Most-Favored-Nation Clause: An Analysis with Particular Reference to Recent Treaty Practice and Tariffs (King’s Crown Press, 1948).Google Scholar
Sohn, Louis B. and Baxter, Richard R., ‘Responsibility of States for Injuries to the Economic Interests of Aliens’ (1961) 55 American Journal of International Law 545–84.Google Scholar
Soloway, Julie, ‘NAFTA’s Chapter 11 – The Challenge of Private Party Participation’ (1999) 16 Journal of International Arbitration 1–14.Google Scholar
Sornarajah, Muthucumaraswamy, ‘Developing Countries in the Investment Treaty System: A Law for Need or a Law for Greed?’ in Schill, Stephan W., Tams, Christian J. and Hofmann, Rainer (eds.), International Investment Law and Development. Bridging the Gap (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015) 43–68.Google Scholar
Sornarajah, Muthucumaraswamy, ‘The Fair and Equitable Standard of Treatment: Whose Fairness? Whose Equity?’ in Ortino, Federico, Liberti, Lahra, Sheppard, Audley and Warner, Hugo (eds.), Investment Treaty Law Current Issues, Volume II: Nationality and Investment Treaty Claims. Fair and Equitable Treatment in Investment Treaty Law (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2007) 167–82.Google Scholar
Sornarajah, Muthucumaraswamy, Resistance and Change in the International Law on Foreign Investment (Cambridge University Press, 2015).Google Scholar
Sornarajah, Muthucumaraswamy, The International Law on Foreign Investment, 1st ed. (Cambridge University Press, 1994).Google Scholar
Sornarajah, Muthucumaraswamy, The International Law on Foreign Investment, 3rd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
Sornarajah, Muthucumaraswamy, The International Law on Foreign Investment, 4th ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2017).Google Scholar
Spiermann, Ole, ‘Individual Rights, State Interests and the Power to Waive ICSID Jurisdiction under Bilateral Investment Treaties’ (2004) 20 Arbitration International 179–211.Google Scholar
Stern, Brigitte, ‘ICSID Arbitration and the State’s Increasingly Remote Consent: Apropos the Maffezini Case’ in Charnovitz, Steve, Steger, Debra P. and van den Bossche, Pieter (eds.), Law in the Service of Human Dignity: Essays in Honour of Florentino Feliciano (Cambridge University Press, 2005) 246–60.Google Scholar
Stern, Brigitte, ‘In Search of the Frontiers of Indirect Expropriation’ in Rovine, Arthur W. (ed.), Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration and Mediation (Brill, 2008) 29–52.Google Scholar
Stone, Jacob, ‘Arbitrariness, the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard, and the International Law of Investment’ (2012) 25 Leiden Journal of International Law 77–107.Google Scholar
Stone, Madeline, ‘NAFTA Article 1110: Environmental Friend or Foe?’ (2003) 15 Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 763–89.Google Scholar
Sturma, Pavel, ‘Goodbye, Maffezini?: On the Recent Developments of Most-Favoured-Nation Clause Interpretation in International Investment Law’ (2016) 15 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 81–101.Google Scholar
Subedi, Surya P., International Investment Law. Reconciling Policy and Principle (Hart Publishing, 2008).Google Scholar
Subedi, Surya P., ‘The Challenge of Reconciling the Competing Principles Within the Law of Foreign Investment with Special Reference to the Recent Trend in the Interpretation of the Term “Expropriation”’ (2006) 40 The International Lawyer 121–41.Google Scholar
Sullivan, Edward J. and Connor, Kelly D., ‘Making the Continent Safe for Investors – NAFTA and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the American Constitution’ (2004) 36 The Urban Lawyer 99.Google Scholar
Sureda, Andrés Rigo, ‘The Umbrella Clause – SGS v. Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/13 and SGS v. Philippines, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/6’ in Kinnear, Meg, Fischer, Geraldine R., Almeida, Jara Mínguez, Torres, Luisa Fernanda and Bidegain, Mairée Uran (eds.), Building International Investment Law: The First 50 Years of ICSID (Kluwer Law International, 2016) 375–87.Google Scholar
Sutton, Stephen D., ‘Emilio Agustin Maffezini v. Kingdom of Spain and the ICSID Secretary-General’s Screening Power’ (2005) 21 Arbitration International 113–26.Google Scholar
Tabet, Sylvie, ‘Beyond the Smoking Gun – Is a Discriminatory Objective Necessary to Find a Breach of National Treatment?’ in Weiler, Todd (ed.), Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law (JurisNet, 2008) 299–313.Google Scholar
Tawil, Guido S., ‘Most Favoured Nation Clauses and Jurisdictional Clauses in Investment Treaty Arbitration’ in Binder, Christina, Kriebaum, Ursula, Reinisch, August and Wittich, Stephan (eds.), International Investment Law for the Twenty-First Century: Essays in Honour of Christoph Schreuer (Oxford University Press, 2009) 9–30.Google Scholar
Teitelbaum, Ruth, ‘Who’s Afraid of Maffezini? Recent Developments in the Interpretation of Most Favored Nation Clauses’ (2005) 22 Journal of International Arbitration 225–38.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. Christopher, ‘Reflection on Article 1105 of NAFTA: History, State Practice and the Influence of Commentators’ (2002) 17 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 21–101.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. Christopher, ‘Umbrella Clauses: Where Do Matters Stand?’, Presentation, 23rd AAA/ICC/ICSID Joint Colloquium on International Arbitration, Washington D.C., 17 November 2006.Google Scholar
Tietje, Christian and Sipiorski, Emily, ‘The Evolution of Investment Protection based on Public International Law Treaties: Lessons to be Learned’ in Bjorklund, Andrea K. and Reinisch, August (eds.), International Investment Law and Soft Law (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2012) 192–237.Google Scholar
Titi, Aikaterini, The Right to Regulate in International Investment Law (Nomos/Hart Publishing, 2014).Google Scholar
Titi, Catharine, ‘Full Protection and Security, Arbitrary or Discriminatory Treatment and the Invisible EU Model BIT’ (2014) 15 Journal of World Investment & Trade 534–50.Google Scholar
Titi, Catharine, ‘Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment: Survival Clauses and Reform of International Investment Law’ (2016) 33 Journal of International Arbitration 425–40.Google Scholar
Titi, Catharine, ‘Police Powers Doctrine and International Investment Law’ in Fontanelli, Filippo, Gattini, Andrea and Tanzi, Attila (eds.), General Principles of Law and International Investment Arbitration (Brill, 2018) 323–43.Google Scholar
Tschen, Ana, ‘Chapter 11: The Efforts to Define Expropriation’ (1999) 8 Currents: International Trade Law Journal 50–60.Google Scholar
Tuck, Andrew, ‘The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard Pursuant to the Investment Provisions of the U.S. Free Trade Agreements with Peru, Colombia and Panama’ (2010) 16 Law and Business Review of the Americas 385–408.Google Scholar
Tudor, Ioana, The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in the International Law of Foreign Investment (Oxford University Press, 2008).Google Scholar
Tzanakópoulos, Antonios, ‘National Treatment and MFN in the (Invisible) EU Model BIT’ (2014) 15 Journal of World Investment & Trade 484–505.Google Scholar
Uchkunova, Inna and Temnikov, Oleg, ‘Toss out the Baby and Put the Water to Bed: On MFN Clauses and the Significance of Treaty Interpretation’ (2015) 30 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 414–36.Google Scholar
UNCTAD, Admission and Establishment, Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements, UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/10 (>United Nations 2002).United+Nations+2002).>Google Scholar
UNCTAD, Bilateral Investment Treaties 1995–2006: Trends in Investment Treaty Rulemaking (United Nations, 2007).Google Scholar
UNCTAD, Fair and Equitable Treatment, Studies on Issues in International Investment Agreements (United Nations, 1999).Google Scholar
UNCTAD, Fair and Equitable Treatment: A Sequel (United Nations, 2012).Google Scholar
UNCTAD, International Investment Agreements: Key Issues (vol. 1), UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/2004/10 (United Nations, 2004).Google Scholar
UNCTAD, International Investor Arrangements: Trends and Emerging Issues (United Nations, 2006).Google Scholar
UNCTAD, Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development, UNCTAD/DIAE/PCB/2015/5 (United Nations, 2015).Google Scholar
UNCTAD, Most Favoured-Nation Treatment, Series on International Investment Agreements II, UNCTAD/DIAE/IA/2010/1 (United Nations 2010).Google Scholar
UNCTAD, Most-Favoured Nation Treatment, Series on Issues on International Investment Agreement, UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/10 (1999).Google Scholar
UNCTAD, National Treatment, Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements, UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/11 (United Nations 1999).Google Scholar
UNCTAD, Taking of Property, Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements, UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/15 (United Nations, 2000).Google Scholar
UNCTAD, Transfer of Funds (United Nations, 2000).Google Scholar
UNCTAD, Trends in International Investment Agreements: An Overview. UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/13 (United Nations, 1999).Google Scholar
Ustor, Endre, ‘Most-Favoured-Nation Clause’ in Bernhardt, Rudolf and Macalister-Smith, Peter (eds.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol. III (North Holland, 1997) 468–73.Google Scholar
Vadi, Valentina, Proportionality, Reasonableness and Standards of Review in International Investment Law and Arbitration (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018).Google Scholar
Valenti, Mara, ‘The Most Favoured Nations Clause As a Basis for Jurisdiction in Foreign Investor–Host State Arbitration’ (2008) 24 Arbitration International 447–66.Google Scholar
Valenti, Mara, ‘The Protection of General Interests of Host States in the Application of the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard’ in Sacerdoti, Giorgio, Acconci, Pia, Valenti, Mara and De Luca, Anna (eds.), General Interests of Host States in International Investment Law (Cambridge University Press, 2014) 26–57.Google Scholar
Van den Broek, Naboth, ‘Protection of Investors in International Trade and Investment Regimes: A Practical Comparison’ in Huerta-Goldman, Jorge A., Romanetti, Antoine and Stirnimann, Franz X. (eds.), WTO Litigation, Investment Arbitration, and Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer Law International, 2013) 15–44.Google Scholar
Vandevelde, Kenneth J., ‘A Unified Theory of Fair and Equitable Treatment’ (2010) 43 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 43–106.Google Scholar
Vandevelde, Kenneth J., Bilateral Investment Treaties, History, Policy, and Interpretation (Oxford University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
Vandevelde, Kenneth J., ‘The Bilateral Investment Treaty Program of the United States’ (1988) 21 Cornell International Law Journal 201–76.Google Scholar
Vandevelde, Kenneth J., ‘The Economics of Bilateral Investment Treaties’ (2000) 41 Harvard International Law Journal 469–502.Google Scholar
Vandevelde, Kenneth J., U.S. International Investment Agreements (Oxford University Press, 2009).Google Scholar
Vandevelde, Kenneth J., United States Investment Treaties: Policy and Practice (Kluwer Law and Taxation, 1992).Google Scholar
Vasciannie, Stephen, ‘The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in International Investment Law and Practice’ (1999) 70 British Yearbook of International Law 99–164.Google Scholar
Vasciannie, Stephen, ‘The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in International Investment Law and Practice’ in Qureshi, Asif, Gao, Xuan (eds.), International Economic Law: Critical Concepts in Law (Routledge, 2011) 164–231.Google Scholar
Verdross, Alfred, ‘Les règles internationales concernant le traitement des étrangers’ (1931) 37 Recueil des Cours 323–412.Google Scholar
Verdross, Alfred, ‘The Status of Foreign Private Interests Stemming From Economic Development Agreements with Arbitration Clauses’ (1958) 12 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 635–51.Google Scholar
Verhoosel, Gaetan, National Treatment and WTO Dispute Settlement: Adjudicating the Boundaries of Regulatory Autonomy (Hart Publishing, 2002).Google Scholar
Verwey, Wil D. and Schrijver, Nico J., ‘The Taking of Foreign Property under International Law: A New Legal Perspective?’ (1984) 15 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 3–96.Google Scholar
Vesel, Scott, ‘A “Creeping” Violation of the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard?’ (2014) 30 Arbitration International 553–64.Google Scholar
Vesel, Scott, ‘Clearing a Path through a Tangled Jurisprudence: Most-Favored-Nation Clauses and Dispute Settlement Provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties’ (2007) 32 Yale Journal of International Law 125–89.Google Scholar
Vierdag, Bert, The Concept of Discrimination in International Law (Martinus Nijhoff, 1973).Google Scholar
Vignes, Daniel, ‘La clause de la nation la plus favorisée et sa pratique contemporaine: Problèmes posés par la Communauté économique européenne’ (1970) 130 Recueil des Cours 207–349.Google Scholar
Viner, Jacob, ‘The Most-Favored-Nation Clause in American Commercial Treaties’ (1924) 32 Journal of Political Economy 101–29.Google Scholar
Vinuesa, Raúl Emilio, ‘National Treatment, Principle’ in Wolfrum, Rüdiger (ed.), International Economic Law. The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015) 664–74.Google Scholar
Violi, Frederica, ‘L’attribuzione della condotta dei c.d. ʽsovereign investors’. Rilievi critici’ in Saluzzo, Stefano and Spagnolo, Andrea (eds.), La responsabilità degli Stati e delle organizzazioni internazionali: Nuove fattispecie e problemi di attribuzione e di accertamento (Ledizioni, 2017) 185–205.Google Scholar
Viterbo, Annamaria, International Economic Law and Monetary Measures. Limitations to States’ Sovereignty and Dispute Settlement (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2012) 237–88.Google Scholar
Von Hammerstein, Christian und Roegele, Peter, ‘Der Fair and Equitable Treatment-Standard im Investitionsschutzrecht’ (2015) 13 Zeitschrift für Schiedsverfahren – German Arbitration Journal 275–312.Google Scholar
Von Mehren, George M., ‘Expropriation in Complex Cases Pursuant to Generally Applicable Laws and Regulations’ (2006) 3(3) Transnational Dispute Management 1–4.Google Scholar
Von Walter, André, ‘Die Reichweite von Schirmklauseln in Investitionsschutzabkommen’ (2006) Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft 815–24.Google Scholar
Wagner, J. Martin, ‘International Investment, Expropriation and Environmental Protection’ (1999) 29 Golden Gate University Law Review 465–538.Google Scholar
Waibel, Michael, ‘BIT by BIT – The Silent Liberalisation of the Capital Account’ in Binder, Christina, Kriebaum, Ursula, Reinisch, August and Wittich, Stephan (eds.), International Investment Law for the Twenty-first Century: Essays in Honour of Christoph Schreuer (Oxford University Press, 2009) 497–521.Google Scholar
Waibel, Michael, ‘Putting the MFN Genie Back in the Bottle’ (2018) 112 American Journal of International Law Unbound 60–3.Google Scholar
Wälde, Thomas W., ‘A Requiem for the “New International Economic Order”, The Rise and Fall of Paradigms in International Economic Law and a Post-Mortem with Timeless Significance’ in Hafner, Gerhard and Seidl-Hohenveldern, Ignaz (eds.), Liber Amicorum Professor Ignaz Seidl-Hohenveldern, in Honour of His 80th Birthday (Martinus Nijhoff, 1998) 771–803.Google Scholar
Wälde, Thomas W., ‘Energy Charter Treaty-based Investment Arbitration – Controversial Issues’ (2004) 5 Journal of World Investment & Trade 390.Google Scholar
Wälde, Thomas W., ‘The “Umbrella” Clause in Investment Arbitration: A Comment on Original Intentions and Recent Cases’ (2005) 6 Journal of World Investment & Trade vii–236.Google Scholar
Wälde, Thomas W., ‘The “Umbrella” (or Sanctity of Contract/Pacta sunt Servanda) Clause in Investment Arbitration: A Comment on Original Intentions and Recent Cases’ (2004) 1(4) Transnational Dispute Management 1–87.Google Scholar
Wälde, Thomas W. and Kolo, Abba, ‘Coverage of Taxation under Modern Investment Treaties’ in Muchlinski, Peter, Ortino, Frederico and Schreuer, Christoph (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law (Oxford University Press, 2008) 305–62.Google Scholar
Wälde, Thomas W. and Kolo, Abba, ‘Environmental Regulation, Investment Protection and “Regulatory Taking” in International Law’ (2001) 50 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 811–48.Google Scholar
Wälde, Thomas W. and Ndi, George, ‘Stabilizing International Investment Commitments: International Law Versus Contract Interpretation’ (1996) 31 Texas International Law Journal 215–68.Google Scholar
Wälde, Thomas W. and Weiler, Todd J., ‘Investment Arbitration under the Energy Charter Treaty in the Light of New NAFTA Precedents: Towards a Global Code of Conduct for Economic Regulation’ in Kaufmann-Kohler, Gabrielle (ed.), Investment Treaties and Arbitration (Swiss Arbitration Association, 2002).Google Scholar
Wallace, Cynthia, Legal Control of the Multinational Enterprise (Springer, 1982).Google Scholar
Wallace, Don and Bailey, David B., ‘The Inevitability of National Treatment of Foreign Direct Investment with Increasingly Few and Narrow Exceptions’ (1998) 31 Cornell International Law Journal 615–30.Google Scholar
Wallace, Don Jr, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment and Denial of Justice: Loewen v. US and Chattin v. Mexico’ in Weiler, Todd (ed.), International Investment Law and Arbitration: Leading Cases from the ICSID, NAFTA, Bilateral Treaties and Customary International Law (Cameron May, 2005) 669–700.Google Scholar
Wang, Guiguo, ‘Likeness and Less Favourable Treatment in Investment Arbitration’ (2016) 3 Journal of International and Comparative Law 73–96.Google Scholar
Weber, Stefan, ‘Creditor Bail-in Tools to avoid Bankruptcy Liquidation of Financial Institutions and the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard’ in Calliess, Christian (ed.), Herausforderungen an Staat und Verfassung: Völkerrecht – Europarecht – Menschenrechte: Liber Amicorum für Torsten Stein zum 70. Geburtstag (Nomos, 2015) 360–82.Google Scholar
Weeramantry, J. Romesh, Treaty Interpretation in Investment Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2012) 177–82.Google Scholar
Weil, Prosper, ‘Problèmes relatifs aux contrats passés entre un etat et un particulier’ (1969) 128 Recueil des Cours 95–240.Google Scholar
Weil, Prosper, ‘Towards Relative Normativity in International Law?’ (1983) 77 American Journal of International Law 413–42.Google Scholar
Weiler, Todd, ‘Good Faith and Regulatory Transparency: The Story of Metalclad v. Mexico’ in Weiler, Todd (ed.), International Investment Law and Arbitration: Leading Cases from the ICSID, NAFTA, Bilateral Treaties and Customary International Law (Cameron May, 2005) 701–46.Google Scholar
Weiler, Todd, ‘Metalclad v. Mexico – A Play in Three Parts’ (2001) 2 Journal of World Investment & Trade 685–712.Google Scholar
Weiler, Todd, ‘Methanex Corp. v. USA: Turning the Page on NAFTA Chapter Eleven’ (2005) 6 Journal of World Investment & Trade 903–21.Google Scholar
Weiler, Todd, ‘Saving Oscar Chin: Non-Discrimination in International Investment Law’ in Horn, Norbert and Kroell, Stefan (eds.), Arbitrating Foreign Investment Disputes: Procedural and Substantive Legal Aspects (Kluwer Law International, 2004) 159–91.Google Scholar
Weiler, Todd, The Interpretation of International Investment Law: Equality, Discrimination and Minimum Standards of Treatment in Historical Context (Brill/Nijhoff, 2013).Google Scholar
Weiner, Allen, ‘Indirect Expropriations: The Need for a Taxonomy of “Legitimate” Regulatory Purposes’ (2003) 5 International Law FORUM du droit international 166–75.Google Scholar
Weiniger, Matthew, ‘The Standard of Compensation for Violation of the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard’ in Ortino, Federico, Liberti, Lahra, Sheppard, Audley and Warner, Hugo (eds.), Investment Treaty Law Current Issues, Volume II: Nationality and Investment Treaty Claims. Fair and Equitable Treatment in Investment Treaty Law (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2007) 197–204.Google Scholar
Weiss, Friedl, ‘The Principle of Non-Discrimination in International Economic Law: A Conceptual and Historical Sketch’ in Buffard, Isabelle, Crawford, James, Pellet, Alain and Wittich, Stephan (eds.), International Law between Universalism and Fragmentation: Festschrift in Honour of Gerhard Hafner (Martinus Nijhoff, 2008) 269–86.Google Scholar
Westberg, John A., ‘Applicable Law, Expropriatory Takings and Compensation in Cases of Expropriation; ICSID and Iran–United States Tribunal Case Law Compared’ (1993) 8 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 1–28.Google Scholar
Westcott, Thomas J., ‘Recent Practice on Fair and Equitable Treatment’ (2007) 8 Journal of World Investment & Trade 409–30.Google Scholar
Weston, Burns, ‘“Constructive Takings” Under International Law: A Modest Foray Into the Problem of Creeping Expropriation’ (1975) 16 Virginia Journal of International Law 103–75.Google Scholar
Weston, Burns, ‘The Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States and the Deprivation of Foreign Owned Wealth’ (1981) 75 American Journal of International Law 437–75.Google Scholar
White, Gillian M., Nationalisation of Foreign Property (Stevens, 1961).Google Scholar
Whitsitt, Elizabeth, ‘Application of Most-Favoured-Nation Clauses to the Dispute Settlement Provisions of Bilateral Investment Treaties: An Assessment of the Jurisprudence’ (2009) 27 Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law 527–57.Google Scholar
Williams, Jesse, ‘Comment: Regulating Multinational Polluters in a Post-NAFTA Trade Regime: The Lessons of Metalclad v. Mexico and the Case for a “Takings” Standard’ (2003) 8 UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs 473–502.Google Scholar
Williams, John F., ‘International Law and the Property of Aliens’, (1928) 9 British Year Book of International Law 1–30.Google Scholar
Wong, Jarrod, ‘The Application of Most-Favoured-Nation Clauses to Dispute Resolution Provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties’ (2008) 3 Asian Journal of WTO & International Health Law and Policy 171–98.Google Scholar
Wong, Jarrod, ‘Umbrella Clauses in Bilateral Investment Treaties: Of Breaches of Contract, Treaty Violations, and the Divide Between Developing and Developed Countries in Foreign Investment Disputes’ (2007) 14 George Mason Law Review 135–79.Google Scholar
Woolridge, Frank and Sharma, Vishnu D., ‘International Law and the Expulsion of Ugandan Asians’ (1975) 9 The International Lawyer 30–76.Google Scholar
Woolsey, Lester H., ‘The Expropriation of Oil Properties by Mexico’ (1938) 32 American Journal of International Law 519–26.Google Scholar
Wordsworth, Sam and Brown, Chester, ‘A Re-run of Siemens, Wintershall and Hochtief on Most-Favoured-Nation Clauses: Daimler Financial Services AG v Argentine Republic’ (2015) 30 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 365–77.Google Scholar
Wortley, Ben A., Expropriation in Public International Law (Cambridge University Press, 1959).Google Scholar
Wright, Philip Quincy, ‘The Most-Favored-Nation Clause’ (1927) 21 American Journal of International Law 760–3.Google Scholar
Wythes, Annika, ‘Investor–State Arbitrations: Can the “Fair and Equitable Treatment” Clause Consider International Human Rights Obligations?’ (2010) 23 Leiden Journal of International Law 241–56.Google Scholar
Yannaca-Small, Catherine, ‘“Indirect Expropriation” and the “Right to Regulate” in International Investment Law’ in OECD (ed.), International Investment Law. A Changing Landscape (OECD, 2005) 43–72.Google Scholar
Yannaca-Small, Katia, ‘BIVAC BV v. Paraguay versus SGS v. Paraguay: The Umbrella Clause Still in Search of One Identity’ (2013) 28 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 307–13.Google Scholar
Yannaca-Small, Katia, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard’ in Yannaca-Small, Katia (ed.), Arbitration under International Investment Agreements: A Guide to the Key Issues (Oxford University Press, 2010) 385–410.Google Scholar
Yannaca-Small, Katia, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard in International Investment Law’ (2004) OECD Working Papers on International Investment, Number 2004/3 73–125.Google Scholar
Yannaca-Small, Katia, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard: Recent Developments’ in Reinisch, August (ed.), Standards of Investment Protection (Oxford University Press, 2008) 111–30.Google Scholar
Yannaca-Small, Katia, ‘Interpretation of the Umbrella Clause in Investment Agreements’ in OECD (ed.), International Investment Law: Understanding Concepts and Tracking Innovations (OECD Publishing, 2008) 101–34.Google Scholar
Yannaca-Small, Katia, ‘What About this “Umbrella Clause”?’ in Yannaca-Small, Katia (ed.), Arbitration under International Investment Agreements: A Guide to the Key Issues (Oxford University Press, 2010) 479–503.Google Scholar
Yee, Marisa, ‘The Future of Environmental Regulation After Article 1110 of NAFTA: A Look at the Methanex and Metalclad Cases’ (2002) 9 Hastings West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law and Policy 85–108.Google Scholar
Young, Raymond E., ‘A Canadian Commentary on Constructive Expropriation Law Under NAFTA Article 1110’ (2006) 43 Alberta Law Review 1001–22.Google Scholar
Zamir, Noam, ‘The Police Powers Doctrine in International Investment Law’ (2017) 14 Manchester Journal of International Economic Law 318–37.Google Scholar
Zeitler, Helge Elisabeth, ‘Full Protection and Security’ in Schill, Stephan W. (ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (Oxford University Press, 2010) 183–212.Google Scholar
Zeitler, Helge Elisabeth, ‘The Guarantee of “Full Protection and Security” in Investment Treaties Regarding Harm Caused by Private Actors’ (2005) Stockholm International Arbitration Review 1–34.Google Scholar
Zeyl, Trevor J., ‘Charting the Wrong Course: The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations in Investment Treaty Law’ (2011) 49 Alberta Law Review 203–35.Google Scholar
Zhang, Yuan Yuan, ‘The Relevance of National Law and Contracts in Deciding the Compensation Due for Expropriation in Investor–State Arbitration: Lessons from Mobil v. Venezuela case’ (2018) 15(7) Transnational Dispute Management 1–18.Google Scholar
Zhu, Ying, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment of Foreign Investors in an Era of Sustainable Development’ (2018) 58 Natural Resources Journal 319–64.Google Scholar
Ziegler, Andreas R., ‘Is the MFN Principle in International Investment Law Ripe for Multilateralization or Codification?’ in Bjorklund, Andrea K. and Reinisch, August (eds.), International Investment Law and Soft Law (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2012) 238–70.Google Scholar
Ziegler, Andreas R., ‘Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) Treatment’ in Reinisch, August (ed.), Standards of Investment Protection (Oxford University Press, 2008) 59–86.Google Scholar
Ziegler, Andreas R., ‘The Nascent International Law on Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) Clauses in Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs)’ (2009) European Yearbook of International Economic Law 77–102.Google Scholar
Zoellner, Carl-Sebastian, ‘Transparency: An Analysis of an Evolving Fundamental Principle in International Economic Law’ (2006) 27 Michigan Journal of International Law 579–628.Google Scholar
Zolia, Vlad, ‘Effect and Purpose of “Umbrella Clauses” in Bilateral Investment Treaties: Unresolved Issues’ (2005) 2(5) Transnational Dispute Management.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×