While most sovereign entities have committed to greening their economies and investment under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), several of them are also bound by obligations contracted under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), which protects investors in renewables and fossil fuel alike. Arguably, such a situation triggers a ‘regulatory clash’ that has the potential to impede the implementation of net zero carbon policies, such as the European Green Deal. This contribution contextualises the ECT within the framework of the UNFCCC and scopes the potential conflict between such regulatory regimes. Particularly, in light of the so-called ‘sunset’ clause, the contribution concludes that a suitable avenue to resolve the clash is establishing a preferential track for investment in clean energy under the ECT. On this basis, fundamental solutions are envisaged for greening investment, by applying model de lege ferenda proposals for a substantive and procedural modernisation of the ECT.

this chapter discusses the outline of the legal regulation of the global economy, focusing on how the system is divided into separate domains (trade, finance, investment, etc) and provides basic overviews of each of these

This chapter looks at the current attacks on international economic law with respect to trade and investment. It considers the trajectory of these attacks and the consequences of a complete dismantling of this body of international law.

This chapter looks at the political economy effects of the knowledge economy. Because the knowledge economy gains from scaling, it pushes states to adopt measures that increase the size of markets as well as increasing the security of cross-border transactions. The chapter reviews the evolution of such measures and how they might further change to satisfy the stakeholders of the knowledge economy.

With the failure to codify, state responsibility for rebels went quiet. After the 1930s, there were no more of the great suites of mixed claims commissions. Scholarship on the topic dried up. Nevertheless, we can follow the trajectory of state responsibility for injuries to aliens by rebels as it split in two. On one hand, we have the International Law Commission (ILC)’s half-century odyssey to codify state responsibility, and on the other, the emergence of international investment law. The story of state responsibility for rebels and its legacy for both the modern law of state responsibility and international investment law have a number of implications for international law scholars and practitioners today: for specific legal issues in the law of state responsibility and international investment law, for our understanding of the development of these fields and for the state of the law today when it comes to responsibility for the acts of armed groups across various fields including international human rights and humanitarian law. Finally, it allows us to put together these fragments of state responsibility for rebels and tells us something about the whole, exposing how today international law prioritises the protection of foreign investment against rebels, and non-state armed actors more generally, in the decolonised world.

The Myanmar Investment Law (“MIL”) and related statutory and institutional reforms (such as the Myanmar Investment Commission) seek to provide a level playing field for local and foreign investors; ensure adequate investor protections to promote investor confidence; and provide a nascent grievance mechanism for the settlement of an investor-State dispute.This chapter examines the framework and structure that the MIL advances to protect investors; and at the same time, to preserve Myanmar’s regulatory authority to pursue legitimate objectives that are consistent with international investment law, such as to prohibit investments that are contrary to the public interest, and to adopt reasonable measures to protect it.

this chapter discusses the outline of the legal regulation of the global economy, focusing on how the system is divided into separate domains (trade, finance, investment, etc) and provides basic overviews of each of these

In international investment law, investor-claimants often have recourse to human rights case law in order to support a certain interpretation of investment protection standards, such as denial of justice and the prohibition on expropriation of private property without compensation. What is rarer, however, is that respondent States may invoke their human rights obligations in order to formulate a defence of their conduct towards a particular investor, or even to formulate a counterclaim. After briefly outlining investors’ reliance on human rights rules to support their claims, this chapter investigates the potential of invoking human rights norms by respondent States in order to persuade a tribunal that, first, it does not have jurisdiction; secondly, no investment protection standard has been violated; or, thirdly, damages ought to be calculated in a certain manner. Subsequently, three specific issues that may complicate the invocation of human rights norms in investor-State dispute settlement are examined: the difference between human rights obligations and objectives; State acquiescence or complicity to human rights violations; and human rights counterclaims.