Against Balancing: Revisiting the Use/Regulation Distinction To Reform Liability and Compensation Under Investment Treaties

Investment treaties generate mutual benefits for host states and foreign investors to the extent that they discipline opportunistic conduct by host states. Investment treaties do not necessarily generate mutual benefits insofar as they constrain states’ ability to respond to new information or to change their policy priorities. In a companion paper, we use the tools of law and economics to formalize and clarify the relationship between problems of opportunism on the one hand, and new information and shifts in policy priorities on the other. On this basis, we develop a proposal to reform the legal principles that govern liability and compensation under investment treaties that is narrowly targeted to solving the problem of host state opportunism. In this paper, we situate our proposal in relation to existing academic debates, explore its implications in practice and consider additional policy arguments for our proposal beyond the criterion of Pareto improvement deployed in our companion paper. In particular, we show that our proposal develops a line of scholarship which posits that a court or tribunal should distinguish government use of private property from government regulation of private property, with only the former requiring compensation. We argue that our proposal resolves many practical challenges with previous attempts to develop a workable jurisprudence based on the use/regulation distinction and show how our proposal could be operationalized in practice. We further argue that there are strong political economy and democratic arguments for preferring our proposal to the status quo

Analytical framework for assessing costs and benefits of investment protection treaties

This report considers the opportunities and challenges for the UK, both for its bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and through the new generation of European investment treaties. This framework is intended to help make policy choices when assessing the implications of a particular investment treaty. It has been used in producing the reports on proposed EU-China and EU-US agreements

Costs and Benefits of an EU-US Investment Protection Treaty

This report assesses the likely costs and benefits for the UK of an investment protection treaty between the European Union and the United States of America

Costs and Benefits of an EU-China Investment Protection Treaty

This report assesses the likely costs and benefits for the UK of an investment protection treaty between the European Union and the People’s Republic of China

The Political Economy of the Investment Treaty Regime

Investment treaties are some of the most controversial but least understood instruments of global economic governance. Public interest in international investment arbitration is growing and some developed and developing countries are beginning to revisit their investment treaty policies. The Political Economy of the Investment Treaty Regime synthesises and advances the growing literature on this subject by integrating legal, economic, and political perspectives. Based on an analysis of the substantive and procedural rights conferred by investment treaties, it asks four basic questions. What are the costs and benefits of investment treaties for investors, states, and other stakeholders? Why did developed and developing countries sign the treaties? Why should private arbitrators be allowed to review public regulations passed by states? And what is the relationship between the investment treaty regime and the broader regime complex that governs international investment? Through a concise, but comprehensive, analysis, this book fills in some of the many "blind spots" of academics from different disciplines, and is the first port of call for lawyers, investors, policy-makers, and stakeholders trying to make sense of these critical instruments governing investor-state relations

The concept of ‘due diligence’ in the UN guiding principles on business and human rights

Due diligence is at the heart of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which establish the main parameters internationally for considering corporate responsibility for human rights violations. However, the Guiding Principles invoke two different concepts of due diligence: the first is a process to manage business risks and the second is the standard of conduct required to discharge an obligation. In this article, we show that the Guiding Principles invoke these two concepts without explaining how they relate to each other. This confusion creates uncertainty about the extent of businesses’ responsibility to respect human rights and uncertainty about how that responsibility relates to businesses’ correlative responsibility to provide a remedy when they infringe human rights. On this basis, we propose and justify an interpretation of the Guiding Principles that clarifies the relationship between the two concepts of due diligence

¿Innovan las innovaciones? Un análisis de Conectar Igualdad y Aprender Conectados

The debate about the impact and the actions expected in the school in the face of the transformations generated by digital technologies, is a "common place" for "specialized" journalists, pedagogues, teachers and researchers. From there, publications, discourses and public policy are generated to achieve educational innovation. However, innovation can mean different things, depending on the perspective (s) proposed and / or analyzed. This article presents an analysis of the Connect Equality Program (PCI) and its heir the Connected Learning Program (PAC). Three aspects are considered, their content in both programs and the possible impact they have on public policies of innovation in education. For the analysis we will use contributions from the CTS thinking, betting on your account for this type of studies.El debate sobre el impacto y las acciones esperadas en la escuela frente a las transformaciones generadas por las tecnologías digitales, es un “lugar común” para periodistas “especializados”, pedagogos, docentes e investigadores. De allí se generan publicaciones, discursos y política pública para alcanzar la innovación educativa. Sin embargo, innovación puede significar cosas diferentes, según desde la(s) perspectiva(s) que se la proponga y/o analice. El presente artículo presenta un análisis del Programa Conectar Igualdad (PCI) y su heredero el Programa Aprender Conectados (PAC). Se consideran tres aspectos, su encuadre en ambos programas y el posible impacto limitante que tienen en las políticas públicas de innovación en educación. Para el análisis nos valdremos de aportes del pensamiento CTS, apostando a dar cuenta de su relevancia para este tipo de estudios.O debate sobre o impacto e as ações esperadas na escola diante das transformações geradas pelas tecnologias digitais é um “local comum” para jornalistas, pedagogos, professores e pesquisadores “especializados”. A partir daí, publicações, discursos e políticas públicas são geradas para alcançar a inovação educacional. No entanto, inovação pode significar coisas diferentes, dependendo da (s) perspectiva (s) proposta (s) e / ou analisada. Este artigo apresenta uma análise do Connect Equality Program (PCI) e seu herdeiro, o Learn Connected Program (PAC). Três aspectos são considerados: o enquadramento nos dois programas e o possível impacto limitador que eles têm nas políticas públicas de inovação na educação. Para a análise, utilizaremos contribuições do pensamento CTS, apostando em perceber sua relevância para esse tipo de estudo