Different investment treaties, different effects

Until recently, quantitative assessments of International Investment Agreements (IIAs) have tended to treat them as interchangeable. Such assessments assume that the only measure of investor protections encoded in IIAs is whether a treaty had been signed and/or entered into force. However, the actual investment effects of investment treaties depend greatly on context

不同的投资协定具有不同的效应

直到最近，国际投资协定的定量评估（IIAS）都倾向于将它们视为可互换的。这样的评估假设，国际投资协议中编码的唯一的投资者保护措施是，一项条约是否已签署和/或生效。然而，投资条约的实际投资效果很大程度上取决于具体情况

Orbitopal Fixing

The topic of this paper are integer programming models in which a subset of 0/1-variables encode a partitioning of a set of objects into disjoint subsets. Such models can be surprisingly hard to solve by branch-and-cut algorithms if the order of the subsets of the partition is irrelevant, since this kind of symmetry unnecessarily blows up the search tree. We present a general tool, called orbitopal fixing, for enhancing the capabilities of branch-and-cut algorithms in solving such symmetric integer programming models. We devise a linear time algorithm that, applied at each node of the search tree, removes redundant parts of the tree produced by the above mentioned symmetry. The method relies on certain polyhedra, called orbitopes, which have been introduced bei Kaibel and Pfetsch (Math. Programm. A, 114 (2008), 1-36). It does, however, not explicitly add inequalities to the model. Instead, it uses certain fixing rules for variables. We demonstrate the computational power of orbitopal fixing at the example of a graph partitioning problem.Comment: 22 pages, revised and extended version of a previous version that has appeared under the same title in Proc. IPCO 200

The Future of International Investment Regulation: Towards a World Investment Organisation?

With growth in foreign investment and in the number of companies investing in foreign countries, the application of general principles of public international law has not been deemed adequate to regulate foreign investment and there is, as yet, no comprehensive international treaty on the regulation of foreign investment. Consequently, states have resorted to bilateral investment treaties (BITs), regional trade and international investment agreements (IIAs) and free trade agreements (FTAs) to supplement and complement the regime of protection for foreign investors. In the absence of an international investment court, states hosting foreign investment or investor states have opted for investor-state dispute settlement mechanism (ISDS). This mechanism has brought about its own challenges to the international law of foreign investment due to inconsistency in the application and interpretation of the key principles of international investment law by such arbitration tribunals, and further, there is no appellate mechanism to bring about some cohesion and consistency in jurisprudence. Therefore, there are various proposals mooted by scholars to address these challenges and they range from tweaks to BITs and IIAs, the creation of an appellate mechanism and the negotiation of a multilateral treaty to proposals for reform of ISDS only. After assessing the merits and demerits of such proposals, this study goes further, arguing for the creation of a World Investment Organisation (WIO) with a standing mechanism for settlement of investment disputes in order to ensure legal certainty, predictability and the promotion of the flow of foreign investment in a sustainable and responsible manner

Signalling Demand for Foreign Investment: Postsocialist Countries in the Global Bilateral Investment Treaties Network

A unique dataset on bilateral investment treaties provides a novel source of evidence on the link between neoliberal globalisation and market transition. We argue that postsocialist countries of Europe and Eurasia, more than other developing regions in the world, signed such treaties to signal demand for foreign investment in the spirit of neoliberalism. We calculated the density of the whole BIT network since its inception in 1959 to 2009, and density and centrality of different regional blocks within it, and found strong support for our argument. Yet, even if bilateral investment treaties are designed to promote foreign direct investment, dynamic panel regression models show that signing them does not automatically translate into foreign direct investment inflows for postsocialist European and Eurasian countries in the 1990–2010 period

When does liberalization matter? Policy signaling and investor response.

Since the end of the Bretton Woods international monetary system, global trends exhibit both a dramatic expansion of capital flows and a broad movement towards liberalization of financial policies. The simultaneity of these two trends is often cited as evidence for a direct relationship between policy and flows, but at the country level, this relationship is more complicated. Many countries restrict capital flows but continue to receive investment, while others allow capital mobility but fail to attract investment. Using a signaling model framework, I argue that investment policy conveys information to investors about leaders' attitudes towards the market, but that the informational content of those policies varies according to the domestic and external circumstances. I test these arguments with both panel data and country case studies. Focusing on the case of foreign direct investment, I find that leaders who allow capital mobility in the face of political and economic pressures for restriction are more likely to obtain increased investment flows. Furthermore, small countries that risk capital flight at the time of liberalization are more likely to induce a larger foreign investment response to liberalization than those who liberalize under more favorable circumstances.Ph.D.FinanceInternational lawSocial SciencesUniversity of Michigan, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studieshttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/124532/2/3150064.pd

Climate Change Vulnerabilities: Case Studies of the Maldives and Kenya

This paper examines the political and social vulnerabilities of climate change, with the use of two salient case studies, the Republic of the Maldives and Kenya as exemplars of effects observed and projected. The susceptibilities for each nation are examined, with unique sensitivities highlighted and common themes synthesized between the two states. Examples of existing conflict, and implications of projected territorial conflict will be discussed. Policy outcomes will also be discussed for the situation of each nation, each with its own set of contextual sensitivities in the face of climatic shifts. Generalized policy options will be proposed for the common vulnerabilities between the two states