The Development of Most-favored-nation Treatment——From Substance to Procedure
Abstract
not less than treatment already given or will give the third countries investors. More and more investors sought to take advantage
of the general provisions of MFN clause in bilateral investment treaties in an attempt to enjoy more favorable treatment for dispute
settlement in third treaties. This paper expounds on the basis of cases to analyze whether MFN clause could be applied to the
dispute settlement procedure or MFN treatment could extend to procedural rights.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
[1] Chen An: The new development of the international investment law and new practice of Chinese bilateral investment treaties [M].Shanghai: Princeton university press, 2007.
[2] Li Wanqiang: ICSID arbitration mechanism research [M]. Shanxi: people’s press, 2002.
[3] Xu Chongli: From substance to procedure, application of most-favored-nation treatment [J]. Law and business research, 2007.
[4] Yu Jinsong: International law [M]. Beijing: Oxford university press, 2007.
[5] M Sornarajah, The international law on foreign investment, Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed, 2004.
[6] R·Doak Bishop, James&W·Michael ed, Foreign Investment Dispute, 2005.
[7] Caldozo, Tearing down the great wall: the new generation investment treaties of the Peoples' Republic of China, Journal of International and Comparative Law Winter 2007·
[8] See Article 5 of the Draft articles on most-favored-nation clauses (ILC Draft), in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1978·21·
[9] Zhao Weitian: The world trade organization (WTO) legal system [M], Changchun: Jilin people’s press, 2000.55.
[10] Zhao Chengbi: International Trade Unified Law [M], Beijing: Oxford University press, 1988.25.
[11] See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1978·162.
[12] See Oppenheim 's International Law, edited by R·Jennings and A·Watts, and Vol·I,Harlow, 1992·1326·
[13] Emilio Agustin Maffezini v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7, Award on Jurisdiction, 2000-01-25.para.63.
[14] Emilio Agustin Maffezini v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7, Award on Jurisdiction, 2000-01-25.
[15] Siemens A. G. v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8 , Decision on Jurisdiction, 2004-08-03.
[16] Emilio Agustin Maffezini v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7, Award on Jurisdiction, 2000-01-25, para.103
[17] Plama Consortium Ltd. v. Republic of Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24,Decision on Jurisdiction, 2005-02-08.
[18] Plama Consortium Ltd. v. Republic of Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Decision on Jurisdiction, 2005-02-08, para. 51.
[19] Plama Consortium Ltd. v. Republic of Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Decision on Jurisdiction, 2005-02-08, para 223.
[20] Wang Nan: On the Application of Most-Favored-Nation Treatment Clause to International Investment Dispute Settlement, Hebei Law Science, 2010(1).
[21] Stephan W. Schill, Multilateralizing Investment Treaties through Most-Favored-Nation Clauses, Berkely Journal of International Law, Vol 27:2.
[22] Dana H. Freyer and David Herlihy, Most-Favored-Nation Treatment and Dispute Settlement in Investment Arbitration: Just How “Favored” is “Most-Favored”, ICSID Review 58, 2005(20).
[23] Plama Consortium Ltd. v. Republic of Bulgaria, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/24, Decision on Jurisdiction, 2005-02-08, para.198.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18686/ahe.v6i9.4719
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
