Towards a Modern Conception of International Legal Personality
¿Is the Foreign Investor a Holder of Rights?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18272/lr.v5i1.1217Keywords:
International legal personality, subjects of law, International Public Law, diplomatic protection, International Investment Law, unilateral acts of statesAbstract
International legal personality under contemporary public international law is an area of discussion that has not yet been concluded. In less than a century, international law has experimented a substantial transformation from its conception of a legal order where states occupy the center spot of normative imputation, to the existence of a plurality of subjects fit to be holders of rights. In the last decades, the proliferation of mechanisms that provide for the direct enforcement of international commitments entered by states, has made it imperative to rethink the validity of classical institutions such as diplomatic protection. This necessity has been particularly evident in the investment protection regime due to the rise of investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms. In this context, this work has for objective to shed light on the condition of the investor under the lex specialis of international investment law. Accordingly, it is intended to determine if the investor enjoys international legal personality.
Downloads
References
Braun, Tillmann. "Globalization-Driven Innovation: The Investor as a Partial Subject in Public International Law". The Journal of World Investment and Trade 73/116 (2014).
Caron, David. The Interpretation of National Foreign Investment Laws as Unilateral Acts under International Law. En Wiessner Sigfried, Sloane Robert y Cogan Jacob. Looking to the Future: Essays on International Law in Honor of W. Michael Reisman (2011).
Carta de las Naciones Unidas (1945).
Cedeño Victor y Torres Isabel. "Unilateral Acts of States in International Law". Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (2017).
"Conclusions of the work of the Study Group on the Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law". Yearbook of the International Law Commission vol. II (2006).
Conclusiones relativas a los Actos Unilaterales de los Estados (2006), Comisión de Derecho Internacional.
Convención entre México y Estados Unidos (1923).
Convenio sobre Arreglo de Diferencias Relativas a Inversiones entre Estados y Nacionales de Otros Estados CIADI (1966).
Corte Internacional de Justicia. Barcelona Traction (Bélgica c. España). Sentencia, 24 de julio de 1964.
Corte Internacional de Justicia. Caso LaGrand (Alemania c. Estados Unidos). Sentencia, 27 de junio de 2001.
Corte Internacional de Justicia. Caso Relativo a los Ensayos Nucleares (Australia c. Francia). Sentencia, 20 de diciembre de 1974.
Corte Internacional de Justicia. Reparaciones por daños Sufridos al Servicio de las Naciones Unidas. Opinión Consultiva, 11 de abril de 1949.
Corte Permanente de Justicia Internacional. Caso Mavrommatis (Grecia c. Reino Unido). Sentencia, 1924.
Corte Permanente de Justicia Internacional. Opinión Consultiva sobre la Jurisdicción de las Cortes de Danzig. Sentencia, 3 de marzo de 1928.
Crawford, James. "Counter-Measures as Interim Measures". European journal of International Law. 1994.
Diez de Velasco, Manuel. Instituciones de Derecho Internacional Público. Madrid: Editorial Tecnos, 2008.
Douglas, Zachary. "The Hybrid Foundations of Investment Treaty Arbitration". British Yearbook of International Law 74/1 (2004).
Douglas, Zachary. The International Law of Investment Claims. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Dugard, John. "Artículos sobre Protección Diplomática". United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law. (2013).
Estatuto de la Corte Internacional de Justicia (1945).
Gourgourinis, Anastasios. "The Nature of Investor"™s Rights under Investment Treaties: A Comment on Paparinskis"™ "Investment Treaty Arbitration and the (New) Law of State Responsibility". Blog of The European Journal of International Law. (2013).
Julliard Patrick. "Calvo Doctrine/Calvo Clause". Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. (2017).
Kelsen, Hans. Teoría Pura del Derecho. Buenos Aires: Eudeba, 2009.
Lauterpacht, Hersch. International Law and Human Rights. New York: Frederick A Praeger INC, 1951.
Leys, David. "Diplomatic Protection and Individual Rights: A Complementary Approach". Harvard International Law Journal, 57 (2016).
Parry, Clive. Función del Derecho en la Comunidad Internacional. En Sorensen Max. Manual de Derecho Internacional Público. México D.F: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1981.
Patry, André. La Capacité Internationale des États. Quebec: Presses de l´Université du Québec, 1983.
Proyecto de Artículos sobre Protección Diplomática (2006).
Reisman Michael y Arsanjani Mahnoush. "The Question of Unilateral Governmental Statements as Applicable Law in Investment Disputes". ICSID Review- Foreign Investment Law Journal. Vol. 19/2 (2004).
Roberts, Anthea. "Triangular treaties: the nature and limits of investment treaty rights". Harvard International Law Journal, 56 (2015).
Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (1994).
Tribunal Arbitral CIADI. Cargill Incorporated. c. México. Laudo, 18 de septiembre del 2009.
Tribunal Arbitral CIADI. CMS Gas Transmission c. Argentina. Decisión sobre Jurisdicción, 17 de julio de 2003.
Tribunal CIADI. APPL c. Sri Lanka. Laudo Final, 27 de junio de 1990.
Tribunal CIADI. Corn Products International INC. c. México. Laudo sobre Responsabilidad, 15 de enero del 2008.
Tribunal CIADI. The Loewen Group c. Estados Unidos de América. Laudo Final, 26 de junio de 2003.
Tribunal CIADI. The Loewen Group c. Estados Unidos. Tercera Presentación de México bajo el Artículo 1128, 2 de julio de 2002.
Tribunal CPA. HICEE B.V c. Eslovaquia. Laudo Parcial, 23 de mayo de 2011.
Tribunal de Apelación de Inglaterra y Gales. Occidental Exploration and Production Company c. Ecuador. Sentencia, 9 de septiembre de 2005.
Vedross, Alfred. Derecho Internacional Público. Madrid: Aguilar S.A, 1957.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
In relation to copy rights, authors publishing with USFQ Law Review know and accept its internal policies, including but not limited to:
1. Open Access Policy.
2. Authorship Policy.
3. Copyright Policy.
4. Pre-Publication Policy.
5. Post-Publication Policy.
6. Intellectual Property Protection Policy.
7. Digital Preservation Policy.
