Nondiscrimination in Trade and Investment Treaties: Worlds Apart or Two Sides of the Same Coin?
For global business, international trade and investment are bound at the hip. When businesses trade internationally, goods or services cross borders; when they invest, it is capital and other factors of production that do so. Companies trade to supply their foreign investments; they invest to facili...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The American journal of international law 2008-01, Vol.102 (1), p.48-89 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | For global business, international trade and investment are bound at the hip. When businesses trade internationally, goods or services cross borders; when they invest, it is capital and other factors of production that do so. Companies trade to supply their foreign investments; they invest to facilitate and diversify their trade. In contrast, international law addresses trade and investment separately and regulates them in ways that are dramatically different. First, trade has been governed multilaterally since 1947 through what today is the World Trade Organization (WTO), whereas close to 2,600 separate bilateral investment treaties (BITs), which mushroomed only in the 1980s and 1990s, now regulate foreign direct investment (FDI). Second, hundreds of increasingly sophisticated WTO rules discipline trade, whereas a mere handful of principles cover investment—many of which derive from customary international law. Third, trade agreements are enforced exclusively between states, with reciprocal trade sanctions as the remedy of last resort; under investment treaties, private companies have standing to claim monetary damages from host country governments. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0002-9300 2161-7953 |
DOI: | 10.1017/S000293000003983X |