State Entities in International Investment Law

Dr. Luca Schicho

doi:10.5771/9783845236261

Summary

Internationale Schiedsgerichte sind immer öfter mit Fällen konfrontiert, in denen ausländische Investoren durch die Handlungen staatsnaher Entitäten mit eigenständiger Rechtspersönlichkeit geschädigt wurden. Das Werk diskutiert die Zurechnung der Handlungen solcher Entitäten im internationalen Investitionsschutzrecht. Ihre Handlungen sind, im Gegensatz zu den Handlungen von Staatsorganen dem Staat, nicht automatisch zurechenbar, sondern nur sofern sich dies aus bestimmten Zurechnungsregeln ergibt.

Der Autor analysiert diese Zurechnungsregeln nach allgemeinem Völkerrecht anhand der Articles on State Responsibility der International Law Commission (ILC). Die Entscheidungspraxis wird im Hinblick auf die Anwendung der in den ILC Articles enthaltenen Bestimmungen untersucht. Bislang ist die diesbezügliche Praxis der Schiedsgerichte nicht einheitlich, insbesondere wird häufig nicht ausreichend zwischen verschiedenen Zurechnungsbestimmungen differenziert. Abschließend plädiert der Autor für eine strikte Differenzierung zwischen den verschiedenen Bestimmungen in Anlehnung an die ILC Articles.

Search publication

Bibliographic data

Edition: 1/2012
Copyright Year: 2012
ISBN-Print: 978-3-8329-6516-7
ISBN-Online: 978-3-8452-3626-1
Publisher: Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series: Studien zum Internationalen Investitionsrecht
Volume: 4
Language: English
Pages: 249
Product Type: Monograph

Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis No access Pages 2 - 8
Authors:
Table of Contents No access Pages 9 - 12
Authors:
Table of Abbreviations No access Pages 13 - 14
Authors:
Introduction No access Pages 15 - 16
Authors:
1. The importance of the rules of attribution No access Pages 17 - 18
  Authors:
2. The distinction from violations of the duty to protect No access Pages 18 - 21
  Authors:
3. The application of the rules of attribution to State entities No access Pages 21 - 22
  Authors:
4. The ILC ASR as a structural framework No access Pages 22 - 25
  Authors:
5. The ILC ASR and their preparatory works No access Pages 25 - 26
  Authors:
6. Recourse to the ILC ASR in investment arbitration case-law No access Pages 26 - 28
  Authors:
7. Determining attribution under the ILC ASR No access Pages 28 - 31
  Authors:
8. 1. Mainly merits: the prima facie test No access Pages 31 - 36
    Authors:
  2. Mainly jurisdiction: the “State entity test” No access Pages 36 - 38
    Authors:
  3. Conclusions No access Pages 38 - 38
    Authors:
9. Conclusion No access Pages 38 - 38
  Authors:
1. The importance of State entities No access Pages 39 - 42
  Authors:
2. 1. State entities in the ILC Articles on State Responsibility (2001) No access Pages 42 - 44
    Authors:
  2. State entities in the ICSID Convention No access Pages 44 - 44
    Authors:
  3. State entities in the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property (2004) No access Pages 44 - 46
    Authors:
  4. State entities in other treaties No access Pages 46 - 48
    Authors:
  5. Authors:
    1. State entities No access
      Authors:
    2. Government, governmental or public entities No access
      Authors:
    3. State entities in French arbitral decisions No access
      Authors:
    4. Conclusions No access
      Authors:
  6. State entities in scholarly writings No access Pages 56 - 58
    Authors:
3. 1. Separate legal personality No access Pages 58 - 59
    Authors:
  2. Outside the official structure of the State No access Pages 59 - 60
    Authors:
  3. Special relationship with the State No access Pages 60 - 60
    Authors:
  4. Distinguishing from other entities No access Pages 60 - 62
    Authors:
4. 1. Authors:
    1. Non-commercial considerations in everyday business No access
      Authors:
    2. Volatility and change of government No access
      Authors:
    3. The exercise of political influence No access
      Authors:
  2. Lack of transparency in internal decision making process No access Pages 68 - 68
    Authors:
  3. Reluctance to commit to clear objectives No access Pages 68 - 69
    Authors:
  4. Aims and objectives: the drive to expand No access Pages 69 - 70
    Authors:
5. 1. State enterprises No access Pages 70 - 72
    Authors:
  2. Regulatory and supervisory agencies No access Pages 72 - 73
    Authors:
  3. Infrastructure and development agencies No access Pages 73 - 75
    Authors:
  4. Privatization agencies No access Pages 75 - 75
    Authors:
  5. Public Private Partnerships No access Pages 75 - 78
    Authors:
  6. Sovereign Wealth Funds No access Pages 78 - 81
    Authors:
6. Conclusion No access Pages 81 - 82
  Authors:
1. 1. Background No access Pages 83 - 84
    Authors:
  2. Drafting history of Art. 4 No access Pages 84 - 86
    Authors:
2. 1. Authors:
    1. The concept of overall assessment No access
      Authors:
    2. De facto organs: a distraction from the real problems? No access
      Authors:
  2. Authors:
    1. Attribution ultra vires No access
      Authors:
    2. Commercial conduct No access
      Authors:
3. 1. Authors:
    1. Characterization under domestic law No access
      Authors:
    2. The relevance of separate legal personality No access
      Authors:
  2. Application of the concept of overall assessment No access Pages 108 - 116
    Authors:
4. 1. Art. 4 in the process of establishing attribution No access Pages 116 - 117
    Authors:
  2. The impact of the assessment of Art. 4 on the overall decision on attribution No access Pages 117 - 118
    Authors:
  3. The use Art. 4 for interpreting other attribution provisions No access Pages 118 - 119
    Authors:
1. 1. Drafting history of Art. 5 No access Pages 120 - 122
    Authors:
  2. Governmental authority in treaties No access Pages 122 - 123
    Authors:
2. 1. Empowerment by law No access Pages 123 - 127
    Authors:
  2. Authors:
    1. Coercive power No access
      Authors:
    2. Vivendi II: coercive and soft power? No access
      Authors:
    3. Governmental functions or tasks No access
      Authors:
    4. The privatization test: typically commercial vs. typically governmental activities No access
      Authors:
    5. The framework test: activities in a governmental framework No access
      Authors:
    6. Two sides of the same coin: if there is a market, it is not governmental No access
      Authors:
  3. Acting in that capacity – exercising that authority No access Pages 143 - 145
    Authors:
3. Attribution ultra vires No access Pages 145 - 146
  Authors:
4. Conclusions No access Pages 146 - 147
  Authors:
1. 1. Drafting history of Art. 8 No access Pages 148 - 152
    Authors:
  2. Authors:
    1. Instructions No access
      Authors:
    2. Terminology: Direction and/or control No access
      Authors:
    3. The means of control No access
      Authors:
    4. Distinguishing instructions and control No access
      Authors:
  3. Terminology problems in distinguishing the sub-categories No access Pages 155 - 157
    Authors:
2. 1. Instructions No access Pages 157 - 159
    Authors:
  2. Authors:
    1. Effective control in the Nicaragua Case No access
      Authors:
    2. Overall control in Tadic No access
      Authors:
    3. The position of the ILC in its final draft articles No access
      Authors:
    4. Subsequent ICJ jurisprudence No access
      Authors:
    5. Criticism of the effective control test No access
      Authors:
    6. The relationship between the tests No access
      Authors:
    7. The “own agenda” criterion No access
      Authors:
    8. ICJ jurisprudence revisited No access
      Authors:
  3. No attribution ultra vires No access Pages 189 - 190
    Authors:
  4. Multiple control No access Pages 190 - 191
    Authors:
3. 1. Overall control No access Pages 191 - 193
    Authors:
  2. A lex specialis of lower thresholds No access Pages 193 - 196
    Authors:
  3. Reversed burden of proof No access Pages 196 - 197
    Authors:
4. 1. Influence based on public law No access Pages 197 - 205
    Authors:
  2. Influence based on State ownership No access Pages 205 - 209
    Authors:
  3. State ownership in Maffezini v. Spain No access Pages 209 - 211
    Authors:
  4. Expected intervention: FW Oil v. Trinidad & Tobago No access Pages 211 - 212
    Authors:
  5. Intervention with de iure binding instructions: EDF v. Romania No access Pages 212 - 214
    Authors:
  6. Intervention with de facto binding instructions: Lemire v. Ukraine No access Pages 214 - 217
    Authors:
5. 1. Overall control No access Pages 217 - 218
    Authors:
  2. Lower threshold as lex specialis No access Pages 218 - 219
    Authors:
  3. Reversed burden of proof No access Pages 219 - 220
    Authors:
1. Introduction No access Pages 221 - 221
  Authors:
2. Art. 9 – Conduct carried out in absence or default of official authorities No access Pages 221 - 223
  Authors:
3. Art. 11 – Conduct acknowledged and adopted No access Pages 223 - 226
  Authors:
4. Conclusions No access Pages 226 - 226
  Authors:
1. The law: the role of the ILC ASR No access Pages 227 - 228
  Authors:
2. The structure: distinguishing between attribution rules No access Pages 228 - 230
  Authors:
3. Conclusion No access Pages 230 - 230
  Authors:
List of Sources No access Pages 231 - 249
Authors: