Book Description

In the past two decades, there have been significant changes in national and international policies of foreign direct investment (FDI). These changes have been both cause and effect in the ongoing integration of the world economy and the changing role of FDI in it. They have found expression in national laws and practices and in a variety of international instruments which includes bilateral, regional and multilateral. Traditionally, African States have played an active and relevant role in the formulation and development of international investment law. Generally, the contribution of these states is demonstrated through active participation in deliberations of the Non-Aligned Movement, the role of African States in the creation of specialized institutions such as UCTAD and the strategic use of numerical strength to sponsor numerous United Nations Resolutions. During the epitome of Africa's active participation, African States aggressively resisted the internationalization of foreign investment rules. However, the practice of African States appears to have changed through the conclusion of BITs containing far-reaching treaty provisions.While in earlier times indirect foreign investment was far more important than direct one, FDI acquired increasing importance as the twentieth century advanced, and it began gradually to assume the forms prevalent today. In international legal terms, however, FDI long remained a matter mainly of national concern, moving onto the international plane, where rules and principles of customary international law applied, only in exceptional cases, when arbitrary government measures affected it.After the Second World War, attitudes towards FDI and policies and conditions in host countries were shaped by the prevalence of political support for state control over the economy and the beginning of decolonialization. Socialist countries for a longtime excluded FDI from their territories, while developing countries endeavored to regain control of their natural resources from foreign interests. At the same time, controls and restrictions over entry and operations of foreign firms were imposed in many countries, with a view to excluding FDI from certain industries for the benefit of domestic investors or the State, determining the specific terms under which investments were to be made, and ensuring the participation of local nationals in major industries. No international consensus on the pertinent legal norms could be reached at the time.In the 1980s, a series of national and international developments radically reversed the policy trends prevailing then, with an immediate impact both on national policies regarding inward FDI and on regional and worldwide efforts at establishing international rules on the subject. Now at the end of the 1990s, host countries are seeking to attract FDI, by dismantling restrictions on its entry and operations and by offering strict guarantees, both national and international, against measures seriously damaging the investors' interests. The tone and direction of international legal discourse has significantly changed. Debate among policy makers is now centered on the most efficient ways of attracting FDI and deriving benefits from it rather than on questions of jurisdiction.An international legal framework for FDI has begun to emerge. It consists of many kinds of national and international rules and principles, of diverse form and origin, differing in strength and degree of specificity. The entire structure rests on the twin foundations of customary international law and national laws and regulations and relies for its substance on a multitude of international investment agreements (IIAs) and other legal instruments.An extensive network of bilateral investment promotion and protection treaties has come into existence. They are highly standardized, yet they appear to be capable of adapting to special circumstances. Their principal focus has been from the very start on the protection of investments against nationalizations or expropriations and on free transfer of funds, although they also cover a number of other areas. Regional and plurilateral international arrangements, while binding on a limited number of countries in each case, are increasingly important in matters of FDI. They help to change pre-existing structures of law and policy and create important habits and patterns of expectations on a broader transnational level. Economic integration agreements are a significant subcategory of regional instruments, whose importance has grown in recent years. At the multilateral level, there is no comprehensive instrument on the subject, although a number of recent multilateral instruments of less comprehensive scope are directly relevant, dealing with particular aspects of the FDI process.Legal rules of other kinds, of varying normative intensity and general applicability are also relevant. Soft law texts, adopted by States or international organizations on a non-binding basis, are important elements of the framework. Corporate codes of conduct and other texts of private origin help to formulate widely accepted prescriptions. Traditional arbitration not only provides useful procedures for dispute settlement but also, through the corpus of its awards, gradually fills in the normative conceptual framework for FDI issues.In terms of substance, the provisions of IIAs must be perceived in their constant interaction with national policies and measures. They concern two principal types of issues. A first class of provisions is linked to the process of liberalization, which, in its application to FDI, involves the gradual decrease or elimination of measures and restrictions on the entry and operations of firms, especially foreign ones; the application of positive standards of treatment with a view to the elimination of discrimination against foreign enterprises; and implementation of measures and policies seeking to promote the operation of markets. A second category of issues covers provisions that concern the protection of foreign investments already made against government measures damaging to them. As to both types of issues, it is important to consider the provisions and approaches which import into the operation of IIAs the flexibility necessary for enhancing the development of the host countries concerned.The past decades witnessed an increasingly rapid escalation towards globalization in the world economy. In spite of the tremendous growth of FDI flows and the ambitious expansion of MNEs, no single comprehensive set of multilateral rules has been reached governing the issue of FDI. Developing countries have generally resisted the adoption of a multilateral treaty protecting and encouraging FDI, while industrialized nations, on the other hand, have felt a great need for such an agreement, seeking to establish high standards of liberalization for global investment movements. An international legal framework for FDI has begun to emerge in recent times, which is actually in response to the current uncertainty of the customary international law. It includes, inter alia, national statutory regimes, and international rules and principles established at bilateral, regional and multilateral level. The BITs have played an important role in this process, and the rapid proliferation of these treaties signifies their importance as the potential foundation upon which a future multilateral agreement can be built. Two recent developments have further brought the issue to the fore of the international community: first, the embodiment of a set of investment related rules in the multilateral trading system, and second, the initiative of the OECD to promote an MAI. While the TRIMS Agreement was rather conservative in scope, applying merely to investment measures that have distorting effects on trade in goods, the negotiations on MAI appeared to be far more ambitious. However, the fundamental premise upon which the MAI has been built is considerably flawed and one-sided, which has indeed resulted in its abortion. From the perspective of developing countries, the most significant issue at point is precisely how a multilateral framework can be formulated in such a flexible manner that they could remain sufficient margin of autonomy to benefit from the inward FDI, and thereby pursue their own economic development objectives.