Exploring the Approach Against Problem of Legitimate Expectations Under the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard by Host States
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/hbem.v16i.10603Keywords:
Legitimate Expectation; FET; Host States.Abstract
This essay discusses the challenges associated with the definition of legitimate expectations in host-state dispute settlement. The concept of legitimate expectations requires the government to respect citizens' expectations of policy continuity and stability based on legal principles and has become a self-standing doctrine in international investment contracts. However, the lack of clarity in interpretation and diligence on the part of the host nation has resulted in inconsistent outcomes in similar situations, undermining legal certainty. Additionally, the longstanding defense of legitimate expectations has weakened the host country's authority to regulate. The essay provides recommendations, including recognizing the factors that give rise to legitimate expectations, operating in an open and transparent manner, scrutinizing informal representations of governmental intent, and instituting a reasonable response program to avoid liability for necessary government actions.
Downloads
References
L. Harold Levinson, 'The Legitimate Expectation that Public Officials Will Act Consistently', American Journal of Comparative Law, 46 (Suppl. 1): 549-75, 1998.
Yenkong Ngangjoh-Hodu and Collins C. Ajibo, Legitimate Expectation in Investor-State Arbitration: Re-contextualising a Controversial Concept from a Developing Country Perspective, Manchester Journal of International Economic Law, Volume 15, Issue 1: 45-61 2018.
Rudolf Dolzer & Christoph Schreuer, Principles of International Investment Law, p.140, 2008.
Continental Casualty v. Argentine, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/9,Award, 5 September 2008.
Duke Energy Electroquil Partners and Electroquil SA v. Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/19, Award, 12 August 2008.
Gustav F W Hamester GmbH & Co KG v. Ghana, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/24, Award, 18 June 2008.
International Thunderbird Gaming Corp v United Mexican States, UNCITRAL Award, 26 January 2006.
Teemed v. Mexico award 29 May 2003, International Legal Materials, Vol. 43, 2004.
Jeswald W. Salacuse, The Law of Investment Treaties (3rd Edition), Oxford University Press, P.307, February, 2021.
South American Silver Limited v Bolivia, PCA Case No 2013-15, Award, 22 November 2018.
EDF v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/13, Award, 8 October 2009.
CME v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award, 13 September 2001.
Ronald Lauder v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award, 3 September 2001.
Yang Xing, Development of rules on the determination of legitimate expectations by typology analysis of governmental acts - a perspective on typical cases in international investment arbitration, Commercial Arbitration and Conciliation, p.126, 2021.
Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/84/3, Award and Dissenting Opinion, 20 May 1992.
Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula, S.C. European Food S.A, S.C. Starmill S.R.L. and S.C. Multipack S.R.L. v. Romania [I], ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20.
Parkerings-Compagniet AS v. Republic of Lithuania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8.
Glamis Gold, Ltd.v. USA, NAFTA/UNCITRAL, Award, p.766, 8 June 2009.
Thomas W. Walde, Investment Arbitration under the Energy Charter Treaty: An Overview of Selected Key Issues Based on Recent Litigation Experiences, NORBERT HORN. ARBITRATING FOREIGN INVESTMENT DISPUTES, Kluwer Law International, 2004.
MTD Equity Sdn Bhd & MTD Chile SA v Chile, ICSID Case No ARB/01/7, Award, 25 May 2004.
Parkerings v. Lithuania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8,Award, 11 September 2007.
Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/84/3, Award and Dissenting Opinion, 20 May 1992.
Sempra Energy International v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Award, 28 September2008.
PSEG v. Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/5, Award, 19 January 2007.
Frontier Petroleum Services Ltd v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL/PCA, Final Award, 12 November 2010.
White Industries Australia Limited v. India, UNCITRAL, Final Award, 30 November 2011.
Arif v. Republic of Moldova, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/23, Award, 8 April 2013.
J. Kalicki & S. Medeiros, Fair, Equitable and Ambiguous: What Is Fair and equitable Treatment in International Investment Law?, 22 ICSID Review—Foreign Investment Law Journal, 2007.
Satwik Shekhar, “Regulatory Chill”: Taking Right to Regulate for a Spin[R]. Working Paper 200 /27, Centre for WTO Studies, Sep 2016.
Lon Fuller, The Morality of Law, Revised edition, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969.
LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp., and LG&E International, Inc.v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1.
Jorge Viñuales, ‘Investor Diligence in Investment Arbitra- tion: Sources and Arguments’, ICSID Review 346, 32(3), 2017.
Saluka Investments BV (The Netherlands) v The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award, 17 March 2006.
Antaris Solar GmbH and Dr. Michael Göde v. The Czech Republic, PCA Case No. 2014-01.
Belenergia S.A v Italian Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/40.
Joanna Kulesza, Due Diligence in International Law, Brill Nijhoff, 2016.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.






