WHAT WOULD CHANGE IN BRAZIL’S PRACTICE WITH THE ADOPTION OF AN INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM IN ITS INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS?

  • Nitish Monebhurrun Doutor em Direito Internacional (Escola de Direito da Sorbonne, Paris) Professor de Direito (Centro Universitário de Brasília - UniCEUB)

Resumo

Brazil has always rejected investor-State arbitration as a means of dispute settlement and its recent Agreements on Cooperation and Facilitation of Investments confirms this choice. Nearly seven decades of investment arbitration practice has not convinced Brazil nor has it inflected its position on the matter. This means that should Brazilian investors face a legal problem in the host States with which Brazil has signed an investment agreement, they will, to some extent, be powerless as far as international juridical recourse is concerned in that the Brazilian investors will not be able to sue these States directly before an international arbitral tribunal. This is a disadvantage if compared to the direct access to international arbitration given by the investment agreements of other States to private investors. This article will examine the question of what would effectively change in the Brazil’s practice should the investor-State arbitration be incorporated in the Brazilian investment agreements as a dispute settlement mechanism. This would enable the Brazilian government and negotiators to have a comparative factor and measure the pros and cons of inserting an investor-State arbitration clause in the investment agreements. The article concludes that if the arbitration clause is technically and cautiously drafted, there is no need to fear investor-State arbitration.

Referências

• ASTERITI. Alessandra. Environmental Law in Investment Arbitration: Procedural Means of Incorporation. Journal of World Investment and Trade. Vol.16. 2015.

• BATH, Vivian. The South and Alternative Models of Trade and Investment Regulation: Chinese Investment and Approaches to International Investment Agreements. In. MOROSINI, Fabio; RATTON SANCHEZ BADIN, Michelle. Reconceptualizing International Investment Law from the Global South. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. 2018.

• BURKE-WHITE, William. The Argentine Financial Crisis: State Liability under BITs and the Legitimacy of the ICSID System. Asian Journal of WTO and International Health Law and Policy. Vol.3. 2008.

• COMACAU, Jean ; SUR, Serge, Droit international public. 11th ed. Paris: LGDJ. 2014.

• DIETZ, Thomas; DOTZAUER, Marius. Political Dimensions of Investment Arbitration: ISDS and the TTIP Negotiations. Zentra Working Papers in Transnational Studies. Vol. 48. 2015.

• DOLZER, Rudolf; SCHREUER, Christoph. Principles of International Investment Law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2012.

• DONOBAUER, Julian; NEUMAYE, Eric; NUNNENKAMP, Peter. Winning or Losing in Investor-to-State Dispute Resolution: The role of Arbitrator Bias and Experience. KIEL Working Paper. No. 2074. March 2017.

• DUPUY, Pierre-Marie; KERBRAT, Yann, Droit international public. 12th Ed. Paris: Dalloz. 2014.

• FRANCK D., Susan. Empirically Evaluating Claims about Investment Treaty Arbitration. North Carolina Law Review. Vol.86. no.1. 2007.

• GASTRELL, Lindsay; LE CANNU Jean-Paul. Procedural Requirements of ‘Denial-of-Benefits’ Clauses in Investment Treaties: A Review of Arbitral Decisions. ICSID Review. Vol.30. no.1. 2015.

• ICSID. History of the ICSID Convention. Document concerning the Origin and the Formulation of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States. Washington: ICSID. Vol. II. Part 1. 1968 (reprinted in 2009).

• KALICKI, Jean; MEDEIROS, Suzana. Investment Arbitration in Brazil Revisiting Brazil's Traditional Reluctance Towards ICSID, BITs and Investor-State Arbitration. Arbitration International. Vol.4. no.3. 2008.

• KULICK. Andreas. Investment Arbitration, Investment Treaty Arbitration and Democracy. Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law. Vol. 4. 2015.

• MILES, Kate. The Origins of International Investment Law. Empire, Environment and the Safeguarding of Capital. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2015.

• MONEBHURRUN, Nitish. Novelty in International Investment Law: The Brazilian Agreement on Cooperation and Facilitation of Investments as a Different International Investment Agreement Model. Journal of International Dispute Settlement. Vol.8. 2017.

• MONEBHURRUN, Nitish. La fonction du développement dans le droit international des investissements. Paris: L’Harmattan. 2016.

• MONEBHURRUN. Nitish. E eles descobriram a arbitragem investidor-Estado. Revista de Direito Internacional. Vol.12. no.2. 2015.

• MONEBHURRUN, Nitish. The Political Use of the Economic Development Criterion in Defining Investments in International Investment Arbitration. Journal of International Arbitration. Vol.29. no.5. 2012.

• NOLAN. Mikael. Challenges to the Credibility of the Investor-State Arbitration System. American University Business Law Review. Vol 5. 2016.

• PELLET, Alain; DAILLIER, Patrick. 7th ed. Droit international public. Paris: LGDJ. 2002.

• POTESTÀ, Michelle. The Interpretation of Consent to ICSID Arbitration Contained in Domestic Investment Laws. Arbitration International. Vol.27. no.2. 2011.

• ROBERT-CUENDET, Sabrina. L’arrêt de la Grande Chambre de la CJUE du 6 mars 2018 dans l’affaire Achmea: la fin des TBI européens? European Papers. Vol.3. no.2. 2018.

• SCHILL W., Stephan. Mulitilateralizing Investment Treaties through Most-Favored-Nation Clauses. Berkley Journal of International Law. Vol.27. no.2., 2009.

• SCHULTZ, Thomas; DUPONT, Cédric. Investment Arbitration: Promoting the Rule of Law or Over-empowering Investors? A Quantitative Empirical Study. European Journal of International Law. Vol.25. no.4. 2015.

• SORNARAJAH, Muthucumaraswamy. The International Law on Foreign Investment. 4th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2017.

• TITI. Aikaterini. The Right to Regulate in International Investment Law. Baden-Baden: Nomos. 2015.

• TRACKMAN E, Leon. Choosing Domestic Courts over Investor-State Arbitration: Australia’s Repudiation of the Status Quo. University of New South Wales Law Journal. Vol.35. no.3. 2010.

• VAN HARTEN, Gus. Arbitrator Behaviour in Asymmetrical Adjudication (Part Two): An Examination of Hypotheses of Bias in Investment Treaty Arbitration. Osgoode Hall Law Journal. Vol.53. no.2. 2016.

• VIDIGAL, Geraldo; STEVENS, Beatriz. Brazil’s New Model of Dispute Settlement for Investment: Return to the Past or Alternative for the Future?. Journal of World Investment and Trade. No.19. 2018.

• ZARRA, Giovanni. Right to Regulate, Margin of Appreciation and Proportionality: Current Status in Investment Arbitration in Light of Philip Morris v. Uruguay. Brazilian Journal of International Law. Vol.14. no.2. 2017

Publicado
2019-09-30
Seção
Artigos