Jump to Navigation

Columbia FDI Perspectives is an occasional series of perspectives on important and topical foreign direct investment issues.

The Vale Columbia Center on Sustainable International Investment seeks to promote a robust and wide ranging exchange of perspectives in the FDI area. Accordingly, the opinions expressed by individual authors through the Columbia FDI Perspectives do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Columbia University or its partners and supporters.

If you would like to contribute to the Columbia FDI Perspectives, see details here.

Editor-in-Chief: Karl P. Sauvant (Karl.Sauvant@law.columbia.edu)
Managing Editor: Jennifer Reimer (jreimer01@gmail.com)
  • No. 94: "Common structures of investment law in an age of increasingly complex treaty-making ," by Stephan Schill and Marc Jacob.

    This Perspective challenges the idea that international investment agreements (IIAs) as a whole move from traditional “lean” (European-style) IIAs to re-calibrated “balanced” (North American-style) treaties. Instead, the IIA landscape is becoming increasingly multifaceted and complex, with different states following different models. This casts doubt on the idea that there are common structures underpinning investment treaties. Yet, there are a number of centripetal forces that hold investment law together at the level of principles and dispute settlement.  中文版

  • No. 93: "How the private sector is changing Chinese investment in Africa," by Xiaofang Shen.

    The significance of Chinese private-sector investment into Africa is already visible in the manufacturing sector in some parts of the continent. African host country governments should respond with proactive development policies and strategies to maximize benefits.  中文版

  • No. 92: "Labor provisions in bilateral investment treaties: Does the new US Model BIT provide a template for the future?," by Vid Prislan and Ruben Zandvliet.

    The United States is one of the few countries to have a labor provision in its Model BIT. The 2012 Model includes a more elaborate labor provision than its predecessor. The scope of applicable labor standards and the level of commitment are more demanding than in the 2004 Model and most other (model) BITs. But unlike US FTAs, it lacks a clear obligation to adopt and maintain ILO standards as a minimum, and does not allow disputes to be submitted to arbitration.  中文版

  • No. 91: "The Arab Awakening, act II: Time to move more boldly on investment," by Anthony O’Sullivan and Alexander Böhmer.

    The late 2010 Arab Awakening in the MENA region was accompanied by a significant and persisting drop in FDI. MENA governments must take action to boost investment by reaffirming their commitment to international investment principles, accelerating regional integration and implementing targeted investment promotion measures. In the longer term, they will need to work in concert with business to implement broader reforms that strengthen governance, tackle corruption and promote skills development so that FDI has a lasting impact on growth and job creation.  中文版

  • No. 90: "A business perspective on a China - US bilateral investment treaty," by Shaun E. Donnelly.

    While welcoming the earlier Perspective (No. 85, December 17, 2012) on the ongoing US-China BIT negotiations, an alternative, business-oriented approach should be taken. It is more important to secure a high-standard agreement, with strong investor protections and dispute settlement provisions, than to seek a quick agreement by splitting the difference on key issues. The 2012 US Model BIT provides a good template for a final agreement.  中文版

  • No. 89: "Investor-state dispute settlement: A government’s dilemma," by Joachim Karl.

    The landscape in which investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) takes place is undergoing profound change. Although discontent with the current ISDS system is on the rise, most countries have so far not seen a need to modify ISDS provisions in international investment agreements. To move forward, countries should take a pro-active approach toward reforming the ISDS mechanism.  中文版

  • No. 88: "The compensatory nature of moral damages in investor-state arbitration," by Jarrod Wong.

    The failure of investment tribunals to grasp the compensatory nature of moral damages awarded to investors has led to doctrinal and practical difficulties in the treatment of moral damages.  Many such difficulties can be addressed by identifying the specific moral injury suffered -- whether mental or reputational -- and awarding commensurate compensation rather than satisfaction, restitution or punitive damages.  中文版

  • No. 87: "Trying to change the rules for responding to arbitration unilaterally: The proposed new framework for investor-state dispute settlement for the EU," by Ralph Alexander Lorz.

    A new proposal for an internal regulation sheds some light on the European Commission’s approach to future bilateral investment treaties to be concluded with the EU, on which negotiations are already underway. Of particular significance in this context is the Commission’s desire to reserve the determination of respondent status in future arbitral proceedings for itself. It shows that the EU might strive to modify established mechanisms of investor-state arbitration to fit its internal needs.  中文版

  • No. 86: "EU investment agreements and the search for a new balance: A paradigm shift from laissez-faire liberalism toward embedded liberalism?," by Catharine Titi.

    Disenchantment with investment law’s traditional laissez-faire liberalism is influencing the EU’s investment policies. In particular, evidence suggests that future EU investment agreements will aim to emulate EU FTAs in incorporating regulatory flexibility, pointing towards a policy shift in Europe resulting from a search for a new balance.  中文版

  • No. 85: "A China – US bilateral investment treaty: A template for a multilateral framework for investment?," by Karl P. Sauvant and Huiping Chen.

    A bilateral investment treaty between China and the US would not only be of importance for the economic relations of the world's two largest economies, but could also become a template for a multilateral framework for investment. This Perspective looks at key outstanding issues in the China-US negotiations and identifies alternative compromises.  中文版

  • No. 84: "Inward foreign direct investment: Does it enable or constrain domestic technology entrepreneurship?," by Saurav Pathak, André Laplume and Emanuel Xavier-Oliveira.

    There are potential negative effects of FDI on domestic technology-based entrepreneurship in developing countries. Crowding effects in the labor and product markets combined with stronger intellectual property regimes that prevent knowledge spillovers may stifle technology entrepreneurship where it is needed most.  中文版

  • No. 83: "Untying the land knot: Turning investment challenges into opportunities for all citizens," by Xiaofang Shen.

    Land-use conflicts also occur frequently outside the agricultural sector. In dealing with these conflicts, systematic change is necessary to lead to a fair, efficient and transparent system that both encourages investment and safeguards public interests. Diverse examples demonstrate that, although such change is difficult, it is possible and desirable.  中文版

  • No. 82: "Evaluate Sustainable FDI to Promote Sustainable Development," by John M. Kline.

    Prescriptions to increase the role of FDI in promoting sustainable development generally focus on the macro level -- getting policies right and otherwise improving the investment climate. These steps are necessary but not sufficient. Effective implementation processes, especially at the micro project level, are also essential to encourage FDI that matches host country development needs and priorities.  中文版  日本語版

  • No. 81: "Is China’s outward investment in oil a global security concern?," by Ilan Alon and Aleh Cherp.

    The dramatic increase in investment by Chinese SOEs in overseas oil assets is primarily driven by energy security concerns. Whether such investment will benefit or harm energy security of other countries is hotly contested. On one hand, this investment can supplement the overall lack of investment in the sector, benefiting all consumers. On the other hand, it may exacerbate environmental and political problems associated with fossil fuels.  中文版  日本語版

  • No. 80: "State-controlled entities as “investors” under international investment agreements," by Jo En Low.

    A review of the definition of "investor" and investor-state dispute resolution clauses in 851 international investment agreements (IIAs) reveals that, except in two cases, state-controlled entities (SCEs) (including sovereign wealth funds and state-owned enterprises) have equivalent standing to their purely private counterparts  as "investors" under such IIAs. This article highlights the various ways in which SCEs are covered under the definition of "investor".  中文版  日本語版

  • No. 79: "Absent from the discussion: The other half of investment promotion," by Lise Johnson.

    Investment treaties can be tools for promoting the quantity and quality of foreign investment that furthers sustainable development. But to do so, they should move beyond their current focus on simply regulating the conduct of host states, and include appropriate home-country commitments to facilitate and encourage outward investment.  中文版  日本語版

  • No. 78: "Reconciling IMF rules and international investment agreements: An innovative derogation for capital controls," by Elizabeth L. Broomfield.

    In the absence of an international framework governing capital controls, a conflict has developed due to the different approaches towards such controls taken by various international organizations and international investment agreements (IIAs).  IIAs should incorporate derogations for countries when treaty obligations conflict with IMF recommendations to impose controls in response to severe economic hardship.  中文版

  • No. 77: "A new economic nationalism? Lessons from the PotashCorp decision in Canada ," by Sandy Walker.

    Foreign investors must be alert to the possibility that political sensitivities may impact foreign investment review processes, hence jeopardizing a small number of deals involving perceived national champions. One example, which underlines that politics can occasionally hijack the review of foreign investments, is the Canadian Government’s rejection of BHP Billiton’s takeover of Potash Corporation.  中文版

  • No. 76: "A good business reason to support mandatory transparency in extractive industries," by Perrine Toledano and Julien Topal.

    The Cardin-Lugar Transparency Amendment is a promising step toward ending the resource curse by improving accountability and access to information for both citizens and investors. The Amendment has run into heavy corporate opposition, and its implementation has been much delayed. However, there is a business case for mandatory transparency requirements.  中文版

  • No. 75: "Attracting FDI through BITs and RTAs: Does treaty content matter?," by Axel Berger, Matthias Busse, Peter Nunnenkamp, and Martin Roy.

    The authors analyze empirically whether the impact of BITs and RTAs on bilateral FDI flows depends on the inclusion of two legal innovations: investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) and pre-establishment national treatment (NT) provisions. Indeed, they find strong evidence that liberal NT provisions promote FDI. ISDS mechanisms appear to play a minor role. Surprisingly, the impact of similar investment provisions on FDI depends on whether these provisions are contained in RTAs or BITs.  中文版