International Arbitration - protection of foreign direct investments and foreign investment dispute settlement under ICSID and the bilateral investment treaties

This thesis shall represent the arbitration regime under the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) in connection with protection mechanism of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs). It shall analyse the achievements of ICSID and BITs and their influence of foreign direct investments, investors and the host country. Finally, this thesis will try to assess the achievements in this area and discuss advantages or disadvantages for the involved parties. Individuals and corporations are interested in foreign direct investments (FDI) to exploit new markets, to realize or to sell business ideas, and to raise their market value or personal wealth. Under an economical point of view, money or investments always found its way to the most efficient places on earth which were able to be reached in any century to produce a better or the same product or service for a better price. The raising of profit margins was the driving force to explore new markets; also foreign governments tried to attract investors from all over the world to create new jobs and import new technology for their economies to raise the capacity to compete on an international level. In the early nineteenth century the prevalent form of foreign direct investment was that carried out through loans and government bonds. In contrast, modern foreign investment is more characterized by direct investment on the spot: the building of infrastructure, like railroads or telephone networks, and the establishment of joint-ventures in the car industry, to name but two examples. Investment abroad also means to play in a new and unknown playground. Investors have to place their money in a foreign environment under different laws, different rights and duties, and with unknown future protection of their investments. This makes foreign direct investments an uncertain game, and uncertainty did always keep investors from direct investments in a foreign and unknown country. Furthermore, not only the unknown environment is an investment obstacle, investors also were faced with problems with governments in the foreign market. First foreign governments promoted foreign direct investments to raise their economic power. Large infrastructure projects had an important effect on the countries where they were constructed: they were the basis for a faster growing economy. Later the same governments or new political powers changed government positions regarding foreign investment and they restricted investment related money transfers of investors out of the investment area or they initiated measures and laws to expropriate the property of investors without financial compensation. The big infrastructure investments were seen as a necessity for the welfare of the citizens and as a security of the host state. Many host countries felt that these projects should be controlled by the government and not by foreigners. The treatment of aliens by governments was, and still is, dependent on political theories and influences. A change of the investment climate, the "political risk", can be a huge uncertainty for foreign direct investments. Every investor has to ensure that the investment is lucrative and that he has the possibility to reduce risks and cost in case of changes of the investment climate. In the past foreign investors had no direct way to enforce investments claims against a foreign state for its sovereign acts or for breach of customary international law. Instead, investors had to rely upon their own government taking up the claim on their behalf and try to solve the dispute by diplomatic measures. This dependence on others was inconvenient and unpredictable, and therefore dissatisfying for alien investors. The settlement of foreign investment disputes in the past was a question of political influence and economic power. Individuals or corporations had to influence their governments to take up their case on the state's behalf. This was only possible for very important and influential investors. The investor's state then sent warships to threaten the offending state until reparations were paid. This "gunboat diplomacy" was exercised frequently by European powers until the early twentieth century, for example when faced with Venezuela's default on its sovereign debt in 1902, the governments of Great Britain, Germany and Italy sent warships to the Venezuelan coast to demand reparation for the losses incurred by their nationals. The need for security and predictability for foreign investments was one of the main reasons to establish diplomatic relations with other states. Various ideas from the point of view of money receiving and money spending states were discussed and realized, from the Calvo doctrine - where contracts between the host state and foreign investors included an agreement in which the latter agreed to confine himself to the available local remedies without relying on diplomatic interference of his own state - to the principle of diplomatic protection - where a state espouses the claim of its nationals as a claim on its own behalf. With the Second International Peace Conference of The Hague in 1907, states agreed to a framework for the conclusion of bilateral arbitration treaties which were the basis for independent arbitration tribunals in case of a dispute between two states arising out of particular interests of its national investors. The right of diplomatic protection as mentioned above was still inadequate to promote foreign investments: the Latin American countries relied upon the Calvo Doctrine, which denied the possibility of interference under diplomatic protection principle. Also, the breach of investment treaties by states was still not sanctioned by public international law. Only expropriation was recognised quite early as a possibility for diplomatic protection claims. Furthermore diplomatic protection was only accessible for nationals of the claiming state. Questions arose what happens if transnational corporations claim protection? The obstacle for investors to convince their government to claim diplomatic protection for its nationals was very high and unpredictable to foresee. Also a claim against the home state to exercise diplomatic protection does not exist. Today, in our small world, where businesses are moved from the United States to India, industrial production is transferred from Europe to China, or new infrastructure projects are started in Central Africa, one cannot imagine international business without FDI. Foreign direct investments need security, investors need security. Security is necessary to promote foreign investment which is recognized as one of the driving forces in supporting development in developing and least developed countries. Investors want to know their rights regarding their investments and they want to enforce their rights directly in a fast and cost-effective way. The need for protection is the reason for various measures introduced by governments to secure investments. In the following the system of foreign dispute settlement under the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) in combination with Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) shall be highlighted. The ICSID is the result of the investor insecurity mentioned above. ICSID shall also support FDI in the developing countries. The focus shall be on the increased interest for BITs and the therefore increased interest in ICSID arbitrations. Why do states use BITs? Did the establishment of a neutral venue for investment dispute settlement reach its goal to depoliticise disputes? Is it used by investors, and what is protected? Do BITs play an important role in the system of dispute settlement and why? And how do they work together with the ISCID system