Common Features of the Right to Property and International Investments: Evidence from the use of ECtHR Case-law in Investment Tribunals’ Decisions

Roberto Ruoppo
{"title":"Common Features of the Right to Property and International Investments: Evidence from the use of ECtHR Case-law in Investment Tribunals’ Decisions","authors":"Roberto Ruoppo","doi":"10.1163/27725650-02020007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The use of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) by arbitral tribunals represents a very common practice in investment arbitration. In particular guarantees provided for by Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (“echr”) are often referred to in arbitral proceedings in order to clarify bilateral investment treaties’ (“bit s”) provisions because of their broad meaning, such as, for example, the expropriation and the fair and equitable treatment standards. Although this cross-reference is widespread, the legal grounds that allow the application of echr provisions in arbitral proceedings seem to be quite unexplored in the scholarly debate. The aim of this work is to analyze the different tools that have been used to this purpose, namely the systemic interpretation and analogical reasoning, explaining why the latter seems to be the most meaningful one. Since its application naturally implies the existence of common features between the different legal rules at stake, its employment represents a clear evidence of the similarities shared by the right to property and international investments. Patrimonial rights in international law share the same demand of protection, because of the power imbalance suffered by the owner or the investor in respect of State authorities. This acknowledgment can be useful in order to encourage ECtHR case-law application by arbitral tribunals, implementing investors’ protection and reducing the uncertainty of bit s’ provisions.","PeriodicalId":275877,"journal":{"name":"The Italian Review of International and Comparative Law","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Italian Review of International and Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/27725650-02020007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The use of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) by arbitral tribunals represents a very common practice in investment arbitration. In particular guarantees provided for by Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (“echr”) are often referred to in arbitral proceedings in order to clarify bilateral investment treaties’ (“bit s”) provisions because of their broad meaning, such as, for example, the expropriation and the fair and equitable treatment standards. Although this cross-reference is widespread, the legal grounds that allow the application of echr provisions in arbitral proceedings seem to be quite unexplored in the scholarly debate. The aim of this work is to analyze the different tools that have been used to this purpose, namely the systemic interpretation and analogical reasoning, explaining why the latter seems to be the most meaningful one. Since its application naturally implies the existence of common features between the different legal rules at stake, its employment represents a clear evidence of the similarities shared by the right to property and international investments. Patrimonial rights in international law share the same demand of protection, because of the power imbalance suffered by the owner or the investor in respect of State authorities. This acknowledgment can be useful in order to encourage ECtHR case-law application by arbitral tribunals, implementing investors’ protection and reducing the uncertainty of bit s’ provisions.
财产权和国际投资权的共同特征:来自欧洲人权法院案例法在投资法庭判决中的应用的证据
仲裁法庭使用欧洲人权法院(“欧洲人权法院”)的判例法是投资仲裁中非常普遍的做法。特别是在仲裁程序中经常提到《欧洲人权公约》第1议定书第1条所规定的保证,以便澄清双边投资条约(“第5条”)的规定,因为其含义广泛,例如征收和公平与公平待遇标准。虽然这种相互参照很普遍,但在学术辩论中,允许在仲裁程序中适用《欧洲人权公约》条款的法律依据似乎尚未得到探讨。这项工作的目的是分析用于这一目的的不同工具,即系统解释和类比推理,解释为什么后者似乎是最有意义的一个。由于它的适用自然意味着所涉不同法律规则之间存在共同特征,因此它的使用清楚地证明了财产权和国际投资的相似之处。国际法中的世袭权利同样需要保护,因为所有者或投资者在国家当局方面的权力不平衡。这一承认有助于鼓励仲裁法庭适用《欧洲人权公约》的判例法,落实对投资者的保护并减少《公约》条款的不确定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信