Concessions in International Law

Abstract

The article examines the extent to which concessionary rights are protected under three different branches of international law; traditional customary law, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, and arbitral practice under investment treaties. It reveals clear similarities with respect to when such rights are considered protected. However, it simultaneously argues that case law under investment treaties tends to adopt a less nuanced approach to the nature of such rights, almost invariably assuming them to constitute a kind of property. This again entails that the investor/concessionaire is seen to have a right to performance, and in effect to protection of his expectation interest. The article shows how this stands in contrast with a more nuanced perspective under the property provision of the echr, which better reflects the complexities of the issue under municipal law. While a failure to sufficiently respect an investor’s legitimate expectations may entail liability for the state, it is not necessarily comparable to expropriation of property and will usually entail only that the investor has a right to recover his reliance loss. The article argues that this may be reflective of a more general tendency in international investment law and arbitration also pointed to by others, where the modality of protection under investment treaties threatens to distort important nuances and concerns and overprotect foreign investment compared to other private rights and interests under municipal law.