The evolving international investment law and policy regime: Ways forward
How to encourage the flow of sustainable FDI for sustainable development? This article examines the state of the international investment law and policy regime and presents potential options for its reform.
International investment has already become the single most important form of international economic transactions and the most powerful vector of integration among economies. It has become more important than trade in delivering goods and services to foreign markets, and it interlocks national economies through increasingly integrated production networks and global value chains.
The presence and commercial links of multinational enterprises (MNEs) across different international markets has led to a substantial share of international trade taking place within global value chains, thus tightly intertwining investment and trade. Emerging markets are increasingly participating in these developments, as both major recipients of foreign direct investment (FDI) and major outward investors. This new reality makes it all the more important to re-examine the governance of international investment.
As part of the E15Initiative, ICTSD, in partnership with the World Economic Forum, convened a Task Force on Investment Policy to examine the state of the international investment law and policy regime and how its governance might be enhanced to encourage the flow of sustainable FDI for sustainable development. The regime covers the international investment typically undertaken by MNEs, primarily through FDI and various forms of non-equity modes of control, including management and supplier contracts, as well as portfolio investment. The purpose was to identify key policy options to help meet the challenge of enhancing the investment regime.
In reforming the investment regime, priority needs to be given to special efforts to promote substantially higher flows of sustainable FDI for sustainable development, particularly to developing and least developed countries, within an encouraging and generally accepted international investment framework. The policy recommendations as regards an enhanced investment regime focus on the need to expand the regime’s purpose beyond the protection of international investment and the facilitation of efficient investor operations to encompass also the promotion of sustainable development (and allow for the pursuit of other legitimate public policy objectives) and further to institutionalise the regime’s dispute-settlement mechanism, complemented by an Advisory Centre on International Investment Law. Negotiation of a multilateral/plurilateral investment agreement could provide an overall framework for international investment, preceded (or accompanied) by an informal consensus-building process.
Background to rule-making on international investment
Despite the economic importance of international investment, there is no overarching set of rules governing this subject matter. Instead, the international investment regime consists of over 3,000 international investment agreements (IIAs), the great majority of them bilateral investment treaties (BITs). The investment regime, in turn, increasingly provides the legal yardstick for national rule-making on investment. The international and national investment frameworks together regulate what international investors and governments can and cannot do.
Having the right international investment framework in place is not an objective in itself. In the face of prospects that the world economy may face a decade or more of slow growth, it is unfortunate that world FDI inflows declined substantially from their peak of US$2 trillion in 2007 as a result of the financial crisis. Flows need not only to recover, but surpass this earlier record. There is no economic reason why FDI flows could not be double or triple what they were in 2007, although the issue is not only more FDI, but more FDI that helps to put the world on a sustainable development path.
Mobilising such investment requires, first of all, that the economic, regulatory, and investment-promotion determinants in individual countries are in place. But the international framework dealing with the relations of governments and international investors needs to be enabling as well: the framework needs to provide clear rules of the road and a suitable mechanism for resolving disputes between these two actors, should disputes arise. Moreover, the framework needs to provide international support to help all economies that are not members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) become more attractive for international investors. An improved investment regime, with enhanced legitimacy, provides the enabling framework for increased flows of sustainable FDI for sustainable development.
The policy options presented below focus on a limited number of topics that have systemic implications, with a view towards suggesting ways of enhancing the international investment regime. These topics are discussed separately for analytical reasons, but they are closely interrelated.
Updating the purpose and contents of IIAs
Any discussion of strengthening the international investment regime needs to begin with the very purpose of the regime. Given the origin of IIAs, it is not surprising that its principal purpose has been, and remains, to protect foreign investors, and, more recently, to facilitate the operations of investors, seeking to encourage in this manner additional FDI flows and the benefits associated with them.
Broaden the regime’s purpose to promote sustainable development
But this purpose alone is no longer sufficient – it needs to be expanded. In particular, IIAs need to recognise, in addition, the need to promote sustainable development and FDI flows that support this objective. Further objectives include the protection of public welfare and human rights, including public health, labour standards, safety, and the environment. Especially more vulnerable economies may require dedicated international support, including through IIAs, in pursuing some of these objectives, a situation further accentuated by the international competition for investment.
Recognise the need for adequate policy space
Promoting such an expanded purpose of the regime, in turn, necessitates that governments preserve a certain amount of policy space that gives them the right to regulate in the interest of legitimate public policy objectives, a right that needs to be acknowledged in a dedicated article in IIAs. It also means that investors commit themselves to responsible business conduct. The contents of IIAs need to reflect this broadened purpose.
“Policy space” is a vague and sometimes politicised concept. Care needs to be taken that it is not interpreted as a carte blanche for governments to disregard international commitments such as non-discrimination. This is similar to the challenge of ensuring that other key concepts and protections contained in IIAs are not interpreted too broadly.
Clarify key concepts and interrelationships
Accordingly, an important aspect of enhancing the investment regime concerns clarifying the key concepts in IIAs, by providing tighter wording that defines as clearly as possible the sort of injuries for – and circumstances in – which investors can seek compensation, and the type of actions governments can and can not take. The development and generalised use of standardised wording would help in this regard. Clarifications are also needed concerning the inter-relationships of the international investment regime with other substantive areas of international law, especially those pertaining to human rights, the environment, labour, and trade, as well as taxation and incentives.
Establish a working group to prepare alist of FDI sustainability characteristics
Progress has been made on the above, but more needs to be done. This includes the difficult challenge of defining sustainability characteristics of international (and domestic) investments. A working group should be established to prepare, in a multi-stakeholder process, an indicative list of FDI sustainability characteristics that could be utilised by interested governments seeking to attract sustainable FDI.
There is also the issue of the responsibilities of investors, to promote desirable corporate conduct and discourage undesirable behaviour. Host country governments, as sovereigns, can of course impose obligations on investors in their national laws and regulations, and have done so. Investors have to abide by them, making them liable for any infringements that might occur.
Recognise the responsibilities of investors in IIAs
But there is the question of the extent to which IIAs limit the ability of host countries to impose obligations on investors, or discourage them from doing so, for fear of transgressing on treaty provisions. The introduction of investor responsibilities in IIAs could remedy this situation by providing international standards, although it would not be easy to obtain broad consensus on such standards. Moreover, broad consensual international standards on this matter could also help countries with limited capacity to implement their own laws and regulations in this area, at least to a certain extent.
Expanding the purpose of IIAs, providing greater clarity of key concepts, acknowledging interrelationships with other legal regimes, and recognising investor responsibilities should all be pursued going forward.
Developing an international support programme for sustainable investment facilitation
One particular aspect of the purpose and contents of the international investment regime deserves special attention, namely the efforts of virtually all governments to attract FDI and benefit from it as much as possible. But a number of governments, especially of the least developed countries, have weak capabilities to compete successfully for such investment in the world FDI market. For that reason, an international support programme for sustainable investment facilitation should be launched, focused on improving national FDI regulatory frameworks and strengthening investment promotion capabilities. Such a programme should concentrate on practical ways and means of encouraging the flow of sustainable FDI to developing countries and, in particular, the least developed among them. It should be geared towards strengthening the capacity of investment promotion agencies (IPAs) in developing countries.
Choose an option to implement such an international support programme
In fact, one option to implement such a programme would be to extend the Aid for Trade Initiative to cover investment as well, and fully so, into an Aid for Investment and Trade Initiative. Another, medium-term, option would be to expand the Trade Facilitation Agreement to cover sustainable investment, turning it into an Investment and Trade Facilitation Agreement. A third option is for all – or a group of interested – countries to launch a Sustainable Investment Facilitation Understanding that focuses entirely on practical ways to encourage the flow of sustainable FDI to developing countries.
The proposal’s key premise is the importance – and urgency – of creating more favourable national conditions for higher sustainable FDI flows to meet the investment needs of the future. As governments and the private sector increasingly share this view, they need to muster the political will to put an international support programme for sustainable investment facilitation in place.
Addressing the challenge of preventing, managing and resolving disputes
Develop national investor-state conflict management mechanisms
Even if the investment regime’s purpose is enhanced and its contents are clarified, disputes between international investors and host country entities can arise. Governments therefore need to develop national investor-state conflict management mechanisms that allow governments and investors to address their grievances well before they escalate into full-blown legal disputes.
Establish ISDS appeals mechanisms or a world investment court
But it is unavoidable that some disputes reach the international arbitral level. It may be possible to deal with some of them through alternative dispute-settlement mechanisms, and the use of such mechanisms needs to be encouraged further. But given the centrality of the investor-state dispute-settlement (ISDS) mechanism to the investment regime, that mechanism has to be beyond reproach. This is not only a technical matter, but also one that has implications for the very legitimacy of the international investment regime. A number of steps have already been taken to improve this mechanism, but more needs to be done.
The principal major reform would involve the establishment of appeals mechanisms for the current ad hoctribunals or (as recently proposed by the European Commission) a world investment court as a standing tribunal making the decision in any dispute-settlement case, or a combination of both. Further institutionalising dispute settlement in this manner could be a major step towards enhancing the investment regime, comparable to the move from the ad hoc dispute-settlement process under the GATT to the much-strengthened Dispute Settlement Understanding of the WTO. Institutional development in this direction could not ensure the full consistency of the application of IIAs, given that the underlying treaties are not uniform, even though these agreements share certain principles and recurrent core concepts. However, it could, over time, enhance consistency, help make the dispute-settlement process more accountable, and develop a body of legally authoritative general principles and interpretations that would increase the coherence, predictability, and, ultimately, the legitimacy of the investment regime.
Allow governments direct access to ISDS as claimants
Finally, there is the question of access to any dispute-settlement mechanism. In particular, if the contents of IIAs are expanded to include investor responsibilities, governments arguably should have direct access to the regime’s dispute-settlement mechanism. The question would also arise – and this would be a profound and very ambitious change – whether the dispute-settlement process should then be opened up to other stakeholders too.
Consider, long-term, turning ISDS into an investment dispute-settlement mechanism
Steps in this direction would profoundly change the nature of the international investment dispute-settlement process by turning it from an investor-state dispute-settlement mechanism into an investment dispute-settlement mechanism. This, in turn, could dramatically modify the dynamics of the current international ISDS discussion.
However challenging the task of improving the current dispute-settlement mechanism may be in terms of overcoming numerous political and technical difficulties, embarking on the process of exploring how this could be done with a view towards developing a better mechanism would send a strong signal that governments recognise that this mechanism requires improvement. This is not merely a technical question but (as the public discussions of ISDS show) a matter of what is considered fair by public opinion.
Establishing an advisory centre on international investment law
An independent Advisory Centre on International Investment Law would help to establish a level playing field by providing administrative and legal assistance to respondents that face investor claims and are not in a position to defend themselves adequately. While a number of issues would have to be considered before establishing such a facility, the experience of the Advisory Centre on WTO Law shows that it can be done – to the benefit of the world trading system.
Create a small-claims court for small and medium-sized enterprises
Similar considerations apply to small and medium-size enterprises, as these too typically do not have the expertise and resources to bring claims. They too require support. Costs and delays could become even more of an obstacle if an appeals mechanism were to be established. A small-claims settlement mechanism, with an expedited process, set deadlines, and sole arbitrators, could be of help in this regard.
Independently of these two institutions (the Centre and the small-claims mechanism), and as a low-cost alternative dispute-settlement mechanism of potential value to both governments and (in particular small) firms, an International Investment Ombudsperson could be designated, cooperating with an ad hocombudsperson in a respondent state.
Negotiating a multilateral/plurilateral framework on investment
The discussion so far has focused on individual – but key – aspects of the international investment regime and how they could be improved. But one could also take a holistic approach to the governance of international investment, namely to negotiate a comprehensive universal framework on international investment, preferably a multilateral framework on investment, possibly starting with a plurilateral framework on investment that would be open for future accessions by other states. Such a framework would have to start from the need to promote sustainable FDI for sustainable development. The convergence of policy interests that has been underway between home and host countries with the growth of outward FDI from emerging markets could facilitate reaching such an objective.
Moreover, it is significant that governments continue to show a great willingness to make rules on international investment, as revealed in the proliferation of IIAs. This is particularly reflected in the negotiation of BITs between key countries, as well as in the negotiation of mega-regional agreements with investment chapters. Together, these negotiations represent significant opportunities to shape the investment regime by narrowing the substantive and procedural investment law differences between and among the principal FDI host and home countries. If this should occur, the result of these negotiations could become important stepping stones towards a subsequent universal investment instrument. Still, the negotiation of such an instrument, especially a high-standards one, would face significant challenges, in light of the unsuccessful efforts of the past and the wide range of views and the considerable passion surrounding IIAs.
Initiate an exploratory process towards a comprehensive universal investment framework
Given these and other challenges, it would be desirable to begin a process of exploring the possibility of negotiating an international framework on investment, ideally of a multilateral nature. This may be particularly pertinent in light of the July 2015 decision by the Third International Conference on Financing for Development to mandate UNCTAD to work with member states to improve IIAs, and the experience of that organisation in this area, not least in its comprehensive recent effort to facilitate the formulation of a new generation of investment policies through its Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development.
On the other hand, the WTO offers the best platform for the trade and investment regimes to be combined and consolidated, as a unified system providing systematic legal and institutional support for the future growth of global value chains, turning that organisation into a World Investment and Trade Organization. If this course were to be pursued, the WTO’s Working Group on the Relationship between Trade and Investment could be reactivated in due course, or a new working group could be established. Another alternative is to build on existing agreements, especially the WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services, to cover other types of investment and obligations. There might also be the possibility that the international investment court and appellate mechanism sought by the European Commission could become a stepping stone towards a permanent multilateral system for investment disputes, which, in turn, could become the nucleus around which a universal framework could be built.
If a truly universal and comprehensive strong investment framework is out of reach at this time, a plurilateral framework on international investment could serve as a first step in that direction. Following the example of the Trade in Services Agreement, it could be an agreement negotiated by interested parties that would be open for future accessions by other states. The situation may be favourable for such an initiative, in particular if the China-United States BIT should be concluded expeditiously. If that should occur, the most important home and host countries among developed and developing countries would have negotiated an agreement that could serve as a template that could be taken forward. The 2016 G20 summit in China could initiate such a process.
Next steps: an informal and inclusive consensus-building process
As the public debate about the investment regime and the debate within the international investment law community suggest, improving the regime has become a matter of urgency. Improvements in the regime should be sought subject area by subject area, when negotiating individual IIAs. Where new initiatives need to be taken, they should be launched as soon as possible. Finally, preparations for the negotiation of a multilateral/plurilateral investment agreement should be seriously considered. In the end, any systematic process to improve the investment regime needs to be government-led and -owned.
Launch an informal consensus-building process
However, considering the range of stakeholders involved in international investment matters, it would be advisable to launch an (accompanying) informal but inclusive confidence-, consensus-, and bridge-building process on how the international investment law and policy regime can best be enhanced. Such an informal process should take place outside an intergovernmental setting, to stimulate and encourage a free and open discussion of all the issues involved. It should be a process organised by a trusted institution, perhaps with the support of a few individual countries particularly interested in this subject. It should take a holistic view of what needs to be done, drawing on the important work carried out in recent years by established international organisations. It should identify systematically any weaknesses of the current regime and advance concrete proposals on how to deal with them – not only regarding the relationship between governments and investors, but also with a view towards increasing sustainable FDI flows and the benefits of these flows. It would have to be an inclusive process that involved the principal stakeholders to ensure that all issues are put on the table and all key interests are taken into account.
The outcome of such a process could be a draft agreement that could be made available to governments to use as they see fit. In any event, the outcome should be made available widely, to help governments improve the international investment law and policy regime as the enabling framework for increased flows of sustainable FDI for sustainable development.
This article is an adaptation of a longer paper published under the E15 Initiative.
Author: Karl P. Sauvant, Resident Senior Fellow, Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment (CCSI).