1932

Abstract

International investment law provides a means for states to mitigate political risks that foreign investors face inside their borders. Its status quo includes thousands of international investment agreements (IIAs) and Investor–State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), a dispute resolution mechanism in which foreign, private investors sue host states in ad hoc international tribunals in pursuit of monetary compensation for property rights violations. In this review, we survey the vast contemporary literature on this regime to evidence the ways in which scholars have challenged the purported original goals of international investment law and its distributional consequences. In light of this literature's accomplishments, we highlight opportunities for a refocusing of international relations scholars’ research agenda on dynamics of continuity and change in the regime. The status quo in international investment law is fragile, and, in our view, the regime is on the brink of a major shift toward prioritizing state sovereignty well above political risk mitigation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-014429
2022-05-12
2024-06-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/polisci/25/1/annurev-polisci-051120-014429.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-014429&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Aisbett E, Busse M, Nunnenkamp P. 2018. Bilateral investment treaties as deterrents of host-country discretion: the impact of investor-state disputes on foreign direct investment in developing countries. Rev. World Econ 154:119–55
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Albino-Pimentel J, Dussauge P, Shaver JM 2018. Firm non-market capabilities and the effect of supranational institutional safeguards on the location choice of international investments. Strateg. Manag. J 39:2770–93
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Allee T, Peinhardt C. 2010. Delegating differences: bilateral investment treaties and bargaining over dispute resolution provisions. Int. Stud. Q 54:1–26
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Allee T, Peinhardt C 2011. Contingent credibility: the impact of investment treaty violations on foreign direct investment. Int. Organ 65:401–32
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Allee T, Peinhardt C 2014. Evaluating three explanations for the design of bilateral investment treaties. World Politics 66:47–87
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Alschner W. 2014. Regionalism and overlap in investment treaty law: towards consolidation or contradiction?. J. Int. Econ. Law 17:271–98
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Alschner W, Skougarevskiy D. 2016. Mapping the universe of international investment agreements. J. Int. Econ. Law 19:561–88
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Arel-Bundock V, Peinhardt C, Pond A 2020. Political risk insurance: a new firm-level data set. J. Confl. Resol 64:987–1006
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Arias E, Hollyer JR, Rosendorff BP. 2018. Cooperative autocracies: leader survival, creditworthiness, and bilateral investment treaties. Am. J. Political Sci 62:905–21
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Basedow JR. 2020. The Achmea judgment and the applicability of the Energy Charter Treaty in intra-EU investment arbitration. J. Int. Econ. Law 23:271–92
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Baughen S. 2001. Investor rights and environmental obligations: reconciling the irreconcilable?. J. Environ. Law 13:199–220
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Baumgartner J. 2016. Treaty Shopping in International Investment Law Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Behn D, Langford M, Fauchald OK, Lie R, Usynin M et al. 2019. PITAD investment law and arbitration database Ver. 1.0. Pluricourts Cent. Excel., Univ. Oslo Jan. 31. https://pitad.org/index#welcome. Accessed Oct. 2021
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bellak C, Leibrecht M. 2021. Do economic crises trigger treaty-based investor–state arbitration disputes?. J. Int. Econ. Law 24:127–55
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Berge TL. 2020. Dispute by design? Legalization, backlash, and the drafting of investment agreements. Int. Stud. Q 64:919–28
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Berge TL, Berger A. 2021. Do investor-state dispute settlement cases influence domestic environmental regulation? The role of respondent state bureaucratic capacity. J. Int. Dispute Settl 12:1–41
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Berge TL, St John T. 2021. Asymmetric diffusion: World Bank ‘best practice’ and the spread of arbitration in national investment laws. Rev. Int. Political Econ 28:584–610
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Betz T, Kerner A. 2016. The influence of interest: real US interest rates and bilateral investment treaties. Rev. Int. Organ 11:419–48
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Betz T, Pond A. 2019. Foreign financing and the international sources of property rights. World Politics 71:503–41
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Betz T, Pond A, Yin W. 2020. Investment agreements and the fragmentation of firms across countries. Rev. Int. Organ 16:755–91
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Billing T, Lugg AD. 2019. Conflicted capital: the effect of civil conflict on patterns of BIT signing. J. Confl. Resol 63:373–404
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Blake DJ. 2013. Thinking ahead: government time horizons and the legalization of international investment agreements. Int. Organ 67:797–827
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Bonnitcha J, Poulsen LNS, Waibel M. 2017. The Political Economy of the Investment Treaty Regime New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Bonnitcha J, Williams ZP. 2020. State liability for ‘politically’ motivated conduct in the investment treaty regime. Leiden J. Int. Law 33:77–100
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Brada JC, Drabek Z, Iwasaki I. 2021. Does investor protection increase foreign direct investment? A meta-analysis. J. Econ. Surv 35:34–70
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Calvert J. 2018. Constructing investor rights? Why some states (fail to) terminate bilateral investment treaties. Rev. Int. Political Econ 25:75–97
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Campello D, Lemos L. 2015. The non-ratification of bilateral investment treaties in Brazil: a story of conflict in a land of cooperation. Rev. Int. Political Econ 22:1055–86
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Carter L. 2021. Inside Exxon's playbook: how America's biggest oil company continues to oppose action on climate change. Unearthed June 30. https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2021/06/30/exxon-climate-change-undercover/
    [Google Scholar]
  29. CCSI 2020. Call for ISDS moratorium during COVID-19 crisis and response. Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment, New York URL: https://ccsi.columbia.edu/content/call-isds-moratorium-during-covid-19-crisis-and-response
  30. Chaisse J. 2019. China's International Investment Strategy: Bilateral, Regional, and Global Law and Policy New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Chilton AS. 2016. The political motivations of the United States’ bilateral investment treaty program. Rev. Int. Political Econ 23:614–42
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Cima E. 2021. Retooling the Energy Charter Treaty for climate change mitigation: lessons from investment law and arbitration. J. World Energy Law Bus 14:75–87
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Colen L, Persyn D, Guariso A 2016. Bilateral investment treaties and FDI: Does the sector matter?. World Dev 83:193–206
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Cutler AC, Lark D. 2020. The hidden costs of law in the governance of global supply chains: the turn to arbitration. Rev. Int. Political Econ In press
    [Google Scholar]
  35. De Stefano C. 2021. Attribution in International Law and Arbitration New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Elkins Z, Guzman AT, Simmons BA. 2006. Competing for capital: the diffusion of bilateral investment treaties, 1960–2000. Int. Organ 60:811–46
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Francioni F. 2012. Public and private in the international protection of global cultural goods. Eur. J. Int. Law 23:719–30
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Franck SD. 2011. Rationalizing costs in investment treaty arbitration. Wash. Univ. Law Rev 88:769–852
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Franck SD. 2019. Arbitration Costs: Myths and Realities in Investment Treaty Arbitration New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Frieden J. 1994. International investment and colonial control: a new interpretation. Int. Organ 48:559–93
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Gallagher KP. 2012. Financial crises and international investment agreements: the case of sovereign debt restructuring. Global Policy 3:362–74
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Gertz G. 2018. Commercial diplomacy and political risk. Int. Stud. Q 62:94–107
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Gertz G, Jandhyala S, Poulsen LN. 2018. Legalization, diplomacy, and development: Do investment treaties de-politicize investment disputes?. World Dev 107:239–52
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Gordon K, Pohl J 2015. Treaty practice and interpretation in a changing world OECD Work. Pap. Int. Invest. 02, Organ. Econ. Co-op. Dev. Paris:
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Hafner-Burton EM, Steinert-Threlkeld ZC, Victor DG. 2016. Predictability versus flexibility: secrecy in international investment arbitration. World Politics 68:413–53
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Haftel YZ. 2010. Ratification counts: US investment treaties and FDI flows into developing countries. Rev. Int. Political Econ 17:348–77
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Haftel YZ, Kim SY, Bassan-Nygate L. 2022. High-income developing countries, FDI outflows and the international investment agreement regime. World Trade Rev 21:117
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Haftel YZ, Levi H. 2020. Argentina's curious response to the global investment regime: external constraints, identity, or both?. J. Int. Relations Dev 23:755–80
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Haftel YZ, Thompson A. 2013. Delayed ratification: the domestic fate of bilateral investment treaties. Int. Organ 67:355–87
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Haftel YZ, Thompson A. 2018. When do states renegotiate investment agreements? The impact of arbitration. Rev. Int. Organ 13:25–48
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Hahm H, König T, Osnabrügge M, Frech E 2019. Who settles disputes? Treaty design and trade attitudes toward the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Int. Organ 73:881–900
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Hale T. 2015. Between Interests and Law: The Politics of Transnational Commercial Disputes Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Hamby C. 2016. The court that rules the world. Aug. 28. Buzzfeed News https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/chrishamby/super-court
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Hepburn J, Paparinskis M, Poulsen LN, Waibel M. 2020. Investment law before arbitration. J. Int. Econ. Law 23:929–47
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Ho J, Sattorova M. 2021. Investors’ International Law Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Huikuri T. 2020. Keep, terminate, or renegotiate? Bargaining power and bilateral investment treaties Paper presented at the 2020 International Studies Association Conference Honolulu, HI: Mar. 26–29. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hxgvsoyiiUkSOud_wPAgT4dsvwPDWqZS/view
    [Google Scholar]
  57. ICSID 2021. ICSID releases new caseload statistics for the 2021 fiscal year. News Release, July. 28. Int. Cent. Settl. Invest. Disputes. https://icsid.worldbank.org/news-and-events/news-releases/icsid-releases-new-caseload-statistics-2021-fiscal-year
  58. Invest. Arbitr. Report 2021. Arbitration cases. Investment Arbitration Reporter Santa Monica, CA: https://www.iareporter.com/arbitration-cases/. Accessed Oct. 2021
  59. Jandhyala S, Henisz WJ, Mansfield ED. 2011. Three waves of BITs: the global diffusion of foreign investment policy. J. Conflict Resol 55:1047–73
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Johns L, Pelc KJ. 2018. Free riding on enforcement in the World Trade Organization. J. Politics 80:873–89
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Johns L, Thrall C, Wellhausen RL. 2020. Judicial economy and moving bars in international investment arbitration. Rev. Int. Organ 15:923–45
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Johns L, Wellhausen RL. 2016. Under one roof: supply chains and the protection of foreign investment. Am. Political Sci. Rev 110:31–51
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Johns L, Wellhausen RL. 2021. The price of doing business: why replaceable foreign firms get worse government treatment. Econ. Politics 33:209–43
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Kalyanpur N, Newman AL. 2021. The financialization of international law. Perspect. Politics 19:773–90
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Kerner A. 2009. Why should I believe you? The costs and consequences of bilateral investment treaties. Int. Stud. Q 53:73–102
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Kerner A, Lawrence J. 2014. What's the risk? Bilateral investment treaties, political risk and fixed capital accumulation. Br. J. Political Sci 44:107–21
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Kerner A, Pelc KJ. 2021. Do investor-state disputes (still) harm FDI?. Br. J. Political Sci In press
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Kim IS, Milner HV, Bernauer T, Osgood I, Spilker G, Tingley D. 2019. Firms and global value chains: identifying firms’ multidimensional trade preferences. Int. Stud. Q 63:153–67
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Kim IS, Osgood I 2019. Firms in trade and trade politics. Annu. Rev. Political Sci 22:399–417
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Kim SY, Rosendorff BP. 2021. Firms, states, and global production. Econ. Politics 33:405–14
    [Google Scholar]
  71. King AN. 2020. Press freedom and investor-state dispute settlement: past, present and future. J. Int. Dispute Settl 11:127–49
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Langford M, Behn D, Lie RH. 2017. The revolving door in international investment arbitration. J. Int. Econ. Law 20:301–31
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Link M, Haftel YZ. 2019. Islamic legal tradition and the choice of investment arbitration forums. Rev. Int. Political Econ 28:559–83
    [Google Scholar]
  74. López-Rodríguez AM. 2019. The sun behind the clouds? Enforcement of renewable energy awards in the EU. Transnatl. Environ. Law 8:279–302
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Magesan A. 2013. Human rights treaty ratification of aid receiving countries. World Dev 45:175–88
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Malesky EJ. 2015. Transfer pricing and global poverty. Int. Stud. Rev 17:669–77
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Malesky EJ, Milner HV. 2021. Fostering global value chains through international agreements: Evidence from Vietnam. Econ. Politics 33:443–82
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Malik R, Stone RW 2018. Corporate influence in World Bank lending. J. Politics 80:103–18
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Mandel R. 1986. The effectiveness of gunboat diplomacy. Int. Stud. Q 30:59–76
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Manger M. 2008. International investment agreements and services markets: locking in market failure?. World Dev 36:2456–69
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Manger MS. 2009. Investing in Protection: The Politics of Preferential Trade Agreements between North and South New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Manger MS, Peinhardt C. 2017. Learning and the precision of international investment agreements. Int. Interact 43:920–40
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Marceddu ML, Ortolani P. 2020. What is wrong with investment arbitration? Evidence from a set of behavioural experiments. Eur. J. Int. Law 31:405–28
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Marcoux JM. 2020. International Investment Law and Globalization: Foreign Investment, Responsibilities and International Organizations London: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Meyer T, Park TJ. 2018. Renegotiating international investment law. J. Int. Econ. Law 21:655–79
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Milner HV. 2014. Introduction: the global economy, FDI, and the regime for investment. World Politics 66:1–11
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Moehlecke C. 2020. The chilling effect of international investment disputes: limited challenges to state sovereignty. Int. Stud. Q 64:1–12
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Moehlecke C, Wellhausen RL, Thrall C. 2021. Global value chains as a constraint on sovereignty: evidence from Investor-State Dispute Settlement Paper presented at the 2021 American Political Science Association Conference and Exhibition Seattle: Sep. 30–Oct. 1
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Monebhurrun N. 2016. Novelty in international investment law: the Brazilian Agreement on Cooperation and Facilitation of Investments as a different international investment agreement model. J. Int. Dispute Settl 8:79–100
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Morosini F, Ratton Sanchez Badin M. 2018. Reconceptualizing International Investment Law from the Global South London: BRILL
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Nottage L, Thanitcul S. 2017. International investment arbitration in Thailand: limiting contract-based claims while maintaining treaty-based ISDS. J. World Invest. Trade 18:793–835
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Pandya SS. 2016. Political economy of foreign direct investment: globalized production in the twenty-first century. Annu. Rev. Political Sci 19:455–75
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Peinhardt C, Allee T. 2016. Political risk insurance as dispute resolution. J. Int. Dispute Settl 7:205–24
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Peinhardt C, Wellhausen RL. 2016. Withdrawing from investment treaties but protecting investment. Global Policy 7:571–76
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Pelc KJ. 2017. What explains the low success rate of investor-state disputes?. Int. Organ 71:559–83
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Pelc KJ, Urpelainen J. 2015. When do international economic agreements allow countries to pay to breach?. Rev. Int. Organ 10:231–64
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Polanco R. 2019. The Return of the Home State to Investor-State Disputes: Bringing Back Diplomatic Protection? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Polonskaya K. 2020. Metanarratives as a trap: critique of investor-state arbitration reform. J. Int. Econ. Law 23:949–71
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Poulsen LNS. 2015. Bounded Rationality and Economic Diplomacy: The Politics of Investment Treaties in Developing Countries Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Poulsen LNS. 2020. Beyond credible commitments: (investment) treaties as focal points. Int. Stud. Q 64:26–34
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Poulsen LNS 2021. The investment treaty regime. Oxford Handbook of International Political Economy JCW Pevehouse, L Seabrooke Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Poulsen LNS, Aisbett E. 2013. When the claim hits: bilateral investment treaties and bounded rational learning. World Politics 65:273–313
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Provost C, Kennard M. 2015. The obscure legal system that lets corporations sue countries.. Guardian June 10. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/10/obscure-legal-system-lets-corportations-sue-states-ttip-icsid
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Puig S. 2014. International regime complexity and economic law enforcement. J. Int. Econ. Law 17:491–516
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Puig S, Shaffer G. 2018. Imperfect alternatives: institutional choice and the reform of investment law. Am. J. Int. Law 112:361–409
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Puig S, Strezhnev A. 2017. The David effect and ISDS. Eur. J. Int. Law 28:731–61
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Roberts A. 2018. Incremental, systemic, and paradigmatic reform of investor-state arbitration. Am. J. Int. Law 112:410–32
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Roberts A, St John T. 2022. Complex designers and emergent design: reforming the investment treaty system. Am. J. Int. Law 116:96149
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Salacuse JW. 2021. The Law of Investment Treaties Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. , 3rd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Sattorova M. 2018. The Impact of Investment Treaty Law on Host States: Enabling Good Governance London: Hart Publishing
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Schill SW. 2017. Reforming investor-state dispute settlement: a (comparative and international) constitutional law framework. J. Int. Econ. Law 20:649–72
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Schram A, Friel S, VanDuzer A, Ruckert A, Labonté R 2018. Internalisation of international investment agreements in public policymaking: developing a conceptual framework of regulatory chill. Glob. Policy 9:193–202
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Sell SK, Williams OD. 2020. Health under capitalism: a global political economy of structural pathogenesis. Rev. Int. Political Econ 27:1–25
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Shan W, Zhang S 2010. The treaty of Lisbon: half way toward a common investment policy. Eur. J. Int. Law 21:1049–73
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Shan W, Zhang S, Su J. 2020. China and International Dispute Resolution in the Context of the ‘Belt and Road Initiative. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Shim GS, Jung YS, Owen E 2021. Heterogeneity in how investors respond to disputes: Greenfield FDI and co-industrial disputes. J. Politics 83:1260–74
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Simmons BA. 2014. Bargaining over BITs, arbitrating awards: the regime for protection and promotion of international investment. World Politics 66:12–16
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Simson C. 2020. Biden comes out against “special tribunals” for corporations. Law360 July 28. https://www.law360.com/articles/1295978/biden-comes-out-against-special-tribunals-for-corporations
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Slovak Republic v. Achmea B.V Case C-284/16, CJEU 2018.)
  120. Sornarajah M. 2012. A justice-based regime for foreign investment protection and the counsel of the Osgoode Hall statement. Global Policy 3:463–66
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Spilker G, Nguyen Q, Bernauer T. 2020. Trading arguments: opinion updating in the context of international trade agreements. Int. Stud. Q 64:929–38
    [Google Scholar]
  122. St John T 2018. The Rise of Investor-State Arbitration: Politics, Law, and Unintended Consequences Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Strange S. 1996. The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Thompson A, Broude T, Haftel YZ. 2019. Once bitten, twice shy? Investment disputes, state sovereignty, and change in treaty design. Int. Organ 73:859–80
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Thrall C. 2021a. Public-private governance initiatives and corporate responses to stakeholder complaints. Int. Organ 75:803–36
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Thrall C 2021b. Spillover effects in international law: evidence from tax planning Paper presented at the 2021 International Studies Association Conference, virtual Apr. 6–9. https://calvinthrall.github.io/assets/taxplanning_postJMP.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Tienhaara K. 2006. What you don't know can hurt you: investor-state disputes and the protection of the environment in developing countries. Glob. Environ. Politics 6:73–100
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Trader S, Simson C. 2018. Lighthizer defends skepticism of NAFTA arbitration to GOP. Law360 Mar. 21. https://www.law360.com/articles/1024510/lighthizer-defends-skepticism-of-nafta-arbitration-to-gop
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Tucker TN. 2018. Judge Knot: Politics and Development in International Investment Law New York: Anthem
    [Google Scholar]
  130. UNCTAD 2013. International investment policymaking in transition: challenges and opportunities of treaty renewal Tech. Rep., United Nations Conf. Trade Dev. Geneva, Switz: https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/webdiaepcb2013d9_en.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  131. UNCTAD 2020a. International Investment Agreements reform accelerator Tech. Rep., United Nations Conf. Trade Dev. Geneva, Switz: https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/diaepcbinf2020d8_en.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  132. [Google Scholar]
  133. UNCTAD 2021. World investment report: investing in sustainable recovery Tech. Rep., United Nations Conf. Trade Dev. Geneva:
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Van Harten G, Loughlin M. 2006. Investment treaty arbitration as a species of global administrative law. Eur. J. Int. Law 17:121–50
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Van Harten G, Scott DN. 2016. Investment treaties and the internal vetting of regulatory proposals: a case study from Canada. J. Int. Dispute Settl 7:96–12
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Voon T, Mitchell AD. 2017. Ending international investment agreements: Russia's withdrawal from participation in the Energy Charter Treaty. AJIL Unbound 111:461–66
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Walter S. 2021. The backlash against globalization. Annu. Rev. Political Sci 24:421–42
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Wellhausen RL. 2015a. Bondholders vs. direct investors? Competing responses to expropriation. Int. Stud. Q 59:750–64
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Wellhausen RL. 2015b. The Shield of Nationality: When Governments Break Contracts with Foreign Firms New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Wellhausen RL. 2016. Recent trends in investor-state dispute settlement. J. Int. Dispute Settl 7:117–35
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Wellhausen RL. 2019. International investment law and foreign direct reinvestment. Int. Organ 73:839–58
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Wellhausen RL 2021. Foreign direct investment. The Oxford Handbook of International Political Economy J Pevehouse, JCW Pevehouse, L Seabrooke Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press In press
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Williams Z, Dafe F 2020. Banking on courts: financialization and the rise of third-party funding in investment arbitration. Rev. Int. Political Econ 28:1362–84
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Yackee JW. 2010. How much do U.S. corporations know (and care) about bilateral investment treaties? Some hints from new survey evidence. Columbia FDI Perspect. No. 31 https://ccsi.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/docs/publications/FDI_31.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Yackee JW. 2016. The first investor-state arbitration: The Suez Canal Company v Egypt (1864). J. World Invest. Trade 17:401–62
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Ye F. 2020. The impact of bilateral investment treaties (BITs) on collective labor rights in developing countries. Rev. Int. Organ 15:899–921
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-014429
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-014429
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error