The New Debate on the Interpretation of MFN Clauses in Investment Treaties
Putting the Brakes on Multilateralization
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9550402 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Simon Batifort (Brooklyn Law School, corresponding author), J Benton Heath (Temple University) |
| Year | 2017 |
| Volume | 111 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 873-913 |
| Publication date | 2017-10-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | American Journal of International Law (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0002-9300 • E-ISSN: 2161-7953 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/ajil.2017.77 |
| OpenAlex | W2765502998 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 4 |
This article challenges the conventional wisdom that MFN clauses in investment treaties can always be used to “import” substantive standards of treatment (e.g. FET). It argues that most tribunals permitting this use of MFN clauses have relied on presumptions and have ignored meaningful variations among clauses. It also points out that states are increasingly questioning the conventional view, and that a recent arbitral award has firmly rejected an attempt to use an MFN clause to import substantive standards. It concludes by sketching the terms of the new MFN debate
Economics · Interpretation (philosophy · Investment (military · Law and economics · Political science · Politics · Treaty · Tribunal · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · International Arbitration and Investment Law · International Law and Human Rights · Law · Philosophy
| Citations per year | 0.33 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2017 - 2023 (7) |
| Highly cited | No |