Adjudging the Exceptional at International Investment Law

Security, Public Order and Financial Crisis

Bibliographic Data

ID9928633
AuthorsJürgen Kurtz (International Law Institute, corresponding author)
Year2010
Volume59
Issue2
Pages325-371
Publication date2010-04-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueInternational and Comparative Law Quarterly (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0020-5893 • E-ISSN: 1471-6895
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s0020589310000047
OpenAlexW2042880375
LanguageEN
Citations received8
References cited19

This article examines the impact of international law on the ability of States to mitigate the effects of financial crises. It focuses on the invocation of investment treaty disciplines in the aftermath of the 2001–2002 Argentine financial crisis, and the adjudication of Argentina's defence of a state of necessity under both subject treaties and at customary international law. The article uncovers three interpretative methods in the jurisprudence on the relationship between the treaty exception and customary plea of necessity: methodologies I (confluence), II ( lex specialis ) and III (primary-secondary applications). Method I is the dominant approach in the jurisprudence and the most restrictive of the three readings. The article argues that method I is mistaken both on a careful interpretation of the two legal standards and on a broader historical analysis of the emergence of investment treaty norms. Given these substantive flaws, the article isolates the motivations to account for the popularity of this method through a close reading of the awards. These reveal continuing tensions in the field, not least the problematic suggestion that a single value of protection should exclusively inform our understanding of the purpose of investment treaties. These sociological features of investor–State arbitration should, it is suggested, inform our choice on other interpretative methods. This comes down to an election between methods II ( lex specialis ) and III (primary–secondary applications). Method III is the most convincing and coherent reading of the relationship between the two legal standards. The article concludes by offering a framework to address the key interpretative questions implicated in that method: (a) the identification and scope of the notion of ‘public order’ and a State's ‘essential security interests’; and (b) the appropriate test of ‘necessity’ or means–end scrutiny

Adjudication · Arbitration · Bilateral investment treaty · Foreign direct investment · International investment · International law · Interpretation (philosophy · Jurisprudence · Law and economics · Plea · Political science · Sociology · State (computer science · Treaty · Corporate Law and Human Rights · International Arbitration and Investment Law · International Law and Human Rights · Law