Document Type

Article

Publication Date

3-2016

Journal Title

Harvard International Law Journal

ISSN

0017-8063

Abstract

The research presented here challenges the contemporary view that the international investment regime has a “chilling effect” on host government policies. That critique errs in assuming that the effects of the modern bilateral investment treaties on decision-making within host governments have been uniform across states and economic sectors The main argument presented here is that in developing countries that depend on the oil and gas sectors, the international investment regime rarely deters host government rent-seeking behavior that can harm foreign investors.

In petro-dependent developing nations that have weak institutional capacity the survival of the government becomes tied to its ability to capture the industry’s extraordinary profits. The governments in Bolivia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Kazakhstan, and Ecuador, to name a few, no longer rely on ordinary sources of tax revenue; rather, they tend to get trapped in a “rent dependency curse” in which the governments derive an overwhelming portion of their budgets from natural resource revenues. Their institutional stability depends on their ability to capture the rents, which consequently affects foreign investors’ rights.

The decisions of investment tribunals in investor-state disputes have not changed the metro dependent governments’ propensity to choose rent-seeking policies. This phenomenon can be traced to the attitude of investment tribunals toward remedies. In an effort to maintain their reputation, tribunals have been timid in ordering performance remedies — such as ordering a state in violation of its treaty obligation to halt its offending behavior — and instead have relied heavily on compensatory damages. This results in a paradox: in petro-dependent states, host governments violate treaty provisions and capture oil and gas rents for their benefit, and simply use these rent proceeds to pay pecuniary remedies when ordered by international tribunals.

First Page

475

Last Page

528

Num Pages

54

Volume Number

57

Issue Number

2

Publisher

Harvard Law School

File Type

PDF

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.