Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Legitimate Expectations in Investment Treaty Law: Concept and Scope of Application

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy

  • 652 Accesses

Abstract

Legitimate expectation is a concept, or doctrine, that is frequently invoked by investors in claims against host-states before arbitral tribunals, for alleged breaches (by the host-state) that have impaired investors’ investments. What the concept of legitimate expectation itself entails is far from clear. It has been applied mainly as a component (or one of the substantive elements) of fair and equitable treatment (FET) standard, though some have surmised that it may have evolved into a stand-alone doctrine or, arguably, a general principle of international law. Its application has, arguably, provided more protection to investors, often to the disadvantage of host-states. In particular, developing host-states have sometimes found themselves held to expansive expectations they had not anticipated. Despite this, the legal basis for the application of the concept in international law is not fully examined. This chapter examines the concept of legitimate expectations, exploring its meaning and content, its legal basis in international investment law, the disadvantages it presents to host-states, how host-states may limit the application (and potential impact) of the concept, and the possibility of host-states creating for themselves and their citizens legitimate expectations required of investors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Also referred variously as “reasonable expectation,” “investment-backed expectation,” “justifiable expectation” or “basic expectation.” See, e.g., Nganjo-Hodu Y, Ajibo CC (2018) Legitimate expectation in investor-state arbitration: re-contextualisind a controversial concept from a developing country perspective. Manchester J Int Econ Law 15:45–47.

  2. 2.

    The phrase “International Investment Agreements” (IIAs) is used here to describe treaties between two or more states covering investment relationships between nationals or other identifiable entities of one state in the jurisdiction of the other. The treaty may be solely on investments or be contained, usually as a chapter, in a broader International Economic Agreement (IEA) covering not just investment, but also trade, between the state parties and their nationals. The treaty may be bilateral (i.e., between two states), regional (often between a few countries in a geographical area) or between countries in dispersed regions that share a common goal in investment promotion and regulation. Thus, IIAs encapsulate Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) (of which there are over 2300 in force currently), Multilateral Investment Treaties (such as the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement), and and other trade-related treates that contain investment protection provisions (such as Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs) or Free Trade Agreements (FTAs).

  3. 3.

    Postestà M (2013) Legitimate expectations in investment treaty law: understanding the roots and the limits of a controversial concept. ICSID Rev 28(1):88–90

  4. 4.

    Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, p 115

  5. 5.

    Thunderbird v Mexico, Award, 26 January 2006.

  6. 6.

    Ibid., para 147. See also Alpha GMBH v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/16, Award of 8 November 2010, para 420.

  7. 7.

    While, currently, legitimate expectation is seen to be created in investors from host-states, as argued in part 4 below, it should be capable of being created in host-states from investors.

  8. 8.

    See, Monebhurrun N (2015) Gold Reserve Inc. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. J Int Arbitr 32(5):551–553. For example of cases, see Gold Reserve Inc. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/09/1, Award, September 22, 2014; Parkerings Companiet A.S. v. Lithuania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8, Award of Sep. 11, 2007, para 331; Mobil Cerro Negro, Ltd. & Mobil Venezolana de Petróleos, Inc. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/27, Award of Oct. 9, 2014, para 256. See also Schreuer C (2005) Fair and equitable treatment in arbitral practice. J World Invest Trade 6:357–374.

  9. 9.

    See Carlos J, González M (2017) The convergence of recent international investment awards and case law on the principle of legitimate expectations: towards common criteria regarding fair and equitable treatment? Eur Law Rev 42:402, 413–417

  10. 10.

    MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. & MTD Chile S.A. v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7, Award of 25 May 2004, para 164.

  11. 11.

    Tecmed, S.A. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/2, Award of 29 May 2003, para 154.

  12. 12.

    PSEG Global Inc. & anor. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No ARB/02/5, Award of 19 January 2007, paras 246–55, at 64–6.

  13. 13.

    Schreuer C (2007) Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET): interactions with other standards. Transnatl Dispute Manag 4(5), at 1–2.

  14. 14.

    Brower CH (2001–2002) Investor-state disputes under NAFTA: the empire strikes back. Columbia J Transnatl Law 40(1):43–88, at 56

  15. 15.

    Monebhurrun, above n8, 553.

  16. 16.

    Nganjo-Hodu and Ajibo, above n1.

  17. 17.

    Wongkaew T (2019) Protection of legitimate expectations in investment treaty arbitration a theory of detrimental reliance. Cambridge University Press, p 16

  18. 18.

    See, e.g., Meyers Z (2014) Adapting legitimate expectations to international investment law: a defence of arbitral tribunals’ approach. Transnatl Dispute Manag 11(3):1–2. See also Chaisse J (2012) Promises and pitfalls of the european union policy on foreign investment – how will the new EU competence on FDI affect the emerging global regime. J Int Econ Law 15(1):51–84. For examples of cases in which legitimate expectation has been claimed as a component (or an element) of FET, see Gold Reserve Inc. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/09/1, Award, September 22, 2014; Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2, Award of May 29, 2003 (Tecmed v. Mexico); Suez Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. & InterAguas Servicios Integrales del Agua S.A. v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, Decision on Jurisdiction of Jun. 30, 2010, paras 22–238; Ioannis Kardassopoulos & Ron Fuchs v. Georgia, ICSID Case Nos ARB/05/18 & ARB/07/15, Award of Mar. 3, 2010, paras 434–452; AES Summit Generation Ltd. & AES-Tisza Eromu Kft. v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22, Award of Sep. 23, 2010, paras 9.3.6–9.3.26; Enron Corp. & Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Annulment Decision of Jul. 30, 2010; Alpha Projekholding GmbH v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/16, Award of Nov. 8, 2010; EDF (Services) Ltd. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/13, Award of Oct. 8, 2009; AES Summit Generation Ltd. & AES-Tisza Eromu Kft. v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22, Annulment Decision of Jun. 29; Antoine Goetz et al. and S.A. Affinage des Métaux v. Burundi, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/2, Award of Jun. 21, 2012; Ulysseas, Inv. v. Ecuador, UNCITRAL, Award of Jun. 12, 2012; EDF International S.A., SAUR International S.A. & León Participaciones Argentinas S.A. v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/23, Award of Jun. 11, 2012; M. Franck Charles Arif v. Moldavie, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/23, Award of Apr. 8, 2013; LG&E Energy Corp. & anor. v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/1, Decision on liability, 6 October 2006; Duke Energy & anor. v. Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/19, Award of 18 August 2008.

  19. 19.

    Dolzer and Schreuer, above n4, 115

  20. 20.

    UNCTAD (2012) Fair and equitable treatment, UNCTAD series on issues in international investment agreements II. United Nations, New York, at 61–4; See OECD (2004) Fair and equitable treatment standard in international investment law. OECD working papers series on International Investment 2004/3, at 40; I Tudor (2008) The fair and equitable treatment standard in the international law of foreign investment. Oxford University Press, Oxford, at 66–8

  21. 21.

    Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2, Award of May 29, 2003, (Tecmed v. Mexico) para 173

  22. 22.

    Ibid.

  23. 23.

    Gold Reserve Inc. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/09/1, Award, September 22, 2014.

  24. 24.

    Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. & Vivendi Universal, S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, Decision on Liability of Jul. 30, 2010.

  25. 25.

    Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. & Vivendi Universal, S.A. v. Argentine Republic, Ibid., Separate Opinion of Arbitrator Pedro Nikken, paras 2–3. See also, CMS Gas Transmission Co. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Annulment Decision of Sep. 25, 2007, para 89; and MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. & MTD Chile S.A. v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. 01/7, Decision on application for Annulment of Mar. 21, 2007, para 67

  26. 26.

    CMS Gas Transmission Co. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Annulment Decision of Sep. 25, 2007, para 89. In a similar sense, see MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. & MTD Chile S.A. v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. 01/7, Decision on application for Annulment of Mar. 21, 2007, para 67.

  27. 27.

    CMS Gas Transmission Co. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Annulment Decision of Sep. 25, 2007, para 89.

  28. 28.

    MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. & MTD Chile S.A. v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. 01/7, Decision on application for Annulment of Mar. 21, 2007.

  29. 29.

    MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. & MTD Chile S.A. v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. 01/7, Decision on application for Annulment of Mar. 21, 2007, para 67.

  30. 30.

    Ibid.

  31. 31.

    Ibid.

  32. 32.

    See, e.g., Novenergia, para 646, where the tribunal stated, in respect of the FET provision in the Energy Charter, that “the Tribunal agrees with the arbitral tribunals” findings in Isolux, Plama and Eiser that the stability and transparency obligation is simply an illustration of the obligation to respect the investor’s legitimate expectations through the FET standard, rather than a separate or independent obligation.’ See also cases cited in note 18 above.

  33. 33.

    See, e.g., Nganjo-Hodu and Ajibo, above n1; Monebhurrun, above n8. See also Dolzer R (2014) Fair and equitable treatment: today’s contours. Santa Clara J Int Law 12:7–34; Westcott TJ (2007) Recent practice on fair and equitable treatment. J World Invest Trade 8(3):409–430, at 414.

  34. 34.

    Monebhurrun, above n8, 554.

  35. 35.

    Electrabel S.A. v. Hungary, ICSID No. ARB/07/19, Award of 25 November 2015, para 7.75.

  36. 36.

    See, e.g., Nganjo-Hodu and Ajibo, above n1, 45, 48 and 57; Chaisse J and Ng SR (2018) The doctrine of legitimate expectations: comparing international law and common law in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Law J 48(1):79–81; International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v. United Mexican States, UNCITRAL, Award of 26 January 2006.

  37. 37.

    Arif v. Republic of Moldova, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/23, Award of 8 April 2013, para 536. See also, International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v. United Mexican States, Separate Opinion of Thomas Wälde, December 2005, para 37.

  38. 38.

    Postestà, above n3, 89. See also Chaisse J (2016) Investor-state arbitration in international tax dispute resolution – a cut above dedicated tax dispute resolution? Virginia Tax Rev 41(2):149–222.

  39. 39.

    Monebhurrun, above n8, 554.

  40. 40.

    Chaisse and Ng, above n36, 81.

  41. 41.

    Nganjo-Hodu and Ajibo, above n1.

  42. 42.

    E.g Germany. See González, above n9, 412.

  43. 43.

    See Kari Sperr A, Hohenlohe-Oehringen D (2017) Introduction. In: The protection of legitimate expectations in administrative law: a comparative study. Hart Publishing, Oxford

  44. 44.

    See, Monebhurrun, above n8.

  45. 45.

    Monebhurrun, above n8, 557

  46. 46.

    Crawford J (2012) Brownlie’s principles of public international law, 8th edn. Oxford Univeristy Press, p 420

  47. 47.

    AG Jääskinen confirms that “according to settled case-law, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations is one of the fundamental principles of the European Union”. See France Télécom SA v Commission (C-81/10 P) EU:C:2011:554 at [159].

  48. 48.

    Nolte G (1994) General principles of German and European administrative law: a comparison in historical perspective. Mod Law Rev 57:191, 195.

  49. 49.

    (1988) 165 CLR 107

  50. 50.

    Ibid., 123.

  51. 51.

    International Thunderbird Corporation v. United Mexican States, NAFTA Arbitration under UNCITRAL, 2005, para 37.

  52. 52.

    See, e.g., Burger King Corporation v Hungry Jack’s Pty Ltd (2001) 69 NSWLR 558; Hughes Aircraft Systems International v Airservices Australia (1997) 146 ALR 1; Renard Constructions (ME) Pty Ltd v Minister for Public Works (1992) 26 NSWLR 234. See also, Carter J, Peden E (2003) Good faith in australian contract law. J Contract Law 19(2):155–172.

  53. 53.

    (1988) 165 CLR 107

  54. 54.

    See text accompanying footnotes 49 to 51 above.

  55. 55.

    For a discussion of the concept of Good Faith in US law, see, e.g., Summers RS (1982) The duty of good faith: its recognition and conceptualization. Cornell Law Rev 67:810; Houh E (2005) The doctrine of good faith in contract law: a (nearly) empty vessel? Utah Law Rev:1–56.

  56. 56.

    Novenergia II Energy Environment Grand Duchy of Luxembourg SICAR v The Kingdom of Spain, SCC Arbitration, Final Arbitral Award 15 February 2018.

  57. 57.

    Eiser Infrastructure Limited and Energía Solar Luxembourg S.à r.l. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/36, Final Award, 4 May 2017, para 382.

  58. 58.

    Charanne B.V. and other v. Kingdom of Spain, Award, 21 January 2016. See also Isolux Infrastructure Netherlands, B.V. v. the Kingdom of Spain, SCC V2013/153, Award, 12 July 2016, where Spains actions were held not to have infringed its FET obligations.

  59. 59.

    See, Monebhurrun, above n8, 551–562. See, e.g., Snodgrass E (2006) Protecting investors’ legitimate expectations: recognizing and delimiting a general principle. ICSID Rev 21(1): 1–58; Postestà, above n3, 88–122; Chaisse and Ng, above n36, 81.

  60. 60.

    Statute of the International Court of Justice (hereafter “ICJ Statute”), Article 38(1). Available at http://www.icj-cij.org/en/statute. It provides that:

    1. 1.

      The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply:

      1. (a)

        international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states;

      2. (b)

        international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;

      3. (c)

        the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;

      4. (d)

        subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.

  61. 61.

    ICJ Statute, Article 38(1)(c).

  62. 62.

    Amco Asia Corp. v. Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Award (Nov. 21, 1984), 24 I.L.M. 1022 (1985); Schefer KN (2013) International investment law: texts, cases and materials. Edward Elgar, p 51

  63. 63.

    Amco Asia Corp., 24 I.L.M. at 1036–37.

  64. 64.

    Gold Reserve Inc. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/09/1, Award, September 22, 2014.

  65. 65.

    See, paras 568–576, particularly para 576, where the tribunal sated “With particular regard to the legal sources of one of the standards for respect of the fair and equitable treatment principle, i.e., the protection of ‘legitimate expectations,’ these sources are to be found in the comparative analysis of many domestic legal systems.” For authority for this position, the tribunal cited, among other sources, Vicuña FO (2003) Regulatory authority and legitimate expectations: balancing the rights of the state and the individual under international law in a global society. Int Law Forum 5(3):188–194; Schill S (2010) Fair and equitable treatment, the rule of law, and comparative law. In: Schill S (ed) International investment law and comparative public law, vol 151. Oxford University Press, pp 156–157.

  66. 66.

    See paras 568–576.

  67. 67.

    Monebhurrun, above n8; Gold Reserve Inc. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, para 576.

  68. 68.

    Gold Reserve Inc. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, para 606

  69. 69.

    Gold Reserve Inc. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, paras 577–610.

  70. 70.

    Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v Chile), ICJ, Judgment, 1 October 2018. Available at https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/153/judgments

  71. 71.

    See the judgement of the majority, para 162.

  72. 72.

    See, Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Daudet, para 6. Available at https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/153/153-20181001-JUD-01-04-EN.pdf

  73. 73.

    See, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Salam, para 25. Available at https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/153/153-20181001-JUD-01-03-EN.pdf

  74. 74.

    Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula, S.C. European Food S.A., S.C. Starmill S.R.L. and S.C. Multipack S.R.L. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, Award, 11 December 2013, para 667.

  75. 75.

    See, e.g., Micula v. Romania, para 669; AES Summit Generation Limited and AES-Tisza Erömü Kft v. Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/22, Award, 23 September 2010, para 9.3.73; Eiser Infrastructure Limited and Energía Solar Luxembourg S.à r.l. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/36, Final Award, 4 May 2017.

  76. 76.

    Saluka Investments B.V. v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award of 17 March 2006.

  77. 77.

    EDF v. Romania, ICSID Award, 8 October 2009.

  78. 78.

    EDF v. Romania, ICSID Award, 8 October 2009, para 217

  79. 79.

    Eiser Infrastructure Limited and Energía Solar Luxembourg S.à r.l. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/36, Final Award, 4 May 2017, para 382

  80. 80.

    Novenergia II, para 694.

  81. 81.

    Novenergia II, para 694.

  82. 82.

    González, above n9, 416

  83. 83.

    See e.g., van Meerbeeck J (2016) The principle of legal certainty in the case law of the court of justice of the European Union: from certainty to trust. EL Rev 41:275–282. See also Schwarze J (1992) European administrative law. Sweet & Maxwell, London, p 950

  84. 84.

    Electrabel S.A. v. Hungary, ICSID No. ARB/07/19, Award of 25 November 2015, para 7.78

  85. 85.

    Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula, S.C. European Food S.A., S.C. Starmill S.R.L. and S.C. Multipack S.R.L. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, Award, 11 December 2013, para 669.

  86. 86.

    Novenergia II., para 7.78

  87. 87.

    For discussions of the imbalance in the law, see, e.g., Garcia F et al (2015) Reforming the international investment law regime: lessons from international trade law. J Int Econ Law 18:861; Arcuri A, Montanaro F (2018) Justice for all? Protecting the public interest in investment treaties. Boston Coll Law Rev 59:2791; Forster GK. Balancing investor protections, the environment and human rights: investors, states and stakeholders: power asymmetries in international investment and the stabilizing potential of investment treaties. Lewis Clark Law Rev 17:361.

  88. 88.

    For the evolution of the law, see Miles K (2013) The origins of international investment law: empire, environment and the safeguarding of capital. Cambridge University Press; Salacuse JW (2015) The law of investment treaties, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, p 46; Chester B (2015) The evolution of the regime of international investment agreements: history, economics and politics. In: M Bungenberg et al (eds) International investment law. Bloomsbury T & T Clark, p 154; Vandevelde KJ. A brief history of international investment agreements. UC Davis J Int Law Policy 12:157.

  89. 89.

    Separate Opinion of Thomas Wälde, para 37

  90. 90.

    Dolzer R (2005) Fair and equitable treatment: a key standard in investment treaties. Int Lawyer 39(1):87–106

  91. 91.

    See, Wongkaew, above n17, 5.

  92. 92.

    Nganjo-Hodu and Ajibo, above n1.

  93. 93.

    See discussions under Part 2 (Meaning and Content of Legitimate Expectation), and under Part 3.4 (State of the Legal basis of Legitimate Expectations), above.

  94. 94.

    See, for instance, the contrasting decisions in respect of Spain’s renewable energy tariff regime: Novenergia; Charanne, Eiser.

  95. 95.

    An example of IIAs with no reference FET can be found in IIAs entered into by Singapore. Thus, the Australia-Singapore FTA (2003), India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (2005), New Zealand-Singapore FTA (2001) do not contain FET provisions. Other examples are the New Zealand-Thailand Closer Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) (2005), the Albania-Croatia BIT (1993), the Croatia-Ukraine BIT (1997) and a number of BITs concluded by Turkey. See also Chaisse J, Bellak C (2015) Navigating the expanding universe of investment treaties – creation and use of critical index. J Int Econ Law 18(1):79–115. For further discussion of the impact of the omission of FET in IIAs, see UNCTAD, Fair and Equitable Treatment (2011) 18–20. Available at https://unctad.org/en/Docs/unctaddiaeia2011d5_en.pdf

  96. 96.

    See Gallagher KP, Birch M (2006) Do investment agreements attract investment? evidence from Latin America. J World Invest Trade 7(6):961–974.

  97. 97.

    See, for instance, Continental Casualty Company v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/9, Award of 5 September 2008, para 261, where the tribunal observed that unilateral modification of contractual commitments by host government calls for scrutiny in view of the legal rights and legitimate expectation of compliance generated in favour of the investors.

  98. 98.

    See discussions in 4.2.1 above.

  99. 99.

    Investment and investors.

  100. 100.

    Chapman M. Seeking justice in lago agrio and beyond: an argument for joint responsibility host states and foreign investors before the regional human right systems. Human Rights Brief 18:6; Arcuri and Montanaro, above n87. See also, Laryea ET (2018) Making investment arbitration work for all: addressing the deficits in access to remedy for wronged host state citizens through investment arbitration. Boston Coll Law Rev 59:2845–2852.

  101. 101.

    See, Laryea, ibid.

  102. 102.

    Ibid.

  103. 103.

    Nganjo-Hodu and Ajibo, above n1, 54; Snodgrass (2006), above n59, 1–4.

  104. 104.

    Nganjo-Hodu and Ajibo, above n1, 59; Sauvant KP, Ünüvar G (2016) Can host countries have legitimate expectations? In: Columbia FDI perspectives, paper no. 183

  105. 105.

    See, Sauvant KP, Ünüvar G (2016) Can host countries have legitimate expectations? In: Columbia FDI perspectives, paper no. 183

  106. 106.

    EDF (Services) Limited v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/13, Award Merits, 8 October 2009, para 219.

  107. 107.

    See, Reciprocal Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement Between The Government of the Kingdom of Morocco and The Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (3 December, 2016). Available at https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/international-investment-agreements/treaty-files/5409/download

  108. 108.

    Art. 14(1) and 14(2).

  109. 109.

    Art. 18.

  110. 110.

    Art. 19.

  111. 111.

    Art. 24.

  112. 112.

    African Union, Pan-African Investment Code. Available at https://au.int/sites/default/files/documents/32844-doc-draft_pan-african_investment_code_december_2016_en.pdf

  113. 113.

    See for instance the preamble of …to the July 2012 Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) Model Bilateral Investment Treaty. Available at: www.iisd.org/itn/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/sadc-model-bit-template-final.pdf. See also, the 2014 Canada – Senegal BIT and many others. Available at http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/IIA/MostRecentTreaties#iiaInnerMenu

  114. 114.

    See ICSID, article 25.

  115. 115.

    See for instance, the December 1986 UN Declarations on the Right to Development at UN Doc. A/RES/41/128, adopted on 4 December 1986, text available at https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/41/128; and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI), 993 U.N.T.S. 3, 16 December 1966, entered into force 3 January 197, available at: www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx. See also Bunn ID (2000) The right to development: implications for international economic law. Am Univ Int Law Rev 15(6):1425–1467; Arts K, Tamo A (2016) The right to development in international law: new momentum thirty years down the line? Neth Int Law Rev 63(3):221–249.

  116. 116.

    See, Laryea, above n100.

  117. 117.

    Odumososu-Ayanu I (2014) Governments, investors and local communities: analysis of a multi-actor investment contract framework. Melb J Int Law 15:473–474.

  118. 118.

    Schreuer C (2008) Consent to arbitration. In: Muchlinski P, Ortino F, Schreuer C (eds) The Oxford handbook of international investment law, pp 831–837

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Emmanuel T. Laryea

Authors
  1. Emmanuel T. Laryea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emmanuel T. Laryea .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong

    Julien Chaisse

  2. Professor of International Law; and Director of the Research and Innovation Theme in Democratic Citizenship, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK

    Leïla Choukroune

  3. Institute of Malaysia and International Studies, National University of Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

    Sufian Jusoh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Laryea, E.T. (2020). Legitimate Expectations in Investment Treaty Law: Concept and Scope of Application. In: Chaisse, J., Choukroune, L., Jusoh, S. (eds) Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5744-2_55-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5744-2_55-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-5744-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-5744-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Law and CriminologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation