81 The concern has been framed as a shift of the economic burden of regulation from the host state to the foreign investor. The premise for this view seems, however, to be flawed. Being subject to ordinary regulations, even in the situations when this affects your freedom and im-pose obligations upon you, are part of life in a modern society,362 also with regard to property protection.363 Such regulations are therefore basically not considered an infringement of any fundamental rights. This might be framed as that the abstract weight of the host states’ right to regulate for the public good being higher than the interest of not being subject to regulations.
The situation must therefore affect the investor extraordinarily if the intensity of interference in the particular case shall outweigh the interests of the regulation. This was not considered the case in any of the awards from 2016, but might be a safety valve for the foreign inves-tor.364
5.4 Conclusion: Towards a fairer balance in international investment law
82 Another angle for considering the fairness of the balance is a value-based point of view. This means that the moral environment in which the decision has been made might influence whether it is considered correct or not. Take for instance how the question of abortion has been considered differently in different legal systems.365 What is considered fair in a private law context and in a public law context might also differ. That international investment law is disconnected from the environment in which both the investment and the measure takes place might make the balance struck seem unfair from either the point of view of the investor or the host state. This is a fundamentally difficult question to solve, and might be a reason for find-ing the entire system of international investment law flawed.366 Another solution, however, may be to investigate and develop theories on how best to order the different rights and inter-est at stake in international invinter-estment law disputes. It is also important that those applying international investment law are sensitive towards these concerns by paying due regard to the national system of review.367
It is therefore too early to conclude on whether international investment law strikes a fair bal-ance between foreign investor protection and host states’ right to regulate. What this thesis has shown, however, is that by taking other rights and interests into account, international investment law has overcome the perceived legitimacy crisis it faced at the beginning of this millennium. Although the principle of proportionality does not as such solve any of the sys-tem’s challenges, this thesis has shown that the principle of proportionality is a helpful tech-nique in address important issues that arise when different rights and interests collide. This is because the criteria of suitability and necessity help to address the question of whether a legit-imate legal conflict of rights and interests exits and the criterion of proportionality in the nar-row sense highlights the reasoning for an order between these rights and interests in the actual dispute at hand.
Despite many challenges still being unanswered, international investment law as of 2016 is a more balanced system of law and thus more in line with what might be expected from an in-ternational system of law.
365 See section 2.5.2.
366 This is the question of whether the setup of the system is fundamental flawed or not, which this thesis has demarcated from, see section 1.3.
367 This is the question of deference or the so-called margin of appreciation which thus thesis has demarcated from, see section 1.3.
83
Table of reference
International investment law documents 2004 US Model BIT
2012 US Model BIT
Argentina – Australia BIT BIT between Argentina and Australia, 23 August 1995
CAFTA-DR Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement, August 2004
CETA Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, Brussels 30
October 2016 Draft 2015 Norway Model
BIT
ECT Energy Charter Treaty, 17 December 1994
ICSID Convention International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Convention, in force from 14 October 1966
MAI Agreement OECD’s Multilateral Agreement on Investment, Draft 1997 Mauritius Convention on
Transparency
United Nations Convention on Transparency in Treaty–based Investor-State Arbitration, New York, 10 December 2014 NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement, the respective
capi-tals 17 December 1992
Switzerland – Uruguay BIT BIT between Switzerland and Uruguay, 7 October 1988 The 1961 Draft Harvard
Convention on International Responsibility of States
The Harvard Convention on International Responsibility of States for Injuries to Aliens, Draft 1961
TTIP Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, halted nego-tiations
TTP Trans-Pacific Partnership, Auckland 4 February 2016 UNCITRAL Arbitration
Rules
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Arbitration Rules, Revised 2010
UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency
UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency for Treaty-based Inves-tor-State Arbitration, 1 April 2014
International public law documents
ECHR The European Convention on Human Rights, Roma 4 No-vember 1950
ECHR First Protocol Protocol to the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Paris 20 March 1952
ECHR Protocol 15 Protocol No. 15 amending the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Strasbourg 24
84 June 2013
EEA Agreement Agreement on the European Economic Area, Brussels 7 March 1993
EU Charter on Fundamental Rights
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Nice 7 December 2000
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, UN General assembly, New York 16 December 1966
ILC Articles on State Re-sponsibility
Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts, In-ternational Law Commission, Geneva 3 August 2001
Statute of ICJ Statute of the International Court of Justice, Annex to Charter of United Nations, San Francisco 26 June 1945
UNESCO World Heritage Convention
Convention Concerning the Protection pf the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris 21 November 1972
UNGP United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, Human Rights Committee Resolution 17/4, 16 June 2011
Vienna Convention The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties , Vienna 23 May 1969
WHO Framework Conven-tion on Tobacco Control
Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, World Health Organisation, in force from 27 February 2005
International investment law cases
Abaclat v. Argentina Abaclat and Others v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No.
ARB/07/5 (formerly Giovanna a Beccara and Others v. The Argentine Republic), Consent Award, 29 December 2016 Agility v. Pakistan Agility for Public Warehousing Company K.S.C. v. Islamic
Re-public of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/8, Award, 1 August 2016
Allard v. Barbados Peter A. Allard v. The Government of Barbados, PCA Case No. 2012-06, Award, 27 June 2016
Allawi v. Pakistan Ali Allawi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, PCA, UN-CITRAL, Award 2016
Almås v. Poland Mr. Kristian Almås and Mr. Geir Almås v. The Republic of Poland, PCA Case No 2015-13, Award, 27 June 2016
Berkowitz v. Costa Rica Aaron C. Berkowitz, Brett E. Berkowitz and Trevor B.
Berkowitz (formerly Spence International Investments and others) v. Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No.
UNCT/13/2 , Interim Award, 25 October 2016
85 Biloune v. Ghana Biloune v. Ghana Investment Centre and the Government of Ghana, UNCITRAL, Jurisdiction on Liability, 27 October 1989, (1990) 95 ILR 813
Blusun v. Italy Blusun S.A., Jean-Pierre Lecorcier and Michael Stein v. Ital-ian Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/3, Award. 27 Decem-ber 2017
CEAC v. Montenegro Central European Aluminium Company (CEAC) v. Montene-gro, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/8, Award, 26 July 2016
Charanne v. Spain Charanne B.V. and Construction Investments S.a.r.l. v. Spain, SCC Case No. 062/2012, Award 21 January 2016
Churchill Mining v.
Indonesia
Churchill Mining PLC and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/14 and 12/40, Award, 6 December 2016
CME v. Czech Republic CME Czech Republic B.V. v. The Czech Republic, UN-CITRAL, Partial Award, 13 September 2001
CMS v. Argentina CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Republic of Argen-tina, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Award 12 May 2005
Continental Casualty v.
Argentina
Continental Casualty Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/9, Award, 5 September 2008
Continental Casualty v.
Argentina, Annulment procedure
Continental Casualty Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/9, Decision on annulment, 16 Sep-tember 2011
Copper Mesa v. Ecuador Copper Mesa Mining Corporation v. Republic of Ecuador, PCA No. 2012-2, Award, 15 march 2016
Corona v. Dominican Republic
Corona Materials LLC v. Dominican Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/14/3, Award, 31 May 2016
Crystallex v. Venezuela Crystallex International Corporation v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/11/2, Award, 4 April 2016
Devas v. India CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd., Devas Employees Mauritius Pri-vate Limited, and Telcom Devas Mauritius Limited v. Repub-lic of India, PCA Case No. 2013-09, Award, 25 July 2016 Dunkeld v. Belize Dunkeld International Investment Ltd. v. The Government of
Belize (Number 1), PCA Case No. 2010-13, UNCITRAL, Award, 28 June 2016
Edenred v. Hungary Edenred S.A. v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/21, Award, 13. December 2016
EDF v. Romania EDF (Services) Limited v. Romania, ICSID Case No.
ARB/05/13, Award, 8 October 2009
86 El Paso v. Argentina El Paso Energy International Company v. The Argentine Re-public, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15, Award 31 October 2011 Feldman v. Mexico Marvin Roy Feldman Karpa v. United Mexican States, ICSID
Case No. ARB(AF)/99/1, Award, 16. December 2002 Financial Performance
Holdings v. Russia
Financial Performance Holdings B.V. v. The Russian Federa-tion, PCA Case No 2015-02, UNCITRAL, Award, 27 Sep-tember 2016
Flemingo v. Poland Flemingo DutyFree Shop Private Limited v the Republic of Poland, UNCITRAL, Award, 12 August 2016
Garanti Koza v. Turkmeni-stan
Garanti Koza LLP v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No.
ARB/11/20, Award, 19 December 2016 Getma International v.
Guinea
Getma International and others v. Republic of Guinea, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/29, Award, 16 August 2016
Glamis v. the US Glamis Gold, Ltd. v. The United States of America, UN-CITRAL, Award, 8 June 2009
Hochtief v. Argentina Hochtief AG v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No.
ARB/07/31, Award, 19 December 2016
Hulley v. Russia Hulley Enterprises Limited v. The Russian Federation, UN-CITRAL, PCA Case No. AA 226, UNUN-CITRAL, Final Award, 18 July 2014
Ickale Insaat v. Turkmeni-stan
İçkale İnşaat Limited Şirketi v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/24, Award, 8 March 2016
Isolux v. Spain Isolux Infrastructure Netherlands B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain, SCC, Award, 2016
Joseph Houben v. Burundi Joseph Houben v. Republic of Burundi, ICSID Case No.
ARB/13/7, Award, 12 January 2016
Lauder v. Czech Republic Ronald S. Lauder v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Final award, 3 September 2001
Lahoud v. Congo Antoine Abou Lahoud and Leila Bounafeh-Abou Lahoud v.
Democratic Republic of the Congo, ICSID Case No.
ARB/10/4, Decision on annulment, 29 March 2016
LG&E v. Argentina LG&E Energy Corp., LG&E Capital Corp., and LG&E Inter-national, Inc .v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No.
ARB/02/1, Decision of Liability, 3 October 2006
Loulo v. Mali Société des Mines de Loulo S.A. v. Republic of Mali, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/16, Award, 2 June 2016
Menzies v. Senegal Menzies Middle East and Africa S.A. and Aviation Handling Services International Ltd. v. Republic of Senegal, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/21, Award 5 August 2016
87 Mesa v. Canada Mesa Power Group, LLC v. Government of Canada,
UN-CITRAL, PCA Case No. 2012-17, Award, 24 March 2016 Metalclad v. Mexico Metalclad Corporation v. The United Mexican States, ICSID
Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1, Award, 30 August 2000
Methanex v. the US Methanex Corporation v. United States of America, UN-CITRAL, Final Award, 3 August 2005
MNSS v. Montenegro MNSS B.V. and Recupero Credito Acciaio N.V. v. Montene-gro, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/8, Award, 4 May 2016 Mobil v. Argentina Mobil Exploration and Development Inc. Suc. Argentina and
Mobil Argentina S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No.
ARB/04/16, Award, 25 February 2016
Murphy v. Ecuador Murphy Exploration & Production Company – International v. Republic of Ecuador, PCA Case No. 2012-16 (formerly AA 434), Award, 6 May 2016
National Grid v. Argentina National Grid plc v. The Argentine Republic, UNCITRAL , Award, 3 October 2008
Occidental v Ecuador Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. The Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11, Award, 5 October 2012
Occidental v. Ecuador I Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. The Re-public of Ecuador, LCIA Case No. UN3467, 1 July 2004 Pac Rim Cayman v.
El Salvador
Pac Rim Cayman LLC v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/12, Award, 14 October 2016
Philip Morris v. Uruguay Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, Award, 8 July 2016
Progas Energy v. Pakistan Progas Energy Ltd v. Pakistan, PCA, UNCITRAL, Award 2016
Renco Group v. Peru The Renco Group, Inc. v. The Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. UNCT/13/1, Partial Award 15 July 2016
RSM v. Saint Luca RSM Production Corporation v. Saint Lucia, ICSID Case No.
ARB/12/10, Award, 15 July 2016
Rusoro v. Venezuela Rusoro Mining Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/5, Award 22 August 2016 S.D. Myers v. Canada S.D. Myers, Inc. v. Government of Canada, UNCITRAL,
Par-tial Award, 13 November 2000
Saint-Gobain v. Venezuela Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Europe v. Bolivarian Re-public of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/13, Decision on Liability and the Principles of Quantum, 30 December
88 2016
Saluka v. Czech Republic Saluka Investments B.V. v. The Czech Republic, UN-CITRAL, Partial Award, 17 March 2006
Santa Elena v. Costa Rica Compañia del Desarrollo de Santa Elena S.A. v. Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB/96/1, Award, 17 February 2000
SGS v. Pakistan SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Islamic Repub-lic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/13, Decision of the Tribunal to Jurisdiction, 6 August 2003
SGS v. Philippines SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. Republic of the Philippines, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/6, Decision of the Tri-bunal to Jurisdiction, 29 January 2004
Seventhsun v. Poland Seventhsun Holding Ltd, Jevelinia Ltd, Aventon Ltd, Stano-rode Ltd and Wildoro Ltd v. Poland, Award on Costs, 4 Janu-ary 2016
Southern Pacific Properties v. Egypt
Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/84/3, Award, 20 May 1992
Spentex v. Uzbekistan Spentex Netherlands, B.V. v. Republic of Uzbekistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/26, Award, 27 December 2016
Standars Chartered Bank v.
Tanzania Electric supply Company
Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited v. Tanzania Electric Supply Company Limited, ICSID Case No.
ARB/10/20, Award, 12 September 2016
Sudapet v. South Sudan Sudapet Company Limited v. Republic of South Sudan, IC-SID Case No. ARB/12/26, Award, 30 September 2016
Swissbourgh v. Lesotho Swissbourgh Diamond Mines (Pty) Limited, Josias Van Zyl, The Josias Van Zyl Family Trust and others v. The Kingdom of Lesotho, PCA Case No. 2013-29, UNCITRAL, Award 18 April 2016
Tecmed v. Mexico Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/2, Award, 29 May 2003
Tenaris v. Venezuela Tenaris S.A. and Talta - Trading e Marketing Sociedade Unipessoal Lda. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/26, Award, 29 January 2016
Tenaris v. Venezuela II Tenaris S.A. and Talta - Trading e Marketing Sociedade Unipessoal Lda. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/23, Award 12 December 2016
Total v. Argentina Total S.A. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No.
89 ARB/04/01, Decision in liability, 27 December 2010
Transglobal v. Panama Transglobal Green Energy, LLC and Transglobal Green Ener-gy de Panama, S.A. v. The Republic of Panama, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/28, Award, 2 June 2016
Urbaser v. Argentina Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26, Award, 8 December 2016
Van Riet v. Croatia Lieven J. van Riet, Chantal C. van Riet and Christopher van Riet v. Republic of Croatia, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/12, Award, 2 November 2016
Vattenfall v. Germany II Vattenfall AB and others v. Federal Republic of Germany, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12
Vestey v. Venezuela Vestey Group Ltd v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, IC-SID Case No. ARB/06/4, Award, 15 April 2016
Veteran v. Russia Veteran Petroleum Limited (Cyprus) v. The Russian Federa-tion, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. AA 228, Final Award, 18 July 2014
Victor Pey v. Chile Victor Pey Casado and President Allende Foundation v. Re-public of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/2, Award, 13 Sep-tember 2016
Vivendi v. Argentina II Compañiá de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Univer-sal S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3, Award, 20 August 2007
Waste Management v. Mex-ico
Waste management, Inc. v. Mexico, ICSID, Case No.
ARB(AF)/00/3, Award, 30 April 2004
Windstream v. Canada Windstream Energy LLC v. The Government of Canada, PCA Case No. 2013-22, Award, 27 September 2016
Yukos v. Russia Yukos Universal Limited v. The Russian Federation, UN-CITRAL, PCA Case No. AA 227, Final Award, 18 July 2014 Cases from other international courts and tribunals
Barcelona Traction Barcelona Traction (Belgium v. Spain), ICJ, Judgement, 5 February 1970
Cassis de Dijon Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Brann-twein, ECJ, C-120/78, Judgment, 20 February 1979
Chorzow factory The factory at Chorzow, PCIJ, Series A, No. 17, Judgment, 13 September 1928
Gräbner Deutsche Paracelsus Schulen für Naturheilverfahren GmbH v
90 Kurt Gräbner, ECJ, C-294/00, Judgment 11 July 2002
Kellogg’s EFTA Surveillance Authority v. Norway, EFTA Court, E-3/00, Judgment 5 April 2001
Neer v. Mexico L.F.H. Neer and Pauline Neer (USA) v. United Mexican States, Claims Commission, 15 October 1926, Reports of International Awards, Volume IV pp. 60-66
Norwegian shipowners’
claims
Norwegian shipowners’ claims (Norway v. USA), PCA, 13 October 1922, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol-ume I pp. 307-346
Smith and Grady v. the UK Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, ECtHR, Application No. 33985/96 and 33986/96, Judgment, 27 December 1999 Sporrong and Lönnroth v.
Sweden
Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, ECtHR, Application No.
7151/75, Judgment 23 September 1982
Yukos v. Russia Oao Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia, ECtHR, Appli-cation No. 14902/04, Judgment, 31 July 2014
Cases from national supreme courts Aviation Security Act
decision
Luftsicherheitsgesetz, German Federal Constitutional Court, 1 BvR 357/05, 15 February 2006
Maria Rt. 2015 s. 93, Norwegian Supreme Court
Roe v. Wade Roe v. Wade, U.S. Supreme Court, 410 U.S 113, 22 January 1973
Literature
Aleinikoff, T. Alexander. ‘Constitutional Law in the Age of Balancing’. The Yale Law Jour-nal 96, no. 5 (April 1987): 943–1005. doi:10.2307/796529.
Alexy, Robert. A Theory of Constitutional Rights. Translated by Julian Riverts. Repr. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
———. ‘Constitutional Rights, Balancing, and Rationality’. Ratio Juris 16, no. 2 (2 June 2003): 131–40. doi:10.1111/1467-9337.00228.
———. ‘On Balancing and Subsumption. A Structural Comparison’. Ratio Juris 16, no. 4 (December 2003): 433–49. doi:10.1046/j.0952-1917.2003.00244.x.
Alvarez, José E. ‘Beware: Boundary Crossings’, 18 September 2014.
http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2498182.
———. The Public International Law Regime Governing International Investment. Pocket Books of the Hague Academy of International Law A Collection of Law Lectures in Pocketbook Form. Maubeuge: AP All-Pocket, 2011.
Alvik, Ivar. Contracting with Sovereignty: State Contracts and International Arbitration.
Studies in International Law 31. Oxford: Hart, 2011.
Andenas, Mads, and Stefan Zleptnig. ‘Proportionality: WTO Law: In Comparative Perspec-tive.(International Academy of Commercial and Consumer Law: Changing Law for Changing Times, 13th Biennial Meeting)’. Texas International Law Journal 42, no. 3 (2007): 371–427.
91 Arai-Takahashi, Yutaka. The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Principle of
Propor-tionality in the Jurisprudence of the ECHR. Antwerp: Intersentia, 2002.
Barak, Aharon. ‘Proportionality’. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law, edited by Michel Rosenfeld and András Sajó, 1:738–755. Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press, 2012. https://www.supremeadvocacy.ca/wp- content/uploads/2016/07/65-Barak-Aharon-Proportionality-Constitutional-Law-by-Rosenfel.pdf.
Beatty, David. The Ultimate Rule of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Behn, Daniel. ‘Legitimacy, Evolution, and Growth in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Empiri-cally Evaluating the State-of-The-Art’, 1 February 2015.
https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2704332.
Brabandere, Eric De. Investment Treaty Arbitration as Public International Law: Procedural Aspects and Implications. 1st paperback edition. Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
———. ‘Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v The Russian Federation Complementarity or Conflict? Contrasting the Yukos Case before the European Court of Human Rights and Investment Tribunals’. ICSID Review 30, no. 2 (5 January 2015): 345–55.
doi:10.1093/icsidreview/siv009.
Bücheler, Gebhard. Proportionality in Investor-State Arbitration. Oxford University Press, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198724339.001.0001.
Choukroune, Leïla. Judging the State in International Trade and Investment Law: Sovereignty Modern, the Law and the Economics. International Law and the Global South, Per-spectives from the Rest of the World. Springer Singapore: Springer Nature, 2016.
Christoffersen, Jonas. Fair Balance: Proportionality, Subsidiarity and Primarity in the Euro-pean Convention on Human Rights. International Studies in Human Rights, 99. Lei-den: BRILL, 2009.
Dolzer, Rudolf. Principles of International Investment Law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford Universi-ty Press, 2012.
Dupuy, Pierre-Marie, ed. Human Rights in International Investment Law and Arbitration.
Repr. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Fauchald, Ole Kristian. ‘The Legal Reasoning of ICSID Tribunals - An Empirical Analysis’.
European Journal of International Law 19, no. 2 (1 April 2008): 301–64.
doi:10.1093/ejil/chn011.
Frøberg, Thomas. ‘Rettslig Prinsippargumentasjon’. PH.D., Universitetet i Oslo, 2013.
Gardiner, Richard K. Treaty Interpretation. Second edition. The Oxford International Law Library. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Gazzini, Tarcisio. Interpretation of International Investment Treaties. Oxford Portland, Ore-gon: Hart Publishing, 2016.
Greer, Steven. ‘The Exceptions to Articles 8-11 of the European Convention on Human
Rights’. Human Rights Files, no. 15 (1997).
http://www.echr.coe.int/LibraryDocs/DG2/HRFILES/DG2-EN-HRFILES-15(1997).pdf.
Grimm, Dieter. ‘Proportionality in Canadian and German Constitutional Jurisprudence’. Uni-versity of Toronto Law Journal 57, no. 2 (2007): 383–97.
Habermas, Jürgen. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Translated by William Rehg. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2011.
Hage, Japp. Studies in Legal Logic. Law and Philosophy Library Studies in Legal Logic. Dor-drecht: Springer, 2005.
92 Hallward-Driemeier, Mary. ‘Do Bilateral Investment Treaties Attract Foreign Direct
Invest-ment? Only a Bit…And They Could Bite’. World Bank Policy Research Working Pa-per No. 3121, 1 June 2003. https://paPa-pers.ssrn.com/abstract=636541.
Harbo, Tor-Inge. The Function of Proportionality Analysis in European Law. Nijhoff Studies in EU Law 8. Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, 2015.
Henckels, Caroline. ‘Indirect Expropriation and the Right to Regulate: Revisiting Proportion-ality Analysis and the Standard of Review in Investor-State Arbitration’. Journal of International Economic Law 15, no. 1 (1 March 2012): 223–55.
doi:10.1093/jiel/jgs012.
———. Proportionality and Deference in Investor-State Arbitration: Balancing Investment Protection and Regulatory Autonomy. Cambridge Studies in International and
Com-parative Law. Cambridge University Press, 2015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316104378.
———. ‘The Role of the Standard of Review and the Importance of Deference in Investor–
State Arbitration’. In Deference in International Courts and Tribunals, edited by Lukasz Gruszczynski and Wouter Werner. Oxford University Press, 2014.
Hindelang, Steffen, and Markus Krajewski. Shifting Paradigms in International Investment Law: More Balanced, Less Isolated, Increasingly Diversified. Oxford University Press, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198738428.001.0001.
Høgberg, Alf Petter. I språkets bilde: elementære logiske emner i juridisk kontekst. Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget, 2012.
Holberg, Ludvig 1684-1754, and Peter Toft. Erasmus Montanus: An Old Danish Comedy.
London: Longmans, Green, 1871. http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-nb_digibok_2012100513004.
Kingsbury, Benedict, and Stephan W. Schill. ‘Investor-State Arbitration as Governance: Fair and Equitable Treatment, Proportionality and the Emerging Global Administrative Law’. NYU School of Law Public Law Research Paper No. 09-46, 2009.
http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=1466980.
———. ‘Public Law Concepts to Balance Investors’ Rights with State Regulatory Actions in the Public Interest—the Concept of Proportionality’. In International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law, edited by Stephan W. Schill, 75–104. Oxford
Universi-ty Press, 2010.
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199589104.001.000 1/acprof-9780199589104-chapter-3.
Kläger, Roland. ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment’ in International Investment Law. Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011.
Klatt, Matthias, and Moritz Meister. The Constitutional Structure of Proportionality. 1st ed.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Koskenniemi, Martti. ‘Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Di-versification and Expansion of International Law’. Study Group of the International
Law Commission, 13 April 2006.
http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_l682.pdf.
Kriebaum, Ursula. ‘Regulatory Takings: Balancing the Interests of the Investor and the State’.
The Journal of World Investment & Trade 8, no. 5 (2007): 717–744.
doi:10.1163/221190007X00152.
Krommendijk, Jasper, and John Morijn. ‘“Proportional” by What Measure(s)? Balancing In-vestor Interests and Human Rights by Way of Applying the Proportionality Principle in Investor-State Arbitration’. In Human Rights in International Investment Law and Arbitration, edited by Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, and Francesco