Skip Navigation

European Journal of International Law 2009 20(3):749-771; doi:10.1093/ejil/chp040
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kurtz, J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

The European Journal of International Law Vol. 20 no. 3 © EJIL 2009; all rights reserved

The Use and Abuse of WTO Law in Investor–State Arbitration: Competition and its Discontents

Jürgen Kurtz*

* Senior Lecturer and Director, International Investment Law Research Programme, Institute for International Law and the Humanities, University of Melbourne Law School, Australia. Email: j.kurtz{at}unimelb.edu.au


   Abstract

This article offers a contribution to the broader project of isolating the causes of inconsistency in investor–state arbitral jurisprudence. It examines the norm of national treatment and explores the methodological tendency of arbitrators to draw on complex WTO jurisprudence as a means of guiding the application of a similar but not identical legal norm in the investment treaty setting. It argues that, when one unpacks the complicated arbitral jurisprudence on national treatment, misuse of WTO law is the controlling factor for critical inconsistency in the jurisprudence. The article examines a central question surrounding national treatment under investment treaties being the role for competition between foreign and domestic actors in determining whether they stand ‘in like circumstances’. It also focuses on two key cases – Occidental v. Ecuador and Methanex v. USA – both of which are under-analysed in the secondary literature. The article concludes by identifying implications of the problematic interpretative methods at play and canvasses suggestions on reform models to incentivize probity and consistency in interpretation in this field of international law.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.