Introduction 1
First Part： A Framework of Analysis 29
Chapter 1： The Latin American Position on State Responsibility. Looking into the Past for Lessons on the Future 31
Introduction： The Latin American Struggle against Diplomatic Protection 31
Ⅰ The Calvo Doctrine and Clause： Two Nineteenth Century Anti-Diplomatic Protection Institutions 35
A The Practice of Diplomatic Protection in the Nineteenth Century 36
B The Calvo Doctrine 38
C The Calvo Clause 45
Ⅱ The End of Gunboat Diplomacy 48
Ⅲ From the Calvo Doctrine to Expropriation Without Compensation 55
Ⅳ International Minimum Standards Strike Back 62
Ⅴ Updating the Calvo Doctrine in the BIT Generation 74
Conclusions： Building a Normative Stance Based on Equality 80
Chapter 2： The BIT Generation’s Emergence as a Collective Action Problem. Prisoner’s Dilemma or Network Effects？ 83
Introduction： Why Do Developing Countries Sign BITs？ 83
Ⅰ The BIT Generation as a Prisoner’s Dilemma 87
Ⅱ Weak Competition and Network Effects 90
Ⅲ A Formal Model of the BIT Generation as a Virtual Network 96
Ⅳ Evidence of the BIT Generation as a Virtual Network 104
A Five Structural Arguments 104
B Positive Externalities of the BIT System 112
V Providing answers for critical questions 115
Conclusions. Normative Implications of the Virtual Network Theory of the BIT Generation 122
Chapter 3： Trading Off Sovereignty for Credibility： Questions of Legitimacy in the BIT Generation 125
Introduction： Legitimacy in International Investment Law 125
Ⅰ The Legitimacy Problem： Ad Hoc International Arbitral Tribunals Discharging a Preservationist Constitutional Function 128
A International Law as Governance 129
B Governing with Judges 133
C Ad Hoc International Arbitral Tribunals Discharging a Preservationist Constitutional Function 135
Ⅱ Assessing Potential Sources of Legitimacy 141
A Consent Legitimacy 141
B Output Legitimacy 144
C Exit Legitimacy 145
D Rule of Law Legitimacy 146
E Institution-Building Legitimacy 154
Ⅲ Diversifying Risks in the BIT Lottery： Why an Appellate Body or an International Investment Court is Not the Solution 155
Conclusions： Future of the BIT Generation 159
Second Part： An Assessment of the Present State of Investment Treaty Arbitration Jurisprudence 163
Chapter 4： Property Rights v The Public Interests： A Comparative Approach to a Global Puzzle 165
Introduction： Risks and Benefits of Building a Comparative Patchwork 165
Ⅰ Understanding the Intertwined Relationship of PropertyRights and Regulation 168
Ⅱ The Core v The Public Interest： Hopeless Attempts to Escape Fully from Balancing 177
A Property Rights-at-the-Core as Fundamental Rights 177
B The Gateway Question of the Core 184
C the Denominator Problem and Conceptual Severance 188
D Termination of Property Rights without Compensation 191
Ⅲ The Periphery v the Public Interest： The Muddied Waters of Complex Balancing 198
A The Protection of Property Rights’ Periphery： Expropriations and Responsabilite de l’Etat 199
B Arbitrariness as Illegality 200
C Arbitrariness as Irrationality 206
D Arbitrariness as Special Sacrifice 213
E Arbitrariness as Lack of Proportionality （stricto sensu） 216
F Legitimate Expectations 222
Conclusions. Three Lessons from Comparative Law for International Investment Law 227
Chapter 5. Investments， Indirect Expropriations and the Regulatory State 231
Introduction： Why is Recognsing Indirect Takings So Difficult？ 231
Ⅰ Investments and Indirect Expropriations as GlobalConstitutional Law： New Limits for States’ Police Powers 236
A The Investment-Expropriation Relationship in InvestmentTreaties as a Global Constitutional Law Problem 237
B A ‘Patterning Definition’ Approach to the Concept of Investment 243
C Does the Definition of Investment Play a Substantive Role？ 251
Ⅱ The Rule of Thumb： Indirect Expropriations as Total or Substantial Deprivations 253
A The ‘Sole Effects’ Doctrine in Indirect Expropriations： Total or Substantial Deprivations 254
B What is Substantial Deprivation？ 261
C The Denominator Problem in Investment Treaty Disputes 265
Ⅲ Are There Total or Substantial Deprivations That Do Not Qualify as Expropriations？ 273
A Exceptions Ⅰ： Termination of Investment in Accordance with the Law 274
B Exceptions Ⅱ： Pre-eminent Public Interests 277
C Counter-Exceptions： Arbitrariness and Fair and Equitable Treatment Considerations in Expropriation Claims 281
Conclusions： Fearing Ad Hocism More than an Excessively Extensive Concept of Expropriations 288
Chapter 6： Controlling Arbitrariness through the Fair and Equitable Standard 293
Introduction： Arbitrariness in International Investment Law 293
Ⅰ The Current Debate in International Investment Law： The Alleged Autonomous Character of the FET Standard 298
A The Challenge of the FET Standard： Defining a New Standard of Review 299
B A New Standard Under Traditional Methods： FET and Treaty Interpretation under Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention 303
C IMS as a Methodological Constraint over Arbitral Tribunals 307
Ⅱ A General Framework of Analysis： Finding the Essential Dimensions of a GAL Approach to the FET Standard 310
Ⅲ The First Dimension of the GAL Approach to the FET Standard： The Legal System Falling Below IMS as the Basis of International Wrongfulness 318
Ⅳ The Second Dimension of the GAL Approach to the FET Standard： Domestic Illegalities as the Basis of International Wrongful Acts 323
A The Non-Courts of Appeal Doctrine 324
B Extent of Domestic Judicial Review 326
i First Option： Remanding Cases to Domestic Courts： The Rebirth of the Local Remedies Rule 327
ii Second Option： Reviewing Illegality， Irrationality， Special Sacrifice， and Lack of Proportionality in Accordance with Domestic Law 329
iii Third Option： Reviewing Only Illegality in Accordance with Domestic Law 330
C Standards of Review of Questions of Law 332
i First Option： Transposing Denial of Justice Age Standards to the BIT Generation： The ‘Manifestly Unjust’ Standard 333
ii Second Option： Municipal Law as Facts： De Novo Review 334
iii Third Option： The Same Level of Deference That Is Generally Applied by Domestic Courts 337
D The ‘Something More’ Doctrine 338
Ⅴ The Third Dimension of the GAL Approach to the FET Standard： Arbitrariness and the Control of Discretionary Powers 342
A The Perils of Process-Based Heightened Scrutiny and Object and Purpose Interpretation 343
B Due Process： Administrative Denial of Justice 348
C Arbitrariness as Irrationality 351
i Ends and Legitimate State Interests 351
ii Means and Their Relationship to Ends 354
D Arbitrariness as Special Sacrifice and Lack of Proportionality （Stricto Sensu） 355
E Legitimate Expectations 359
i Without Assurances 360
ii With Assurances 362
Conclusions： The Horizontal and Vertical Constraints on the FET Standard 366
Conclusions： Future of the BIT Generation： For a Global Legal Order Committed to the Rule of Law and Human Welfare 369
Bibliography 375
Index 405