ABSTRACT
PurposeThe London office market is a major destination of international real estate capital and arguably the epicentre of international real estate investment over the past decade. However, the increase in global uncertainties in recent years due to socio-economic and political trends highlights the need for more insights into the behaviour of international real estate capital flows. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the influence of the global and domestic environment on international real estate investment activities within the London office market over the period 2007–2017.Design/methodology/approachThis study adopts an auto-regressive distributed lag approach using the real capital analytics (RCA) international real estate investment data. The RCA data analyses quarterly cross-border investment transactions within the central London office market for the period 2007–2017.FindingsThe study provides insights on the critical differences in the influence of the domestic and global environment on cross-border investment activities in this office market, specifically highlighting the significance of the influence of the global environment in the long run. In the short run, the influence of factors reflective of both the domestic and international environment are important indicating that international capital flows into the London office market is contextualised by the interaction of different factors.Originality/valueThe authors provide a holistic study of the influence of both the domestic and international environment on cross-border investment activities in the London office market, providing more insights on the behaviour of global real estate capital flows.
ABSTRACT
The Covid-19 Pandemic has introduced or revived a concern in the foreign direct investment (FDI) context that was less emphasized pre-Pandemic, namely public health. This article discusses the typology of Covid-19 related FDI screening, expounds on the legality of these measures in the context of both national investment law and international investment law, and identifies the potential negative externalities to foreign investors and to the host state. Newly promulgated FDI screening measures intensify governmental intervention and scrutiny in cross-border takeovers in the health sector and beyond to protect domestic companies from being taken over by predatory foreign buyers. FDI screening during Covid-19 has become more comprehensive and inclusive in its scope than what was already considered a system capable of excessive and arbitrary use pre-Pandemic. FDI screening on grounds of public health may be justified for its legality under both national and international investment law, nonetheless certain conditions need to be satisfied. The negative externality of FDI screening during Covid-19 pertains to a concern that, if applied aggressively in practice, FDI screening might potentially result in a deterrence effect on the cross-border capital flow that is much needed for market revival after a global economic shutdown. © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
ABSTRACT
‘Development' is a legal concept which has been central to the practice of international economic law (IEL). This Article examines how ‘development' continues to be at the heart of struggles between domestic investment laws (DILs) and international economic law. By examining over 3000 international investment agreements (IIAs) and DILs signed in the last seven decades, this Article identifies the ways in which the concept of development has evolved in tandem with the growth of international economic law by dividing the history of international investment law into six main phases. It traces the emergence of ‘development' in DIL to the decolonization era arguing that post 1990, the proliferation of international investment treaties and growth of investment treaty arbitration have been used as tools of liberalization on the weak premise that this would lead to economic development. In this context, this Article examines closely the interpretation of ‘investment' by ICSID tribunals, promotion of international arbitration for economic development, attempts to internationalize economic development contracts, continued relevance of the New International Economic Order, and shift to sustainable development in IEL discourse.
ABSTRACT
Force majeure is today accepted as a fairly classical topic and the circumstance, excluding wrongfulness of the state doing in majority of the world legal systems and the level of its use increased considerably in the last decade. The coronavirus pandemic has enlivened the concept of force majeure in many areas of law, including international investment law. It also proved to be a good source of an ongoing debate on importance of force majeure for international investment and commercial community. This article is an attempt to inform this debate. Except for a general introduction to the use of force majeure exception in relation to the COVID 19 pandemic, this study presents an expansion of its applicability in international investments area within the frame of the CIL, as well as an increase of use of the contractual force majeure clause in the energy sector. Equally, it is going to indicate the reasons of its practicability together with three inferences with regard to the application of force majeure under Article 23 of the ILC Articles, as well as the application of the contractual force majeure clause both in common law and civil law. First, it is no hearing on the grapevine, but the use of contractual force majeure has been heavily recommended in order to secure foreseeability, prudence and a legal certainty. Second, while the force majeure exception is being applied under the CIL mainly in IIAs, wise foreign investors may apply also the contractual force majeure clause in their investment contracts, concluded directly with their host states, while being propped up conveniently also with the supporting governing law of the contract. Besides, there is no reason to induce the civil law contractual parties to apply the common law force majeure clause with always available common law exceptions of impossibility, frustration and impracticability, as they are unknown to the civil law system. © 2022, Institute of State and Law of the Slovak Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
This article assesses the arguments and challenges that are likely to arise should investors file an investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) claim over measures taken in response to a waiver of obligations relating to intellectual property rights (IPRs) under the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). After providing an overview of the proposed waiver of IPRs for COVID-19 vaccinations and treatments, it examines the jurisprudence relating to IP and investor-State arbitration and the grounds upon which investors would rely to make a case in ISDS and possible State defences. The analysis, which focuses on fair and equitable treatment and expropriation, concludes that it will be difficult for investors to succeed in claiming that measures taken in response to a TRIPS waiver of IPRs breach any substantive protection provision contained in an international investment agreement. States should, however, seek additional security by revisiting existing treaties and adding additional layers of safeguards to ensure legitimate and non-discriminatory measures taken in response to a TRIPS waiver do not lead to investor claims.