Application of MFN to the substantive standards

why should we re-investigate the uncontested?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) treatment has been regularly included within different generations of International Investment Agreements (IIAs) to multilateralise the protections. However, scholars and practitioners have not been visibly interested in the operation of the treatment until the arbitral award in Maffezini v. Spain in the year 2000. In Maffezini, MFN was applied to a dispute settlement provision for the first time. After that, some arbitral decisions have allowed such application of MFN, while others rejected the same. This split has created various controversies about the scope and interpretation of MFN. On the other hand, the application of MFN to substantive standards is largely considered to be uncontroversial and uncontested in principle. Nevertheless, in practice, most claims for the application of MFN to substantive standards remained undecided or unsuccessful. In this context, the present Article re-investigates some cases in which the application of MFN to substantive standards became successful and unsuccessful. The Article deduces some conclusions based on the case studies which may clarify the scope of MFN within IIAs in general. Furthermore, it comes out with some lessons for interpreting MFN in the context of its application to procedural standards.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)85-113
Number of pages29
JournalManchester Journal of International Economic Law
Volume15
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2018

Cite this

@article{a5faa990990147ec8debba9e89ae9798,
title = "Application of MFN to the substantive standards: why should we re-investigate the uncontested?",
abstract = "Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) treatment has been regularly included within different generations of International Investment Agreements (IIAs) to multilateralise the protections. However, scholars and practitioners have not been visibly interested in the operation of the treatment until the arbitral award in Maffezini v. Spain in the year 2000. In Maffezini, MFN was applied to a dispute settlement provision for the first time. After that, some arbitral decisions have allowed such application of MFN, while others rejected the same. This split has created various controversies about the scope and interpretation of MFN. On the other hand, the application of MFN to substantive standards is largely considered to be uncontroversial and uncontested in principle. Nevertheless, in practice, most claims for the application of MFN to substantive standards remained undecided or unsuccessful. In this context, the present Article re-investigates some cases in which the application of MFN to substantive standards became successful and unsuccessful. The Article deduces some conclusions based on the case studies which may clarify the scope of MFN within IIAs in general. Furthermore, it comes out with some lessons for interpreting MFN in the context of its application to procedural standards.",
author = "Tanjina Sharmin",
year = "2018",
month = "4",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
pages = "85--113",
journal = "Manchester Journal of International Economic Law",
issn = "1742-3945",
number = "1",

}

Application of MFN to the substantive standards : why should we re-investigate the uncontested? / Sharmin, Tanjina.

In: Manchester Journal of International Economic Law, Vol. 15, No. 1, 04.2018, p. 85-113.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Application of MFN to the substantive standards

T2 - why should we re-investigate the uncontested?

AU - Sharmin, Tanjina

PY - 2018/4

Y1 - 2018/4

N2 - Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) treatment has been regularly included within different generations of International Investment Agreements (IIAs) to multilateralise the protections. However, scholars and practitioners have not been visibly interested in the operation of the treatment until the arbitral award in Maffezini v. Spain in the year 2000. In Maffezini, MFN was applied to a dispute settlement provision for the first time. After that, some arbitral decisions have allowed such application of MFN, while others rejected the same. This split has created various controversies about the scope and interpretation of MFN. On the other hand, the application of MFN to substantive standards is largely considered to be uncontroversial and uncontested in principle. Nevertheless, in practice, most claims for the application of MFN to substantive standards remained undecided or unsuccessful. In this context, the present Article re-investigates some cases in which the application of MFN to substantive standards became successful and unsuccessful. The Article deduces some conclusions based on the case studies which may clarify the scope of MFN within IIAs in general. Furthermore, it comes out with some lessons for interpreting MFN in the context of its application to procedural standards.

AB - Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) treatment has been regularly included within different generations of International Investment Agreements (IIAs) to multilateralise the protections. However, scholars and practitioners have not been visibly interested in the operation of the treatment until the arbitral award in Maffezini v. Spain in the year 2000. In Maffezini, MFN was applied to a dispute settlement provision for the first time. After that, some arbitral decisions have allowed such application of MFN, while others rejected the same. This split has created various controversies about the scope and interpretation of MFN. On the other hand, the application of MFN to substantive standards is largely considered to be uncontroversial and uncontested in principle. Nevertheless, in practice, most claims for the application of MFN to substantive standards remained undecided or unsuccessful. In this context, the present Article re-investigates some cases in which the application of MFN to substantive standards became successful and unsuccessful. The Article deduces some conclusions based on the case studies which may clarify the scope of MFN within IIAs in general. Furthermore, it comes out with some lessons for interpreting MFN in the context of its application to procedural standards.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047099654&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 15

SP - 85

EP - 113

JO - Manchester Journal of International Economic Law

JF - Manchester Journal of International Economic Law

SN - 1742-3945

IS - 1

ER -