The 'right to regulate' in the public interest and the 'police power' in international investment law
<p>This thesis examines the extent to which States can rely on their ‘right to regulate’ in the public interest or ‘police power’ in defence of the lawfulness of public interest regulation against claims of indirect expropriation and unfair and inequitable treatment. After examining the histor...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Thesis |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2017
|
| Subjects: |
| _version_ | 1811139295962988544 |
|---|---|
| author | Mitchell, K |
| author2 | Akande, D |
| author_facet | Akande, D Mitchell, K |
| author_sort | Mitchell, K |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | <p>This thesis examines the extent to which States can rely on their ‘right to regulate’ in the public interest or ‘police power’ in defence of the lawfulness of public interest regulation against claims of indirect expropriation and unfair and inequitable treatment. After examining the historical treatment of public interest regulation and the arguments advanced by States when defending such regulation, this thesis argues that customary international law recognises the police powers doctrine. In the case of indirect expropriation claims, proportionate or reasonable non-discriminatory regulation that is enacted in good faith for a public purpose falls within the State’s police power and will not constitute an indirect expropriation. The police powers doctrine is therefore relevant to determining whether a measure constitutes an indirect expropriation, and operates as a limitation on the scope a State’s obligation.</p>
<p>Further, this thesis argues that the language of ‘right to regulate’ is not particularly helpful (and is somewhat misleading) and States cannot rely on the right to regulate to defend the lawfulness of public interest regulation against claims of indirect expropriation and unfair and inequitable treatment. However, it is argued that the police powers doctrine is not limited in its application to expropriation, but rather it can also apply more broadly to the FET standard. Finally, the thesis proposes using the principles of treaty interpretation in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to accommodate the police powers doctrine when interpreting expropriation and fair and equitable treatment provisions in international investment treaties.</p> |
| first_indexed | 2024-09-25T04:03:49Z |
| format | Thesis |
| id | oxford-uuid:98eb1e0a-67a8-493a-b690-3002cbb8c277 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-09-25T04:03:49Z |
| publishDate | 2017 |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:98eb1e0a-67a8-493a-b690-3002cbb8c2772024-05-09T09:05:41ZThe 'right to regulate' in the public interest and the 'police power' in international investment lawThesishttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_db06uuid:98eb1e0a-67a8-493a-b690-3002cbb8c277Public International LawEnglishHyrax Deposit2017Mitchell, KAkande, D<p>This thesis examines the extent to which States can rely on their ‘right to regulate’ in the public interest or ‘police power’ in defence of the lawfulness of public interest regulation against claims of indirect expropriation and unfair and inequitable treatment. After examining the historical treatment of public interest regulation and the arguments advanced by States when defending such regulation, this thesis argues that customary international law recognises the police powers doctrine. In the case of indirect expropriation claims, proportionate or reasonable non-discriminatory regulation that is enacted in good faith for a public purpose falls within the State’s police power and will not constitute an indirect expropriation. The police powers doctrine is therefore relevant to determining whether a measure constitutes an indirect expropriation, and operates as a limitation on the scope a State’s obligation.</p> <p>Further, this thesis argues that the language of ‘right to regulate’ is not particularly helpful (and is somewhat misleading) and States cannot rely on the right to regulate to defend the lawfulness of public interest regulation against claims of indirect expropriation and unfair and inequitable treatment. However, it is argued that the police powers doctrine is not limited in its application to expropriation, but rather it can also apply more broadly to the FET standard. Finally, the thesis proposes using the principles of treaty interpretation in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to accommodate the police powers doctrine when interpreting expropriation and fair and equitable treatment provisions in international investment treaties.</p> |
| spellingShingle | Public International Law Mitchell, K The 'right to regulate' in the public interest and the 'police power' in international investment law |
| title | The 'right to regulate' in the public interest and the 'police power' in international investment law |
| title_full | The 'right to regulate' in the public interest and the 'police power' in international investment law |
| title_fullStr | The 'right to regulate' in the public interest and the 'police power' in international investment law |
| title_full_unstemmed | The 'right to regulate' in the public interest and the 'police power' in international investment law |
| title_short | The 'right to regulate' in the public interest and the 'police power' in international investment law |
| title_sort | right to regulate in the public interest and the police power in international investment law |
| topic | Public International Law |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT mitchellk therighttoregulateinthepublicinterestandthepolicepowerininternationalinvestmentlaw AT mitchellk righttoregulateinthepublicinterestandthepolicepowerininternationalinvestmentlaw |