The Shared Territory of the ECHR and International Investment Law

Y. Radi (ed.), Research Handbook on Human Rights and Investment, Edward Elgar, 2018, pp. 93-136.

33 Pages Posted: 9 Jan 2019

See all articles by Maria Fanou

Maria Fanou

European University Institute - Department of Law (LAW)

Dr Vassilis P Tzevelekos

University of Liverpool - School of Law & Social Justice

Date Written: December 26, 2018

Abstract

The chapter compares international investment law (ILL) with the ECHR system of human rights protection. First, analysis identifies key differences in the systemic features of the two regimes. Although they overlap to some extent in the protection they offer to property, they differ significantly. The ECHR system is unitary; unlike IIL, it operates on the basis of one single set of instruments. Mutatis mutandis, unlike IIL arbitration, the ECtHR is a last resort court that cannot be reached unless domestic remedies have been exhausted. IIL is available to foreign investors only; in the ECHR system the applicant’s nationality is irrelevant. The ECHR system is designed to cover a wide range of human rights -not only property/investment rights. Finally, the two systems differ significantly in terms of enforcement. The second step in the analysis focuses on property protection. To draw a parallel between the ECHR and IIL, the chapter discusses first the general framework of property protection under the ECHR and gives examples from the ECtHR practice with respect to foreign direct investment (FDI). Analogies are then drawn between the ECHR and key IIL standards. The chapter identifies similarities and differences regarding expropriation (focusing on indirect expropriation, the sole effects and police powers doctrines, and the function of proportionality), FET (focusing on equity and legitimate expectations the way these are protected by both regimes) and full protection and security, which is associated with due diligence and human rights positive effect. The third step in the analysis concerns limitations to investment/property rights. Occasionally, remedying or preventing human rights violations and the protection of general interest might make it necessary that states interfere with investment rights. Proportionality is crucial in this context as a tool allowing to establish priorities and assess the lawfulness of limitations. In comparison to IIL, the ECHR regime appears to better accommodate the idea of a fair balance between individual rights and general interest. Because the ECHR covers FDI from the perspective of human rights, it does not merely treat it as rights that need to be safeguarded, but also as a goal that can be limited when activities related to its promotion lead to the breach or endangerment of other human rights. Ultimately, even when the two regimes converge or overlap, the “tone”, i.e. the way they safeguard and promote FDI differs. This is the natural consequence of their differing orientation and teleology.

Keywords: European Convention on Human Rights, property rights, foreign direct investment, indirect expropriation, fair and equitable treatment, full security and protection, positive effect, due diligence, proportionality

Suggested Citation

Fanou, Maria and Tzevelekos, Vassilis, The Shared Territory of the ECHR and International Investment Law (December 26, 2018). Y. Radi (ed.), Research Handbook on Human Rights and Investment, Edward Elgar, 2018, pp. 93-136. . Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3306776 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3306776

Maria Fanou

European University Institute - Department of Law (LAW) ( email )

Via Bolognese 156 (Villa Salviati)
50-139 Firenze
ITALY

Vassilis Tzevelekos (Contact Author)

University of Liverpool - School of Law & Social Justice ( email )

Brownlow Hill
Liverpool, L69 3BX
United Kingdom

HOME PAGE: http://https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/law/staff/vassilis-tzevelekos/

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
88
Abstract Views
336
rank
288,283
PlumX Metrics