State responsibility for omissions : establishing a breach of the full protection and security obligation by omissions

The full protection and security obligation traditionally requires a State to exercise due diligence to prevent physical damage from being inflicted on foreign investments within its territory, and to provide a means of redress for aggrieved foreign investors. Recently, tribunals have expanded this...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Bastin, Lucas
Other Authors: Berman, Franklin
Published: University of Oxford 2017
Online Access:http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.729289
id ndltd-bl.uk-oai-ethos.bl.uk-729289
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-bl.uk-oai-ethos.bl.uk-7292892018-04-04T03:10:45ZState responsibility for omissions : establishing a breach of the full protection and security obligation by omissionsBastin, LucasBerman, Franklin2017The full protection and security obligation traditionally requires a State to exercise due diligence to prevent physical damage from being inflicted on foreign investments within its territory, and to provide a means of redress for aggrieved foreign investors. Recently, tribunals have expanded this application of the obligation such that States are obliged to exercise due diligence to afford legal or regulatory protection to foreign investments. Establishing a breach of the obligation involves establishing a State’s responsibility for its omissions. The law of State responsibility has nuances in respect of establishing a breach of non-absolute positive obligations, such as this one. Evidence of the State's knowledge of the need to act, and of its capacity to act, provide the basis on which a breach of the obligation may be established. Causation is also an element of the proof of a breach, and is to be established by reference to an adequate counter-factual. The standard to which one must establish a breach is contested – as between an objective and subjective standard, or a hybrid – albeit an objective standard of due diligence is preferable. In this context, recent tribunals have fashioned diagnostics for determining a breach of the obligation which invoke concepts of legitimate expectations, and reasonableness and rationality. Using these diagnostics means that the objective standard of proof is satisfied when an investor’s legitimate expectations are frustrated by the conduct of the State, or when the State fails to act reasonably and in order to achieve rational public policy goals. These diagnostics offer a useful and workable development in the articulation of the standard of proof in relation to a breach of the full protection and security obligation.University of Oxfordhttp://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.729289https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:9e027b10-b749-4e56-a663-d58682aea06eElectronic Thesis or Dissertation
collection NDLTD
sources NDLTD
description The full protection and security obligation traditionally requires a State to exercise due diligence to prevent physical damage from being inflicted on foreign investments within its territory, and to provide a means of redress for aggrieved foreign investors. Recently, tribunals have expanded this application of the obligation such that States are obliged to exercise due diligence to afford legal or regulatory protection to foreign investments. Establishing a breach of the obligation involves establishing a State’s responsibility for its omissions. The law of State responsibility has nuances in respect of establishing a breach of non-absolute positive obligations, such as this one. Evidence of the State's knowledge of the need to act, and of its capacity to act, provide the basis on which a breach of the obligation may be established. Causation is also an element of the proof of a breach, and is to be established by reference to an adequate counter-factual. The standard to which one must establish a breach is contested – as between an objective and subjective standard, or a hybrid – albeit an objective standard of due diligence is preferable. In this context, recent tribunals have fashioned diagnostics for determining a breach of the obligation which invoke concepts of legitimate expectations, and reasonableness and rationality. Using these diagnostics means that the objective standard of proof is satisfied when an investor’s legitimate expectations are frustrated by the conduct of the State, or when the State fails to act reasonably and in order to achieve rational public policy goals. These diagnostics offer a useful and workable development in the articulation of the standard of proof in relation to a breach of the full protection and security obligation.
author2 Berman, Franklin
author_facet Berman, Franklin
Bastin, Lucas
author Bastin, Lucas
spellingShingle Bastin, Lucas
State responsibility for omissions : establishing a breach of the full protection and security obligation by omissions
author_sort Bastin, Lucas
title State responsibility for omissions : establishing a breach of the full protection and security obligation by omissions
title_short State responsibility for omissions : establishing a breach of the full protection and security obligation by omissions
title_full State responsibility for omissions : establishing a breach of the full protection and security obligation by omissions
title_fullStr State responsibility for omissions : establishing a breach of the full protection and security obligation by omissions
title_full_unstemmed State responsibility for omissions : establishing a breach of the full protection and security obligation by omissions
title_sort state responsibility for omissions : establishing a breach of the full protection and security obligation by omissions
publisher University of Oxford
publishDate 2017
url http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.729289
work_keys_str_mv AT bastinlucas stateresponsibilityforomissionsestablishingabreachofthefullprotectionandsecurityobligationbyomissions
_version_ 1718618099817644032