Popular in Law

Law

Diversity and Social Mobility in the UK legal profession

Law Society I. Stephanie Boyce

Internet Law

The Law of AI for Good

University of San Diego Orly Lobel

Human Rights Law

Transforming Restorative Justice for Transitional Settings

University of Nottingham Kerry Clamp

Law

Surrey’s Silence: Subpart F and the Swiss Subsidiary Tax that Never Was

Boston University Steven Dean

Criminal Law

Prosecuting Misdemeanors

American University Jenny Roberts

Human Rights Law

Siege Starvation: A War Crime of Societal Torture

Tufts University Tom Dannenbaum

Corporate Law

Data Valuation and Law

University of Southern California Jordan Barry

Constitutional Acquisition and Regulation of Property

View more insights in Professional - Law - Corporate Law

View more figures from University of Western Australia

View the page of Dominic Dagbanja

Read the Study

Dominic Dagbanja explores the efficacy of investment treaty reforms by analysing the intersection of constitutional provisions on compulsory acquisition and regulation of property in selected African constitutions and expropriation provisions in investment treaties.

Image courtesy of interviewee. March 12, 2024

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

This video video outlines research focused on the relationship between international economic treaties, national constitutions, and the regulatory authority of states, particularly in the context of investment treaties. The speaker investigates how national constitutions limit states' abilities to enter into investment treaties and regulate for public interests.

Investment treaties, especially since 1987, have allowed foreign investors to challenge state regulations that affect their investments, often undermining public health and other objectives. The research notes the proliferation of investor-state dispute cases, with numerous claims brought against states regarding regulations perceived as detrimental to foreign investments.

The speaker discusses reforms in investment treaties that aim to balance the regulatory authority of states while still providing protections for foreign investors. These reforms often include clauses meant to exempt states from liability for indirect expropriation but struggle to reconcile conflicts between investor protections and national laws. The speaker argues that provisions concerning indirect expropriation are unconstitutional in various African countries, as such constitutions typically recognize only direct expropriation, lack compensation rights for indirect effects, and prefer national judicial resolution over international arbitration.

The conclusion emphasizes that the current reforms in investment treaties do not adequately preserve states’ regulatory autonomy. States should refrain from entering treaties that impose indirect expropriation clauses that could conflict with national regulations aimed at legitimate public interests. This video video highlights the necessity for a reconciliation between investment treaty obligations and national constitutional authority to regulate property rights effectively.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.025 --> 00:02.925
So my research deals with the intersection

00:03.145 --> 00:05.165
of international economic treaties

00:05.165 --> 00:07.085
and public law and, and policy.

00:08.065 --> 00:11.925
And in particular, I am interested in the limitations

00:11.955 --> 00:16.325
that national Constitutions place on the authority of states

00:17.225 --> 00:20.755
to regulate in the public, interests.

00:21.375 --> 00:23.075
And in particular, I'm, I'm looking at

00:23.095 --> 00:26.955
how national constitution limit the, the, the capacity

00:26.955 --> 00:31.275
of states to, to enter into investment, treaties

00:31.275 --> 00:33.395
or international economic treaties generally.

00:33.395 --> 00:35.355
So basically that is what I, what I look at

00:36.605 --> 00:40.265
and the context of that research has to do with the,

00:40.405 --> 00:43.545
the development of investment treaties,

00:43.995 --> 00:45.705
which are intended to regulate

00:46.285 --> 00:49.105
or provide legal protection for foreign, investment

00:49.675 --> 00:50.865
investment treaties

00:50.885 --> 00:54.185
as they develop in the post-colonial period where designed

00:54.185 --> 00:57.465
to provide legal protection for foreign investment.

00:58.245 --> 01:01.945
And they came with absolute standards of investment,

01:01.995 --> 01:03.505
protection they

01:03.745 --> 01:06.025
provided for the rights of foreign investors without

01:06.025 --> 01:10.265
providing for a corresponding, rights of, of states.

01:11.215 --> 01:14.075
So the implication is that since 1987,

01:14.925 --> 01:19.865
these investment treaties, have become a reference point

01:19.965 --> 01:21.505
for foreign investors

01:21.725 --> 01:24.425
to challenge various public interest

01:24.825 --> 01:26.665
regulatory, measures.

01:27.585 --> 01:28.805
For example,

01:28.805 --> 01:31.645
Philip Maurice bringing a claim against Australia

01:31.745 --> 01:35.725
and Uruguay for enacting a legislation on plain

01:35.725 --> 01:37.125
packaging of, streets.

01:37.785 --> 01:41.485
And those legislation were put in place for purposes of,

01:41.505 --> 01:43.205
the public, public health.

01:44.095 --> 01:48.395
And so the world investment, report 2023, shows that

01:48.955 --> 01:53.865
there are over 1,257

01:54.835 --> 01:56.665
cases brought by foreign investors

01:57.375 --> 02:00.425
against about 132 states.

02:01.045 --> 02:03.785
And most of those measures relate to public interest

02:04.425 --> 02:07.585
regulatory measures, including, for example,

02:07.675 --> 02:11.385
those have already mentioned tax, regulations relating

02:11.465 --> 02:16.225
to public health and also tax measures like, for example,

02:16.655 --> 02:20.425
Yuko against Russia, which was a tax measure.

02:21.085 --> 02:23.985
And in fact, over over $60 billion were

02:23.985 --> 02:25.225
awarded against Russia.

02:26.165 --> 02:29.145
So with foreign universities increasingly using these

02:29.295 --> 02:31.785
international economic treaties to challenge

02:32.485 --> 02:35.255
the regulatory authority of states,

02:35.255 --> 02:38.055
states are now seeking to reform these treaties

02:38.315 --> 02:41.975
to preserve their regulatory measures, I mean,

02:41.975 --> 02:44.895
to protect their regulatory, authority.

02:45.675 --> 02:49.495
And those reforms include the inclusion of clause

02:50.205 --> 02:51.975
does seek to limit the scope

02:52.035 --> 02:55.695
and effect of, these international, the terms

02:55.715 --> 02:57.615
of these international economic treaties.

02:58.065 --> 03:01.100
There are also provisions on corporate social responsibility

03:01.635 --> 03:02.655
and sustainability.

03:03.855 --> 03:07.755
And so my, my, my paper Constitutional Acquisition

03:07.755 --> 03:10.275
and regulation of Property Investment treaties

03:10.275 --> 03:13.635
and S corporation in Africa was developed,

03:13.635 --> 03:17.675
within these context essentially to look at whether

03:17.895 --> 03:21.275
or not the provisions that seek to

03:22.015 --> 03:26.795
exempt states from liability for indirect as population,

03:27.535 --> 03:28.955
effective.

03:29.295 --> 03:32.595
So that is the context in which this, article was,

03:32.695 --> 03:34.195
was written.

03:34.815 --> 03:37.555
And then it was published in, the Journal

03:37.655 --> 03:41.835
of Well Investment and Treat Volume 24 Issues Five

03:41.935 --> 03:43.315
and Issues four and Six.

03:43.425 --> 03:46.635
This question is at the core of the paper that I did.

03:46.935 --> 03:51.395
And as corporation in investment treaties can be classified

03:51.545 --> 03:55.035
into two, we have the direct as corporation

03:55.645 --> 03:57.355
where the state actually takes

03:57.575 --> 04:01.915
or acquires the assets of the foreign investor.

04:02.805 --> 04:06.305
And, and traditionally this is the business in which,

04:07.215 --> 04:10.565
provisions on population develop in investment treaties.

04:11.185 --> 04:12.885
And historically, this is

04:12.885 --> 04:16.005
what states have always done acquiring the assets

04:16.505 --> 04:17.685
of foreign investors.

04:17.945 --> 04:20.645
So for example, investors in Mexico

04:21.305 --> 04:25.405
in the early 19 hundreds acquiring the assets of,

04:25.805 --> 04:30.005
American investors, in, in, in, in Mexico.

04:31.475 --> 04:36.365
Then we also have, indirect corporation where

04:37.185 --> 04:40.645
the focus of provisions on indirect corporation investment

04:40.825 --> 04:45.445
treaty essentially is to look at the effect of measures

04:45.445 --> 04:48.805
that stay stick on investment.

04:49.745 --> 04:52.005
If the effect of a measure is to

04:52.635 --> 04:54.565
deny the foreign investor from using

04:54.785 --> 04:57.605
and enjoying the benefit of investment,

04:58.315 --> 05:02.085
even though the foreign investor retains statute two, the,

05:02.425 --> 05:04.525
the, the property, then the case

05:04.545 --> 05:06.845
of indirect exportation can be made.

05:07.585 --> 05:11.485
So, for example, if a foreign investor is denied an

05:11.485 --> 05:14.205
environmental permit,

05:14.495 --> 05:17.925
let's say a foreign investor in the mining sector is denied,

05:18.145 --> 05:21.125
environmental permit,

05:21.465 --> 05:23.125
and they cannot proceed to mine.

05:23.825 --> 05:27.445
The implication and the effect of denial of the permit is

05:27.445 --> 05:29.485
that the foreign investor will be deprived

05:29.485 --> 05:30.765
of the economic benefits

05:30.765 --> 05:33.165
of the investment they have put into the mining sector.

05:33.705 --> 05:36.485
Though the foreign investor will retain, you know,

05:36.485 --> 05:39.685
title to the investment assets, a case

05:39.685 --> 05:42.405
of indirect export creation is made.

05:43.315 --> 05:46.715
So it is a very flexible standard

05:47.025 --> 05:48.755
that foreign investors can use

05:48.775 --> 05:51.155
to challenge the regulatory authority of states.

05:52.205 --> 05:55.385
So the reforms in investment treaties that seek to

05:56.745 --> 05:58.775
Preserve the regulatory authority

05:59.155 --> 06:03.495
of states in investment treaties essentially, seek

06:03.515 --> 06:07.965
to see that if the measure is non-discriminatory

06:08.785 --> 06:13.045
and it is adopted for legitimate public interest papers,

06:14.245 --> 06:16.895
such as, for example, environmental protection

06:17.555 --> 06:22.175
and for public health purposes, then that measure

06:22.965 --> 06:26.495
does not amount to indirect as population.

06:27.815 --> 06:32.575
However, there is a qualification to this,

06:33.215 --> 06:35.545
exception to liability.

06:36.885 --> 06:40.425
So it says that the measure must not be discriminatory

06:41.555 --> 06:46.535
and it must be, it effect must not be so severe,

06:47.835 --> 06:50.605
such that the measure cannot be said to have been

06:51.155 --> 06:53.885
adopted in good faith.

06:54.725 --> 06:58.305
And we can find that in Ann Next, 10

06:58.805 --> 07:03.675
of Canada Guinea bilateral investment treaty.

07:04.545 --> 07:06.125
So the question arises whether

07:06.185 --> 07:10.975
or not this provision in investment treaties

07:11.865 --> 07:13.155
that a measure

07:13.155 --> 07:15.755
that's not consistent within direct population,

07:16.715 --> 07:19.145
presumably the object of which to is

07:19.145 --> 07:21.425
to preserve the regulatory authority of states.

07:21.925 --> 07:26.195
The question is whether or not a provision of this na nature

07:26.985 --> 07:29.115
does indeed ensures that

07:29.885 --> 07:32.265
if the state adopts the measure in question,

07:33.215 --> 07:36.315
it does not get sued, or if it gets sued.

07:36.935 --> 07:41.355
If it gets sued, then it can reliably use this exemption

07:41.355 --> 07:44.155
to say, look, I am not, liable.

07:44.695 --> 07:48.075
So the point that I'm seeking to make in relation to this is

07:48.345 --> 07:53.235
that the qualifications to this as, exception

07:53.235 --> 07:55.155
to liability for indirect

07:55.855 --> 07:59.475
as population really weaken the scope

07:59.615 --> 08:03.635
and legal effect of those exceptions such

08:03.665 --> 08:07.315
that the states cannot effectively use this to say that,

08:07.595 --> 08:10.875
I mean to excuse themselves from, liability for

08:11.395 --> 08:14.235
indirect, for creation.

08:14.345 --> 08:16.835
This is another core aspect of the, the subject

08:16.905 --> 08:21.115
that we are discussing now, which was part of what I, I,

08:21.195 --> 08:23.355
I wrote in the, in the, in the article

08:24.215 --> 08:29.075
and in this, my respond directly is that indirect

08:29.495 --> 08:32.435
for creation provisions in investment treaties

08:33.055 --> 08:36.195
are unconstitutional in relation to

08:37.015 --> 08:39.835
the various African constitutions that I have stated,

08:40.465 --> 08:44.075
Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, and so forth.

08:44.585 --> 08:47.515
They are unconstitutional, number one in the sense that

08:48.755 --> 08:53.605
under these constitutions, there is no corporation

08:54.345 --> 08:58.165
unless there is an actual acquisition

08:58.545 --> 09:00.805
or taken off property.

09:01.555 --> 09:04.055
So if you look at this constitution, they recognize

09:04.995 --> 09:09.125
only direct s population where the state

09:09.665 --> 09:12.165
has actually taken steps by statute

09:13.145 --> 09:17.285
to acquire the assets of the investor

09:17.785 --> 09:19.525
or the private individual.

09:20.625 --> 09:24.665
So indirect corporation provisions are,

09:26.005 --> 09:29.665
are known under the various African constitutions

09:29.665 --> 09:32.105
that I have, stated.

09:34.475 --> 09:36.615
And then under the constitution

09:37.365 --> 09:39.535
that I have stated stated number two.

09:39.635 --> 09:42.255
The second reason why I, I argue, I mean,

09:42.255 --> 09:43.415
the second reason I argue

09:43.445 --> 09:47.055
that these provisions are unconstitutional is that

09:47.975 --> 09:50.425
there's no right to compensation.

09:51.525 --> 09:55.745
And that these constitutions for general

09:56.465 --> 09:59.785
regulatory measures that have indirect

10:00.415 --> 10:05.285
adverse impact on the private property rights

10:05.305 --> 10:08.445
of individuals, whether they are they are foreign investors

10:08.545 --> 10:11.125
or whether they are, you know, citizens

10:11.865 --> 10:13.605
of the, of the states.

10:14.545 --> 10:18.455
And yet the right to compensation for indirect

10:19.455 --> 10:23.735
s population is at the core of provisions dealing

10:23.765 --> 10:28.735
with indirect, indirect s population in investment treaties.

10:29.035 --> 10:32.255
So you can see there is a clash in the sense that

10:33.255 --> 10:36.115
if the state adopts a certain measure, so for example,

10:36.385 --> 10:41.145
imposes a tax that essentially wipes out the, the,

10:41.205 --> 10:43.345
the benefits of investment to the extent

10:43.345 --> 10:46.585
that it is not directly targeted at foreign investor under

10:46.615 --> 10:49.545
this constitution, there should be no right to compensation.

10:50.245 --> 10:52.905
And yet investment treaties provisions dealing

10:52.975 --> 10:55.265
with indirect exportation essentially say

10:55.265 --> 10:59.465
that if the state adopts a certain measure that has,

11:00.045 --> 11:03.705
an adverse indirect impact

11:04.365 --> 11:08.105
effect on the investment, takes away the economic use

11:08.125 --> 11:11.265
and benefit of the investment, then there is a right to,

11:11.605 --> 11:13.025
compensation.

11:13.205 --> 11:15.505
So that is the case where I argue

11:15.535 --> 11:19.145
that indirect export creation provisions,

11:20.085 --> 11:22.585
to the extent that they require com compensation

11:22.765 --> 11:26.185
for measures that have an indirect effect on investment,

11:26.845 --> 11:28.145
unconstitutional.

11:29.125 --> 11:30.745
The third point that I make in relation

11:30.745 --> 11:33.225
to the unconstitutional unconstitutionality

11:33.365 --> 11:37.305
of indirect export creation provision is in relation to,

11:38.495 --> 11:41.555
the question of who resolves dispute

11:41.555 --> 11:42.715
between foreign investors

11:43.455 --> 11:47.955
and the state in relation to indirect corporation

11:48.095 --> 11:49.795
or S corporation generally.

11:50.415 --> 11:52.635
Now, if you look at the various constitutions

11:52.635 --> 11:55.785
that I have stated, they provide for the right

11:55.845 --> 11:59.705
to dis dispute settlement relating to exportation,

12:01.405 --> 12:05.785
before national courts such as the high court

12:06.325 --> 12:07.625
of Ghana or Kenya.

12:08.745 --> 12:11.795
Whereas investment treaties provision dealing

12:11.795 --> 12:16.635
with indirect corporation requires that dispute concerning,

12:17.375 --> 12:20.195
indirect corporation

12:20.455 --> 12:22.955
or corporation generally be settled

12:23.135 --> 12:25.235
by international arbitration.

12:26.335 --> 12:29.355
So I am saying that provisions dealing with

12:30.155 --> 12:31.795
indirect corporation

12:31.975 --> 12:35.725
and corporation generally to the extent that they require,

12:35.725 --> 12:39.365
they take away the jurisdiction of national courts

12:40.025 --> 12:43.565
to settle disputes concerning,

12:44.355 --> 12:48.965
corporation, unconstitutional

12:49.305 --> 12:50.525
to the extent that they want

12:50.525 --> 12:53.285
to take away the jurisdiction of national court.

12:53.745 --> 12:56.085
So these are some of the arguments that are advanced

12:56.145 --> 12:59.165
and see that even in spite of the changes

12:59.555 --> 13:01.365
that have been made to the terms

13:01.425 --> 13:04.885
of indirect exportation provisions, these provisions

13:05.885 --> 13:07.665
are still unconstitutional.

13:08.165 --> 13:11.145
The conclusion that I drew in my research is that,

13:12.845 --> 13:17.505
the near reform of investment treaties incorporating,

13:17.875 --> 13:21.945
provisions that are seek to exempt states from liability

13:22.005 --> 13:25.705
for indirect export creation such as the inclusion

13:26.005 --> 13:28.865
of clause, limiting the scope

13:28.965 --> 13:32.465
and effect of indirect corporation provisions,

13:33.725 --> 13:36.445
I argue that they do not actually preserve

13:37.355 --> 13:41.455
the regulatory authority of African states to take an,

13:41.635 --> 13:46.175
to take and regulate private property,

13:46.635 --> 13:51.175
rights because the new reform

13:51.805 --> 13:56.695
process that have been, included in investment treaties,

13:57.535 --> 14:01.585
they do not actually, resolve that conflict

14:02.355 --> 14:06.395
because the right to, for example, the right to

14:06.835 --> 14:10.655
compensation remains an integral part of

14:11.745 --> 14:12.925
the S corporation,

14:13.345 --> 14:15.485
the indirect s corporation provisions

14:15.585 --> 14:16.765
in investment treaties.

14:17.615 --> 14:21.515
And, and under national constitutions that I have stated,

14:21.765 --> 14:23.195
Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria

14:23.375 --> 14:28.135
and others, you still find that the right to composition

14:28.275 --> 14:31.875
for, you know, indirect

14:32.905 --> 14:35.485
or general regulatory measures

14:36.115 --> 14:40.765
that have an adverse impact on investment does not exist.

14:41.665 --> 14:44.925
So the new generation investment

14:46.445 --> 14:48.705
do not actually resolve that kind of

14:49.225 --> 14:52.045
conflict incompatibility between the authority

14:52.185 --> 14:56.845
of African states to ate, property rights

14:57.465 --> 15:01.565
and their obligations under, investment treaties

15:01.585 --> 15:05.605
to compensate foreign investors for indirect population.

15:06.055 --> 15:10.285
These clause does seek to exempt states from liability

15:10.465 --> 15:12.285
for indirect s corporation.

15:13.475 --> 15:17.415
Um, they rarely have limited effect

15:18.075 --> 15:23.015
in terms of preserving the regulatory autonomy of states

15:23.555 --> 15:28.385
in relation to the assets of foreign investors.

15:30.445 --> 15:32.585
And the implication is that African states

15:32.845 --> 15:36.985
and all states for that matter, will continue to be sued

15:37.935 --> 15:41.675
for, measures that have

15:42.845 --> 15:47.385
an effect on foreign, investment assets,

15:48.015 --> 15:52.765
even if they are not designed to, to take away

15:54.295 --> 15:55.995
the foreign investors' interests.

15:57.405 --> 15:58.865
And, and,

15:58.925 --> 16:01.025
and the implication going forward Further,

16:01.045 --> 16:02.865
the further implication going forward is

16:02.865 --> 16:04.505
that if African states

16:05.005 --> 16:07.825
or states generally seek, seek to

16:09.065 --> 16:12.145
preserve their regulatory autonomy to ensure

16:12.145 --> 16:15.185
that they are not sued for measures that are designed

16:15.185 --> 16:18.885
for legitimate public interest papers, then

16:19.755 --> 16:22.205
they should not be signing, as you say,

16:22.205 --> 16:26.125
they must not be signing onto indirect operation

16:27.015 --> 16:30.625
provisions or clause in investment treaties.

16:31.985 --> 16:34.595
That is to say that there is a need to reconcile

16:35.405 --> 16:37.995
provisions in investment treaties dealing with

16:38.535 --> 16:42.215
as corporation with the,

16:42.915 --> 16:47.655
the authority of African states under national constitutions

16:48.275 --> 16:53.015
to regulate, private property, whether it relates

16:53.015 --> 16:56.615
to foreign investors or it relates to, to citizens.

16:57.565 --> 16:59.225
So, so this is the conclusion

16:59.225 --> 17:03.025
that I would draw in relation to the implications,

17:03.655 --> 17:06.865
that can be made from the fact that these

17:08.355 --> 17:11.695
reform, the reform of investment rate is relating

17:11.695 --> 17:15.855
to operation really are very weak.

17:16.785 --> 17:20.285
And if there's a, there has been a genuine desire

17:20.285 --> 17:22.925
to preserve the regulatory authority of, of states

17:23.315 --> 17:27.645
that is less likely to be achieved under the current reforms

17:27.675 --> 17:28.645
that are in place.

00:00 - So my research deals with the intersection of international economic treaties and public law and, and policy. And in particular, I am interested in the limitations that national Constitutions place on the authority of states to regulate in the public, interests.

00:21 - And in particular, I'm, I'm looking at how national constitution limit the, the, the capacity of states to, to enter into investment, treaties or international economic treaties generally. So basically that is what I, what I look at and the context of that research has to do with the, the development of investment treaties, which are intended to regulate or provide legal protection for foreign, investment investment treaties

00:50 - as they develop in the post-colonial period where designed to provide legal protection for foreign investment. And they came with absolute standards of investment, protection they provided for the rights of foreign investors without providing for a corresponding, rights of, of states. So the implication is that since 1987, these investment treaties, have become a reference point for foreign investors to challenge various public interest

01:24 - regulatory, measures. For example, Philip Maurice bringing a claim against Australia and Uruguay for enacting a legislation on plain packaging of, streets. And those legislation were put in place for purposes of, the public, public health. And so the world investment, report 2023, shows that there are over 1,257 cases brought by foreign investors

01:57 - against about 132 states. And most of those measures relate to public interest regulatory measures, including, for example, those have already mentioned tax, regulations relating to public health and also tax measures like, for example, Yuko against Russia, which was a tax measure. And in fact, over over $60 billion were awarded against Russia. So with foreign universities increasingly using these international economic treaties to challenge

02:32 - the regulatory authority of states, states are now seeking to reform these treaties to preserve their regulatory measures, I mean, to protect their regulatory, authority. And those reforms include the inclusion of clause does seek to limit the scope and effect of, these international, the terms of these international economic treaties. There are also provisions on corporate social responsibility and sustainability.

03:03 - And so my, my, my paper Constitutional Acquisition and regulation of Property Investment treaties and S corporation in Africa was developed, within these context essentially to look at whether or not the provisions that seek to exempt states from liability for indirect as population, effective. So that is the context in which this, article was, was written. And then it was published in, the Journal

03:37 - of Well Investment and Treat Volume 24 Issues Five and Issues four and Six. This question is at the core of the paper that I did. And as corporation in investment treaties can be classified into two, we have the direct as corporation where the state actually takes or acquires the assets of the foreign investor. And, and traditionally this is the business in which, provisions on population develop in investment treaties. And historically, this is

04:12 - what states have always done acquiring the assets of foreign investors. So for example, investors in Mexico in the early 19 hundreds acquiring the assets of, American investors, in, in, in, in Mexico. Then we also have, indirect corporation where the focus of provisions on indirect corporation investment treaty essentially is to look at the effect of measures that stay stick on investment. If the effect of a measure is to

04:52 - deny the foreign investor from using and enjoying the benefit of investment, even though the foreign investor retains statute two, the, the, the property, then the case of indirect exportation can be made. So, for example, if a foreign investor is denied an environmental permit, let's say a foreign investor in the mining sector is denied, environmental permit, and they cannot proceed to mine.

05:23 - The implication and the effect of denial of the permit is that the foreign investor will be deprived of the economic benefits of the investment they have put into the mining sector. Though the foreign investor will retain, you know, title to the investment assets, a case of indirect export creation is made. So it is a very flexible standard that foreign investors can use to challenge the regulatory authority of states.

05:52 - So the reforms in investment treaties that seek to Preserve the regulatory authority of states in investment treaties essentially, seek to see that if the measure is non-discriminatory and it is adopted for legitimate public interest papers, such as, for example, environmental protection and for public health purposes, then that measure does not amount to indirect as population. However, there is a qualification to this, exception to liability.

06:36 - So it says that the measure must not be discriminatory and it must be, it effect must not be so severe, such that the measure cannot be said to have been adopted in good faith. And we can find that in Ann Next, 10 of Canada Guinea bilateral investment treaty. So the question arises whether or not this provision in investment treaties that a measure that's not consistent within direct population,

07:16 - presumably the object of which to is to preserve the regulatory authority of states. The question is whether or not a provision of this na nature does indeed ensures that if the state adopts the measure in question, it does not get sued, or if it gets sued. If it gets sued, then it can reliably use this exemption to say, look, I am not, liable. So the point that I'm seeking to make in relation to this is that the qualifications to this as, exception

07:53 - to liability for indirect as population really weaken the scope and legal effect of those exceptions such that the states cannot effectively use this to say that, I mean to excuse themselves from, liability for indirect, for creation. This is another core aspect of the, the subject that we are discussing now, which was part of what I, I, I wrote in the, in the, in the article and in this, my respond directly is that indirect

08:29 - for creation provisions in investment treaties are unconstitutional in relation to the various African constitutions that I have stated, Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, and so forth. They are unconstitutional, number one in the sense that under these constitutions, there is no corporation unless there is an actual acquisition or taken off property. So if you look at this constitution, they recognize only direct s population where the state

09:09 - has actually taken steps by statute to acquire the assets of the investor or the private individual. So indirect corporation provisions are, are known under the various African constitutions that I have, stated. And then under the constitution that I have stated stated number two. The second reason why I, I argue, I mean, the second reason I argue

09:43 - that these provisions are unconstitutional is that there's no right to compensation. And that these constitutions for general regulatory measures that have indirect adverse impact on the private property rights of individuals, whether they are they are foreign investors or whether they are, you know, citizens of the, of the states. And yet the right to compensation for indirect s population is at the core of provisions dealing

10:23 - with indirect, indirect s population in investment treaties. So you can see there is a clash in the sense that if the state adopts a certain measure, so for example, imposes a tax that essentially wipes out the, the, the benefits of investment to the extent that it is not directly targeted at foreign investor under this constitution, there should be no right to compensation. And yet investment treaties provisions dealing with indirect exportation essentially say that if the state adopts a certain measure that has,

11:00 - an adverse indirect impact effect on the investment, takes away the economic use and benefit of the investment, then there is a right to, compensation. So that is the case where I argue that indirect export creation provisions, to the extent that they require com compensation for measures that have an indirect effect on investment, unconstitutional. The third point that I make in relation

11:30 - to the unconstitutional unconstitutionality of indirect export creation provision is in relation to, the question of who resolves dispute between foreign investors and the state in relation to indirect corporation or S corporation generally. Now, if you look at the various constitutions that I have stated, they provide for the right to dis dispute settlement relating to exportation, before national courts such as the high court

12:06 - of Ghana or Kenya. Whereas investment treaties provision dealing with indirect corporation requires that dispute concerning, indirect corporation or corporation generally be settled by international arbitration. So I am saying that provisions dealing with indirect corporation and corporation generally to the extent that they require, they take away the jurisdiction of national courts

12:40 - to settle disputes concerning, corporation, unconstitutional to the extent that they want to take away the jurisdiction of national court. So these are some of the arguments that are advanced and see that even in spite of the changes that have been made to the terms of indirect exportation provisions, these provisions are still unconstitutional. The conclusion that I drew in my research is that,

13:12 - the near reform of investment treaties incorporating, provisions that are seek to exempt states from liability for indirect export creation such as the inclusion of clause, limiting the scope and effect of indirect corporation provisions, I argue that they do not actually preserve the regulatory authority of African states to take an, to take and regulate private property, rights because the new reform process that have been, included in investment treaties,

13:57 - they do not actually, resolve that conflict because the right to, for example, the right to compensation remains an integral part of the S corporation, the indirect s corporation provisions in investment treaties. And, and under national constitutions that I have stated, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria and others, you still find that the right to composition for, you know, indirect

14:32 - or general regulatory measures that have an adverse impact on investment does not exist. So the new generation investment do not actually resolve that kind of conflict incompatibility between the authority of African states to ate, property rights and their obligations under, investment treaties to compensate foreign investors for indirect population. These clause does seek to exempt states from liability for indirect s corporation.

15:13 - they rarely have limited effect in terms of preserving the regulatory autonomy of states in relation to the assets of foreign investors. And the implication is that African states and all states for that matter, will continue to be sued for, measures that have an effect on foreign, investment assets, even if they are not designed to, to take away the foreign investors' interests. And, and,

15:58 - and the implication going forward Further, the further implication going forward is that if African states or states generally seek, seek to preserve their regulatory autonomy to ensure that they are not sued for measures that are designed for legitimate public interest papers, then they should not be signing, as you say, they must not be signing onto indirect operation provisions or clause in investment treaties.

16:31 - That is to say that there is a need to reconcile provisions in investment treaties dealing with as corporation with the, the authority of African states under national constitutions to regulate, private property, whether it relates to foreign investors or it relates to, to citizens. So, so this is the conclusion that I would draw in relation to the implications, that can be made from the fact that these reform, the reform of investment rate is relating

17:11 - to operation really are very weak. And if there's a, there has been a genuine desire to preserve the regulatory authority of, of states that is less likely to be achieved under the current reforms that are in place.

Faculti AI can make mistakes