magnify
Home Articles posted by Diane Desierto (Page 4)

Detecting Prohibited Subsidies and Determining Continued Compliance: WTO Panel Rules (Again) for the US in the Airbus Dispute with EU

Published on September 26, 2016        Author: 

On 22 September 2016, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) scored another victory in its long-running dispute with the European Union (EU) over subsidies provided by certain EU Member States to large civil aircraft manufacturer Airbus. The USTR sought to prove that 36 challenged EU measures remained inconsistent with its duty to comply with the rulings and recommendations issued by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) after adopting the original 30 June 2010 Panel Report in this case.  Specifically, the US challenged four types of subsidies allegedly made by the EU and/or certain EU Member States to Airbus for continuing inconsistency with the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) Agreement: 1) launch aid or member State financing; 2) equity infusions for the corporate restructuring of Aerospatiale and Deutsche Airbus; 3) infrastructure related measures of German and Spanish authorities; and 4) research and technological development funding provided by the EU and certain member States.

The 22 September 2016 WTO Panel Report European Communities and Certain Member States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft [hereafter, “2016 Panel Report”] found, among others, that: 1) French, German, Spanish, and UK launch aid or member State financing for the Airbus A350XWB constituted actionable specific subsidies (2016 Panel Report, para. 7.1.c.ii.); 2) the EU and certain member States have failed to comply with their obligation to withdraw the subsidies for other Airbus aircraft (2016 Panel Report, para. 7.1.c.ix.); 3) the EU continues to be in violation of Articles 5(c) and 6.3(a)(b) and (c) of the SCM Agreement by failing to comply with previous recommendations and rulings of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body in the original 30 June 2010 Panel Report (2016 Panel Report, para 7.2); 4) to the extent that the challenged EU measures remain inconsistent with the SCM Agreement, they have nullified or impaired benefits accruing to the US under that Agreement (2016 Panel Report, para. 7.3); and 5) the EU and certain member States failed to bring 34 of its 36 challenged measures into conformity with their obligations under the SCM Agreement (2016 Panel Report, para. 7.4).

Read the rest of this entry…

 
Comments Off on Detecting Prohibited Subsidies and Determining Continued Compliance: WTO Panel Rules (Again) for the US in the Airbus Dispute with EU

The Philippines v. China Arbitral Award on the Merits as a Subsidiary Source of International Law

Published on July 12, 2016        Author: 

“Great Game” politics in the Asia-Pacific has just changed irrevocably, especially for all parties, claimants, and affected constituencies in the South China Sea, after the Annex VII UNCLOS arbitral tribunal released its 12 July 2016 Award in Republic of the Philippines v. People’s Republic of China (Permanent Court of Arbitration Case No. 2013-19).  While we will be featuring posts over the coming days on this award that dissect and analyze the award, its international legal significance, and its larger geopolitical consequences for all claimants to the South China Sea dispute and third-party actors (such as the United States), for now, a close read of all 479 pages of this arbitral award reveals it to be an extremely rich and fertile piece of international jurisprudence, one that will certainly have far-ranging doctrinal impacts as an international judicial decision that is also an authoritative subsidiary means for determination of the international law rules under UNCLOS, especially on questions such as the:
1) normative weight of “historic rights” and differentiating the same from “historic title” and “historic rights short of sovereignty”, and clarifying what could still possibly amount to historic rights that States could still validly assert within the UNCLOS treaty regime;

2) authoritative criteria for determining the existence of low-tide elevations (LTEs), noting that the legal consequences of which were not completely settled in the International Court of Justice’s judgment in Qatar v. Bahrain;

3) objective criteria for the authoritative interpretation of Article 121 UNCLOS;

4) objective and subjective criteria for testing the lawfulness and unlawfulness of a coastal State’s asserted ‘enforcement’ activities; and the

5) objective or scientific factors that could be taken into account to determine the existence of actionable environmental damage to the marine environment under Articles 192 and 194 UNCLOS.

Interestingly, the arbitral tribunal did not assume jurisdiction in this case over the interpretation of “military activities” within the meaning of Article 298 of UNCLOS, which the Philippines had asserted in regard to various military and paramilitary incidents with China over Second Thomas Shoal. It would be interesting to see, in the coming days, how the United States reacts to this development, since it has frequently insisted on the prerogative of the coastal State to make the authoritative determination of what “military activities” could be justifiably excluded from compulsory dispute settlement under UNCLOS Article 298(1)(b).

The evidentiary rules and fact-finding procedures of this tribunal will also, I suspect, also provoke considerable commentary, if not critique, since the tribunal drew heavily from numerous statements, published views, and opinions that were attributed to the respondent in this case. One can also expect questions to be raised on why the respondent never chose to participate in the proceedings if only to challenge jurisdiction, to contest the veracity or authoritativeness of the Philippines’ technical, environmental, hydrographical, and other expert submissions under protest, or to otherwise set its own narrative, instead of permitting China’s narrative to be formed from the tribunal’s reconstruction of innumerable media statements and statements of officials.

Clearly, this award has greater consequences beyond China’s repeated refusal to recognize it (at least for now). As a subsidiary means for determining international law, it is conceivably difficult for any of the claimants – the Philippines included – to ignore the legal effect of this ruling and its impact on all future steps to be undertaken in the actual maritime boundary delimitation negotiations. The ruling will likely affect the landscape of interpretation for the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties to the South China Sea, and the ongoing work agenda of the ASEAN-China Working Group on the Code of Conduct for the Parties to the South China Sea. Whatever the stated preferences may be of China or the new Duterte administration in the Philippines, and regardless of objections to the veracity of factual findings of the tribunal, the very existence of the Philippines v. China arbitration award as a subsidiary means for determining the rules of international law arguably changes the very scope and interpretation of actual applicable law to be considered by parties to this dispute.

We look forward to featuring a broad spectrum of views from various international lawyers and scholars on this landmark arbitral award, as we track contemporaneous developments in the Asia-Pacific region, and invite further discussion especially on next steps ahead for the actual disputes between the claimants on maritime boundary delimitation. Read the rest of this entry…

 

Arbitral Controls and Policing the Gates to Investment Treaty Claims against States in Transglobal Green Energy v. Panama and Philip Morris v. Australia

Published on June 22, 2016        Author: 

Investor-State arbitral tribunals are increasingly policing the gates to investment treaty claims against States. The initiation of investment treaty claims against States remains subject to a high threshold of good faith against possible abuse of process by investors, as recently stressed by arbitrators Dr. Andres Rigo Sureda (President), Professor Christoph Schreuer, and Professor Jan Paulsson, in their 2 June 2016 Award in Transglobal Green Energy LLC and Transglobal Green Panama S.A. v. Republic of Panama. The Tribunal upheld Panama’s objection to jurisdiction on the ground of “abuse by Claimants of the investment treaty system by attempting to create artificial international jurisdiction over a pre-existing domestic dispute.” (Transglobal Award, para. 118). The Transglobal Award was issued six months after another tribunal in Philip Morris International v. Australia [composed of arbitrators Professor Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel (President), Professor Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler, and Professor Donald M. McRae] issued its landmark 17 December 2015 Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, declaring that: “the commencement of treaty-based investor-State arbitration constitutes an abuse of right (or abuse of process) when an investor has changed its corporate structure to gain the protection of an investment treaty at a point in time where a dispute was foreseeable. A dispute is foreseeable when there is a reasonable prospect that a measure that may give rise to a treaty claim will materialize.” (Philip Morris Award, para. 585.) While to date there is scarcely any doctrinal unanimity over what comprises abuse of process, abuse of rights, or bad faith institution of investor-State claims [see for example Eric De Brabandere, Good Faith, Abuse of Process, and the Initiation of Investment Treaty Claims, 3 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 3, pp. 1-28 (2012), these recent arbitral decisions provide concrete guidance of factors that tribunals have taken into account to determine whether investor-claimants instituted investment treaty arbitration proceedings in good faith.

Read the rest of this entry…

 

The ‘Internationalization’ of Maritime Disputes in the South China Sea: Environmental Destruction in the High Seas and Threats to the Global Commons

Published on April 28, 2016        Author: 

What does it mean to ‘internationalize’ a maritime dispute? Accusations of ‘internationalization’ of the maritime disputes in the South China Sea have been strident over the past weeks, most recently from the 18 April 2016 Joint Communique of the Foreign Ministers of the Russian Federation, the Republic of India, and the People’s Republic of China, which stressed that “Russia, India and China are committed to maintaining a legal order for the seas and oceans based on the principles of international law, as reflected notably in the UN Convention on the Law of Sea (UNCLOS). All related disputes should be addressed through negotiations and agreements between the parties concerned. In this regard the Ministers called for full respect of all provisions of UNCLOS, as well as the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) and the Guidelines for the implementation of the DOC.” (Joint Communique, para. 21). Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was also reported to have observed to Chinese media in Moscow during the Russia-China-India April 2016 trilateral summit that “[attempts to internationalize the issue] are completely counterproductive. Only negotiations, which China and the ASEAN are pursuing, can bring the desired result; namely, mutually acceptable agreements” – a sentiment echoed by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi who was also reported to have voiced his opposition to the ‘internationalization’ of the South China Sea dispute on the basis of the Philippines’ “unilaterally-proposed arbitration case”. Chinese President Xi Jinping reiterated the call for negotiations only between the states involved, reportedly implying  nations outside the region such as the United States have “no role in regional disputes”.  The Russia-China-India trilateral statement came one week after the G7 Summit in Hiroshima, Japan, yielded the April 11, 2016 G7 Foreign Ministers’ Statement on Maritime Security, which stated, among others, that the G7 “express[es]… strong opposition to any intimidating, coercive or provocative unilateral actions that could alter the status quo and increase tensions, and urge all states to refrain from such actions as land reclamations including large scale  ones, building of outposts, as well as their use for military purposes and to act in accordance with international law including the principles of freedoms of navigation and overflight. In areas pending final delimitation, we underline the importance of coastal states refraining from unilateral actions that cause permanent physical change to the marine environment insofar as such actions jeopardize or hamper the reaching of the final agreement, as well as the importance of making every effort to enter into provisional arrangements of a practical nature, in those areas.” (G7 Statement, para. 5).   Read the rest of this entry…

 
Comments Off on The ‘Internationalization’ of Maritime Disputes in the South China Sea: Environmental Destruction in the High Seas and Threats to the Global Commons

A New Theory for Enforcing ICJ Judgments? The World Court’s 17 March 2016 Judgments on Preliminary Objections in Nicaragua v. Colombia

Published on April 6, 2016        Author: 

The International Court of Justice simultaneously issued two intriguing judgments on 17 March 2016, both involving applications filed by Nicaragua against Colombia, and both of which have some nexus to the Court’s 19 November 2012 Judgment in Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia). To recall, the Court in its 2012 Judgment had affirmed Colombia’s sovereignty over seven islands, drawn a single maritime boundary delimiting the continental shelf and exclusive economic zones of Nicaragua and Colombia, and rejected Nicaragua’s request to have Colombia declared in breach of international law for allegedly denying Nicaragua’s access to natural resources to the east of the 82nd meridian. (2012 Judgment, dispositif, para. 251)

Thereafter, Nicaragua instituted two Applications on matters appearing to flow from, but alleged to be extraneous to, the Court’s 2012 maritime delimitation Judgment. In its 2013 Application in Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia) [hereafter, “Application on Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces Violations”], Nicaragua alleged, among others, that Colombia violated Nicaragua’s rights pertaining to maritime zones defined under the Court’s 2012 maritime delimitation Judgment and that Colombia had also breached the obligation not to use or threaten to use force. On the other hand, in its 2013 Application in Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia) [hereafter, “Continental Shelf beyond 200 NM Application”], Nicaragua requested the Court to declare “the precise course of the maritime boundary between Nicaragua and Colombia in the areas of the continental shelf which appertain to them beyond the boundaries determined by the Court in its Judgment of 19 November 2012” [hereafter, “first Request”], as well as “the principles and rules of international law that determine the rights and duties of the two States in relation to the area of overlapping continental shelf claims and the use of its resources, pending the delimitation of the boundary between them beyond 200 nautical miles from Nicaragua’s coast.” [hereafter, “second Request”] (Continental Shelf beyond 200 NM Application, para. 12).

At the core of Colombia’s preliminary objections in both cases was the argument that the Court had already resolved the alleged matters in the 2012 Judgment, and accordingly, incidents related to these matters thereafter ought to be enforced under the canonical rule in Article 94(2) of the UN Charter (“[i]f any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment.”). Nicaragua’s theory was essentially based on the characterization of fresh disputes with Colombia that may have some factual/legal nexus with the 2012 Judgment, but were, ultimately, left undetermined or outside the purview of the 2012 Judgment. It is highly interesting to see how this theory mainly prevailed in the Court’s 17 March 2016 Judgment on Preliminary Objections in Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia) [hereafter, “Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces Violations Judgment on Preliminary Objections”] and its 17 March 2016 Judgment on Preliminary Objections in the Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Between Nicaragua and Colombia Beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia) [hereafter, “Continental Shelf beyond 200 NM Judgment on Preliminary Objections”]. The Court’s unprecedented acceptance of jurisdiction for certain claims in both of these Nicaraguan applications certainly provoke new lines of inquiry on lines of demarcation between issues of enforcement of the Court’s judgments, and related but separate claims that could be instituted fresh with the Court, without triggering the rule on enforcing ICJ judgments through the more political forum of the Security Council. How was the Court able to assume jurisdiction in these cases, and what do these decisions bode for the settled rule on the finality of the Court’s judgments?

Read the rest of this entry…

 

Evidence but not Empiricism? Environmental Impact Assessments at the International Court of Justice in Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)

Published on February 26, 2016        Author: 

December 2015 was a landmark month for treaty-based developments in international environmental law, after the successful conclusion of the Paris Agreement (see Jorge Vinuales’ three-part analysis here, here, and here, and subsequent reactions from Annalisa Savaresi here and Po-Hsiang Ou here). However, one should not also overlook more modest jurisprudential developments arising from the International Court of Justice’s 16 December 2015 Judgment on the Merits in Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica). While the Court in this case continued to affirm as settled law that States have to conduct environmental impact assessments (EIAs) for projects that could result transboundary harm – even innovatively introducing provisional measures in 2011 that required parties to cooperate on environmental monitoring – the Court ultimately remained opaque on the method and criteria it used to assess the degree of “risk of transboundary harm” that would be sufficient to trigger a State’s obligation to conduct an EIA. It was a regrettably lost opportunity for the Court to provide practical and conceptual guidance to States on how to assess “significant risk of transboundary harm” which triggers the international legal duty of a State to conduct an EIA before starting the proposed activity.  The question of transboundary harm risk assessment has become increasingly urgent in recent years, particularly as more cross-border public-private partnership projects proliferate and States assume the international legal burden of conducting proper EIAs at the outset of any such cross-border PPP project.

Read the rest of this entry…

 
Comments Off on Evidence but not Empiricism? Environmental Impact Assessments at the International Court of Justice in Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)

Beneficial Ownership and International Claims for Economic Damage: Occidental Petroleum v. Ecuador and Restoring Limits to Investor-State Arbitral Tribunals’ Jurisdiction Ratione Personae

Published on November 16, 2015        Author: 

On 2 November 2015, the ICSID ad hoc Committee composed of Prof. Juan Fernandez-Armesto (Committee President), Justice Florentino Feliciano, and Mr. Rodrigo Oreamuno in Occidental Petroleum Corporation v. The Republic of Ecuador (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11) partially annulled the massive US $1.769 Billion award of damages issued on 5 October 2012 by the majority of the arbitral tribunal (Mr. Yves Fortier, President, and Mr. David A.R. Williams) over the strong dissent of arbitrator Prof. Brigitte Stern. Agreeing with arbitrator Stern’s position that Occidental Petroleum had split its ownership to give a 40% ownership interest to a Chinese company Andes/AEC (Committee decision, para. 204), the ICSID ad hoc Committee whittled down the damages awarded to only reflect the actual 60% ownership of claimant Occidental Petroleum in the assets that Ecuador expropriated. The Committee’s decision significantly brought down the compensation value for the expropriation to the 60% as owned by Occidental Petroleum to US$1.061 Billion (Committee decision, paras. 586 and 590). The Committee treated the Chinese company Andes/AEC’s beneficial ownership of 40% of the expropriated assets as outside the scope of its jurisdiction over covered investors protected under the US-Ecuador BIT.

In issuing its landmark decision, the Committee stressed proscribed limits under the law of investor-State claims; the distinct confined mandate and authority of arbitral tribunals as derived from the creation and consent of States; and the ensuing narrow availability of the investor-State treaty arbitral system only to treaty-covered investors: Read the rest of this entry…

 

Flexibility or Gridlock? The Promises and Perils of Popularizing Plurilateral Agreements at the WTO

Published on October 1, 2015        Author: 

Editor’s Note: This post responds to Bernard Hoekman and Petros Mavroidis’ article in the current issue of EJIL Vol. 26 (2015), No. 2, titled “WTO ‘à la carte’ or ‘menu du jour’? Assessing the case for more Plurilateral Agreements”. For a post by the authors of the article, introducing their piece, see here. For other comments see here and here . For the authors’ concluding response, see here.

Professors Bernard Hoekman and Petros Mavroidis’ EJIL article WTO ‘a la carte’ or ‘menu du jour’? Assessing the Case for More Plurilateral Agreements provokes much thought on opportunities for achieving better flexibility and neutralizing gridlocks at the WTO. The article was published soon after WTO Director General Roberto Azevedo lamented the organization’s failure to reach a work programme under the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) under its 31 July 2015 deadline, which could conceivably impede trade negotiations at the next WTO Ministerial Conference at Nairobi in December 2015. Professors Hoekman and Mavroidis provide a brilliant exposition of the factors to be considered in using the plurilateral agreement (PA) route while attempting to build multilateral agreement on more frontiers of world trade.

While I completely agree with Professors Hoekman and Mavroidis that more ‘variable geometry’ is needed now to breathe life into the trade negotiations mandate of the WTO, I do wonder whether devoting organizational resources at this stage to develop a PA ‘code of conduct’ with transparent terms on the mode of negotiating issue-specific PAs, is something that the WTO can politically afford at this stage of institutional stagnation and negotiations inertia over the DDA. A PA duly approved by the WTO membership under Art. X.9 of the WTO Agreement could indeed be a viable path to achieve harmonization and discipline over non-tariff measures, but how could this be harnessed to incentivize reaching a multilateral agreement among WTO members? If the two remaining PAs to date – on civil aircraft and government procurement – have not been universally ratified or widely opted into by WTO members to date, how can this be done under a strategically-crafted PA (as Hoekman and Mavroidis appear to suggest in proposing more usage of this route under an upfront code of conduct addressing the scope of coverage, e.g. an issue for WTO Plus, or a WTO Minus X issue on regulatory policy cooperation)?

Read the rest of this entry…

 

Revisiting ‘Interested Parties’ in Investor-State Arbitration: Ticaret Procedural Order No. 3’s Compelled Disclosure of Third-Party Funders

Published on August 3, 2015        Author: 

On 12 June 2015, the arbitral tribunal – composed of Professors Julian Lew, Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, and Bernard Hanotiau – in Muhammet Çap & Sehil Inşaat Endustri ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti v. Turkmenistan [ICSID Case No. ARB/12/6] issued its landmark Procedural Order No. 3, ordering the claimant-investors therein to confirm:

 “whether its claims in this arbitration are being funded by a third-party funder, and if so, shall advise Respondent [Turkmenistan] and the Tribunal of the name or names and details of the third-party funder(s), and the nature of the arrangements concluded with the third-party funder(s), including whether and to what extent it/they shall share in any successes that Claimants may achieve in this arbitration.” (Tribunal’s Decision in Order, para. 13.)

Ticaret Procedural Order No. 3 is the first such order issued in the ICSID (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes) system that directly compels parties to disclose third-party funding arrangements in investor-State arbitration. Most importantly, it is the first publicly known arbitral order to confer (tacit) recognition to the critical role of third-party funders as part of the complex spectrum of interested parties in an investor-State arbitration. Apart from host States and investors, tribunals have thus far accepted that assignments of interest may be made by investor-claimants, without jeopardizing their standing in the dispute. In Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka, A.S. (CSOB) v. Slovak Republic [ICSID Case No. ARB/97/4, Decision on Jurisdiction, 24 May 1999, para. 32], held that, even in cases of assignments or subrogations of interest by investor-claimants, the “absence of beneficial ownership by a claimant in a claim or the transfer of the economic risk in the outcome of a dispute should not and has not been deemed to affect the standing of a claimant in an ICSID proceeding, regardless of whether or not the beneficial owner is a State Party or a private party.” The Ticaret Procedural Order No. 3 is the first instance that an investor-State tribunal openly conceded that a third-party funder’s financing arrangements with an investor-claimant could have a significant bearing on the substantive outcomes and procedural fairness of the arbitration. Read the rest of this entry…

 

Breaking the Washington Consensus?  The Rise of ‘Alternative’ Development Banks

Published on March 18, 2015        Author: 

The United Kingdom scuttled much of its trans-Atlantic partnership with the United States this week, when it became the first G7 country to join the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) over US objections.  European countries France, Germany, and Italy followed suit, with Australia and South Korea now re-evaluating their positions to consider joining the USD $50 billion capitalized AIIB. Japan is holding firm on its alliance with the United States in refusing to join the AIIB.  United States National Security Council spokesperson Patrick Ventrell declared that “any new multilateral institution should incorporate the high standards of the World Bank and the regional development banks…we have concerns about whether the AIIB will meet these high standards, particularly related to governance, and environmental and social safeguards.” As I write from my temporary office here at the Centre for Asian Legal Studies (CALS) at the National University of Singapore Faculty of Law, commentaries proliferate on this debacle and the alleged waning geopolitical influence of the United States, most recently from Kishore Mahbubani, Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, who declares all these events “a sign of American decline”.  It is not the first indictment on America’s lessening hegemonic grip in the face of China as a rising power. Joseph Weiler’s magisterial Keynote at the 2014 ESIL conference showed how the conflation of politics, cultural cleavages, economics, and moral authority essentially presaged the end of Pax Americana.   More detail to these themes also resonate from a recent 2014 edited book by political science and international relations scholars Vinod Aggarwal and Sara Newland, showing how both the United States and the European Union have deployed various strategies of engagement, cooperation, and confrontation with the rise of China.

Whichever brush we use to describe the decision of key US allies such as the UK and Europe to join the AIIB (e.g. defection from US alliances, or strategic policies towards engagement with China as a rising power), the more interesting international legal phenomenon here is the impact of the rise of the AIIB (and other rival new development banks in the future) on the decades of dominance of the Washington Consensus in international development finance law.  Will the rise of ‘alternative’ development banks such as the AIIB break the stranglehold of the Washington Consensus on international development lending? And if so, what will the AIIB replace it with?  Would the AIIB and new ‘alternative’ development banks necessarily spell sea changes in ensuring compliance with international environmental and social norms and treaty standards throughout international development projects in developing countries?  While the AIIB has been hailed as a needed balance to American dominance in international development lending, China has also been quite opaque thus far on the actual contours of the AIIB’s governance and the terms of its international development lending policies.  And it is precisely this nebulousness that the US appears to interpret as a slide towards the lowest denominator in social inclusion, and the protection of environmental and social safeguards in international development lending.  Never mind that the World Bank is doing its own soul-searching and internal review on this score as well by calling for a long overdue review of its environmental and social safeguards policies, with World Bank President Jim Yong Kim recently warning of the surge of forced resettlement from Bank projects.

The rise of new ‘alternative’ development banks such as the AIIB and the contemplated BRICS bank creates an opening not just to dilute the powerful (almost monopolistic) reach of the United States on international development finance policies, but also to engage all international finance powerhouses – established or emerging – in reforms over global standard-setting in the international development finance ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ law. For over sixty years since the post-war global reconstruction period and in tandem with the evolution of the modern UN Charter era, Washington Consensus policies have dominated reform prescriptions for developing country borrowers.  These policies focus on ten points as the core focus of lending by international financial institutions that heavily depend on US capital (the trio of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the US Treasury): Read the rest of this entry…