I am very grateful to Sir Frank Berman, Anthea Roberts, and Federico Ortino for their wide-ranging observations about my book. As much as I would like to give an exhaustive reply to each of them, I could not do justice to all of their comments without exceeding the natural limitations of time and space imposed by the forum. I will therefore focus on a limited number of issues, that either seem to me to pose the most serious challenges to the argument that I make in my book, or to which I have given most thought. I will respond to Sir Frank Berman’s arguments in this post, and will address Anthea Roberts’ and Federico Ortino’s arguments in the next post.
Sir Frank Berman raises a number of questions about the style and substance of my argument. In particular, he seems doubtful about the practical validity of the distinction between treaty and customary rules in the area, and suggests that a clearer distinction between interpretation and application, the latter concept opening a wider scope for case-by-case variation, may dispose of my concern about accommodating investment arbitration in the structure of sources and interpretation of international law. I will address these two issues in turn. Briefly, I believe that the treaty/custom distinction is of considerable practical importance. While I entirely agree with everything that Sir Frank Berman says about the distinction between interpretation and application – and I would be so bold as to say that I do not ignore it in my book – it does not affect my argument that the great reliance on earlier arbitral pronouncements suggests a process of interpretation and application taking place regarding the same rule of (general) international law. (Sir Frank also makes certain observations about the effect that different structures of dispute settlement have on development of law; I will address that point in my response to Federico Ortino).
On the Treaty/Custom Distinction
Is it important whether a ‘fair and equitable treatment’ clause is read as a technical term of reference to custom (or a term that does not refer to custom as such but that does not preclude it from being taken into account in the interpretative process), or rather a term that neither requires nor permits reliance on general international law? In technical terms, an answer to such a question would depend on whether the rules of customary law are identifiably different from those that may be determined by interpretation of the treaty language. It is relatively easy to give an affirmative answer regarding rules on administration of justice, where (as I argue in Chapter 8) the basic principles are well-established: in particular, a wrongful act of denial of justice is complete only when the whole judicial system is exhausted, denial of justice focuses on procedure, and denial of justice by substance of the judgment is exceptional. It is not at all obvious, to say the least, that an interpretation not involving general international law would identify different requirements of exhaustion of remedies as a matter of primary obligation because conduct by a particular organ is concerned, or draw the distinction between procedural and substantive unfairness (the fact that most Tribunals do draw these distinctions strongly suggests that they are implicitly relying on customary law). Read the rest of this entry…