English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In his article ‘Transnational Public Policy as a Vehicle to Impose Human Rights Obligations in International Investment Arbitration’, Jean-Michel Marcoux investigates whether international investment tribunals can rely on transnational public policy to impose human rights obligations on investors. While I generally side with the idea that international human rights as such are highly relevant in (some) international investment arbitrations, I argue in this article that transnational or truly international public policy as a concept is largely, and as a matter of principle, irrelevant in investment treaty arbitration. Secondly, even if one were to accept that transnational public policy has a role to play, I question the usefulness of framing various human rights issues as questions of ‘transnational public policy’.

The (Ir)relevance of Transnational Public Policy in Investment Treaty Arbitration – A Reply to Jean-Michel Marcoux