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 Tools annual

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 monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

International law as a governing institution, has gained prominence, with the advent of globalization. This is of specific relevance for the governance of state-market relations. Nowhere has this been as pronounced as in the international investment regime. Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) have today become some of the most potent legal tools underwriting economic globalization. These are established through pacts, which have to be adhered to, through all stages of performance of the treaty. This paper argues against the shift of bilateral investment treaties (BIT) from a pro-sovereign, to a pro-investor approach. It does so by explaining the present situation of bilateral investment treaties while pointing out their disadvantages. The basic idea of a BIT is questioned in order to understand its purpose and examines its failure in achieving the same. The partial approach towards the investors by the tribunals, is frowned upon and the lack of justifications and defenses on the part of the state is reviewed. Modest suggestions on improving this situation are provided by using cases decided by tribunals at an international level, taking up the example of Argentina.

Bilateral Investment Treaties and Sovereignty: An Analysis with Respect to International Investment Law