About BRICS Investment Arbitration

The article discusses the issue of creating investment arbitration in the BRICS member states. The prerequisites for the creation of this institution are the problems of “classical” investment arbitration, which, in turn, are predetermined by the crisis of globalism as an idea of the world order.

Aim. The purpose of this work is to study the prerequisites and the possibility of creating investment arbitration in the BRICS countries.

Tasks. Within the framework of achieving this goal, the following tasks were solved: analysis of the crisis of the idea of globalism and, as a consequence, the crisis of “classical” investment arbitration; analysis of the regionalization of legal institutions in general and investment arbitration, in particular; analysis of the conditions for the creation of investment arbitration in the BRICS member states.

Methods. The methodology of solving the formulated tasks is based on the identification of those patterns that are characteristic of various periods of the existence of world political, economic and legal relations.

Results. The prerequisites for the creation of BRICS investment arbitration are the problems of “classical” investment arbitration. The author concludes that this crisis entails a tendency to regionalize both communities of states and legal institutions that ensure the functioning of these unions. Hence, there is a need for the formation of regional arbitrations. Since the BRICS community has set as its goal the formation of a coordinated financial, trade and investment policy, it also required the appropriate jurisdictional support of these processes. In addition to the creation of other institutions, the economic needs of the BRICS require the creation of investment arbitration, which should become a mechanism for resolving investment disputes arising between various economic entities.

Conclusions. It is concluded that when creating investment arbitration, it is necessary to abandon the ideology of protecting exclusively the rights of the investor, which has become the dominant idea in matters of economic law and order. In particular, it is necessary to take into account the interests of public entities — recipients of investments. These interests lie in the plane of protecting human rights, public needs, and environmental problems. In addition, it is necessary to abandon the exclusive use of the Anglo-Saxon legal technique, which is imposed within the framework of the existing investment arbitration. In the end, the conclusion is made about the relevance of the creation of the BRICS investment arbitration, that this institution will contribute to the strengt hening and development of ties betw een the states participating in this association.

1. Ramūnas Audzevičius, Denis Parchajev. Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case Slowakische Republik v. Achmea BV and Future of Investment Arbitration in Europe. New Horizons of International Arbitration [Novye gorizonty mezhdunarodnogo arbitrazha] : collection of articles. 2019; (5): 348–375. (In Rus.)

2. Elena Burova. Investment Arbitration as a Two-Lane Highway: Counterclaims by states against Investors in Light of the Recent Arbitral Practice and New Generation Investment Treaties. New Horizons of International Arbitration [Novye gorizonty mezhdunarodnogo arbitrazha] : collection of articles. 2020; (6): 344–379. (In Rus.)

3. Burova E. S., Koroteeva K. V. Wind of Change: Current Discussions of the Reform of the Dispute Resolution System between Foreign Investors and States. Law [Zakon]. 2018; (5): 153–163. (In Rus.)

4. Grebelsky A. V. End of an Era? The Fate of Investment Arbitration in the Light of Attempts to Create a System for Creating an EU Investment Court. In collection of memoirs, articles, other materials: Kabatov V. A., Lebedev S. N.: In Memoriam. Moscow : Statut. 2017: 476–502. (In Rus.)

5. Doronina N. G., Lukyanova V. Yu., Semilyutina N. G. [et al.]. International Legal Aspects of Realizing the Interests of the Russian Federation in Connection with the Formation of the Common Economic Space: scientific publication Moscow : Institute of Legislation and Comparative Jurisprudence under the Government of the Russian Federation: CON-TRACT, 2012. (In Rus.)

6. Doronina N., Semilyutina N. Private International Law and Investments : monograph. Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation. 2012. 272 p. (In Rus.)

7. Marchenko M. N. State and Law in the Context of Globalization. Moscow : Prospekt, 2009. 400 p. (In Rus.)

8. Semilyutina N. G. International Commercial Arbitration, Arbitration Proceedings and Development of Integrated Markets in the Territory of the Eurasian Economic Community. Journal of Russian Law [Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava]. 2013; (10): 122–128. (In Rus.) (In Rus.)

9. Skvortsov O. Yu. On Investment Arbitration of the Eurasian Economic Union. International commercial arbitration and private law issues : collection of articles / N. G. Vilkova, P. Ya. Greshnikov, A. P. Sergeev [et al.]; Moscow : Statut, 2015. (In Rus.)

10. Solovieva A. V. International Legal Doctrines of Investment Law : dissertation for the degree of PhD in Jurisprudence / MGIMO. Moscow, 2020. 256 p. (In Rus.)

11. Soloveva A. V. New Approaches to the Reform of Investor-State Dispute Settle-ment. Moscow Journal of International Law [Moskovskii zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava]. 2019; (1): 27–39. DOI: 10.24833/08690049-2019-1-27-39 (In Rus.)

12. Khlestova I. O. Jurisdictional Immunity of the State. Moscow : Jurisprudence, 2007. 216 p. (In Rus.)

13. Khodykin R. M. The End of the Era of Investment Arbitration? Legal Insight [Legal Insight]. 2014; (6 (32)). (In Rus.)

14. Anthea Roberts. Clash of Paradigms: Actors and Analogies Shaping the Investment Treaty System. American Journal of International Law. 2013; 107 (1): 4–94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5305/amerjintelaw.107.1.0045

15. Kjos H. E. Applicable Law in Investor-State Arbitration: The Interplay Between National and International Law. Oxford University Press, 2013. 343 p. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199656950.001.0001

16. Roberts A. Incremental, Systemic, and Paradigmatic Reform of Investor-State Arbitration. American Journal of International Law. 2018; 112 (3): 410–432. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2018.69

17. Schultz T., Dupont C. Investment Arbitration: Promoting the Rule of Law or Over-Empowering Investors? A Quantitative Empirical Study. European Journal of International Law. 2014; 25 (4): 1147–1168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chu075

18. Simma B. Foreign Investment Arbitration: A Place for Human Rights. International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 2011; 60 (3): 573–596.

19. Susan Franck. The Legitimacy Crisis in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Privatizing Public International Law through Inconsistent Decisions. Fordham Law Review. 2005; 73 (4).

20. Tullio Treves. Aspects of Legitimacy of Decisions of International Courts and Tribunals. In: Wolfrum R., Röben V. (eds) Legitimacy in International Law. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008: 169–188. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77764-9_9