Download the PDF
Abstract:
While international investment law embodies some essential characteristics of transnational law, it also displays some distinctive features not shared by most other fields of transnational law (e.g., regulating long-term relations between two different types of actors). Questions concerning compliance/ non-compliance with investment arbitral awards have attracted significant attention from scholars and practitioners alike. Following a brief discussion on some notable traits of international investment law, this
contribution will focus on three international relations theoretical approaches explaining compliance or non-compliance with investment awards: the realist tradition (rooted in the rational choice model), the social constructivist perspective (significantly influenced by sociological scholarship), and the liberal approach (emphasizing the role of non-state actors and the type of political regime). The discussion on each theoretical perspective will briefly touch upon interactions between that particular approach and some emblematic features of transnational law. While one particular theoretical perspective may often play a more prominent role in explaining a specific instance of compliance/non-compliance, it is clear that no single approach captures all features involved in the complex process culminating in a decision to comply or refrain from complying with an investment award. Thus, this contribution concludes that employing a methodology that incorporates multiple theoretical approaches is more likely to provide a meaningful explanation for such multi-dimensional processes taking place in transnational law.
Submitted to Journal du Droit Transnational