Bibliographie sélective OHADA

Focusing on Bosnia and Herzegovina, this study examines how diasporas contribute to the creation of foreign direct investment (FDI) in developing countries. It defines FDI as the acquirement over assets in a foreign nation and highlights how diaspora populations support investment flows. It also examines diaspora investment strategies, such as diaspora portfolio investment (DPI) and diaspora direct investment (DDI), and offers a historical overview of diaspora FDI patterns and how Bosnia and Herzegovina's policies are changing to engage its diaspora more.One case study illustrates the impact of diaspora-led FDI by highlighting the success of Senad Šantić, a Bosnian entrepreneur who returned to his home country to start a tech company. While these investments support development and economic growth, there are still issues, like the possibility of putting one's own interests ahead of the interests of the economy as a whole. Particularly in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where diaspora participation has historically been low, the implementation of effective policies and procedures is crucial, especially from a regulation perspective.The study also looks at the future of FDI, emphasizing the part that digital technology and new investment patterns will play. Opportunities for developing nations can be found in digital FDI, especially in industries like fintech and e-commerce, yet obstacles still exist in luring these investments. According to all the findings, developing nations can improve their chances for economic success by creating an atmosphere that encourages diaspora investment which will shift those nations into the global investment scene. Ultimately, FDI regulations and government programs are needed in order to fully utilize diaspora-led FDI for sustained growth.

This study provides an in-depth look at the complex relationship between business environments and foreign direct investment. The study examines this critical issue by focusing on emerging economies, such as Kosovo. In this research, analytical and empirical research methods have used to highlight the importance of FDI in promoting economic growth. FDI not only increases production capacity but also supports economic growth by increasing purchasing power and creating employment opportunities, especially in countries in transition. This analysis distinguishes between endogenous and exogenous variables to classify the various elements of the business environment. It is important to emphasize how a supportive business environment plays a vital role in attracting investment. The main factors affecting FDI include infrastructure quality, political stability, workforce skills, market potential and tax incentives. These initiatives are critical to creating a more favorable investment climate.As a result of the variables the study concludes by emphasizing the need for continuous reforms to strengthen the business environment. Such strategic efforts are crucial to optimize FDI flows and advance sustainable economic development. By strengthening regulatory frameworks and improving infrastructure, developing countries can be in better position itself to attract foreign investors. Furthermore, creating a strong business environment can also support the development of local entrepreneurs, increasing economic diversification. As a result, it not only facilitates the flow of capital, but also contributes to the long-term stability and growth of the national economy. Therefore, policymakers and governments need to prioritize these initiatives and develop comprehensive and sustainable strategies to improve the business environment.

The study explores the reaction of stock markets to anticipated or unexpected rating announcements by the market in a crisis context by conducting an empirical study on the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) stock market over the period from December 2010 to August 2022. The results show that the crisis context support the anticipation of bad ratings and neutral ratings as opposed to good ratings. These results validate the asymmetry in investor reaction to announcements of anticipated rating downgrades compared with announcements of upgrades in times of crisis. This reaction highlights the irrational behave of investors in times of crisis. In fact, when investors detect a risk concerning the financial situation of a stock, they anticipate a downgrade and react quickly, even before the official announcement of the downgrade, by selling their shares on masse. This action will cause the share price to fall. Similarly, the market’s weak reaction to early good announcements is explained by the fact that this type of announcement does not provide them with any unknown information to guide their financial decisions.

This study investigates the impact of the arbitration cases under the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) scheme on cross-border direct investment in the form of merger and acquisition deals. The initiation of ISDS claims has significant and negative effects on direct investment from the claimant home country to the developing or weak-institution responding country. Indirect expropriation claims often have stronger effects than direct expropriation claims. The investor-win arbitration cases produce a significant substantiation effect by reducing merger flows, while the state-win cases produce an acquittal effect that encourages the subsequent capital inflow to the respondent state. Both effects are more striking in weak-institution or less developed target countries. We also detect some spillover effects of ISDS arbitration.

L’objectif de cette étude est de déterminer les facteurs influençant le comportement d’investissement des entreprises camerounaises par une approche microéconomique. En effet, malgré un taux de profit élevé (l’EBE représente environ 60% de la valeur ajoutée), le taux d'investissement privé au Cameroun demeure très faible (18% du PIB) et risque de compromettre l'atteinte du stade de pays émergent à l'horizon 2035. En se basant sur le modèle théorique accélérateur-profit, nous avons estimé un modèle de panel dynamique grâce aux données de 381 entreprises sur la période 2015-2022, par la méthode des moments généralisés (GMM). Les résultats obtenus identifient la demande sur le marché (effet accélérateur) comme principal facteur qui agit positivement et significativement sur l’investissement. A contrario, le profit, la dette ou les capitaux propres n’ont pas une influence significative sur le comportement d’investissement des entreprises camerounaises. En outre, même en cas de demande importante, le comportement d’investissement des entreprises camerounaises est influencé par leur statut juridique, leur taille, leur activité principale et l’état sécuritaire de la zone d’implantation. Cela illustre à souhait l’importance d’améliorer l’environnement des affaires et d’encourager les entreprises camerounaises à muter vers des modes d’organisation leur garantissant non seulement un développement rapide mais aussi une pérennisation. The aim of this study is to determine the factors influencing the investment behavior of Cameroonian companies, using a microeconomic approach. Indeed, despite a high profit rate (EBITDA represents around 60% of value added), the private investment rate remains very low (18% of GDP) and risks compromising the country's ability to reach the stage of an emerging country by 2035. The covid 19 crisis, the Boko Haram security crisis in the northern part of the country and the secessionist crisis in the English-speaking regions all add to an already unfavourable business climate. These observations lead us to reflect further on the factors that explain the investment behavior of Cameroonian companies. Based on the theoretical accelerator-profit model, we estimated a dynamic panel model using data from 381 companies over the period 2015-2022, using the generalized method of moments (GMM). The results obtained identify market demand (accelerator-effect) as the main factor acting positively and significantly on investment. Conversely, profit, debt or equity do not have a significant influence on the investment behavior of Cameroonian companies. Other variables such as the company's legal status, size and activity also have an effect on investment. The company's geographical location in a zone of insecurity, such as the northern and western regions of Cameroon, also has a negative effect on investment behavior, no doubt due to the uncertainty and irreversible nature of the investment.

La conclusion des accords de promotion et de protection des investissements a pour fonction d’augmenter significativement les investissements directs étrangers dans les pays en développement afin de les sortir du sous-développement. Ces accords sont donc envisagés comme la panacée contre le sous-développement en raison de l’échec des solutions traditionnelles de lutte contre le sous-développement. Cependant, fort est de constater que le développement auxquels ils renvoient ne peut être élevé au rang d’une véritable obligation juridique dans la mesure où la notion de développement est elle-même est ancré dans la soft law.

International investment agreements employ dispute settlement procedures that differ markedly from their counterparts in trade agreements. A prominent and controversial difference arises with respect to the issue of “standing”: Who has the right to complain to adjudicators about a violation of the agreement? While trade agreements limit standing to the member governments (state-to-state dispute settlement), investment agreements routinely extend standing to private investors as well (investor-state dispute settlement). We develop parallel models of trade and investment agreements and employ them to study this difference. We find that the difference in standing between trade and investment agreements can be understood as deriving from the fundamentally different problems that these agreements are designed to solve. Our analysis also identifies some important qualifications to the case for including investor-state dispute settlement provisions in investment agreements, thereby offering a potential explanation for the strong political controversy associated with these provisions.

This article argues for a fundamental raison d'être reconceptualization of international investment law (IIL) through Martha Fineman's 'vulnerability theory'. The theory helps identify the structural sources of IIL's shortcomings, whilst philosophically challenging the one-sided view that foreign investors are entitled to protections, but are free from obligations vis-à-vis the communities affected by their undertakings. Emphasizing the productive power of the state to take positive action that acknowledges ordinary citizens' embeddedness within, and dependence upon, surrounding structures, the vulnerability theory challenges the hegemonic perception of the state as a source of danger - a view which has hitherto undermined both the potency and the enforceability of investor obligations. Used as a heuristic device in studying both IIL's existing structures and the potential avenues for reimagining it, Fineman's theory not only shines a novel light on the foundational premises of IIL, but also grants theoretical traction to existing ideas about improving the system.

Private investors’ land rights vary from country to country, depending on the legal system in place. The degree of openness of land laws determines the degree to which both domestic and foreign investors are attracted, as the latter aims to invest in countries with legal systems offering the most secure and sustainable interests. How can Congolese land laws be made more attractive to private investors in the real estate sector? Using exegetical and comparative methods, we will test our hypothesis that reform to increase the rights of private national and foreign investors to access land would be an asset. By comparing Congolese land law with other legal systems, and with current social and economic realities, we have concluded that accommodating land rights is a prerequisite for increasing both domestic and foreign private investment in real estate and an essential step towards boosting and modernizing real estate investment in the DRC.

It is trite that environmental challenges remain one of the major global concerns and no doubt of great impact on human existence and wellbeing. This impact is a result of human activities on the natural ecosystem. This article examines the legal framework by the Nigerian state in regulating the activities of the multinational investors in the oil and gas industry in the Niger Delta region of the country. It discusses the international, regional, and national legal framework in the protection of environment and environmental rights of the host community and foreign direct investment rights. The author demonstrates the imbalance in the protection of environmental and foreign direct investment rights from which suggestions are made towards correcting this injustice as caused by the existing legal framework.

International investment law is facing a legitimacy crisis, in which to tackle, substantial efforts are being made in structural and procedural areas. The first step to overcoming this crisis is identifying the roots of it. The lack of a dynamic balance between public and private interests is one of the main factors creating this legitimacy crisis in this legal system.[1] This paper focuses on the changes in the investment arbitration jurisprudence to create this balance. The findings of this paper can explain one of the convergence points of international trade and investment law. Such a claim is based on the evolution of international trade law in facing a similar legitimacy issue and the structural-procedural approach of this legal system in balancing public and private interests as an ultimate solution to the crisis.[2] From this perspective, one of the major factors in creating a legitimacy crisis in both legal systems is the dominance of the paradigm for preference of private interests; and one of the convergence points of international trade and investment law has been to replace it by accepting the paradigm of creating a dynamic balance between competing goals.[3] This paper examines this convergence in arbitral jurisprudence.IntroductionIn recent years, the legitimacy crisis of the regime of international investment law and, as a result, the investor-state dispute settlement system has been one of the most important and controversial topics in the academic environment and the practice of states consequently, serious efforts in various fields to tackle this crisis have begun. According to this paper, choosing an arbitration mechanism modeled on international commercial arbitration to resolve disputes between host states and foreign investors can be evaluated as a wrong and hasty action that, regardless of its factors and contexts, has changed the nature and function of this system over time.[4] It should be noted that the main factor in such consequences is how this dispute resolution system is used which, contrary to the accepted model, always puts the host states in a "respondent" position in possible future disputes and, as a result, disrupts the balance expected in any international dispute settlement system. On this basis, the confrontation of the host state's sovereign competence in ensuring public interests with the foreign investors’ ability to challenge this competence is brought into the spotlight: currently, within the regime of international investment law, host states have only responsibilities and obligations in contrast to extensive and exclusive rights and privileges recognized for foreign investors, and this can be considered as the most important factor disturbing the said balance. The main issue in this field is to analyze the role of the investment arbitral tribunals in creating such a balance. In this regard, the authors, by focusing on the nature of investment treaties, and the relations between the parties in investment disputes and with emphasis on the general legal regime governing international investment, consider creating a dynamic balance between public and private interests to be the key to solving the crisis. They emphasize that; As long as the rights and obligations of the parties to the dispute are based on imbalanced grounds, the change in nature of the disputes and the function of the system -as the main roots of this legitimacy crisis - will remain. In this remark, it is very important to focus on the two-sided nature (public-private) of the relationships established in the framework of investment treaties. The relationship between the host state and the foreign investor is created within the framework of investment treaties and in light of fundamental differences from purely private relationships in international commercial arbitration.[5] Note that any dispute arising from this relationship is affected by its inherently public nature governed by public international law.[6] Thus, a purely private attitude towards these relations does not seem viable. As Ian Brownlie has stated in the case of SME v. the Czech Republic, it can lead to ignoring some of the basic elements of the relevant investment treaty.[7] In other words, the right and duty of the host state in protecting and promoting public interests is a fundamental part of this relationship, and any indulgence of it leads to a serious disruption of the mentioned balance through which the system's legitimacy will be the first victim.It is clear that the main task of any dispute resolution system is to create such a balance, and on this basis, and compared to the WTO dispute resolution system, the role of the investment tribunals in this process is discussed. This jurisprudential convergence is in line with the goal of strengthening the legitimacy of the international investment law system as a whole.Based on the above, the first part of this paper focuses on the process of establishing the ISDS in international investment law and its characteristics, the factors of the crisis of legitimacy are analyzed with an analytical approach, while also explaining the nature of investment treaties and explaining the general legal regime governing international investment. Furthermore, the lack of a dynamic balance between public and private interests is emphasized as the main cause of the crisis. In the second part, while comparing the two legal systems of international trade and investment with a similar crisis of legitimacy, we will examine the interaction of investment arbitration with the WTO's jurisprudence in facing this crisis through a case study of several investment arbitral awards. [1]. David Gaukrodger, “The Balance between Investor Protection and the Right to Regulate in Investment Treaties: A Scooping Paperˮ, OECD Working Paper on International Investment 2017/02, at 4.[2]. Nicholas DiMascio & Joost Pauwelyn, “Non-Discrimination in Trade and Investment Treaties: Worlds apart or Two Sides of the Same Coin?”, AJIL, Vol. 102, No.1, (2008), at 89.[3]. Jurgen Kurtz and Sungioon Cho, “Convergence and Divergence in International Economic Law and Politics”, EJIL, Vol. 20, No. 1, (2018), at 187.[4]. Benedict Kingsbury & Stephan W. Schill, “Public Law Concepts to Balance Investor's Rights with State Regulatory Actions in the Public Interest - The Concept of Proportionalityˮ, In Schill Stephan W., International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (UK: Oxford University Press, 2010) at 76. [5]. Crina Baltag, “Reforming The ISDS System: In Search of a Balanced Approach?ˮ, Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal, Vol. 22, No. 2, (2019), at 285.[6]. Ibid.[7]. Andreas Kulick, “Sneaking Through Backdoor – Reflections on Public Interest in International Investment Arbitrationˮ, Arbitration International, Vol. 29, No. 3, (2013), at 438.

There is a growing stream of critics who see investment arbitration in favor of foreign investors and as a negative force as opposed to sustainable development. The phenomenon of third-party funding and its use in investment arbitration has increased such concerns. Third-party funding is basically the payment of all or a part of the arbitration costs of one of the parties of dispute by a third party funder which in return, the funder receives a percentage of the output of the award if successful. The purpose of this article is to explain and analyze the theoretical differences between pros and cons of third-party funding regarding the access to justice, screening mechanism for the claims, and the financial consequences on the host state. In this article, the advocates see third-party funding as a means of access to justice for aggrieved investors in investment claims, while the adversaries refering on the profitability of third-party funding, see this method in arbitration a form of wealth transfer from public sector to private corporations and also refer to the asymmetric structure of the investment arbitration regime as well as the risks arising from the transfer of management and control of arbitration process to the third party funders. یک جریان رو به رشدی از منتقدان وجود دارد که داوری سرمایه‌گذاری را به نفع سرمایه‌گذاران خارجی و بعنوان یک نیروی منفی در تضاد با توسعه پایدار می‌داند. پدیده تأمین مالی ثالث و بکارگیری آن در داوری سرمایه‌گذاری به این نگرانی‌ها افزوده است. تأمین مالی ثالث اساساً پرداخت تمام یا بخشی از هزینه‌های داوری یکی از طرفین دعوی توسط تأمین کننده شخص ثالث است که در ازای آن، تأمین کننده مالی درصدی از رأی صادره را در صورت پیروزی دریافت می‌نماید. هدف مقاله، تشریح و تحلیل اختلافات نظری موافقان و مخالفان تأمین مالی ثالث در خصوص دستیابی به عدالت، غربالگری دعاوی و تبعات مالی آن بر دولت است. در این مقاله موافقان، تأمین مالی ثالث را ابزاری جهت دستیابی به عدالت برای سرمایه‌گذاران زیان‌دیده در دعاوی سرمایه‌گذاری در نظر می‌گیرند در حالی که مخالفان با اتکا به اهداف سودآوری تأمین مالی ثالث، این روش را در داوری نوعی انتقال ثروت از بخش عمومی به بخش خصوصی می‌دانند و به ساختار نامتقارن رژیم داوری سرمایه‌گذاری و خطرات ناشی از انتقال مدیریت و کنترل فرایند داوری به تأمین کنندگان شخص ثالث نیز اشاره می‌نمایند.

The right to water in investment arbitration has been one of the most contentious issues before investment arbitration tribunals in recent decades. The privatization of public services, including water and sanitation, and assigning them to foreign investors has caused the right to water as a vital benefit being repeatedly raised in investment arbitrations. However, due to tribunals’ narrow interpretation of jurisdiction and applicable law, this fundamental human right has been considered irrelevant and ignored, and this has fueled the legitimacy crises in investment arbitration. This research seeks to indicate the potentiality of more protection of the right to water through balancing the states international obligations in the two areas of investment law and human rights law. Proposed methods for integrating human rights with investment law include the correct interpretation of jurisdictional clauses and the applicable law based on the treaties interpretation principles, systematic integration and the inclusion of new clauses in investment agreements. طرح حق بر آب در داوری سرمایه‌گذاری یکی از مناقشه‌انگیزترین مباحث پیش روی دیوان‌های داوری در چند دهه اخیر بوده است. خصوصی‌سازی خدمات عمومی از جمله آب و فاضلاب و سپردن آنها به سرمایه‌گذاران خارجی موجب شده تا حق بر آب بعنوان یک منفعت عمومی و حیاتی بارها در داوری‌های سرمایه‌گذاری مطرح شود. با تفسیر مضیق محاکم از شروط صلاحیتی و قانون حاکم، این حق بنیادین بشری در برخی موارد نامربوط و نادیده تلقی شده و این امر به بحران مشروعیت در داوری سرمایه‌گذاری دامن زده است. این جستار می‌کوشد تا امکان حمایت بیشتر از حق بر آب را از طریق برقراری تعادل بین تعهدات بین‌المللی دولت‌ها در دو عرصه حقوق سرمایه‌گذاری و حقوق بشر نشان دهد و در پایان روش‌هایی را برای ادغام این دو از جمله تفسیر درست شروط صلاحیتی و قانون حاکم با تکیه بر اصول تفسیر معاهدات، تلفیق سیستمیک و گنجاندن بندهای جدید در موافقتنامه‌های سرمایه‌گذاری پیشنهاد کند.

Sometimes foreign investors after the dispute have arisen or when it is predictable and with the intention of bringing the dispute to arbitration, change their nationality or acquire new nationality. The phenomenon called Nationality Planning eases foreign investors’ access to a desirable treaty and increases the chance of bringing disputes against host states.So host states try to avoid these disputes by raising objections to Ratione Temporis or claiming abuse of rights. Arbitration tribunals’ approach towards their Ratione Temporis and abuse of rights is material in host states’ success in limiting Nationality Planning. So the question to be answered is that what requirements are considered by arbitrations in determining Ratione Temporis and abuse of rights and how these two are different. Arbitral precedent shows that these tribunals make distinction between cases of nationality planning contrary to their Ratione Temporis and cases that are considered as abuse of rights. However, in practice their strict approach results in limited acceptation of objections to Ratione Temporis or abuse of rights claims. گاه سرمایه‌گذار خارجی پس از بروز اختلاف یا زمانی که اختلاف قابل پیش‌بینی است و به قصد طرح دعوی در مرجع داوری، اقدام به تغییر تابعیت یا کسب تابعیت جدید می‌نماید. این اقدام که برنامه‌ریزی تابعیت نام دارد، دسترسی سرمایه‌گذار خارجی به یک معاهده سرمایه‌گذاری مطلوب را تسهیل کرده و احتمال طرح دعوی علیه دولت میزبان را افزایش می‌دهد. از این‌رو دولت‌های میزبان تلاش می‌کنند با طرح ایراد به صلاحیت زمانی یا سوء استفاده از حق، مانع پذیرش چنین دعوایی شوند. رویکرد مراجع داوری در احراز صلاحیت زمانی خود و تشخیص موارد سوء استفاده از حق، در موفقیت یا عدم موفقیت دولت میزبان در مقابله با برنامه‌ریزی تابعیت تعیین‌کننده است. بنابراین باید به این پرسش پرداخته شود که مراجع داوری چه شرایطی را برای احراز صلاحیت زمانی و سوء استفاده از حق در نظر می‌گیرند و چگونه میان این دو تمایز قائل می‌شوند. رویه مراجع داوری حاکی از آن است که این مراجع میان مواردی از برنامه‌ریزی تابعیت که مانع صلاحیت زمانی آن‌هاست و مواردی که سوء استفاده از حق تلقی می‌گردد، تمایز قائل می‌شوند. هرچند رویکرد سخت‌گیرانه آنها در عمل موجب می‌شود تنها در موارد محدودی ایراد به صلاحیت زمانی یا ادعای سوء استفاده از حق مورد پذیرش واقع شود.

Measures taken by governments during armed conflict to safeguard their essential interests sometimes cause damages to foreign investors. The investors thus affected seek remedies in the arbitration tribunals invoking breach of host government obligations to protect investments. The host government also usually attempts to assert as defense non-precluded measures to prove its irresponsibility, or if it proves responsible, justify it by resorting to circumstances precluding wrongfulness in the customary international law. But since different courts do not consider the same requirements to invoke these rules, there is no certainty that the parties to the lawsuit will be able to invoke them and, as a result, the scope of government's obligations to protect the foreign investor during the armed conflict is obscure. To clarify the scope of the host government's obligations to protect the foreign investor during armed conflicts and balance the interests of the investor and the host government during the investment disputes arising from the armed conflict, this article explores the possibility and requirements of invoking circumstances precluding wrongfulness and non-precluded measures and the relationship between them. اقداماتی که دولت‌ها در زمان مخاصمات مسلحانه در جهت حفظ منافع اساسی خود انجام می‌دهند گاه موجب ورود خسارت به سرمایه‌گذاران خارجی می‌گردد. سرمایه‌گذاران آسیب‌دیده در محاکم داوری با استناد به نقض تعهدات حمایتی توسط دولت میزبان، خسارات وارده به خود را طلب می‌نمایند. دولت میزبان نیز معمولاً برای اثبات عدم مسئولیت خود به شرط اقدامات منع نشده مندرج در معاهده سرمایه‌گذاری استناد می‌کند و یا در صورت اثبات مسئولیت، به منظور توجیه آن به معاذیر رافع وصف متخلفانه در حقوق بین‌الملل عرفی متوسل می‌شود. اما از آنجا که محاکم مختلف، شرایط یکسانی را جهت استناد کشور میزبان به شرط اقدامات منع نشده و معاذیر رافع وصف متخلفانه در نظر نمی‌گیرند، قطعیتی در امکان استناد به آن‌ها وجود ندارد. در نتیجه، قلمرو تعهد دولت به حمایت از سرمایه‌گذار خارجی در زمان مخاصمات مسلحانه در هاله‌ای از ابهام فرو رفته است. این مقاله با هدف روشن ساختن قلمرو تعهد دولت میزبان به حفاظت از سرمایه‌گذار خارجی در هنگام مخاصمات مسلحانه و به منظور توازن منافع سرمایه‌گذار و دولت میزبان در دعاوی سرمایه‌گذاری ناشی از مخاصمات مسلحانه، امکان و الزامات استناد کشور میزبان به معاذیر عرفی رافع وصف متخلفانه و شرط اقدامات منع نشده و ارتباط میان آنها را مشخص می‌نماید

The attributability of actions to states within the context of investment treaty disputes and to focus on the roles played by international and domestic laws in such attributions have caught the attention of jurists in recent years. The ILC Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, and particularly, article 3 points to the main outcome of this debate, where it does not consider domestic law irrelevant in internationally wrongful acts and stipulates that the issue is subject to international law and it will take into account the relevance of domestic law. Thus, although the characterization of an act of a State as internationally wrongful is an independent function of international law and such characterization is not affected by the characterization of the same act as lawful by domestic law, it does not mean that domestic law is irrelevant to such description; on the contrary, it may be related in various ways. The present article attempts to examine the challenging junction of domestic and international law with regard to the attributability of actions taken within the framework of investment treaties, specifically by state-owned and para-statal entities that exercise elements of state authority. قابلیت انتساب عمل به دولت در چارچوب اختلافات معاهده‌ سرمایه‌گذاری و تمرکز بر نقش‌هایی که حقوق بین‌الملل و حقوق داخلی در چنین انتسابی ایفا ‌می‌نمایند در زمره‌ مباحثی است که در سال‌های اخیر بسیار مورد ‌توجه حقوقدانان بوده و ماده 3 مواد کمیسیون حقوق بین‌الملل در ارتباط با مسئولیت دولت‌ها نیز بیانگر پیامد اصلی این بحث است که فی‌الواقع، حقوق داخلی را با مسأله متخلفانه بودن اعمال از حیث بین‌المللی بی‌ارتباط تلقی ‌ننموده، بلکه مقرر ‌می‌دارد مسئله مورد بحث، تابع حقوق بین‌الملل است لیکن حقوق بین‌الملل نیز خود تا حدِ ارتباط، حقوق داخلی را در نظر خواهد گرفت. بنابراین اگرچه توصیف خصوصیات یک عمل به عنوان عملی غیرقانونی از عملکردهای مستقل حقوق بین‌الملل است که تحت ‌تأثیر توصیف خصوصیات این عمل بموجب حقوق داخلی قرار نمی‌گیرد لیکن این گفته بدین معنی نیست که حقوق داخلی با توصیف عمل متخلفانه‌ بین‌المللی بی‌ارتباط ‌است؛ بالعکس، ممکن ‌است به طرق مختلفی به آن مرتبط‌ باشد. در این مقاله سعی بر‌ آن است که تلاقی چالش‌برانگیز حقوق داخلی و حقوق بین‌الملل در بحث قابلیت انتساب اعمال ‌صورت ‌گرفته در چارچوب معاهدات سرمایه‌گذاری توسط ارگان‌های دولتی و نهادهای نیمه‌دولتی که عناصر اختیارات دولتی را اعمال می‌نمایند مورد واکاوی قرار‌ گیرد.

Patents are considered as investments protected under the International Investment Law. Although, these properties are protected under the principle of territoriality, similar to other investments, they can be expropriated as a result of host states’ regulatory measures inconsistent with protection standards stemming from foreign investment protection regulations and treaties including fair and equitable treatment and legitimate expectations of foreign investors. Considering the fact that few arbitration awards have been issued by arbitration panels in this regard, it is yet difficult to claim there is a strong precedent in International Investment Law. Nevertheless, reflecting the provisions of international regulations, the stance of the domestic law and the most important relevant case, this article provides the most significant elements of indirect expropriation as well as existing doctrines in this respect and further investigates whether invalidation of patents can amount to indirect expropriation. It will also be mentioned that despite the fact that according to several foreign investment protection treaties, invalidation of patents shall not be subject to regulations regarding indirect or creeping expropriation, the final determination lies with the arbitration panel. یکی از مصادیق سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی مورد حمایت در حقوق بین‌الملل سرمایه‌گذاری، اختراعات است. این دسته از دارایی‌ها علی‌رغم به رسمیت شناخته شدن در پرتو اصل سرزمینی بودن حمایت، همانند سایر سرمایه‌گذاری‌ها می‌توانند تحت تدابیر حاکمیتی دول میزبان که مغایر با استانداردهای حمایتی نشأت گرفته از قوانین و معاهدات بین‌المللی حمایت از سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی همچون شرط رفتار عادلانه و منصفانه و صیانت از انتظارات مشروع و معقول سرمایه‌گذار می‌باشند، با خطراتی همچون سلب مالکیت مواجه شوند. نظر به صدور آرای معدود مراجع بین‌المللی در این خصوص، سخن گفتن از شکل‌گیری رویه‌ای متقن در این راستا دشوار می‌باشد. با این حال، در این نوشتار ضمن بررسی مهمترین عناصر متشکله سلب مالکیت غیرمستقیم و دکترین‌های موجود در این زمینه، به بررسی قابلیت تطبیق ابطال گواهی ثبت اختراع با سلب مالکیت غیرمستقیم پرداخته و با تشریح مقررات برخی اسناد بین‌المللی، موضع حقوق داخلی و مهم‌ترین پرونده مربوط به این موضوع در حقوق سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی در ابعاد گوناگون آن مداقه نموده و در نهایت به این نتیجه خواهیم رسید که حتی در صورت مستثنی نمودن ابطال گواهی ثبت اختراع از مقررات مربوط به سلب مالکیت در معاهدات حمایت از سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی، تشخیص نهایی تحقق سلب مالکیت با دیوان داوری است.