Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2021 pp 253–273Cite as

Hagia Sophia at ICSID? The Limits of Sovereign Discretion

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((EUROYEAR,volume 12))

Abstract

The paper focuses on an underdeveloped area of jurisprudence in international economic law, that of the remit of sovereign discretion on cultural and religious grounds when it intersects with investor protections under international law. This aspect of public policy that relates to culture and religion contains issues frequently left unexplored by investment tribunal jurisprudence. An investigation on the limits of sovereign discretion on issues of religion and culture is the next frontier in debates on investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). The paper explores options in investment arbitration for foreign investors affected by changes brought about by sovereign decisions based on religious and cultural grounds, shedding light in this politically and emotionally charged corner of international economic law. This investigation therefore revisits the jurisprudence of international investment tribunals on expropriation, the meaning of fair and equitable treatment, exclusions from protection based on public policy, or on grounds of national security. The paper initiates this discussion by investigating the possibility that the Switzerland-Turkey Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) of 1988 may offer bases for compensation to SICPA, the—until recently—operator of the Hagia Sophia museum in Istanbul, a world heritage site of global religious and cultural significance transformed again into an operational place of worship in 2020.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Dal A and Karadag K, Turkey: Court strikes down Hagia Sophia museum decree, Anadolu Agency, 10 July 2020, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/turkey/turkey-court-strikes-down-hagia-sophia-museum-decree/1906171.

  2. 2.

    UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, Nov. 16, 1972, 1037 U.N.T.S. 151.

  3. 3.

    Lixinski and Tzevelekos (2020).

  4. 4.

    Presidency of the Republic of Turkey Directorate of Communications, Presidential Decree on the opening of Hagia Sophia to worship promulgated on the Official Gazette (10 July 2020) https://www.iletisim.gov.tr/english/haberler/detay/presidential-decree-on-the-opening-of-hagia-sophia-to-worship-promulgated-on-the-official-gazette-of-the-republic-of-turkey/.

  5. 5.

    BIA News Desk, Will Turkey pay damages to the Swiss company for Hagia Sophia? (15 July 2020) bianet https://m.bianet.org/english/other/227459-will-turkey-pay-damages-to-the-swiss-company-for-hagia-sophia.

  6. 6.

    Governorship of Istanbul, The Most Visited Museums of Turkey: Hagia Sophia Museum (12 March 2020) http://en.istanbul.gov.tr/the-most-visited-museums-of-turkey-hagia-sophia-museum.

  7. 7.

    Editor, Swiss firm SICPA announces TL 5B investment in R&D in Turkey (6 April 2020) Daily Sabah https://www.dailysabah.com/business/swiss-firm-sicpa-announces-tl-5b-investment-in-rd-in-turkey/news.

  8. 8.

    Mavris, G. Hagia Sophia’s mosque conversion has Swiss fallout (17 July 2020) https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/the-hagia-sophia-s-reconversion-to-mosque-has-swiss-fallout/45910490.

  9. 9.

    Editor, Turkey Will Not Pay Compensation to Swiss Company For Hagia Sophia (7 November 2020) Akunq.net https://allinnet.info/news/turkey-will-not-pay-compensation/.

  10. 10.

    Giorgetti (2014).

  11. 11.

    Salacuse (2015), p. 26.

  12. 12.

    Glinavos (2018), p. 387.

  13. 13.

    Collins (2011), pp. 225–244.

  14. 14.

    Nagel v Czech Republic, SCC Case 49/2002, Award (9 September 2003), 2004(1) Stockholm Arb. Rep. 141.

  15. 15.

    Snodgrass (2006), p. 10.

  16. 16.

    Burgstaller (2021).

  17. 17.

    Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID Case No Arb/00/04).

  18. 18.

    Malaysian Historical Salvors SDN, BHD v Government of Malaysia ICSID Case N0. ARB/05/10.

  19. 19.

    Deutsche Bank AG v Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No ARB/09/02, Award (31 October 2012), para. 294.

  20. 20.

    Fedax N.V. v. The Republic of Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB/96/3, Award (9 March 1998).

  21. 21.

    Garcia, A. ICSID tribunal considers Salini criteria (27 March 2013) UK Practical Law uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/9-525-4681?__lrTS=20170608091923938.

  22. 22.

    Inmaris Perestroika Sailing Maritime Services GmbH and Others v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/8.

  23. 23.

    Tokios Tokelés v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/18.

  24. 24.

    Methanex Corporation v. United States of America, UNCITRAL, Award (3 August 2005).

  25. 25.

    UNCTAD, ‘ISDS: UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements II’ (United Nations 2012) 33 http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaeia2013d2_en.pdf.

  26. 26.

    CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8).

  27. 27.

    Burlington Resources, Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5.

  28. 28.

    Waelde (1996), p. 429.

  29. 29.

    Wagner (1999), p. 518.

  30. 30.

    Aldrich (1994), p. 609.

  31. 31.

    Baughen (2006), p. 208.

  32. 32.

    US: 1978, 438 US 104 Penn Central Transportation v City of New York.

  33. 33.

    Glinavos (2011), p. 73.

  34. 34.

    Metalclad Corporation v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/97/1.

  35. 35.

    Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/84/3.

  36. 36.

    Wena Hotels Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4.

  37. 37.

    Consortium R.F.C.C. v. Kingdom of Morocco ICSID Case No. ARB/00/6.

  38. 38.

    Impregilo S.p.A. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan ICSID Case No. ARB/03/3.

  39. 39.

    Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi A.S. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/29.

  40. 40.

    Mondev International Ltd. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/2.

  41. 41.

    Ronald S. Lauder v. The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Final Award of 3 September 2001.

  42. 42.

    Eiser Infrastructure Limited and Energı’a Solar Luxembourg Sa’rl v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No ARB/13/36, para. 420.

  43. 43.

    Fry (2007), p. 85.

  44. 44.

    United Nations, Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries (2001) Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf.

  45. 45.

    Cohen-Smutny, A. Principles Relating to Compensation in the Investment Treaty Context’ (19 September 2006) IBA Annual Conference, 2 www.josemigueljudice-arbitration.com/xms/files/02_TEXTOS_ARBITRAGEM/01_Doutrina_ScolarsTexts/investment_arbitration/compensation_in_inv_treaties-_abbey_cohen_smutny.pdf.

  46. 46.

    Ripinsky (2015).

  47. 47.

    CMS Gas Transmission Company v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/8.

  48. 48.

    Devaney (2012).

  49. 49.

    OECD Indirect Expropriation and the Right to Regulation in International Investment Law (September 2004) OECD Working Papers on International Investment 2004/4 https://doi.org/10.1787/780155872321.

  50. 50.

    Devaney (2012), p. 12.

  51. 51.

    Wendrich (2005).

  52. 52.

    Glinavos (2014), pp. 475–497.

  53. 53.

    Glinavos (2020), p. 26.

  54. 54.

    Claros (2015).

  55. 55.

    Borelli and Lenzerini (2012).

  56. 56.

    Claros (2015), p. 4.

  57. 57.

    Ziff (2010–2011), p. 45.

  58. 58.

    International Law Commission, Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 2001 http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/rsiwa/rsiwa.html.

  59. 59.

    Von Burke-White and Staden (2008), pp. 307–410.

  60. 60.

    Wang (2017), p. 448.

  61. 61.

    Collins (2011), p. 578.

  62. 62.

    See United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Report of the Appellate Body WT/DS58/AB/R (1998).

  63. 63.

    Posner (2007), p. 213.

  64. 64.

    Posner (2007), p. 224.

  65. 65.

    Francioni and Scheinin (2008), pp. 1–15.

  66. 66.

    Coase (1960), pp. 1–44.

  67. 67.

    Glinavos (2010).

  68. 68.

    Posner (2007), p. 222.

  69. 69.

    Hartigan (1983).

  70. 70.

    Merryman 1986), p. 833.

  71. 71.

    Merryman (1986), p. 839.

  72. 72.

    Toman (1996).

  73. 73.

    Vadi (2011), p. 806.

  74. 74.

    Pokorny (2002), p. 356.

  75. 75.

    United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, G.A. Res. 61/295, U.N. Doc. A/RES/61/295 (Sept. 13, 2007), 46 I.L.M. 1013 (2007).

  76. 76.

    See https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/356.

  77. 77.

    Vadi (2008), p. 2.

  78. 78.

    Vadi (2009), pp. 593–96

  79. 79.

    Parkerings-Compagniet AS v Lithuania ICSID Case N0. ARB/05/08.

  80. 80.

    Glamis Gold v United States of America (Award, 8 June 2009) NAFTA/UNCITRAL Arbitration.

  81. 81.

    Vadi, V. Culture Clash: Investor’s Rights v. Cultural Heritage in International Investment Law & Arbitration (2012) Society of International Economic Law, Online Proceedings Working Paper No. 2012/07 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2087823, p. 13.

  82. 82.

    Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v Arab Republic of Egypt ICSID Case No. ARB/84/3.

  83. 83.

    Compañia del Desarrollo de Santa Elena S.A. v Republic of Costa Rica ICSID Case No. ARB/96/1.

  84. 84.

    Marion Unglaube and Reinhard Hans Unglaube v. Republic of Costa Rica ICSID Case No. ARB/09/20.

  85. 85.

    Poulsen, L et al., A Future Without (Treaty-Based) ISDS: Costs and Benefits, https://www.laugepoulsen.com/uploads/8/7/3/0/87306110/a_world_without_isds_-_bonnitcha_poulsen_yackee.pdf.

  86. 86.

    Von Burke-White and Staden (2008), p. 336.

  87. 87.

    Glinavos, I. In Praise of Limiting Democracy: a Defence of ISDS (27 June 18) Verfassungsblog https://verfassungsblog.de/in-praise-of-limiting-democracy-a-defense-of-isds/.

References

  • Aldrich G (1994) What constitutes a compensable taking of property? The decisions of the Iran-US claims tribunal. Am J Int Law 88(4):585–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baughen S (2006) Expropriation and environmental regulation: the lessons of NAFTA chapter 11. J Environ Law 18(2):207–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borelli S, Lenzerini F (2012) Cultural heritage, cultural rights, cultural diversity: new developments in international law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burgstaller M (2021) Definition of investment in international investment law. UK Practical Law. uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/7-501-5427

    Google Scholar 

  • Claros R (2015) Striking a balance between the protection of foreign investment and the safeguard of cultural heritage in international investment agreements. Working Paper No 08/2015, December, p 2. http://ssrn.com/abstract¼2712340

  • Coase R (1960) The problem of social cost. J Law Econ 3:1–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins D (2011) Applying the full protection and security standard of international investment law to digital assets. J World Invest Trade 12(2):225–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devaney M (2012) Leave it to the valuation experts? Society of International Economic Law, Working Paper 2012/06. www.researchgate.net/publication/251329944_Leave_it_to_the_Valuation_Experts_The_Remedies_Stage_of_Investment_Treaty_Arbitration_and_the_Balancing_of_Public_and_Private_Interests

    Google Scholar 

  • Francioni F, Scheinin M (2008) Cultural human rights. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fry J (2007) International human rights law in investment arbitration: evidence of international Law's Unity D. Duke J Comp Int Law 18(1):77–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Giorgetti C (2014) Litigating international investment disputes, a practitioner’s guide. Brill

    Google Scholar 

  • Glinavos I (2010) Neoliberalism and the law in post communist transition. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Glinavos I (2011) Investor protection v. state regulatory discretion. Eur J Law Reform 13(1):70–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Glinavos I (2014) Haircut undone? The Greek Drama and prospects for investment arbitration. J Int Disp Settlement 5(3):475–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glinavos I (2018) Brexit, the city and options for ISDS. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 33(2):380–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glinavos I (2020) Which way Huawei? ISDS options for Chinese investors. In: Chaisse J, Choukroune L, Jusoh S (eds) Handbook of international investment law and policy. Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartigan R (1983) Lieber's code and the law of war. Transaction Publisher

    Google Scholar 

  • Lixinski L, Tzevelekos V (2020) The Hagia Sophia, secularism, and international cultural heritage law. ASIL Insights 24(25). https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/24/issue/25/hagia-sophiasecularism-and-international-cultural-heritage-law

  • Merryman J (1986) Two ways of thinking about cultural property. Am J Int Law 80(4):831–853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pokorny D (2002) Property, culture, and cultural property. Constellations 9(3):356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner E (2007) International protection of cultural property: some skeptical observations. Chic J Int Law 8(1):213

    Google Scholar 

  • Ripinsky S (2015) Williams, K. Damages in international investment law. BIICL

    Google Scholar 

  • Salacuse J (2015) The law of investment treaties. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Snodgrass E (2006) Protecting investors’ legitimate expectations: recognizing and delimiting a general principle. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 21(1):1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toman J (1996) The protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict, Dartmouth and UNESCO, Aldershot and Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Vadi V (2008) Cultural heritage & international investment law: a stormy relationship. Int J Cult Prop 15

    Google Scholar 

  • Vadi V (2009) Fragmentation or cohesion? Investment versus cultural protection rules. J World Inv Trade 10:573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vadi V (2011) When cultures collide: foreign direct investment, natural resources, and indigenous heritage in international investment law. Columbia Human Rights Law Rev 42(3):797–890

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Burke-White W, Staden A (2008) Investment protection in extraordinary times: the interpretation and application of non-precluded measures provisions in BITs. Virginia J Int Law 48(2):307–410

    Google Scholar 

  • Waelde T (1996) Investment arbitration under the energy charter treaty. Arbitr Int 12(4):429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner M (1999) International investment, expropriation and environmental protection. Golden Gate Univ Law Rev 29:466

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang W (2017) The non-precluded measure type clause in international investment agreements. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 32(2):447–456

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendrich C (2005) The World Bank guidelines as a foundation for a global investment treaty: a problem-oriented approach. Transnatl Disp Manage 5

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziff R (2010–2011) The sovereign Debtor’s prison. Richmond J Global Law Bus 10(3):345

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Westminster, London, UK

    Ioannis Glinavos

Authors
  1. Ioannis Glinavos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ioannis Glinavos .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany

    Jelena Bäumler

  2. Bundeswehr University Munich, Neubiberg, Germany

    Christina Binder

  3. Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Marc Bungenberg

  4. University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany

    Markus Krajewski

  5. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Giesela Rühl

  6. University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

    Christian J. Tams

  7. Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany

    Jörg Philipp Terhechte

  8. Université de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Andreas R. Ziegler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Glinavos, I. (2022). Hagia Sophia at ICSID? The Limits of Sovereign Discretion. In: Bäumler, J., et al. European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2021. European Yearbook of International Economic Law, vol 12. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/8165_2021_78

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/8165_2021_78

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-05082-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-05083-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation