Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Regulating Multinational Enterprises

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2016

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((EUROYEAR,volume 7))

Abstract

Multinational Enterprises (MNEs) were, until relatively recently, deemed to be outside the purview of International Economic Law (IEL). More recently this has changed. MNEs are visible and much of the contemporary agenda of IEL concerns the facilitation of their operations, specifically, through the increasing integration of trade and investment issues in new generation Preferential Trade and Investment Agreements (PTIAs). These developments have created growing worries over the loss of sovereignty by States and have prompted the rise of a critical alternative position that seeks to rebalance IEL towards a re-assertion of State regulatory power and of values other than the purely economic values. Here Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), or Civil Society Groups (CSGs), play a significant role seeking to curb what they perceive as unaccountable excesses of corporate power supported by the retreat of the State from regulatory control. This trend does not obviate the need to address issues of distributive justice, social solidarity and sustainable development that challenge any purely facilitative calculation about corporate freedoms. It requires action to rebalance both domestic and international rules concerning the operations of MNEs and to reign in corporate excesses. The problem is how to do this if the State remains wedded to the core idea of market liberalisation and corporate freedom. This paper will seek to unravel this conundrum in the context of the development of PTIAs and their impact on MNE regulation.

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

Access this chapter

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 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a fuller discussion see Muchlinski (2012a).

  2. 2.

    For a general discussion of the nature of contemporary international economic law see further the collection of articles in JIEL (2014). It is striking that this collection does not include a paper specifically dedicated to international investment law or MNE regulation, though aspects of these issues are discussed in the contributions. For a socio-legal perspective see further Perry-Kessaris (2013).

  3. 3.

    For a wider discussion of market promoting legal measures, covering both international and domestic developments, see Muchlinski (2011b).

  4. 4.

    See further Joubin-Bret (2013), p. 289 and UNCTAD (2014) World Investment Report 2014 http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2014_en.pdf (last accessed 22 July 2015), pp. 118–124.

  5. 5.

    For a full discussion see Muchlinski (2013a), pp. 286–304.

  6. 6.

    Muchlinski (2011a), p. 671.

  7. 7.

    See UNCTAD (2014) World Investment Report 2014 http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2014_en.pdf (last accessed 17 August 2015), pp. 106–114; UNCTAD (2015) World Investment Report 2015. http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2015_en.pdf (last accessed 17 August 2015), pp. 102–104.

  8. 8.

    Muchlinski (2011a), p. 672.

  9. 9.

    Muchlinski (2011a), pp. 672–673 and see too Muchlinski (2007), pp. 33–34.

  10. 10.

    Muchlinski (2007), p. 35. The role of competition law in this process is harder to determine, Muchlinski (2007), p. 35.

  11. 11.

    Muchlinski (2007), pp. 219–237.

  12. 12.

    Muchlinski (2011a), p. 674. Of course this does not preclude violations of basic labour standards in certain cases: see further Muchlinski (2007), ch. 12.

  13. 13.

    On the conceptual separation of trade from investment issues see further Muchlinski (2012b), pp. 56–60. See too Hofmann et al. (2013), p. 9.

  14. 14.

    Hofmann et al. (2013), p. 10. See further UNCTAD (2012) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development. UN Pub. UNCTAD/DIAE/PCB/2012/5, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaepcb2012d5_en.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015); UNCTAD (2015) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development UNCTAD/WEB/DIAE/PCB/2015/3, http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Upload/Documents/INVESTMENT%20POLICY%20FRAME WORK%202015%20WEB_VERSION.pdf (last accessed 13 August 2015); VanDuzer A, Simons P, Mayeda G (2012) Integrating Sustainable Development into International Investment Agreements: A Guide for Developing Countries, http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2012/6th_annual_forum_commonwealth_guide.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015), also published as VanDuzer et al. (2013). See too OECD Informal Ministerial Meeting on Responsible Business Conduct Investment Treaty Law, Sustainable Development and Responsible Business Conduct: A Fact Finding Survey http://www.oecd.org/investment/2014RBCMinisterial-TreatyRBC.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015).

  15. 15.

    See Johnston and Trebilcock (2013), p. 243.

  16. 16.

    UNCTAD (2014) World Investment Report 2014 http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2014_en.pdf (last accessed 17 August 2015), p. 114. See too Bungenberg (2013), Berger (2013), Tevini (2013) and Joubin-Bret (2013) that analyse the legal impact of PTIA provisions and on regional development. According to the UNCTAD (2015) World Investment Report 2015. http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2015_en.pdf (last accessed 17 August 2015), p. 106, by the end of 2014, 31 new IIAs were concluded, of which 18 are BITs and 13 are “other IIAs” bringing the overall total to 3271 (2926 BITs and 345 “other IIAs”) by year-end with the annual number of BITs continuing to decline.

  17. 17.

    UNCTAD (2014) World Investment Report 2014 http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2014_en.pdf (last accessed 17 August 2015), p. 115. These include the Canada-Honduras Free Trade Agreement (FTA), The China-Iceland FTA Columbia’s FTAs with Costa Rica, Israel, The Republic of Korea and Panama, and New Zealand’s FTA with Taiwan.

  18. 18.

    China-Switzerland FTA and EFTA-Costa Rica-Panama FTA: UNCTAD (2014) World Investment Report 2014 http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2014_en.pdf (last accessed 17 August 2015), p. 115.

  19. 19.

    Chile-Thailand FTA, EFTA-Bosnia and Herzegovina FTA, US trade and investment framework agreements signed with the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), Myanmar and Libya: UNCTAD (2014) World Investment Report 2014 http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2014_en.pdf (last accessed 17 August 2015). p. 115.

  20. 20.

    UNCTAD (2014) World Investment Report 2014 http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2014_en.pdf (last accessed 17 August 2015).

  21. 21.

    UNCTAD (2014) World Investment Report 2014 http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2014_en.pdf (last accessed 17 August 2015).

  22. 22.

    UNCTAD (2014) World Investment Report 2014 http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2014_en.pdf (last accessed 17 August 2015), pp. 118–124 on which this account draws.

  23. 23.

    UNCTAD (2014) World Investment Report 2014 http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2014_en.pdf (last accessed 17 August 2015), pp. 118–119. UNCTAD asserts that some 88 countries are currently involved in negotiations for mega-regional agreements. See ibid Table III.5 for a selected list of the most important negotiations. The largest is the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) involving the ASEAN countries, Australia, China, Japan, India, the Republic of Korea and New Zealand, covering for close to half the global population. The TTIP is the biggest in economic terms covering 45 % of global GDP and in terms of global inward investment the TTP is the biggest.

  24. 24.

    UNCTAD (2014) World Investment Report 2014 http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2014_en.pdf (last accessed 17 August 2015), p. 118. See too UNCTAD (2015) World Investment Report 2015. http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2015_en.pdf (last accessed 17 August 2015), pp. 106–108.

  25. 25.

    CETA Consolidated text as of 26 September 2014, Articles X.4–X.7.

  26. 26.

    As regards performance requirements this follows the NAFTA approach and is also a novel development in European practice.

  27. 27.

    UNCTAD (2014) World Investment Report 2014 http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2014_en.pdf (last accessed 17 August 2015), p. 120. See, for an example of TRIPs related protection, CETA Chap. 22 Article 2, which states that the intellectual property rules in CETA complement the rights and obligations of the Contracting Parties in the TRIPs Agreement. On “TRIPs plus” protection see further Xiong (2012).

  28. 28.

    See Roffe (2010), p. 307.

  29. 29.

    WT/MIN(01)/DEC/2 20 November 2001 http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min01_e/mindecl_trips_e.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015) as amended by Implementation of paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and public health Decision of the General Council of 30 August 2003 GENERAL COUNCIL WT/L/540 and Corr.1 1 September 2003 http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/implem_para6_e.htm (last accessed 20 July 2015) and Amendment of the TRIPS Agreement GENERAL COUNCIL WT/L/641 8 December 2005 Decision of 6 December 2005 at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/wtl641_e.htm (last accessed 20 July 2015) amending Art.31(f) of the TRIPs Agreement by way of Article 31bis which excludes the operation of Art.31(f) for exporting Members who supply pharmaceuticals to eligible non-producing Members.

  30. 30.

    The Doha Declaration is specifically mentioned in CETA in Chap. 22 Article 3.

  31. 31.

    UNCTAD (2014) World Investment Report 2014 http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2014_en.pdf (last accessed 17 August 2015), p. 120.

  32. 32.

    Khan U, Pallot R, Taylor D, Kanavos P (2015) The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: International Trade Law, Health Systems and Public Health. London School of Economics and Political Science, http://www.epha.org/IMG/pdf/LSE_study-TTIP_International_Trade_Law_Health_Systems_and_Public_Health_website.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015), p. 9 and see pp. 41–42.

  33. 33.

    See for example Hilary J (2015) What is TTIP? War on Want, http://www.waronwant.org/campaigns/trade-justice/more/inform/18078-what-is-ttip (last accessed 20 July 2015).

  34. 34.

    See for example the UK Universities and College Union (2014) The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: What it is and why we Should be Worried http://www.ucu.org.uk/media/pdf/6/n/ucu_translantictradebriefing_jan14.pdf (last accessed 21 July 2015); European Trade Union Committee for Education (2015) Will Education Services be Covered by the TTIP? http://www.csee-etuce.org/en/actions/campaigns/exclude-education-from-ttip/262-what-is-the-ttip#Will education services be covered by the TTIP? (last accessed 21 July 2015).

  35. 35.

    Khan U, Pallot R, Taylor D, Kanavos P (2015) The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: International Trade Law, Health Systems and Public Health. London School of Economics and Political Science, http://www.epha.org/IMG/pdf/LSE_study-TTIP_International_Trade_Law_Health_Systems_and_Public_Health_website.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015), p. 9. See too EU (2015) About TTIP—Basics, Benefits, Concerns http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/about-ttip/questions-and-answers/index_en.htm (last accessed 21 July 2015), EU (2015) Protecting Public Services in TTIP and Other EU Trade Agreements at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1115&title=Protecting-public-services-in-TTIP-and-other-EU-trade-agreements (last accessed 21 July 2015).

  36. 36.

    CETA.

  37. 37.

    CETA.

  38. 38.

    See further for example Osgoode Hall Law School Public Statement on the International Investment Regime 31 August 2010 http://www.osgoode.yorku.ca/public_statement (last accessed 21 July 2015).

  39. 39.

    UNCTAD (2012) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development. UN Pub. UNCTAD/DIAE/PCB/2012/5, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaepcb2012d5_en.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015), UNCTAD (2015) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development UNCTAD/WEB/DIAE/PCB/2015/3, http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Upload/Documents/INVESTMENT%20POLICY%20FRAMEWORK%202015%20WEB_VERSION.pdf (last accessed 13 August 2015) and UNCTAD (2015) World Investment Report 2015. http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2015_en.pdf (last accessed 17 August 2015), Ch.IV.

  40. 40.

    UNCTAD (2012) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development. UN Pub. UNCTAD/DIAE/PCB/2012/5, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaepcb2012d5_en.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015), pp. 39–40.

  41. 41.

    UNCTAD (2012) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development. UN Pub. UNCTAD/DIAE/PCB/2012/5, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaepcb2012d5_en.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015), p. 40.

  42. 42.

    UNCTAD (2012) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development. UN Pub. UNCTAD/DIAE/PCB/2012/5, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaepcb2012d5_en.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015), p. 40.

  43. 43.

    VanDuzer A, Simons P, Mayeda G (2012) Integrating Sustainable Development into International Investment Agreements: A Guide for Developing Countries, http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2012/6th_annual_forum_commonwealth_guide.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015).

  44. 44.

    VanDuzer A, Simons P, Mayeda G (2012) Integrating Sustainable Development into International Investment Agreements: A Guide for Developing Countries, http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2012/6th_annual_forum_commonwealth_guide.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015, p. 7.

  45. 45.

    VanDuzer A, Simons P, Mayeda G (2012) Integrating Sustainable Development into International Investment Agreements: A Guide for Developing Countries, http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2012/6th_annual_forum_commonwealth_guide.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015).

  46. 46.

    UNCTAD (2012) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development. UN Pub. UNCTAD/DIAE/PCB/2012/5, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaepcb2012d5_en.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015), p. 43; VanDuzer A, Simons P, Mayeda G (2012) Integrating Sustainable Development into International Investment Agreements: A Guide for Developing Countries, http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2012/6th_annual_forum_commonwealth_guide.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015), Section 4.5 ‘Dispute Settlement’.

  47. 47.

    This question is as pertinent in an acephalous society as it is in the modern centralised sovereign state. On which see further Smith (1974).

  48. 48.

    On which see further Muchlinski (2007) ch. 4 and Zerk J (2010) Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: Lessons for the Business and Human Rights Sphere from Six Regulatory Areas. A Report for the Harvard Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative to Help Inform the Mandate of the UNSG’s Special Representative on Business and Human Rights, Working Paper No. 59, http://www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/CSRI/publications/workingpaper_59_zerk.pdf (last accessed 21 July 2015).

  49. 49.

    A distinction is made between pure extraterritoriality, where the targeted actor has no direct or indirect presence or assets in the regulating jurisdiction, and the territorial exercise of jurisdiction with overseas impacts, where the targeted actor is present in the regulating jurisdiction, or has assets there, and the actor and/or the assets are involved in foreign conduct unlawful under the regulating state’s law: see further Zerk J (2010) Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: Lessons for the Business and Human Rights Sphere from Six Regulatory Areas. A Report for the Harvard Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative to Help Inform the Mandate of the UNSG’s Special Representative on Business and Human Rights, Working Paper No. 59, http://www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/CSRI/publications/workingpaper_59_zerk.pdf (last accessed 21 July 2015).

  50. 50.

    Vernon (1971). For a useful analysis see Korbin (2010), p. 183.

  51. 51.

    Kindleberger (1969), p. 207; Ball (1968).

  52. 52.

    See for example Miller (1973). By contrast, Seymour Rubin vocally denied that MNEs challenged the nation-state. Rather they appeared to be rather well controlled by it. However Rubin also accepted the need for at least an international forum in which the operations of MNEs could be discussed. See Rubin (1974).

  53. 53.

    See for example European Communities-United States Agreement on the Application of Their Competition Laws: 30 ILM 1487 (1991) as supplemented by the 1998 European Communities-United States Agreement on the Application of Positive Comity Principles in the Enforcement of Their Competition Laws Agreement of 4 June 1998, 37 ILM 1070 (1998).

  54. 54.

    Korbin (2010), p. 271; Rubin (1974) and see too Goldberg and Kindleberger (1970).

  55. 55.

    On which see Muchlinski (2007), p. 6.

  56. 56.

    See further UN Secretary General’s Group of Eminent Persons Report on The Role of MNEs on Development and International Relations 1974 UN Doc. E/5500/Add l (Part I) 24 May 1974: 13 ILM 800 (1974).

  57. 57.

    See Muchlinski (2000a), p. 97. See further Sagafi-Nejad (2008), chps 5 and 6.

  58. 58.

    See Muchlinski (2007), p. 118.

  59. 59.

    See generally Muchlinski (2007), ch 10 and pp. 72–75.

  60. 60.

    As argued by David Cameron when he vetoed the Euro zone pact in December 2011 on the grounds that he was defending City of London financial interests against excessive regulation: Traynor I, Watt N, Gow D, Wintour P, David Cameron Blocks EU Treaty with Veto, Casting Britain a Drift in Europe. The Guardian, 9 December 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/09/david-cameron-blocks-eu-treaty (last accessed 21 July 2015).

  61. 61.

    Amnesty International UK Business Group (1998).

  62. 62.

    On which see further Yaziji and Doh (2009).

  63. 63.

    On the MAI see further MAI Negotiating Text (as of 24 April 1998), http://unctad.org/sections/dite/iia/docs/Compendium/en/96%20volume%204.pdf (last accessed 22 July 2015). For background see: OECD (1996); Muchlinski (2000b); Fatouros (1995); Engering (1996); Picciotto and Mayne (1999); Picciotto (1998); Canner (1998); UNCTAD Lessons from the MAI Series on issues in international investment agreements (New York and Geneva, United Nations, 1999), http://unctad.org/en/Docs/psiteiitm22.en.pdf (accessed 20 July 2015); Henderson (1999); Clarke and Barlow (1997).

  64. 64.

    See Korten (2001); Hertz (2002); Crouch (2004).

  65. 65.

    For an expression of this view see Monbiot G, Our Economic Ruin Means Freedom for the Super-rich. The Guardian, 31 July 2012, p. 26.

  66. 66.

    See Korten (2001), ch. 10; Crouch (2011), pp. 124–134; Palast (2003).

  67. 67.

    See further Korten (2001), ch. 11 ‘Marketing the World’ and see further Klein (2000).

  68. 68.

    Quoted in Inman P, Halt to Trade Talks Urged Amid Fears Over Secret Courts. The Guardian, 5 May 2015, p. 22.

  69. 69.

    Inman P, Halt to Trade Talks Urged Amid Fears Over Secret Courts. The Guardian, 5 May 2015, p. 22.

  70. 70.

    For more detailed discussion of this issue see further de Brabandere (2013); Binder (2013); Jacob (2013); Baetens (2013); Braun (2013); Albites-Bedoya (2013).

  71. 71.

    Sen (1999), p. 35.

  72. 72.

    Sen (1999), p. 36.

  73. 73.

    Sen (1999), pp. 38–40.

  74. 74.

    UNCTAD (2014) World Investment Report 2014 http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2014_en.pdf (last accessed 17 August 2015), Ch. IV ‘Investing in SDGs: An Action Plan for Promoting Private Sector Contributions’. The following paragraphs are taken from Muchlinski (2016).

  75. 75.

    UNCTAD (2014) World Investment Report 2014 http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2014_en.pdf (last accessed 17 August 2015), p. 136.

  76. 76.

    UNCTAD (2014) World Investment Report 2014 http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2014_en.pdf (last accessed 17 August 2015), pp. 140–143.

  77. 77.

    UNCTAD (2014) World Investment Report 2014 http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2014_en.pdf (last accessed 17 August 2015), pp. 144–145.

  78. 78.

    UNCTAD (2014) World Investment Report 2014 http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2014_en.pdf (last accessed 17 August 2015), p. 146.

  79. 79.

    UNCTAD (2014) World Investment Report 2014 http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2014_en.pdf (last accessed 17 August 2015), pp. 167–168.

  80. 80.

    UNCTAD (2014) World Investment Report 2014 http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2014_en.pdf (last accessed 17 August 2015), p. 150. These sectors have attracted attention over the relationship between investor rights and responsibilities and the right to regulate in investment awards. Notably in Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania (Procedural Order No. 5), ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, 2 February 2007, para. 52, the tribunal accepted, at the procedural stage, that human rights considerations might be raised by the dispute, in that it concerned the operation of a privatised water company and that this involved significant public interests in relation to the right to water and to health. At the award stage, in Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania (Award), ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, 24 July 2008, para. 358, the tribunal noted that the public interest issues surrounding the right to water in this case were admissible though the tribunal did not explore the United Republic of Tanzania’s human rights law obligations in further detail holding, rather, that the claimants had not made out their case on the facts.

  81. 81.

    UNCTAD (2014) World Investment Report 2014 http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2014_en.pdf (last accessed 17 August 2015), pp. 151–152.

  82. 82.

    The following analysis was first posited in Muchlinski (2013b). Here it is linked expressly to the liberal approach to sustainable development.

  83. 83.

    See McCormick (1999), pp. 150–153.

  84. 84.

    See further Crouch (2004, 2011). On the relationship between CSGs/NGOs and corporations see further Yaziji and Doh (2009).

  85. 85.

    See further Zeitlin (2011); Kristensen and Zeitlin (2005) esp.chs.11 and 12.

  86. 86.

    See further Bendell and Murphy (2002), p. 24; Zadek (2007), ch. 5.

  87. 87.

    See Ruggie J (2015) Life in the Global Public Domain: Response to Commentaries on the UN Guiding Principles and the Proposed Treaty on Business and Human Rights. SRRN http://ssrn.com/abstract=2554726 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2554726 (last accessed 22 July 2015).

  88. 88.

    See Muchlinski (2007), pp. 177–178 and Muchlinski (2011a), pp. 676–677.

  89. 89.

    Article 5(3) Treaty on European Union OJ [2010].

  90. 90.

    UNCTAD (2014) World Investment Report 2014 http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2014_en.pdf (last accessed 17 August 2015), p. 152; UNCTAD (2015) World Investment Report 2015. http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2015_en.pdf (last accessed 17 August 2015), p. 135.

  91. 91.

    UNCTAD (2014) World Investment Report 2014 http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2014_en.pdf (last accessed 17 August 2015), p. 181.

  92. 92.

    UNCTAD (2012) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development. UN Pub. UNCTAD/DIAE/PCB/2012/5, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaepcb2012d5_en.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015), p. 51; UNCTAD (2015) World Investment Report 2015. http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2015_en.pdf (last accessed 17 August 2015), p. 137 and see further UNCTAD (2012) Fair and Equitable Treatment: A Sequel. http://unctad.org/en/Docs/unctaddiaeia2011d5_en.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015).

  93. 93.

    See UNCTAD (2012) Expropriation: A Sequel, http://unctad.org/en/Docs/unctaddiaeia2011d7_en.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015), p. 12; and the US Model Bilateral Investment Treaty 2012 Annex B paragraph 4 http://www.ustr.gov/sites/defalt/files/BIT%20text%20for%20ACIEP%20Meeting.pdf (last accessed 22 July 2015).

  94. 94.

    UNCTAD Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment: A Sequel, http://unctad.org/en/Docs/diaeia20101_en.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015), pp. 84–87.

  95. 95.

    UNCTAD (2012) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development. UN Pub. UNCTAD/DIAE/PCB/2012/5, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaepcb2012d5_en.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015), p. 51; UNCTAD (2015) World Investment Report 2015. http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2015_en.pdf (last accessed 17 August 2015), p. 136; VanDuzer (2012), pp. 136 and 138.

  96. 96.

    UNCTAD (2012) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development. UN Pub. UNCTAD/DIAE/PCB/2012/5, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaepcb2012d5_en.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015), p. 5; UNCTAD (2015) World Investment Report 2015. http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2015_en.pdf (last accessed 17 August 2015), p. 137.

  97. 97.

    UNCTAD (2012) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development. UN Pub. UNCTAD/DIAE/PCB/2012/5, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaepcb2012d5_en.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015), p. 50; VanDuzer A, Simons P, Mayeda G (2012) Integrating Sustainable Development into International Investment Agreements: A Guide for Developing Countries, http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2012/6th_annual_forum_commonwealth_guide.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015), p. 125.

  98. 98.

    On ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ lists in IIAs see further Muchlinski (2007), p. 254.

  99. 99.

    UNCTAD (2012) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development. UN Pub. UNCTAD/DIAE/PCB/2012/5, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaepcb2012d5_en.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015), p. 49; UNCTAD (2015) World Investment Report 2015. http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2015_en.pdf (last accessed 17 August 2015), p. 143; VanDuzer A, Simons P, Mayeda G (2012) Integrating Sustainable Development into International Investment Agreements: A Guide for Developing Countries, http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2012/6th_annual_forum_commonwealth_guide.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015), p. 91. As a separate issue, the umbrella clause may also need to be modified, or omitted, so as to exclude contractual claims arising out of the investment contract from being turned into treaty violations subject to ISDS: see UNCTAD (2014) World Investment Report 2014 http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2014_en.pdf (last accessed 17 August 2015), p. 54.

  100. 100.

    UNCTAD Transparency: A Sequel, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/unctaddiaeia2011d6_en.pdf (last accessed 21 May 2015), p. 5.

  101. 101.

    UNCTAD Transparency: A Sequel, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/unctaddiaeia2011d6_en.pdf (last accessed 21 May 2015), pp. 7–12.

  102. 102.

    McCormick (1999), p. 152.

  103. 103.

    McCormick (1999), pp. 176–177.

  104. 104.

    For detailed discussion see UNCTAD Transparency: A Sequel, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/unctaddiaeia2011d6_en.pdf (last accessed 21 May 2015), pp. 30–36.

  105. 105.

    See further UNCTAD (2012) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development. UN Pub. UNCTAD/DIAE/PCB/2012/5, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaepcb2012d5_en.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015), p. 59. UNCTAD proposes that such clauses could be expanded to include health and human rights.

  106. 106.

    See Potestà (2013).

  107. 107.

    UNCTAD (2012) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development. UN Pub. UNCTAD/DIAE/PCB/2012/5, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaepcb2012d5_en.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015), p. 58; UNCTAD (2015) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development UNCTAD/WEB/DIAE/PCB/2015/3, http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Upload/Documents/INVESTMENT%20POLICY%20FRAMEWORK%202015%20WEB_VERSION.pdf (last accessed 13 August 2015), p. 106.

  108. 108.

    UNCTAD (2012) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development. UN Pub. UNCTAD/DIAE/PCB/2012/5, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaepcb2012d5_en.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015), p. 58; UNCTAD (2015) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development UNCTAD/WEB/DIAE/PCB/2015/3, http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Upload/Documents/INVESTMENT%20POLICY%20FRAMEWORK%202015%20WEB_VERSION.pdf (last accessed 13 August 2015), p. 106. See too VanDuzer A, Simons P, Mayeda G (2012) Integrating Sustainable Development into International Investment Agreements: A Guide for Developing Countries, http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2012/6th_annual_forum_commonwealth_guide.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015), pp. 287–290.

  109. 109.

    See UN Human Rights Council Seventeenth Session 21 March 2011: Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework, http://www.ohchr.org/documents/issues/business/A.HRC.17.31.pdf Guiding Principle 17 (last accessed 22 July 2015), adopted by Resolution 17/4 of the Human Rights Council 16 June 2011 UN Doc A/HRC/RES/17/4 6 July 2011 http://www.business-humanrights.org/media/documents/un-human-rights-council-resolution-re-human-rights-transnational-corps-eng-6-jul-2011.pdf (last accessed 22 July 2015). See further Muchlinski (2012a); Business and Human Rights Initiative (2010) How to Do Business with Respect for Human Rights. https://commdev.org/userfiles/files/2651_file_how_to_business_with_respect_for_human_rights_gcn_netherlands_june2010.pdf (last accessed 21 May 2015); Abrahams D, Wyss Y (2010) International Finance Corporation Guide to Human Rights Impact Assessment and Management (HRIAM) http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/8ecd35004c0cb230884bc9ec6f601fe4/IFC_HIRAM_Full_linked.pdf?MOD=AJPERES (last accessed 23 July 2015). See too OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (2011 revision) Chapter VI “Human Rights”, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/29/48004323.pdf (last accessed 22 July 2015).

  110. 110.

    UNCTAD (2012) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development. UN Pub. UNCTAD/DIAE/PCB/2012/5, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaepcb2012d5_en.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015), p. 58; UNCTAD (2015) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development UNCTAD/WEB/DIAE/PCB/2015/3, http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Upload/Documents/INVESTMENT%20POLICY%20FRAMEWORK%202015%20WEB_VERSION.pdf (last accessed 13 August 2015), p. 107.

  111. 111.

    UNCTAD (2012) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development. UN Pub. UNCTAD/DIAE/PCB/2012/5, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaepcb2012d5_en.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015), p. 6.

  112. 112.

    See Norway Model BIT 2007, Article 23.

  113. 113.

    This section draws upon Muchlinski (2016).

  114. 114.

    UNCTAD (2012) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development. UN Pub. UNCTAD/DIAE/PCB/2012/5, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaepcb2012d5_en.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015), pp. 56–57 on which this paragraph draws. See too UNCTAD (2015) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development UNCTAD/WEB/DIAE/PCB/2015/3, http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Upload/Documents/INVESTMENT%20POLICY%20FRAMEWORK%202015%20WEB_VERSION.pdf (last accessed 13 August 2015), pp. 103–106.

  115. 115.

    See too VanDuzer A, Simons P, Mayeda G (2012) Integrating Sustainable Development into International Investment Agreements: A Guide for Developing Countries, http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2012/6th_annual_forum_commonwealth_guide.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015), p. 413.

  116. 116.

    UNCTAD (2012) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development. UN Pub. UNCTAD/DIAE/PCB/2012/5, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaepcb2012d5_en.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015), pp. 43 and 56; UNCTAD (2015) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development UNCTAD/WEB/DIAE/PCB/2015/3, http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Upload/Documents/INVESTMENT%20POLICY%20FRAMEWORK%202015%20WEB_VERSION.pdf (last accessed 13 August 2015), p. 105.

  117. 117.

    UNCTAD (2012) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development. UN Pub. UNCTAD/DIAE/PCB/2012/5, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaepcb2012d5_en.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015), p. 57; UNCTAD (2015) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development UNCTAD/WEB/DIAE/PCB/2015/3, http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Upload/Documents/INVESTMENT%20POLICY%20FRAMEWORK%202015%20WEB_VERSION.pdf (last accessed 13 August 2015), p. 103; and VanDuzer A, Simons P, Mayeda G (2012) Integrating Sustainable Development into International Investment Agreements: A Guide for Developing Countries, http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2012/6th_annual_forum_commonwealth_guide.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015), pp. 468–469.

  118. 118.

    UNCTAD (2012) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development. UN Pub. UNCTAD/DIAE/PCB/2012/5, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaepcb2012d5_en.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015), p. 57.

  119. 119.

    UNCTAD (2012) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development. UN Pub. UNCTAD/DIAE/PCB/2012/5, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaepcb2012d5_en.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015); UNCTAD (2015) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development UNCTAD/WEB/DIAE/PCB/2015/3, http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Upload/Documents/INVESTMENT%20POLICY%20FRAMEWORK%202015%20WEB_VERSION.pdf (last accessed 13 August 2015), p. 106; VanDuzer A, Simons P, Mayeda G (2012) Integrating Sustainable Development into International Investment Agreements: A Guide for Developing Countries, http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2012/6th_annual_forum_commonwealth_guide.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015), pp. 467–468.

  120. 120.

    See Muchlinski (2013a) and Muchlinski (2011b).

  121. 121.

    See Muchlinski (2007), p. 709.

  122. 122.

    See further Johnson L, Sachs L, Sachs J (2015) Investor-State Dispute Settlement, Public Interest and US Domestic Law. Columbia Center on Sustainable Development Policy Paper http://ccsi.columbia.edu/files/2015/05/Investor-State-Dispute-Settlement-Public-Interest-and-U.S.-Domestic-Law-FINAL-May-19-8.pdf (last accessed 22 July 2015).

  123. 123.

    Johnson L, Sachs L, Sachs J (2015) Investor-State Dispute Settlement, Public Interest and US Domestic Law. Columbia Center on Sustainable Development Policy Paper, http://ccsi.columbia.edu/files/2015/05/Investor-State-Dispute-Settlement-Public-Interest-and-U.S.-Domestic-Law-FINAL-May-19-8.pdf (last accessed 22 July 2015).

  124. 124.

    Skovgaard Poulsen L, Bonnitcha J, Yackee J (2013) Costs and Benefits of an EU-USA Investment Protection Treaty, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/260380/bis-13-1284-costs-and-benefits-of-an-eu-usa-investment-protection-treaty.pdf (last accessed 22 July 2015).

  125. 125.

    Skovgaard Poulsen L, Bonnitcha J, Yackee J (2013) Costs and Benefits of an EU-USA Investment Protection Treaty, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/260380/bis-13-1284-costs-and-benefits-of-an-eu-usa-investment-protection-treaty.pdf (last accessed 22 July 2015), pp. 44–45.

  126. 126.

    UNCTAD (2012) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development. UN Pub. UNCTAD/DIAE/PCB/2012/5, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/diaepcb2012d5_en.pdf (last accessed 20 July 2015), pp. 56–63; UNCTAD (2015) Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development UNCTAD/WEB/DIAE/PCB/2015/3, http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/Upload/Documents/INVESTMENT%20POLICY%20FRAMEWORK%202015%20WEB_VERSION.pdf (last accessed 13 August 2015), p. 110.

  127. 127.

    A good recent example being Elysium (Dir: Neill Blomkamp, Tristar Pictures 2013).

  128. 128.

    See for example Collins (2008) film version (Dir: Gary Ross, Color Force, 2012).

  129. 129.

    See classically Orwell (1949) and Animal Farm (London, Secker and Warburg, 1945).

References

  • Albites-Bedoya J (2013) Internal consistency of PTIAs: overlapping trade and investment obligations and dispute resolution mechanisms. In: Hofmann R, Schill S, Tams C (eds) Preferential trade and investment agreements: from recalibration to reintegration. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 157–166

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Amnesty International UK Business Group (1998) Human rights guidelines for companies. Amnesty International, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Baetens F (2013) Preferential trade and investment agreements and the trade/investment divide. In: Hofmann R, Schill S, Tams C (eds) Preferential trade and investment agreements: from recalibration to reintegration. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 91–128

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ball G (1968) COSMOCORP: the importance of being stateless. Atl Commun Q 6(2):163–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger A (2013) Investment rules in Chinese PTIAs—A partial “NAFTA-ization”. In: Hofmann R, Schill S, Tams C (eds) Preferential trade and investment agreements: from recalibration to reintegration. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 297–333

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bendell J, Murphy D (2002) Towards civil regulation: NGOs and the politics of corporate environmentalism. In: Utting P (ed) The greening of business in developing countries: rhetoric, reality and prospects. Zed Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Binder C (2013) An international law approach to interactions between preferential trade and investment agreements and the BIT world. In: Hofmann R, Schill S, Tams C (eds) Preferential trade and investment agreements: from recalibration to reintegration. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 71–80

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Braun T (2013) Investment chapters in future European preferential trade and investment agreements: two universes or an integrated model? In: Hofmann R, Schill S, Tams C (eds) Preferential trade and investment agreements: from recalibration to reintegration. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 129–156

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bungenberg M (2013) Preferential trade agreements and regionalism. In: Hofmann R, Schill S, Tams C (eds) Preferential trade and investment agreements: from recalibration to reintegration. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 269–287

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Canner S (1998) The multilateral agreement on investment. Cornell Int Law J 31:657–681

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke T, Barlow M (1997) MAI: the multilateral agreement on investment and the threat to Canadian sovereignty. Stoddart, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins S (2008) The hunger games. Scholastic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Crouch C (2004) Post-democracy. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Crouch C (2011) The strange non-death of neo-liberalism. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • de Brabandere E (2013) Co-existence, complementarity or conflict? interaction between preferential trade and investment agreements and bilateral investment treaties. In: Hofmann R, Schill S, Tams C (eds) Preferential trade and investment agreements: from recalibration to reintegration. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 37–69

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Engering F (1996) The multilateral investment agreement. Transl Corp 5(3):147–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Fatouros A (1995) Towards an international agreement on foreign direct investment? ICSID Rev-FILJ 10:181–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg P, Kindleberger C (1970) Toward a GATT for investment: a proposal for supervision of the international corporation. Law Policy Int Bus 2:295–325

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson D (1999) The MAI affair: a story and its lessons. RIIA, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertz N (2002) The silent takeover: global capitalism and the death of democracy. Arrow, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann R, Schill S, Tams C (2013) Preferential trade and investment agreements: from recalibration to reintegration. In: Hofmann R, Schill S, Tams C (eds) Preferential trade and investment agreements: from recalibration to reintegration. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 9–23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jacob M (2013) Technique and contents of international investment treaties: can the form affect the substance? In: Hofmann R, Schill S, Tams C (eds) Preferential trade and investment agreements: from recalibration to reintegration. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 81–89

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston A, Trebilcock M (2013) The proliferation of preferential trade agreements: the beginning of the end of the multilateral trading system? In: Hofmann R, Schill S, Tams C (eds) Preferential trade and investment agreements: from recalibration to reintegration. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 243–267

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Joubin-Bret A (2013) Preferential trade and investment agreements and regionalism: a stepping stone towards a multilateral set of investment rules or another type of noodles in the spaghetti bowl? In: Hofmann R, Schill S, Tams C (eds) Preferential trade and investment agreements: from recalibration to reintegration. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 289–295

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Journal of International Economic Law (JIEL) (2014) Symposium in Honor of John H. Jackson. J Int Invest Law 17:3

    Google Scholar 

  • Kindleberger C (1969) American business abroad. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein N (2000) No logo. Harper Collins, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Korbin S (2010) Sovereignty@bay: globalisation, multinational enterprise and the international political system. In: Rugman A (ed) The Oxford handbook of international business, 2nd paperback edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Korten D (2001) When corporations rule the world, 2nd edn. Kumarian Press/Conn & Berrett-Koehler Publishes, West Hartford/San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristensen P, Zeitlin J (2005) Local players in global games: the strategic constitution of the multinational corporation. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick N (1999) Questioning sovereignty: law state and practical reason. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Miller A (1973) The multinational corporation and the nation-state. J World Trade Law 7(3):267–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Muchlinski P (2000a) Attempts to extend the accountability of transnational corporations: the role of UNCTAD. In: Kamminga M, Zia-Zariffi S (eds) Liability of multinational corporations under international law. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 97–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Muchlinski P (2000b) The rise and fall of the multilateral agreement on investment: where now? Int Law 34:1033–1054

    Google Scholar 

  • Muchlinski P (2007) Multinational enterprises and the law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Muchlinski P (2011a) The changing face of transnational business governance: private corporate law liability and accountability of transnational groups in a post-financial crisis world. Indiana J Glob Leg Stud 18(2):665–705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muchlinski P (2011b) Corporations and the uses of law: international investment arbitration as a “multilateral legal order”. Oñati Socio-Legal Series 1(4): https://doaj.org/toc/2079-5971/1/4. Last accessed 22 July 2015

  • Muchlinski P (2012) Implementing the new UN corporate human rights framework: implications for corporate law, governance and regulation. Bus Ethics Q 22(1):145–177. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/beq20122218

  • Muchlinski P (2012b) Multinational enterprises and international economic law: contesting regulatory agendas over the last twenty years. Yearb Jap Assoc Int Econ Law 21:53

    Google Scholar 

  • Muchlinski P (2013a) The role of preferential trade and investment agreements in international investment law: from unforeseen historical developments to an uncertain future. In: Hofmann R, Schill S, Tams C (eds) Preferential trade and investment agreements: from recalibration to reintegration. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 211–227

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Muchlinski P (2013b) Sovereignty and private corporate power: the case of multinational enterprises. In: Rawlings R, Leyland P, Young A (eds) Sovereignty and the law: domestic, European, and international perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 286–304

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Muchlinski P (2016) Negotiating new generation international investment agreements: new sustainable development oriented initiatives. In: Krajewski M (ed) Shifting paradigms in international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (1996) Towards multilateral investment rules. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Orwell G (1949) 1984. Secker and Warburg, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Palast G (2003) The best democracy money can buy. Constable and Robinson, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry-Kessaris A (ed) (2013) Socio-legal approaches to international economic law: text, context, subtext. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Picciotto S (1998) Linkages in international investment regulation: the antinomies of the draft multilateral agreement on investment. Univ Pa J Int Econ Law 19(3):731–768

    Google Scholar 

  • Picciotto S, Mayne R (eds) (1999) Regulating international business: beyond liberalisation. Macmillan/Oxfam, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Potestà M (2013) From mutual supportiveness to mutual enforcement? the contribution of US preferential trade and investment agreements to the effectiveness of environmental norms. In: Hofmann R, Schill S, Tams C (eds) Preferential trade and investment agreements: from recalibration to reintegration. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 167–185

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Roffe P (2010) Intellectual property, development concerns and developing countries. In: Faundez J, Tan C (eds) International economic law, globalization and developing countries. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 307–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin S (1974) The multinational enterprise at bay. Am J Int Law 68(3):475–488. doi:10.2307/2200516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sagafi-Nejad T (2008) The UN and transnational corporations: from code of conduct to global compact. Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen A (1999) Development as freedom. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith M (1974) Corporations and society. Duckworth, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Tevini A (2013) Regional investment protection and liberalization within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. In: Hofmann R, Schill S, Tams C (eds) Preferential trade and investment agreements: from recalibration to reintegration. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 335–353

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • VanDuzer J, Simons P, Mayeda G (2013) Integrating sustainable development into international investment agreements: a guide for developing country negotiators. Commonwealth Secretariat, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Vernon R (1971) Sovereignty at bay: the multinational spread of US enterprises. Penguin, Harmondsworth

    Google Scholar 

  • Xiong P (2012) Patents in TRIPS-plus provisions and the approaches to interpretation of free trade agreements and TRIPS: do they affect public health? J World Trade 46(1):155–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Yaziji M, Doh J (2009) NGOs and corporations: conflict and collaboration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zadek S (2007) The civil corporation, Revth edn. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeitlin J (2011) Pragmatic transnationalism: governance across borders in the global economy. Soc Econ Rev 9:187. doi:10.1093/ser/mwq027

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, SOAS, University of London, London, UK

    Peter Muchlinski

Authors
  1. Peter Muchlinski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Muchlinski .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Chair for Public Law, International and European Law, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Marc Bungenberg

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Passau , Passau, Germany

    Christoph Herrmann

  3. Chair for Public Law and International Law, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg Faculty of Law, Erlangen, Germany

    Markus Krajewski

  4. Competition and Regulation Institute, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany

    Jörg Philipp Terhechte

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Muchlinski, P. (2016). Regulating Multinational Enterprises. In: Bungenberg, M., Herrmann, C., Krajewski, M., Terhechte, J. (eds) European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2016. European Yearbook of International Economic Law, vol 7. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29215-1_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29215-1_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-29214-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-29215-1

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation