Question 1: The Calvo Doctrine

The Calvo Doctrine is a concept in international law that emphasizes the principle of legal equality between foreign nationals and local citizens in relation to their rights to property and protection of those rights. It was formulated by the Argentine jurist Carlos Calvo in the 19th century. The doctrine proposes that foreign nationals should not receive any special privileges or treatment beyond what is available to local citizens when dealing with host countries’ legal systems. Instead of relying on diplomatic protection by their home countries, foreign investors would need to address any disputes with the host country’s legal system.

As for its current status and relevance, the Calvo Doctrine has seen fluctuations in its influence over time. While it may not be as prominently applied as it once was, elements of the doctrine continue to influence discussions surrounding international investment law and the rights of foreign investors. However, due to the complex and evolving nature of international investment law, it’s not accurate to classify the Calvo Doctrine as strictly “alive” or “dead.” Instead, it has left an imprint on the development of international investment law and remains a part of its historical context.

Question 2: International Investment Law

Opinions on international investment law are diverse and depend on various perspectives, including those of governments, investors, NGOs, and the public. Some argue that the current system strikes a balance between promoting foreign investment and safeguarding the rights of host countries to regulate and protect their national interests. Others may argue that reforms are needed to ensure fair treatment of all parties involved.

Should it remain the same, be reformed, or be transformed?

This question doesn’t have a one-size-fits-all answer, as it depends on the goals and values one prioritizes. Some potential considerations include:

1. Remain the Same: Advocates of maintaining the status quo might argue that the current framework has facilitated cross-border investment, economic growth, and dispute resolution. They may emphasize that investor-state arbitration mechanisms provide a neutral venue for settling disputes.

2. Reformed: Some argue for reforming certain aspects of international investment law to enhance transparency, accountability, and sustainability. For instance, reforms could address concerns about investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) processes, ensuring that they don’t infringe upon a host country’s sovereign right to regulate in the public interest.

3. Transformed: Others might advocate for a more radical transformation of international investment law. This could involve shifting the focus from protecting investors’ rights to ensuring a more equitable distribution of benefits and responsibilities between investors and host countries. This could involve mechanisms that prioritize human rights, environmental protection, and social well-being.

Likes and Dislikes:

Likes and dislikes about international investment law can vary widely. Some potential aspects people may like include the potential for economic development and job creation through foreign investment. On the other hand, criticisms may include concerns about the power imbalances between investors and states, potential exploitation of natural resources, and the potential for disputes to be settled in private arbitration panels, which some view as lacking transparency and accountability.

Proposed Changes:

Proposed changes could involve enhancing transparency in investor-state arbitration, ensuring that host countries retain the right to regulate in the public interest, incorporating human rights and environmental considerations into investment agreements, and involving civil society organizations in the negotiation and implementation of investment treaties.

Ultimately, the future of international investment law depends on ongoing discussions, negotiations, and the evolving priorities of the international community.