Foreign Direct Investment in Agriculture: Land Grab or Food Security Improvement?

“Large-scale acquisition of land by foreign investors” is the correct term for a process where the verdict of guilt is often quicker than the examination. But is there something really new about land grab except in its extent? In comparison with colonial and post-colonial plantation operations, should foreign investors today behave differently? We generally accept coffee and banana exports as pro-growth and pro-development, just as for cars, beef and insurance. What then is wrong with an investment contract allowing the holder to buy a farm and to export wheat to Saudi Arabia, or soybeans and maize as cattle feed to Korea, or to plant and process sugar cane and palm oil into ethanol for Europe and China? Assuming their land acquisition was legal, should foreigners respect more than investment contracts and national legislation? And why would they not take advantage of the legal protection offered by international investment law and treaties, not to speak of concessional finance, infrastructure and technical cooperation by a development bank, or the tax holidays offered by the host state? Remember Milton Friedman’s often-quoted quip: “The business of business is business!” And why would the governments signing those contracts not know whether and which foreign investment projects are best for their country, and how to attract them? This chapter tries to show that land grab, where it occurs, is not only yet another symptom of regulatory failures at the national level and a lack of corporate social responsibility by certain private actors. National governance is clearly the most important factor. Nonetheless, I submit that there is an international dimension involving investor home states in various capacities. The implication is that land grab is not solely a question whether a particular investment contract is legal or not. This chapter deals with legal issues which seem to have largely escaped the attention of both human rights lawyers and, especially, of investment lawyers. I address this fragmentation between different legal disciplines, rules, and policies, by asking two basic questions: (i) Do governments and parliaments in investor home countries have any responsibility in respect of the behaviour of their investors abroad? (ii) What should they and international regulators do, if anything?

The role of the state in investor-state arbitration

The Role of the State in Investor-State Arbitration is a collection of contributions from lawyers, arbitrators and political scientists on the development of the concept of the “State” in a field that currently presents an increasing number of controversial disputes: Investor-State Arbitration. The book analyzes the limits of the host State as a regulator, studying issues such as attribution and the role of State-Owned Enterprises and sub-State entities; the changing role of the home State in Investor-State disputes, including its direct participation in Investor-State arbitration and State to State dispute settlement; and the overall role that both home and host States can play in the improvement of Investor-State Dispute Settlement.

Climate Change and International Law. Exploring the Linkages Between Human Rights, Environment, Trade and Investment

Mapping the relevant principles and norms of international law, the paper discusses scientific evidence and identifies current legal foundations of climate change mitigation adaptation and communication in international environmental law, human rights protection and international trade regulation in WTO law. It briefly discusses the evolution and architecture of relevant multilateral environmental agreements, in particular the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. It discusses the potential role of human rights in identifying pertinent goals and values of mitigation and adaptation and eventually turns to principles and rules of international trade regulation and investment protection which are likely to be of crucial importance should the advent of a new multilateral agreement fail to materialize. The economic and legal relevance of rules on tariffs, border tax adjustment and subsidies, services and intellectual property and investment law are discussed in relation to the production, supply and use of energy. Moreover, lessons from trade negotiations may be drawn for negotiations of future environmental instruments. The paper offers a survey of the main interacting areas of public international law and discusses the intricate interaction of all these components informing climate change mitigation, adaptation and communication in international law in light of an emerging doctrine of multilayered governance. It seeks to contribute to greater coherence of what today is highly fragmented and rarely discussed in an overall context. The paper argues that trade regulation will be of critical importance in assessing domestic policies and potential trade remedies offer powerful incentives for all nations alike to participate in a multilateral framework defining appropriate goals and principles.