The Era of COVID-19: Restrictive Measures of States and the Claims of Foreign Investors

INTRODUCTION: In December 2019, an outbreak of coronavirus infection (SARS-CoV-2) was registered in Wuhan (China). Within a few months, the virus spread across Europe and Asia, and later around the world. Due to the emergency situation, the States were forced to implement various restrictive measures, including the closure of borders and public places to visit. Tese measures may lead to claims to investment tribunals from foreign investors for the protection of their rights.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Te authors researched the provisions of bilateral investment treaties, case law of international courts and tribunals in connection with national measures to protect health and the environment, as well as the manuscripts of Russian and foreign scholars. Te methodological basis of the research contains general scientifc and special methods.

RESEARCH RESULTS: Te authors analyze the possibility of treatment of restrictive measures taken by States as self-judging clauses, as well as the possibility of applying Article 25 (necessity) of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts as the circumstances precluding the wrongfulness. It is stated that it is undesirable to treat states’ measures as self-judging clauses, since such a treatment will provide States with too wide opportunities for exemptions from the international investment protection regime. At the same time the treatment of public health protection and prevention of economic (fnancial) crisis as an essential interest that the state safeguards against a grave and imminent peril is controversial for the purposes of applying art. 25 of the Articles on Responsibility.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Te authors propose to establish certain standards or principles that may be used by investment tribunals in the course of proceedings in order to assess measures taken by States. Tese principles are legality and proportionality, consistensy with the purpose and non-discrimination. Te principles can be interpreted with respect to the case law of investment tribunals for disputes on the limitation of fundamental human rights and freedoms (the right to health protection and the right to a favorable environment). Te principles can be consolidated in the model protocol to investment treaties (Memorandum of Understanding), developed under the auspices of UNCITRAL.

1. Alcolea L. C. The COVID-19 Crisis: Core Investment Law Issues Revisited. – Transnational Dispute Management. 2020. No.2. URL: www.transnational-dispute-management.com/article.asp?key=2803 (accessed 30.10.2021).

2. Benvenisti E. The Coronavirus Tests the Limits of International Law. – Lauterpacht Centre News. 2020. Issue 30. P. 3–5. URL:https://www.lcil.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.law.cam.ac.uk/fles/images/www.lcil.law.cam.ac.uk/Documents/LCN/lcn_issue_30_newsletter_lent_2020_interactive.pdf (accessed: 30.10.2021).

3. Bernasconi-Osterwalder N, Brewin S, Maina N. Protecting Against Investor-State Claims Amidst COVID-19: A Call to Action for Governments. 2020. 10 p. URL: https://www.iisd.org/system/fles/publications/investor-stateclaims-covid-19.pdf (accessed 30.10.2021).

4. Boklan D., Bahri A. The First WTO's Ruling on National Security Exception: Balancing Interests or Opening Pandora's Box? – World Trade Review. 2020. Vol. 19. Issue 1. P. 123–136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474745619000430

5. Boklan D.C., Shaubert M.V. Spor Rossiya – Mery, svyazannye s tranzitom gruzov: istoricheskii doklad Treteiskoi gruppy Organa po razresheniyu sporov VTO [Russian Federation – Measures concerning trafc in transit case: WTO Dispute Settlement Body Panel’s historic report]. – Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie. 2019. No. 2. P. 20–30. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.21128/2226-2059-2019-2-20-30.

6. Burke-White W. The Argentine Financial Crisis: State Liability Under BITs and the Legitimacy of the ICSID System. – Asian Journal of WTO & International Health Law and Policy. 2008. Vol. 3. Issue 1. P. 199–234.

7. Cristani F. How the Coronavirus Crisis Challenges International Investment (Customary) Law Rules: Which Role for the Necessity Defense? – Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law. 2021. Vol. 53. Issue 1-2. P. 89–116.

8. Habibi R. [et al.]. Do not violate the International Health Regulations during the COVID-19 outbreak. – Lancet. 2020. Vol. 395. Issue 10225. P. 664–666. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30373-1

9. Hagemann T. Corporate Wealth Over Public Health? Assessing the Resilience of Developing Countries' COVID-19 Responses Against Investment Claims and the Implications for Future Public Health Crises. – Pace International Law Review. 2021. Vol. 34 Issue 1. P. 25-80.

10. Kabra R. Return of the Inconsistent Application of the ‘Essential Security Interest’ Clause in Investment Treaty Arbitration: CC/Devas v India and Deutsche Telekomv India. – ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal. 2019. Vol. 34. Issue 3. P. 723–753. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siz021

11. Katsikis D. Necessity due to COVID-19 as a Defence to International Investment Claims. – ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal. 2021. Vol. 36. Issue 1. P. 46–69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siab009

12. Pak V., Yatsenko I. Praktika Evropeiskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka v otnoshenii del, svyazannykh so sporami fskal'nogo kharaktera [The Practice of the European Court of Human Rights in Relation to Cases involving Disputes of a Fiscal Nature]. – Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie. 2004. No. 4. P. 113–118. (In Russ.)

13. Ranjan P., Anand P. Covid-19, India, and investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS): will India be able to defend its public health measures? – Asia Pacifc Law Review. 2020. Vol. 28. Issue 1. P. 225–247. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2020.1812255

14. Schill S.W., Briese R. If the State Considers: Self-Judging Clauses in International Dispute Settlement. – Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law. 2009. Vol. 13. P. 61–140.

15. Sefriani S., Monteiro S. Potential investor claims and possible state defences during the COVID-19 emergency. – Sriwijaya Law Review. 2021. Vol. 5. Issue 2. P. 236–246. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.28946/slrev.Vol5.Iss2.1067.pp236-246

16. Smbatyan A.S. Mezhdunarodnye mediko-sanitarnye pravila: evolyutsiya i sovremennoe sostoyanie [International Health Regulations: evolution and a current state]. – Rossiiskii yuridicheskii zhurnal. 2021. No. 1. P. 103–114. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.34076/20713797_2021_1_103

17. Tejpar A., Hoffman S. Canada’s Violation of International Law during the 2014–16 Ebola Outbreak. – Canadian Yearbook of International Law. 2017. Vol. 54. P. 366–383.

18. Tolstykh V.L. СOVID-19 i mezhdunarodnoe pravo: obshchie voprosy [Сovid-19 and International Law: general issues]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. 2021. No. 3. P. 45–62. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.24833/08690049-2021-3-45-62

19. Tzouvala N., Knox R. International Law of State Responsibility and COVID-19: an Ideology Critique. 2021. 12 p. URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3930470 (accessed 30.10.2021).

20. Van den Bossche P., Zdouc W. The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization: Text, Cases and Materials. 5rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2022. 1170 p.

21. Vorob'eva. N.N. Nalogooblozhenie i pravo sobstvennosti: pozitsii Evropeiskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka [Taxation and Property Law: positions of the European Court of Human Rights]. – Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie. 2013. No. 4. P. 32–39. (In Russ.)