Federico Ortino

Abstract

Even when it comes to investment, despite appearances to the contrary, it does not seem to me that there is a shift to the non-discrimination principle. First, there is no doubt that absolute standards such as fair and equitable treatment or the provision on expropriation have by far overshadowed the relative standards, in particular national treatment. Second, while the MFN standard has, on the other hand, been a key provision in investment treaty arbitration, particularly as an instrument to expand the scope of the ISDS system (based on more favorable provisions found in third-party treaties), there are clear signs in recent investment treaties of the willingness to curtail the use of the MFN provision as a way to extend the procedural and substantive protections of investors. This seems to be the current position, for example, of both the United States and the European Union (EU). Third, when it comes to the apparent disappearance of the absolute standards of treatment in some of the treaties being negotiated by the European Union (such as with Japan), this is more simply due to a question of the nature of the EU external competence in commercial matters. In its recent opinion on the EU-Singapore FTA, the Court of Justice of the EU has determined that the EU does not have exclusive competence to conclude agreements covering non-FDI and ISDS. The EU has thus responded to such opinion by splitting investment protection (with ISDS) from the rest of the trade agreement, thus keeping investment liberalization (including market access and national treatment) in the latter. In this way, while the trade agreement will fall under the exclusive competence of the EU, the former will still require ratification by each member state. While it is not clear whether the backlash vis-à-vis investment protection and ISDS in some quarters within some of the member states will eventually lead to the end of EU investment treaties, a decision in this sense has not yet been taken by EU institutions.

Legal Problems with Data Localization Requirements: The Case of the Russian Federation

“…Article VIII:5, furthermore, provides that the provision shall apply to a situation where a Member establishes or authorizes a monopoly formally or in effect. 68 This understanding of Article XVI:2(a) of the GATS has found resonation in recent disputes as well. Indeed, in EU -Energy Package the Russian Federation argued that, when deciding whether a WTO Member maintains any of the four types of quantitative limitations on the number of suppliers listed in Article XVI:2(a), consideration should be given to the substance and effect of a challenged measure, rather than merely its formal construction.…”

Police Powers, Indirect Expropriation in International Investment Law, and Article 31(3)(c) of the VCLT: A Critique of Philip Morris v. Uruguay

“…106 In other words, the meaning of the word "reasonable" could vary from a measure making a (significant) contribution to the public policy objective to a more strict interpretation involving weighing and balancing the impact of the measure on foreign investment with the public policy it seeks to achieve. 107 The strict interpretation of "reasonable" has the same meaning as "proportionality", which consists of three steps 108 that must be assessed cumulatively. 109 First, whether the measure is suitable for the legitimate public purpose-this requires a causal link between the measure and its object.…”

Educação e comércio internacional: impactos da liberalização comercial dos serviços sobre a regulação da educação superior no Brasil

“…Sinclair 349 entende que a prestação de serviços educacionais em concorrência com entidades privadas faz com que a exclusão dos "serviços prestados no exercício da autoridade governamental" pareça não proteger muitos dos aspectos da educação pública. Por sua vez, Federico Ortino 350 vai mais longe, no sentido de que, mesmo com as incertezas em relação às exigências cumulativas de não-lucratividade e não-concorrência, a natureza do serviço em si ou as características do prestador de serviços seriam irrelevantes para fins de decidir o alcance dessa exceção, de modo que, salvo uma pequena parte de serviços governamentaiscomo polícia e exército -, a noção de serviços no GATS se aplicaria a todos os serviços. Já Anthony Vanduzer 351 acredita que a exclusão dos serviços prestados no exercício da autoridade governamental tende a ser interpretada de maneira mais generosa do que temem os críticos, no sentido de que a simples coexistência de serviços públicos e privados não deve levar à conclusão de que os serviços públicos estão em concorrência.…”