In recent years, international investment law has become increasingly intertwined with other areas of international law, which calls for a need to define these relationships. In terms of its relationship with international humanitarian law, the events in Crimea and the Russian-Ukrainian war highlight many pressing issues, particularly in the context of a belligerent occupation. This Master's thesis analyses the validity of bilateral investment agreements and the possibilities of legal protection of foreign investors in times of belligerent occupation.
From the perspective of international humanitarian law, which requires respect for the domestic law of the occupied country, the question of the validity of bilateral investment agreements and the implementation of the obligations arising from them arises. While international treaties binding on the occupied state form part of the domestic law that the occupying power must respect, their implementation is not self-evident. The rules of belligerent occupation do not specify how the occupying power is bound to implement its international law obligations, which may cause a legal vacuum. The latter is reflected in the enforcement of bilateral investment treaties, which have a specific nature, since they allow for the arbitration of disputes between foreign investors and the host countries of their investments.
As a result, it is also unclear who is liable for the damage suffered by investors during belligerent occupation and whether arbitration is even possible. The answer to this question could be provided by arbitral tribunals in the unique case of Crimea, as they have accepted jurisdiction in disputes between Ukrainian investors and Russia. This has raised a lot of dust, as it could violate the principle of non-recognition of legal effects arising from the illegal annexation of Crimea to the Russian Federation.
|
