Abdala, Manuel A. and Spiller, Pablo T., ‘Damage Valuation of Indirect Expropriation in International Arbitration Cases’ (2003) 14 American Review of International Arbitration 447–60.Google Scholar

Abs, Hermann and Shawcross, Hartley, ‘Draft Convention on Investment Abroad’ in ‘The Proposed Convention to Protect Private Foreign Investment: A Round Table’ (1960) 9 Journal of Public Law 115–24.Google Scholar

Acconci, Pia, ‘Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment and International Law on Foreign Investment’ in Muchlinski, Peter, Ortino, Frederico and Schreuer, Christoph (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law 363–406 (Oxford University Press, 2008).Google Scholar

Acconci, Pia, ‘Most-favoured-nation Treatment’ in Qureshi, Asif and Gao, Xuan (eds.), International Economic Law, vol. IV (Routledge, 2011) 232–76.Google Scholar

Adede, Andronico, ‘A Fresh Look at the Meaning of the Doctrine of Denial of Justice under International Law’ (1976) 14 Canadian Yearbook of International Law 73–95.Google Scholar

Aguilar Alvarez, Guillermo and Montt, Santiago, ‘Investments, Fair and Equitable Treatment and the Principle of Respect for the Integrity of the Law of the Host State: Toward a Jurisprudence of Modesty in Investment Treaty Arbitration’ in Arsanjani, Mahnoush H., Cogan, Jacob Katz, Sloane, Robert D. and Wiessner, Siegfried (eds.), Looking to the Future: Essays on International Law in Honor of W. Michael Reisman (Brill/Nijhoff, 2010) 579–606.Google Scholar

Aldrich, George H., The Jurisprudence of the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal: An Analysis of the Decisions of the Tribunal (Clarendon Press, 1996).Google Scholar

Aldrich, George H., ‘What Constitutes a Compensable Taking of Property? The Decisions of the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal’ (1994) 88 American Journal of International Law 585–610.Google Scholar

Alexandrov, Stanimir A., ‘Breaches of Contract and Breaches of Treaty: The Jurisdiction of Treaty-based Arbitration Tribunals to Decide Breach of Contract Claims in SGS v. Pakistan and SGS v. Philippines’ (2004) 5 Journal of World Investment & Trade 555–77.Google Scholar

Alexandrov, Stanimir A., ‘The Evolution of the Full Protection and Security Standard’ in Kinnear, Meg, Fischer, Geraldine, Almeida, Jara Minguez, Torres, Luisa Fernanda, and Bidegain, Mairée Uran (eds.), Building International Investment Law: The First 50 Years of ICSID (Wolters Kluwer, 2016) 319–29.Google Scholar

Ali, Arif and Tallent, Kassi, ‘The Effect of BITs on the International Body of Investment Law: The Significance of Fair and Equitable Treatment Provisions’ in Rogers, Catherine A., Alford, Roger P. (eds.), The Future of Investment Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2009) 199–226.Google Scholar

AlQurashi, Zeyad A., ‘Indirect Expropriation in the Field of Petroleum’ (2004) 5 Journal of World Investment & Trade 897–926.Google Scholar

Alvarez, Guillermo Aguilar and Park, William W., ‘The New Face of Investment Arbitration: NAFTA Chapter 11’ (2003) 28 Yale Journal of International Law 365–408.Google Scholar

Alvarez, José E., ‘A Bit on Custom’ (2009) 42 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 17–80.Google Scholar

Alvarez-Jiménez, Alberto, ‘Minimum Standard of Treatment of Aliens, Fair and Equitable Treatment of Foreign Investors, Customary International Law and the Diallo Case Before the International Court of Justice’ (2008) 9 Journal of World Investment & Trade 51–70.Google Scholar

Alvarez-Jimenez, Alberto, ‘The Methanex Final Award: An Analysis from the Perspectives of Environmental Regulatory Authorities and Foreign Investors’ (2006) 23 Journal of International Arbitration 427–34.Google Scholar

Amerasinghe, Chittharanjan F., ‘Issues of Compensation for the Taking of Alien Property in the Light of Recent Cases and Practice’ (1992) 31 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 22–65.Google Scholar

Amerasinghe, Chittharanjan F., ‘Some Aspects of the Quantum of Compensation Payable Upon Expropriation’ (1993) Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law) 477–83.Google Scholar

American Law Institute, Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, vol. II (1986).Google Scholar

Andenas, Mads and Zleptnig, Stefan, ‘Proportionality: WTO Law in Comparative Perspective’ (2007) 42 Texas International Law Journal 372–423.Google Scholar

Angelet, Nicolas, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment’ in Wolfrum, Rüdiger (ed.), International Economic Law. The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, 2015) 254–64.Google Scholar

Antony, Jude, ‘Umbrella Clauses Since SGS v. Pakistan and SGS v. Philippines – A Developing Consensus’ (2013) 29 Arbitration International 607–39.Google Scholar

Anzilotti, Dionisio, ‘La responsabilité internationale des États a raison des dommages soufferts par des étrangers’ (1906) 13 Revue générale de droit international public 5.Google Scholar

Anzorena, C. Ignacio Suarez, Wisner, Robert, Coe, Jack J. Jr and Salomon, Claudia T., ‘International Commercial Dispute Resolution’ (2006) 40 International Lawyer 251–62.Google Scholar

Appleton, Barry, ‘MFN and International Investment Treaty Arbitration: Have We Lost Sight of the Forest Through the Trees?’ (2005) 1 Appleton’s International Investment Law & Arbitration News 10–24.Google Scholar

Arenhart, Fernando Santos, ‘International Investment Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard and the Role of Good Faith’ (2013) 10 Brazilian Journal of International Law 154–70.Google Scholar

Ascensio, Hervé, Droit International économique (Themis droit /Presses Universitaires de France, 2018).Google Scholar

Atik, Jeffery, ‘Fairness and Managed Foreign Direct Investment’ (1994–1995) 32 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 1–42.Google Scholar

Attanasio, David and Sainati, Tatiana, ‘Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v. The Argentine Republic ICSID’ (2017) 111 American Journal of International Law 744–50.Google Scholar

Baetens, Freya, ‘Discrimination on the Basis of Nationality: Determining Likeness in Human Rights and Investment Law’ in Schill, Stephan W. (ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (Oxford University Press, 2010) 279–315.Google Scholar

Ball, Markham, ‘Assessing Damages in Claims by Investors Against States’ (2001) 16 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 408–29.Google Scholar

Banifatemi, Yas, ‘The Emerging Jurisprudence on the Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment in Investment Arbitration’ in Bjorklund, Andrea K., Laird, Ian A. and Ripinsky, Sergey (eds.), Investment Treaty Law, Current Issues III: Remedies in International Investment Law: Emerging Jurisprudence of International Investment Law (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2008) 239–72.Google Scholar

Banks, Kevin, ‘NAFTA’s Article 1110: Can Regulation Be Expropriation?’ (1999) 5 NAFTA: Law & Business Review of the Americas 499–521.Google Scholar

Batifort, Simon and Heath, J. Benton, ‘The New Debate on the Interpretation of MFN Clauses in Investment Treaties: Putting the Brakes on Multilateralization’ (2017) 111 American Journal of International Law 873–913.Google Scholar

Baughen, Simon, ‘Expropriation and Environmental Regulation: The Lessons of NAFTA Chapter 11’ (2006) 18 Journal of Environmental Law 207–28.Google Scholar

Beauvais, Joel C., ‘Regulatory Expropriations Under NAFTA: Emerging Principles & Lingering Doubts’ (2002) 10 NYU Environmental Law Journal 245–96.Google Scholar

Been, Vicki, ‘Does an International “Regulatory Takings” Doctrine Make Sense?’ (2002) 11 NYU Environmental Law Journal 49–63.Google Scholar

Been, Vicki and Beauvais, Joel C., ‘The Global Fifth Amendment? NAFTA’s Investment Protections and the Misguided Quest for an International “Regulatory Takings” Doctrine’ (2003) 78 New York University Law Review 30–143.Google Scholar

Been, Vicki, Golove, David, Legum, Bart, Perezcano, Hugo, Kinnear, Meg, Wallach, Lori, Lew, Darryl and Kum, Mattias, ‘Roundtable Discussion on Domestic Challenges if Multilateral Investment Treaties are Interpreted to Expand the Compensation Requirements for Regulatory Expropriation Beyond a Signatory State’s Domestic Law’ (2002) 11 NYU Environmental Law Journal 208–63.Google Scholar

Beharry, Christina L., ‘Lawful Versus Unlawful Expropriation: Heads I Win, Tails You Lose’ (2016) 3 Journal of Damages in International Investment Arbitration 57–97.Google Scholar

Ben Hamida, Walid, ‘Clause de la Nation la Plus Favorisée et mécanismes de règlement des différends: Que dit l’histoire?’ (2007) 4 Journal de Droit International 1127–62.Google Scholar

Ben Hamida, Walid, ‘La clause relative au respect des engagements dans les traités d’investissement’ in Leben, Charles (ed.), Contentieux arbitral transnational relatif à l’investissement international: Nouveaux développements (Pedone, 2006) 53–106.Google Scholar

Ben Hamida, Walid, ‘MFN Clauses and Procedural Rights’ in Weiler, Todd (ed.), Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law, vol. I (JurisNet, 2008) 231–46.Google Scholar

Bernal-Corredor, Diego, ‘Regulatory Expropriation Developments: Did Metaclad Comply With All the Dark Premonitions?’ (2009) 15 International Law, Revista Colombiana de Derecho Internacional 279–314.Google Scholar

Bernardini, Piero, ‘Investment Protection under Bilateral Investment Treaties and Investment Contracts’ (2001) 2 Journal of World Investment & Trade 235–47.Google Scholar

Bernasconi-Osterwalder, Nathalie, ‘Giving Arbitrators Carte Blanche – Fair and Equitable Treatment in Investment Treaties’ in Lim, Chin Leng (ed.), Alternative Visions of the International Law on Foreign Investment: Essays in Honour of Muthucumaraswamy Sornarajah (Cambridge University Press, 2016) 324–45.Google Scholar

Bishop, Doak R., Crawford, James and Reisman, Michael, Foreign Investment Disputes: Cases, Materials and Commentary (Kluwer Law International, 2005).Google Scholar

Bishop, Doak R., Crawford, James and Reisman, Michael, Foreign Investment Disputes: Cases, Materials and Commentary, 2nd ed. (Kluwer Law International, 2014).Google Scholar

Bjorklund, Andrea K., ‘National Treatment’ in Reinisch, August (ed.), Standards of Investment Protection (Oxford University Press, 2009) 29–58.Google Scholar

Bjorklund, Andrea K., ‘Reconciling State Sovereignty and Investor Protection in Denial of Justice Claims’ (2005) 45 Virginia Journal of International Law 809–45.Google Scholar

Bjorklund, Andrea K., ‘The National Treatment Obligation’ in Yannaca-Small, Katia (ed.), Arbitration Under International Investment Agreements: A Guide to the Key Issues (Oxford University Press, 2010) 411–44.Google Scholar

Blades, Bryan W., ‘The Exhausting Question of Local Remedies: Expropriation Under NAFTA Chapter 11’ (2006) 8 Oregon Review of International Law 31–132.Google Scholar

Bonnitcha, Jonathan, Poulsen, Lauge N. Skovgaard, and Waibel, Michael, The Political Economy of the Investment Treaty Regime (Oxford University Press, 2017).Google Scholar

Bonnitcha, Jonathan, Substantive Protection under Investment Treaties: A Legal and Economic Analysis (Cambridge University Press, 2014).Google Scholar

Boone Barrera, Enrique, ‘The Case for Removing the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard from NAFTA’ (2017) CIGI Papers No. 128 – April 2017.Google Scholar

Borchard, Edwin M., ‘“Responsibility of States”, at the Hague Codification Conference’ (1930) 24 American Journal of International Law 517–40.Google Scholar

Borchard, Edwin M., The Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad or The Law of International Claims (The Banks Law Publishing Co., 1925).Google Scholar

Borchard, Edwin M., ‘The Law of Responsibility of States for Damage Done in their Territory to the Person or Property of Foreigners’ (1929) 23 American Journal of International Law. Special Supplement 131–239.Google Scholar

Borchard, Edwin M., ‘The “Minimum Standard” of the Treatment of Aliens’ (1940) 38 Michigan Law Review 445–61.Google Scholar

Braumann, Céline and Reinisch, August, ‘Effet Utile’ in Klingler, Joseph, Parkhomenko, Yuri and Salonidis, Constantinos (eds.), Between the Lines of the Vienna Convention? Canons and Other Principles of Interpretation in Public International Law (Wolters Kluwer, 2019) 47–72.Google Scholar

Brower, Charles H., ‘S.D. Myers, Inc. v. Canada, and Attorney General of Canada v. S.D. Myers, Inc., [2004] F.C. 38’ (2004) 98 American Journal of International Law 339–48.Google Scholar

Brower, Charles, ‘Structure, Legitimacy and NAFTA’s Investment Chapter’ (2003) 36 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 37–94.Google Scholar

Brower, Charles H., Belman, Murray, Thomas, Christopher and Coe, Jack, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment under NAFTA’s Investment Chapter’ (2002) 96 Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law 9–22.Google Scholar

Brower, Charles N. and Brueschke, Jason D., The Iran–United States Claims Tribunal (Martinus Nijhoff, 1998).Google Scholar

Brower, Charles H. II, ‘Structure, Legitimacy and NAFTA’s Investment Chapter’ (2003) 37 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 37–94.Google Scholar

Brower, Charles H. II, ‘Why the FTC Notes of Interpretation Constitute a Partial Amendment of NAFTA Article 1105’ (2006) 46 Virginia Journal of International Law 347–64.Google Scholar

Brown, Chester (ed.), Commentaries on Selected Model Investment Treaties (Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar

Brown, Chester, ‘Factory at Chorzów (Germany v. Poland) (1927–1928)’ in Bjorge, Eirik and Miles, Cameron (eds.), Landmark Cases in Public International Law (Hart Publishing, 2017) 61–88.Google Scholar

Brownlie, Ian, ‘Legal Status of Natural Resources in International Law (Some Aspects)’ (1979) 162 Recueil des Cours 245–317.Google Scholar

Brownlie, Ian, Principles of Public International Law, 7th ed. (Oxford University Press, 2008).Google Scholar

Brunetti, Maurizio, ‘The Iran–United States Claims Tribunal, NAFTA Chapter 11, and the Doctrine of Indirect Expropriation’ (2000) 2 Chicago Journal of International Law 203–212.Google Scholar

Bücheler, Gebhard, Proportionality in Investor–State Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2015).Google Scholar

Bullington, John P., ‘Problems of International Law in the Mexican Constitution of 1917’ (1927) 21 American Journal of International Law 685–705.Google Scholar

Burns, Sara Sargeantson, ‘Murphy Exploration & Production Company – International v. The Republic of Ecuador, UNCITRAL Final Award, February 10, 2017’ (2017) 4 Journal of Damages in International Arbitration 125–38.Google Scholar

Byrne, Katharina A., ‘Regulatory Expropriation and State Intent’ (2000) Canadian Yearbook of International Law 89–120.Google Scholar

Calamita, N. Jansen and Zelazna, Ewa, ‘Most-Favoured-Nation Clauses and the Centrality and Limits of General Principles’ in Gattini, Andrea, Tanzi, Attila and Fontanelli, Filippo (eds.), General Principles of Law and International Investment Arbitration (Brill – Nijhoff, 2018) 398–428.Google Scholar

Calvo, Carlos, Le Droit International théorique et practique, 3rd ed. (Guillaumin, 1881).Google Scholar

Campbell, Christopher, ‘House of Cards: The Relevance of Legitimate Expectations under Fair and Equitable Treatment Provisions in Investment Treaty Law’ (2013) 30 Journal of International Arbitration 361–79.Google Scholar

Carfagnini, Michael, ‘Too Low a Threshold: Bilcon v Canada and the International Minimum Standard of Treatment’ (2016) 53 Canadian Yearbook of International Law 244–77.Google Scholar

Carmody, Chios, ‘Obligations versus Rights: Substantive Difference between WTO and International Investment Law’ (2017) 12 Asian Journal of WTO & International Health Law and Policy 75–104.Google Scholar

Caron, David D. and Shirlow, Esmé, ‘Most-Favored-Nation Treatment: Substantive Protection: MTD v. Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7’ in Kinnear, Meg, Fischer, Geraldine R., Almeida, Jara Mínguez, Torres, Luisa Fernanda and Bidegain, Mairée Uran (eds.), Building International Investment Law: The First 50 Years of ICSID (Kluwer Law International, 2016) 399–414.Google Scholar

Casanova, Millán Requena, ‘La Solución de controversias en los modelos de APPRI: Cláusulas tradicionales y nuevas tendencias’ (2012) 24 Revista Electrónica de Estudios Internacionales 1–35.Google Scholar

Castaneda, Jorge, ‘La Charte des Droits et devoirs économiques des états, note sur son processus d’élaboration’ (1974) 20 Annuaire Français de Droit International 31–56.Google Scholar

Cavazos Villanueva, Gabriel, The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard: The Mexican Experience (VDM Verlag, 2008).Google Scholar

Cazala, Julien, ‘La clause de respect des engagements’ in Leben, Charles (ed.), Droit international des investissements et de l’arbitrage transnational (Pedone, 2015) 347–73.Google Scholar

Chalamish, Efraim, ‘The Future of Bilateral Investment Treaties: A De Facto Multilateral Agreement?’ (2009) 34 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 303–54.Google Scholar

Charpentier, Jean, ‘De la non-discrimination dans les investissements’ (1963) 9 Annuaire Français de Droit International 35–63.Google Scholar

Chauvel, Louis-Marie, ‘The Influence of General Exceptions on the Interpretation of National Treatment in International Investment Law – A influência das exceções gerais na interpretação do tratamento nacional no direito internacional dos investimentos’ (2017) 14 Brazilian Journal of International Law 140–59.Google Scholar

Cheng, Bin, ‘Expropriation in International Law’ (1954) 21 The Solicitor 98–100.Google Scholar

Cheng, Bin, ‘The Rationale for Compensation for Expropriation’ (1958) 44 Transactions of the Grotius Society 267–310.Google Scholar

Choharis, Peter Charles, ‘U.S. Courts and the International Law of Expropriation: Toward a New Model for Breach of Contract’ (2006) 80 Southern California Law Review 1–87.Google Scholar

Choi, Won-Mog, ‘Like Products’ in International Trade Law: Towards a Consistent GATT/WTO Jurisprudence (Oxford University Press, 2003).Google Scholar

Chong, Yee Leong and Neelakantan, Vivekananda, ‘Non-discrimination between Foreign and Domestic Investment in ASEAN’ (2015) 32 Journal of International Arbitration 387–412.Google Scholar

Choudhury, Barnali, ‘Evolution or Devolution? – Defining Fair and Equitable Treatment in International Investment Law’ (2005) 6 Journal of World Investment & Trade 297–320.Google Scholar

Choukroune, Leïla, ‘National Treatment in International Investment Law and Arbitration: A relative Standard for Autonomous Public Regulation and Sovereign Development’ in Sanders, Anselm Kamperman (ed.), The Principle of National Treatment in International Economic Law: Trade, Investment and Intellectual Property (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014) 189–90.Google Scholar

Christie, George C., ‘What Constitutes a Taking of Property under International Law’ (1962) 33 British Yearbook of International Law 307–38.Google Scholar

Chukwumerije, Okezie, ‘Interpreting Most-Favoured-Nations Clauses in Investment Treaty Arbitrations’ (2007) 8 Journal of World Investment & Trade 597–646.Google Scholar

Clagett, Brice M., ‘The Expropriation Issue Before the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal: Is “Just Compensation” Required by International Law or Not?’ (1984) 16 Law and Policy in International Business 813–91.Google Scholar

Clough, Daniel, ‘Regulatory Expropriations and Competition under NAFTA’ (2005) 6 Journal of World Investment & Trade 553–84.Google Scholar

Çoban, Ali R., Protection of Property Rights within the European Convention on Human Rights (Ashgate Aldershot, 2004).Google Scholar

Coe, Jack Jr, ‘Taking Stock of NAFTA Chapter 11 in its Tenth Year: An Interim Sketch of Selected Themes, Issues and Methods’ (2003) 36 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 1381–460.Google Scholar

Coe, Jack Jr and Rubins, Noah, ‘Regulatory Expropriation and the Tecmed Case: Context and Contributions’ in Weiler, Todd (ed.), International Investment Law and Arbitration: Leading Cases from the ICSID, NAFTA, Bilateral Treaties and Customary International Law (Cameron May, 2005) 597–668.Google Scholar

Cole, Tony, ‘The Boundaries of Most Favored National Treatment in International Investment Law’ (2012) 33 Michigan Journal of International Law 537–86.Google Scholar

Collins, David, ‘National treatment in emerging market investment treaties’ in Sanders, Anselm Kamperman (ed.), The Principle of National Treatment in International Economic Law: Trade, Investment and Intellectual Property (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014) 169–70.Google Scholar

Comeaux, Paul E. and Kinsella, N. Stephan, Protecting Foreign Investment Under International Law, Legal Aspects of Political Risk (Oceana Publications, 1997).Google Scholar

Cordero Moss, Giuditta, ‘Full Protection and Security’ in Reinisch, August (ed.), Standards of Investment Protection (Oxford University Press, 2008) 131–50.Google Scholar

Correa, Carlos M., ‘Investment Protection in Bilateral and Free Trade Agreements: Implications for the Granting of Compulsory Licences’ (2004) 26 Michigan Journal of International Law 331–53.Google Scholar

Cottier, Thomas and Krajewski, Markus, ‘What Role for Non-Discrimination and Prudential Standards in International Financial Law?’ (2010) 13 Journal of International Economic Law 817–35.Google Scholar

Coulombe, Louis-Philippe, ‘Duplicating the Umbrella Clause? Some Thoughts on Contractual Expectations and the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard’ in Laird, Ian A., Sabahi, Borzu, Sourgens, Frédéric G. and Weiler, Todd J. (eds.), Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law (JurisNet, 2014) 101–32.Google Scholar

Coulombe, Louis-Philippe and Bandali, Sabrina A., ‘Energy Contracts and BITs – Is it Fair and Equitable to be Under the Umbrella?’ in Laird, Ian A., Sabahi, Borzu, Sourgens, Frédéric G. and Weiler, Todd J. (eds.), Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law (JurisNet, 2014) 165–91.Google Scholar

Crawford, James, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law, 8th ed. (Oxford University Press, 2012).Google Scholar

Crawford, James, ‘Treaty and Contract in Investment Arbitration’ (2008) 24 Arbitration International 351–74.Google Scholar

Crawford, James and Mertenskötter, Paul, ‘Chapter 3: The Use of the ILC’s Attribution Rules in Investment Arbitration’ in Kinnear, Meg, Fischer, Geraldine, Almeida, Jara Minguez, Torres, Luisa Fernanda and Bidegain, Mairée Uran (eds.), Building International Investment Law: The First Fifty Years of ICSID (Kluwer Law International, 2015) 27–42.Google Scholar

Cremades, Bernardo M. and Cairns, David J. A., ‘Contract and Treaty Claims and Choice of Forum in Foreign Investment Disputes’ in Horn, Norbert and Kröll, Stefan M. (eds.), Arbitrating Foreign Investment Disputes: Procedural and Substantive Legal Aspects (Kluwer Law International, 2004) 325–51.Google Scholar

Crépet-Daigremont, Claire, La clause de la nation la plus favorisée (Éditions Pedone, 2015).Google Scholar

Cumming, Joseph and Froehlich, Robert, ‘NAFTA Chapter XI and Canada’s Environmental Sovereignty: Investment Flows, Article 1110 and Alberta’s Water Act’ (2007) 65 University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review 107–35.Google Scholar

Davitti, Daria, ‘On the Meanings of International Investment Law and International Human Rights Law: The Alternative Narrative of Due Diligence’ (2012) 12 Human Rights Law Review 421–53.Google Scholar

Dawson, Frank Griffith and Weston, Burns H., ‘“Prompt, Adequate and Effective”: A Universal Standard of Compensation?’ (1962) 30 Fordham Law Review 727–59.Google Scholar

De Arechaga, Eduardo Jiminez, ‘State Responsibility for the Nationalization of Foreign Owned Property’ (1978) 11 New York University Journal of International Law and Policy 179–95.Google Scholar

De Brabandere, Eric, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment and (Full) Protection and Security in African Investment Treaties between Generality and Contextual Specificity’ (2017) 18 Journal of World Investment & Trade 530–55.Google Scholar

De Brabandere, Eric, ‘States’ Reassertion of Control over International Investment Law: (Re)Defining “Fair and Equitable Treatment” and “Indirect Expropriation”’ in Kulick, Andreas (ed.), Reassertion of Control over the Investment Treaty Regime (Cambridge University Press, 2017) 285–308.Google Scholar

De Nanteuil, Arnaud, Droit international de l’investissement (Éditions Pedone, 2014).Google Scholar

De Nanteuil, Arnaud, Droit international de l’investissement, 2nd ed. (Éditions Pedone, 2017).Google Scholar

De Nanteuil, Arnaud (ed.), L’accès de l’investisseur à la justice arbitrale. Réflexions sur la procéduralisation du droit international de l’investissement (Éditions Pedone, 2015).Google Scholar

De Sousa Nunes Vicente, Marta, ‘What is the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard?: Content and Sources’ (2015) 9 World Arbitration and Mediation Review 51–83.Google Scholar

De Souza Fleury, Raúl Pereira, ‘Umbrella Clauses: A Trend Towards Its Elimination’ (2015) 31 Arbitration International 679–91.Google Scholar

De Vietri, Raphael, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment for Foreign Investment: What is the Current Standard at International Law?’ (2011) 14 International Trade and Business Law Review 414–21.Google Scholar

De Visscher, Charles, ‘Le déni de justice en droit international’ (1935) 52 Recueil des Cours 365–442.Google Scholar

Del Duca, Patrick, ‘The Rule of Law: Mexico’s Approach to Expropriation Disputes in the Face of Investment Globalization’ (2003) 51 UCLA Law Review 35–141.Google Scholar

Delaney, Jo, ‘“Expropriation” and “Fair and Equitable Treatment” Standards in Recent ICSID Jurisprudence’ in Hofmann, Rainer and Tams, Christian J. (eds.), The International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID): Taking Stock after Forty Years (Nomos, 2007) 73–8.Google Scholar

Denza, Eileen, ‘Bilateral Investment Treaties and EU Rules on Free Transfer: Comment on Commission v. Austria, Commission v. Sweden and Commission v. Finland’ (2010) 35 European Law Review 263–74.Google Scholar

Deutsch, Richard D., ‘An ICSID Tribunal Values Illegal Expropriation Damages from Date of the Award: What Does This Mean for Upcoming Expropriation Claims? A Case Note and Commentary on ADC v. Hungary’ (2007) 4(3) Transnational Dispute Management 1–12.Google Scholar

Dhooge, Lucien J., ‘Foreign Investors versus Environmentalists: Whose Green Counts in the North American Free Trade Agreement?’ (2001) 10 Minnesota Journal of Global Trade 209–89.Google Scholar

Dhooge, Lucien J., ‘The Revenge of the Trail Smelter: Environmental Regulation as Expropriation Pursuant to the North American Free Trade Agreement’ (2001) 38 American Business Law Journal 475–558.Google Scholar

Diebold, Nicolas F, ‘Standards of Non-Discrimination in International Economic Law’ (2011) 60 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 831–65.Google Scholar

Diehl, Alexandra, The Core Standard of International Investment Protection: Fair and Equitable Treatment (Kluwer Law International, 2012).Google Scholar

DiMascio, Nicholas and Pauwelyn, Joost, ‘Nondiscrimination in Trade and Investment Treaties: Worlds Apart or Two Sides of the Same Coin?’ (2008) 102 American Journal of International Law 48–89.Google Scholar

Dimsey, Mariel, The Resolution of International Investment Disputes: Challenges and Solutions (Eleven International Publishing, 2008) 54–64.Google Scholar

Dinstein, Yoram, ‘Deprivation of Property of Foreigners under International Law’ in Ando, Nisuke, McWhinney, Edward and Wolfrum, Rüdiger (eds.), Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda (Brill, 2002) 849–69.Google Scholar

Djajic, Sanja, ‘Contractual Claims in Treaty-based Arbitration – with or without Umbrella and Forum Selection Clauses’ (2011) 14 International Arbitration Law Review 173–81.Google Scholar

Dolzer, Rudolf, Eigentum, Enteignung und Entschädigung im geltenden Völkerrecht (Springer, 1985).Google Scholar

Dolzer, Rudolf, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment: A Key Standard in Investment Treaties’ (2005) 39 The International Lawyer 87–106.Google Scholar

Dolzer, Rudolf, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment: Today’s Contours’ (2013) 12 Santa Clara Journal of International Law 7–33.Google Scholar

Dolzer, Rudolf, ‘Indirect Expropriation of Alien Property’ (1986) 1 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 41–65.Google Scholar

Dolzer, Rudolf, ‘Indirect Expropriations: New Developments?’ (2002) 11 NYU Environmental Law Journal 64–93.Google Scholar

Dolzer, Rudolf, ‘Meistbegünstigungsklauseln in Investitionsschutzverträgen’ in Bröhmer, Jürgen (ed.), Internationale Gemeinschaft und Menschenrechte: Festschrift für Georg Ress zum 70. Geburtstag am 21. Januar 2005 (Carl Heymanns Köln, 2005) 47–54.Google Scholar

Dolzer, Rudolf, ‘New Foundations of the Law of Expropriation of Alien Property’ (1981) 75 American Journal of International Law 553–89.Google Scholar

Dolzer, Rudolf, ‘Schirmklauseln in Investionsschutzverträgen’ in Dupuy, Pierre-Marie, Fassbender, Bardo, Shaw, Malcolm N. and Sommermann, Karl-Peter (eds.), Festschrift Christian Tomuschat, Common Values of International Law (N.P. Engel Verlag, 2006) 281–96.Google Scholar

Dolzer, Rudolf, ‘Transfer of Funds: Investment Rules and Their Relationship to Other International Agreements’ in Giovanoli, Mario and Devos, Diego (eds.), International Monetary and Financial Law (Oxford University Press, 2010) 533–44.Google Scholar

Dolzer, Rudolf and Myers, Terry, ‘After Tecmed: Most-Favored-Nation Clauses in Investment Protection Agreements’ (2004) 19 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 49–60.Google Scholar

Dolzer, Rudolf and Schreuer, Christoph, Principles of International Investment Law (Oxford University Press, 2008).Google Scholar

Dolzer, Rudolf and Schreuer, Christoph, Principles of International Investment Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2012).Google Scholar

Dolzer, Rudolf and Stevens, Margrete, Bilateral Investment Treaties (Martinus Nihoff Publishers, 1995) 60–1.Google Scholar

Dolzer, Rudolf and von Walter, André, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment: Lines of Jurisprudence on Customary Law’ in Ortino, Federico, Liberti, Lahra, Sheppard, Audley and Warner, Hugo (eds.), Investment Treaty Law Current Issues, Volume II: Nationality and investment treaty claims. Fair and equitable treatment in investment treaty law (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2007) 99–116.Google Scholar

Domke, Martin, ‘Foreign Nationalisations, Some Aspects of Contemporary International Law’ (1961) 55 American Journal of International Law 585–616.Google Scholar

Domke, Martin, ‘On the Nationalization of Foreign Shareholders’ Interests’ (1958) 4 New York Law Forum 46–58.Google Scholar

Domke, Martin and Baade, Hans W., ‘Nationalization of Foreign Owned Property and the Act of State Doctrine: Two Speeches’ (1963) 1963 Duke Law Journal 281–303.Google Scholar

Douaire de Bondy, Christophe, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment, Arbitral Jurisprudence and the Implications of State Treaty Practice’ in Laird, Ian and Weiler, Todd Grierson (eds.), Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law (JurisNet, 2009) 233–53.Google Scholar

Douglas, Zachary, ‘Nothing If Not Critical for Investment Treaty Arbitration: Occidental, Eureko and Methanex’ (2006) 22 Arbitration International 27–52.Google Scholar

Douglas, Zachary, ‘Property Rights as the Object of an Expropriation – Emmis v. Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/2’ in Kinnear, Meg, Fischer, Geraldine R., Almeida, Jara Mínguez, Torres, Luisa Fernanda and Bidegain, Mairée Uran (eds.), Building International Investment Law: The First Fifty Years of ICSID (Kluwer Law International, 2016) 331–48.Google Scholar

Douglas, Zachary, The International Law of Investment Claims (Cambridge University Press, 2009).Google Scholar

Douglas, Zachary, ‘The MFN Clause in Investment Arbitration: Treaty Interpretation Off the Rails’ (2011) 2 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 97–113.Google Scholar

Draguiev, Deyan, ‘Bad Faith Conduct of States in Violation of the “Fair and Equitable Treatment” Standard in International Investment Law and Arbitration’ (2014) 5 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 273–305.Google Scholar

Dralle, Tilman Michael, ‘Der Fair and Equitable Treatment-Standard im Investitionsschutzrecht am Beispiel des Schiedsspruchs Glamis Gold v. United States’ (Beiträge zum Transnationalen Wirtschaftsrecht, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, 2011).Google Scholar

Dugan, Christopher F., Wallace, Don Jr, Rubins, Noah D. and Sabahi, Borzu, Investor–State Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2008).Google Scholar

Dumberry, Patrick, A Guide to State Succession in International Investment Law (Edward Elgar Publishing 2018).Google Scholar

Dumberry, Patrick, ‘Are BITs Representing the “New” Customary International Law in International Investment Law?’ (2010) 28 Penn State International Law Review 675–701.Google Scholar

Dumberry, Patrick, ‘Expropriation Under NAFTA Chapter 11 Investment Dispute Settlement Mechanism: Some Comments on the Latest Case Law’ (2001) 4 International Arbitration Law Review 96–104.Google Scholar

Dumberry, Patrick, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment’ in Mbengue, Makane Moïse and Schacherer, Stefanie (eds.), Foreign Investment Under the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) (Springer, 2019) 95–126.Google Scholar

Dumberry, Patrick, Fair and Equitable Treatment: Its Interaction with the Minimum Standard and Its Customary Status (Brill, 2018).Google Scholar

Dumberry, Patrick, ‘Has the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard Become a Rule of Customary International Law?’ (2017) 8 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 155–78.Google Scholar

Dumberry, Patrick, ‘Moving the Goal Post!: How Some NAFTA Tribunals have Challenged the FTC Note of Interpretation on the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard under NAFTA Article 1105’ (2014) 8 World Arbitration and Mediation Review 251–93.Google Scholar

Dumberry, Patrick, ‘Shopping for a Better Deal: The Use of MFN Clauses to Get ‘Better’ Fair and Equitable Treatment Protection’ (2017) 33 Arbitration International 1–16.Google Scholar

Dumberry, Patrick, The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard: A Guide to NAFTA Case Law on Article 1105 (Kluwer Law International, 2013).Google Scholar

Dumberry, Patrick, ‘The Importation of the FET Standard through MFN Clauses: An Empirical Study of BITs’ (2017) 32 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 116–37.Google Scholar

Dumberry, Patrick, ‘The Meaning of the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard under NAFTA Article 1105 in Light of the General Rules of Treaty Interpretation’ (2013) 16 International Arbitration Law Review 121–34.Google Scholar

Dumberry, Patrick, ‘The Practice of States as Evidence of Custom: An Analysis of Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard Clauses in States’ Foreign Investment Laws’ (2016) 2 McGill Journal of Dispute Resolution 66–81.Google Scholar

Dumberry, Patrick, ‘The Prohibition against Arbitrary Conduct and the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard under NAFTA Article 1105’ (2014) 15 Journal of World Investment & Trade 117–51.Google Scholar

Dumberry, Patrick, ‘The Protection of Investors’ Legitimate Expectations and the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard under NAFTA Article 1105’ (2014) 31 Journal of International Arbitration 47–74.Google Scholar

Dumberry, Patrick, ‘The Quest to Define “Fair and Equitable Treatment” for Investors under International Law: The Case of the NAFTA Chapter 11 Pope & Talbot Awards’ (2002) 3 Journal of World Investment & Trade 657–91.Google Scholar

Ebner, Josef, La clause de la nation la plus favorisée en droit international public (LGDJ, 1931).Google Scholar

Eckardt, Melanie N., ‘The Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) Standard in International Investment Law’ (2012) 9(3) Transnational Dispute Management 1–42.Google Scholar

Edsall, Rachel D., ‘Indirect Expropriation Under NAFTA and DR-CAFTA: Potential Inconsistencies in the Treatment of State Public Welfare Regulations’ (2006) 86 Boston University Law Review 931–62.Google Scholar

Egli, Gabriel, ‘Don’t Get Bit: Addressing ICSID’s Inconsistent Application of Most-Favored-Nation Clauses to Dispute Resolution Provisions’ (2007) 34 Pepperdine Law Review 1045–84.Google Scholar

Elcombe, Joshua, ‘Regulatory Powers vs. Investment Protection under NAFTA’s Chapter 1110: Metalclad, Methanex, and Glamis Gold’ (2010) 68 University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review 71–98.Google Scholar

Elkins, Zachary, Guzman, Andrew T. and Simmons, Beth A., ‘Competing for Capital: The Diffusion of Bilateral Investment Treaties’ (2006) 60 International Organization 811–46.Google Scholar

Enriquez, Raymundo E., ‘Expropriation under Mexican Law and Its Insertion into a Global Context Under NAFTA’ (2000) 23 Hastings International & Comparative Law Review 385–92.Google Scholar

Escarcena, Sebastián López, Indirect Expropriation in International Law (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014).Google Scholar

Essig, Holger, ‘Balancing Investors’ Interests and State Sovereignty: The ICSID-Decision on Jurisdiction Plama Consortium Ltd. v. Republic of Bulgaria’ (2007) 4(5) Transnational Dispute Management 1–32.Google Scholar

Eustathiadès, Constantin T, La responsabilité international de l’état pour les actes des organes judiciares et le problème du déni de justice en droit international (A. Pédone, 1936).Google Scholar

Fachiri, Alexander P., ‘Expropriation and International Law’ (1925) 6 British Yearbook of International Law 159–72.Google Scholar

Fatouros, Arghyrios A., Government Guarantees for Foreign Investors (Columbia University Press, 1962).Google Scholar

Fatouros, Arghyrios A., (ed.), Transnational Corporations: The International Legal Framework (Routledge, 1994).Google Scholar

Feit, Michael, ‘Attribution and the Umbrella Clause: Is There a Way out of the Deadlock?’ (2012) 21 Minnesota Journal of International Law 21–41.Google Scholar

Fernández de la Cuesta González, Isabel, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment: Evolution or Revolution?’ in Laird, Ian and Grierson Weiler, Todd (eds.), Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law (JurisNet, 2009) 219–32.Google Scholar

Fernández Masiá, Enrique, ‘Atribución de competencia a través de la cláusula de nación más favorecida: Lecciones extraídas de la reciente práctica arbitral en materia de inversiones extranjeras’ (2007) 13 Revista Electrónica de Estudios Internacionales 1–20.Google Scholar

Fietta, Stephen, ‘Expropriation and the “Fair and Equitable” Standard: The Developing Role of Investor “Expectations” in International Investment Arbitration’ (2006) 23 Journal of International Arbitration 375–99.Google Scholar

Fietta, Stephen, ‘Expropriation and the “Fair and Equitable Treatment” Standard’ in Ortino, Federico, Liberti, Lahra, Sheppard, Audley and Warner, Hugo (eds.), Investment Treaty Law Current Issues, Volume II: Nationality and Investment Treaty claims. Fair and Equitable Treatment in Investment Treaty Law (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2007) 183–94.Google Scholar

Fietta, Stephen, ‘Most Favoured Nation Treatment and Dispute Resolution under Bilateral Investment Treaties: a Turning Point?’ (2005) 8 International Arbitration Law Review 131–8.Google Scholar

Fietta, Stephen, ‘The Developing Role of Investors’ “Expectations” in International Investment Arbitration’ (2006) 23 Journal of International Arbitration 375–99.Google Scholar

Fietta, Stephen, ‘The Legitimate Expectations Principle under Article 1105 NAFTA International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v. Mexico’ (2006) 7 Journal of World Investment & Trade 423–32.Google Scholar

Fitzmaurice, Gerald, ‘The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice: Treaty Interpretation and Certain Other Treaty Points’ (1951) 28 British Yearbook of International Law 1–28.Google Scholar

Flores, Gonzalo, ‘Emilio Agustín Maffezini v. Kingdom of Spain (ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7) – Introductory Note’ (2000) 16 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 203–6.Google Scholar

Foighel, Isi, Nationalization, A Study of the Protection of Alien Property in International Law (Praeger, 1982).Google Scholar

Footer, Mary E., ‘Umbrella Clauses and Widely-Formulated Arbitration Clauses: Discerning the Limits of ICSID Jurisdiction’ (2017) 16 The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 87–107.Google Scholar

Fortier, Yves, ‘Caveat Investor: The Meaning of Expropriation and the Protection Afforded Investors Under NAFTA’ (2003) 20 News from ICSID 1, 10–13.Google Scholar

Fortier, Yves L. and Drymer, Stephen L., ‘Indirect Expropriation in the Law of International Investment: I Know It When I See It, or Caveat Investor’ (2004) 19 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 293–327.Google Scholar

Fortier, Yves L. and Drymer, Stephen L., ‘Indirect Expropriation in the Law of International Investment: I Know It When I See It, or Caveat Investor’ (2005) 12 Asia Pacific Law Review 79–110.Google Scholar

Fortier, Yves L. and Drymer, Stephen L., ‘Indirect Expropriation – Santa Elena SA v. Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB/96/1, TECMED v. Mexico, ARB(AF)/00/2, Generation Ukraine v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/9’ in Kinnear, Meg, Fischer, Geraldine R., Almeida, Jara Mínguez, Torres, Luisa Fernanda and Bidegain, Mairée Uran (eds.), Building International Investment Law: The First Fifty Years of ICSID (Kluwer Law International, 2016) 349–58.Google Scholar

Foster, David, ‘Umbrella Clauses—a Retreat from the Philippines?’ (2006) 9 International Arbitration Law Review 100–8.Google Scholar

Foster, George K., ‘Recovering “Protection and Security”: The Treaty Standard’s Obscure Origins, Forgotten Meaning, and Key Current Significance’ (2012) 45 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 1095–156.Google Scholar

Foster, Nicole D., ‘Philip Morris Brands Sàrl v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay’ (2016) 110 American Journal of International Law 774–81.Google Scholar

Fowles, John B., ‘Swords into Plowshares: Softening the Edge of NAFTA’s Chapter 11 Regulatory Expropriation Provisions’ (2005/2006) 36 Cumberland Law Review 83–102.Google Scholar

Francioni, Francesco, ‘Compensation for Nationalisation of Foreign Property: The Borderland Between Law and Equity’ (1975) 24 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 255–83.Google Scholar

Franck, Susan D., ‘International Decision: Occidental Exploration & Production Co. v. Republic of Ecuador’ (2005) 99 American Journal of International Law 675–81.Google Scholar

Freeman, Elyse M., ‘Regulatory Expropriation under NAFTA Chapter 11: Some Lessons from the European Court of Human Rights’ (2003) 42 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 177–215.Google Scholar

Freyer, Dana H. and Herlihy, David, ‘Most-Favored-Nation Treatment and Dispute Settlement in Investment Arbitration: Just How “Favored” is “Most-Favored”?’ (2005) 20 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 58-83.Google Scholar

Friedland, Paul D. and Wong, Eleanor, ‘Measuring Damages for Deprivation of Income-Producing Assets: ICSID Case Studies’ (1991) 6 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 400–30.Google Scholar

Friedman, Samy, Expropriation in International Law (Stevens, 1953).Google Scholar

Frowein, Jochen Abraham, ‘The Protection of Property’ in Macdonald, Ronald St J., Matscher, Franz and Petzold, Herbert (eds.), The European System for the Protection of Human Rights (Nijhoff Dordrecht, 1993) 515–30.Google Scholar

Gadelshina, Elvira R., ‘Hermeneutic Reflections on the Specific Purpose of Umbrella Clauses’ (2013) 14 Journal of World Investment & Trade 804–28.Google Scholar

Gaffney, John P. and Loftis, James L., ‘The “Effective Ordinary Meaning” of BITs and the Jurisdiction of Treaty-Based Tribunals to Hear Contract Claims’ (2007) 8 Journal of World Investment & Trade 5–67.Google Scholar

Gaillard, Emmanuel, ‘Establishing jurisdiction through a Most-Favored-Nation Clause’ (June 2005) 233(105) New York Law Journal: International Arbitration Law 1–3.Google Scholar

Gaillard, Emmanuel, ‘Investment Treaty Arbitration and Jurisdiction over Contract Claims: The SGS Cases Considered’ in Weiler, Todd (ed.), International Investment Law and Arbitration: Leading Cases from the ICSID, NAFTA, Bilateral Treaties and Customary International Law (Cameron May, 2005) 325–46.Google Scholar

Gaillard, Emmanuel, ‘L’arbitrage sur le fondement des traités de protection des investissements’ (2003) 3 Revue de l’Arbitrage 853–75.Google Scholar

Gaillard, Emmanuel, ‘Treaty-based Jurisdiction: Broad Dispute Resolution Clauses’ (6 October 2005) 234(68) New York Law Journal 1–3.Google Scholar

Gallagher, Norah and Shan, Wenhua (eds.), Chinese Investment Treaties: Policies and Practice (Oxford University Press, 2009).Google Scholar

Gallus, Nick, ‘An Umbrella Just for Two? BIT Obligations Observance Clauses and the Parties to a Contract’ (2008) 24 Arbitration International 157–70.Google Scholar

Gallus, Nick, ‘National Grid P.L.C. v. Argentine Republic: Arbitral Award on Fair and Equitable Treatment of Investments Under a Bilateral Investment Treaty: UNCITRAL Arbitral Tribunal, November 3, 2008’ (2009) 103 American Journal of International Law 722–7.Google Scholar

Gallus, Nick, ‘Plama v. Bulgaria and the Scope of Investment Treaty MFN Clauses’ (2005) 2(3) Transnational Dispute Management 1–20.Google Scholar

Gallus, Nick, ‘The “Fair and Equitable Treatment” Standard and the Circumstances of the Host State’ in Brown, Chester and Miles, Kate (eds.), Evolution in Investment Treaty Law and Arbitration (Cambridge University Press, 2011) 223–45.Google Scholar

Gallus, Nick, ‘The Influence of the Host State’s Level of Development on International Investment Treaty Standards of Protection’ (2005) 6 Journal of World Investment & Trade 711–29.Google Scholar

Gantz, David A., ‘Environmental Takings under Chapter 11: Does NAFTA Require Compensation for Environmental Takings?’ (C.B.A. Conf., March 2000).Google Scholar

Gantz, David A., ‘Potential Conflicts Between Investor Rights and Environmental Regulation under NAFTA’s Chapter 11’ (2001) 33 George Washington International Law Review 651–752.Google Scholar

García Corona, Irene Gabriela, Arbitraje de inversión: La cláusula de la nación más favorecida en derechos adjetivos (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México 2013).Google Scholar

Garcia-Amador, Francisco V., ‘ILC Fourth Report on State Responsibility, Responsibility of the State for Injuries Caused in its Territory to the Person or Property of Aliens: Measures Affecting Acquired Rights’ (1959) 2 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1–37.Google Scholar

Garcia-Amador y Rodriguez, Francisco V., Sohn, Louis B. and Baxter, Richard R., Recent Codification of the Law of State Responsibility for Injuries to Aliens (Oceana Publications, 1974).Google Scholar

Gardiner, Richard, Treaty Interpretation (Oxford University Press, 2008).Google Scholar

Gaukrodger, David, ‘Addressing the Balance of Interests in Investment Treaties: The Limitation of Fair and Equitable Treatment Provisions to the Minimum Standard of Treatment under Customary International Law’ (2017) OECD Working Papers on International Investment 2017/03.Google Scholar

Gazzini, Tarcisio, Interpretation of International Investment Treaties (Hart Publishing, 2016).Google Scholar

Gazzini, Tarcisio, ‘The Role of Customary International Law in the Field of Foreign Investment’ (2007) 8 Journal of World Investment & Trade 691–715.Google Scholar

Gazzini, Tarcisio and Tanzi, Attila, ‘Handle with Care: Umbrella Clauses and MFN Treatment in Investment Arbitration’ (2013) 14 Journal of World Investment & Trade 978–94.Google Scholar

Gazzini, Tarcisio and Radi, Yannick, ‘Practice and Interpretation of “Umbrella Clauses” in the Latin American Experience’ in Tanzi, Attila, Asteriti, Alessandra, Lazo, Rodrigo Polanco and Turrini, Paolo (eds.), International Investment Law in Latin America / Derecho Internacional de las Inversiones en América Latina (Brill Nijhoff, 2016) 341–69.Google Scholar

Gelinsky, Katja, Der Schutz des Eigentums gemäß Art. 1 des Ersten Zusatzprotokolls zur Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention (Duncker & Humblot, 1996).Google Scholar

Gerhart, Peter M. and Baron, Michael S., ‘Understanding National Treatment: The Participatory Vision of the WTO’ in Qureshi, Asif H. and Gao, Xuan (eds.), International Economic Law: Critical Concepts in Law (Routledge, 2011) 77–127.Google Scholar

Geva, Benjamin, ‘Global and Cross-Border Credit Transfers: The Role of Legislation in Addressing Legal Risk for Participants’ in Giovanoli, Mario and Devos, Diego (eds.), International Monetary and Financial Law (Oxford University Press, 2010) 545–74.Google Scholar

Gharavi, Hamid G., ‘Discord Over Judicial Expropriation’ (2018) 33 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 349–57.Google Scholar

Giardina, Andrea, ‘Legal Aspects of Recourse to Arbitration by an Investor Against the Authorities of the Host State under Inter-State Treaties’ in Institut de Droit International, Yearbook of Institute of International Law – Tokyo Session 13 September 2013 – Draft Works, available at www.idi-iil.org/idiE/annuaireE/2013/Question3_Giardina.pdf.Google Scholar

Gill, Judith, Gearing, Matt and Birt, Gemma, ‘Contractual Claims and Bilateral Investment Treaties: A Comparative Review of the SGS Cases’ (2004) 21 Journal of International Arbitration 397–412.Google Scholar

Goco, Jonell B., ‘Non-Discrimination, “Likeness”, and Market Definition in World Trade Organization Jurisprudence’ (2006) 40 Journal of World Trade 315.Google Scholar

Godshall, Lauren E., ‘In the Cold Shadow of Metalclad: The Potential for Change to NAFTA’s Chapter Eleven’ (2002) 11 NYU Environmental Law Journal 264–316.Google Scholar

Greenwood, Christopher, ‘Most Favoured Nation Clauses in BITs: What is Their Real Purpose (and Their Real Effect)? – 3rd Annual EFILA Lecure’ in Mistelis, Loukas and Lavranos, Nikos (eds.), European Investment Law and Arbitration Review (Brill – Nijhoff, 2018) 343–56.Google Scholar

Greenwood, Christopher, ‘Reflections on “Most Favoured Nation” Clauses in Bilateral Investment Treaties’ in Caron, David D., Schill, Stephan W., Smutny, Abby Cohen and Triantafilou, Epaminontas E. (eds.), Practising Virtue: Inside International Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2015) 556–64.Google Scholar

Greenwood, Christopher, ‘State Responsibility for the Decisions of National Courts’ in Fitzmaurice, Malgosia and Sarooshi, Dan (eds.), Issues of State Responsibility before International Judicial Institutions (Hart Publishing, 2004) 55–74.Google Scholar

Griebel, Jörn, Internationales Investitionsrecht: Lehrbuch für Studium und Praxis (C.H. Beck, 2008).Google Scholar

Grierson-Weiler, Todd J. and Laird, Ian A., ‘Standards of Treatment’ in Muchlinski, Peter, Ortino, Frederico and Schreuer, Christoph (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law (Oxford University Press, 2008) 259–304.Google Scholar

Gritón Salias, María C., ‘Do Umbrella Clauses Apply to Unilateral Undertakings?’ in Binder, Christina, Kriebaum, Ursula, Reinisch, August and Wittich, Stephan (eds.), International Investment Law for the 21st Century: Essays in Honour of Christoph Schreuer (Oxford University Press, 2009) 490–6.Google Scholar

Gritsenko, Maria, ‘Relevance of the Host State’s Development Status in Investment Treaty Arbitration’ in Baetens, F. (ed.), Investment Law within International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2013) 341–51.Google Scholar

Gudofsky, Jason L., ‘Shedding Light on Article 1110 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Concerning Expropriations: An Environmental Case Study’ (2000) 21 Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business 243–315.Google Scholar

Gunton, David L., ‘Liability Begins at Home: An Alternative Compensation Scheme for NAFTA Expropriations’ (2007) 40 New York University Journal of International Law and Policy 219–57.Google Scholar

Gutbrod, Max and Hindelang, Steffen, ‘Externalization of Effective Legal Protection against Indirect Expropriation’ (2006) 7 Journal of World Investment & Trade 59–83.Google Scholar

Haeri, Hussein, ‘A Tale of Two Standards: “Fair and Equitable Treatment” and the Minimum Standard in International Law’ (2011) 27 Arbitration International 27–45.Google Scholar

Halonen, Laura, ‘Containing the Scope of the Umbrella Clause’ in Weiler, Todd J. Grierson (ed.), Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law (JurisNet, 2008) 27–38.Google Scholar

Hamamoto, Shotaro, ‘Parties to the “Obligations” in the Obligations Observance (“Umbrella”) Clause’ (2015) 30 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 449–64.Google Scholar

Hamrock, Kurt J., ‘The ELSI Case: Toward an International Definition of “Arbitrary Conduct”’ (1992) 27 Texas International Law Journal 837–64.Google Scholar

Hanna, John Jr, ‘Is Transparency of Governmental Administration Customary International Law in Investor–Sovereign Arbitrations? Courts and Arbitrators May Differ’ (2005) 21 Arbitration International 187–210.Google Scholar

Happ, Richard, ‘Dispute Settlement under the Energy Charter Treaty’ (2002) 45 German Yearbook of International Law 331–62.Google Scholar

Hasic, Halil, ‘Article 1110 of NAFTA: Investment Barriers to “Upward Harmonization” of Environmental Standards’ (2005) 12 Southwestern Journal of Law and Trade in the Americas 137–58.Google Scholar

Haynes, Jason, ‘The Evolving Nature of the Fair and Equitable Treatment (FET) Standard: Challenging Its Increasing Pervasiveness in Light of Developing Countries’ Concerns – The Case for Regulatory Rebalancing’ (2013) 14 Journal of World Investment & Trade 114–46.Google Scholar

Heiskanen, Veijo, ‘Arbitrary and Unreasonable Measures’ in Reinisch, August (ed.), Standards of Investment Protection (Oxford University Press, 2008) 87–110.Google Scholar

Heiskanen, Veijo, ‘The Doctrine of Indirect Expropriation in Light of the Practice of the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal’ (2007) 8 Journal of World Investment & Trade 215–31.Google Scholar

Henckels, Caroline, Proportionality and Deference in Investor–State Arbitration: Balancing Investment Protection and Regulatory Autonomy (Cambridge University Press, 2015).Google Scholar

Hepburn, Jarrod, Domestic Law in International Investment Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2017).Google Scholar

Herdegen, Matthias, Principles of International Economic Law (Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar

Hernu, Rémy, Principe d’egalité et principe de non-discrimination dan la jurisprudence de la Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes (LGDJ, 2003).Google Scholar

Herrera Ramírez, Viviana, ‘Efectos sorpresivos de la cláusula de la nación más favorecida (CNMF) en materia de inversiones extranjeras’ (2009) 9 Revista Civilizar Ciencias Sociales y Humanas 41–56.Google Scholar

Herz, John H., ‘Expropriation of Foreign Property’ (1941) 35 American Journal of International Law 243–62.Google Scholar

Hestermeyer, Holger, ‘Art. III GATT, paras. 48–63’ in Wolfrum, Rüdiger, Stoll, Peter-Tobias and Hestermeyer, Holger (eds.), Max Planck Commentaries on World Trade Law, vol. V (Brill – Nijhoff, 2011).Google Scholar

Higgins, Rosalyn, ‘The Taking of Foreign Property by the State’ (1982) 176 Recueil des Cours 259–392.Google Scholar

Hilf, Meinhard and Geiß, Robin, ‘Most-Favoured-Nation Clause’ in Wolfrum, Rüdiger (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol. VII (Oxford University Press, 2012) 384–95.Google Scholar

Hindelang, Steffen, ‘Bilateral Investment Treaties, Custom and a Healthy Investment Climate – The Question of Whether BITs Influence Customary International Law Revisited’ (2004) 5 Journal of World Investment & Trade 789–809.Google Scholar

Hindelang, Steffen, Free Movement of Capital and Foreign Direct Investment: The Scope of Protection in European Union Law (Oxford University Press, 2009).Google Scholar

Hird, Rachel, ‘Thomas W Wälde and Fair and Equitable Treatment’ (2009) 27 Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law 377–403.Google Scholar

Hirsch, Moshe, ‘Between Fair and Equitable Treatment and Stabilization Clause: Stable Legal Environment and Regulatory Change in International Investment Law’ (2011) 12 Journal of World Investment & Trade 783–806.Google Scholar

Ho, Jean, ‘Singapore’ in Brown, Chester (ed.), Commentaries on Selected Model Investment Treaties (Oxford University Press, 2013), 623–50.Google Scholar

Hobér, Kaj, ‘Compensation: a Closer Look at Cases Awarding Compensation for Violation of the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard’ in Yannaca-Small, Katia (ed.), Arbitration under International Investment Agreements: a Guide to the Key Issues (Oxford University Press, 2010) 573–99.Google Scholar

Hobér, Kaj, ‘“Fair and Equitable Treatment”: Determining Compensation’ in Hofmann, Rainer and Tams, Christian J. (ed.), The International Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID): Taking Stock after Forty Years (Nomos, 2007) 79–102.Google Scholar

Hobér, Kaj, Investment Arbitration in Eastern Europe: In Search of a Definition of Expropriation (JurisNet, 2007).Google Scholar

Hobér, Kaj, ‘Investment Arbitration in Eastern Europe. Recent Cases on Expropriation’ (2003) 14 The American Review of International Arbitration 377–446.Google Scholar

Hobér, Kaj, ‘MFN Clauses and Dispute Resolution in Investment Treaties: Have We Reached the End of the Road?’ in Binder, Christina, Kriebaum, Ursula, Reinisch, August and Wittich, Stephan (eds.), International Investment Law for the Twenty-First Century: Essays in Honour of Christoph Schreuer (Oxford University Press, 2009) 31–41.Google Scholar

Hobér, Kaj, ‘State Responsibility and Attribution’ in Muchlinski, Peter, Ortino, Federico and Schreuer, Christoph (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law (Oxford University Press, 2008) 549–83.Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Anne, ‘Indirect Expropriation’ in Reinisch, August (ed.), Standards of Investment Protection (Oxford University Press, 2008) 151–70.Google Scholar

Honlet, Jean-Christophe and Borg, Guillaume, ‘The Decisions of the ICSID Ad Hoc Committee in CMS v. Argentina Regarding the Conditions of Application of an Umbrella Clause: SGS v. Philippines Revisited’ (2008) 7 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 1–327.Google Scholar

Horn, Henrik and Mavrodis, Petros C., ‘Still Hazy after All These Years: The Interpretation of National Treatment in the GATT/WTO Case-Law on Tax Discrimination’ (2004) 15 European Journal of International Law 39–69.Google Scholar

Hornbeck, Stanley K., ‘The Most-Favored-Nation Clause: Part One’ (1909) 3 American Journal of International Law 395–422.Google Scholar

Houde, Marie-France and Pagani, Fabrizio, ‘Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment in International Investment Law’ in OECD (ed.), International Investment Law: A Changing Landscape (OECD Publishing, 2005) 127–61.Google Scholar

Howse, Robert and Chalamish, Efraim, ‘The Use and Abuse of WTO Law in Investor–State Arbitration: A Reply to Jürgen Kurtz’ (2010 ) 20 European Journal of International Law 1087–94.Google Scholar

Hsu, Locknie, ‘MFN and Dispute Settlement: When the Twain Meet’ (2006) 7 Journal of World Investment & Trade 25–37.Google Scholar

Hudec, Robert E., ‘Science and “Post-Discriminatory” WTO Law’ (2003) 26 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review 185–95.Google Scholar

Huerta-Goldman, Jorge A., ‘Cross-cutting Observations on National Treatment’ in Huerta-Goldman, Jorge A., Romanetti, Antoine and Stirnimann, Franz X. (eds.), WTO Litigation, Investment Arbitration, and Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer Law International, 2013) 263–72.Google Scholar

Institut de Droit International, ‘La clause de la nation la plus favorisée dans les conventions multilaterals’ (10 September 1969) (1969) 53 Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International 361–2.Google Scholar

Institut de Droit International, ‘Les effets de la clause de la nation la plus favorisée en matière de commerce et de navigation’ (23 April 1936) (1936) 39 Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International 289–92.Google Scholar

International Law Association, Final Report of the International Committee on Diplomatic Protection of Persons and Property (Toronto, 2006).Google Scholar

International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection, Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Fifty-Eighth Session, UN GAOR, 61st Sess., Supp. No. 10, UN Doc. A/61/10 (2006).Google Scholar

International Law Commission, Final report – Study Group on the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause (4 May–5 June and 6 July–7 August 2015) UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.852.Google Scholar

International Law Commission, Most-Favoured-Nation Clause – Report of the Working Group (20 July 2007) UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.719.Google Scholar

Iruretagoiena Agirrezabalaga, Iñigo, ‘Contract claims y treaty claims: Relación entre las cláusulas umbrella y los acuerdos contractuales de atribución de competencia exclusiva (Bureau Veritas, Inspection, Valuation, Assessment and Control, BIVAC B.V. / República de Paraguay, Caso CIADI No. ARB/07/9)’ (2010) 3 Revista de aribtraje commercial y de inversions 797–810.Google Scholar

Ishikawa, Tomoko, ‘Interpreting the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Interpretation as a Process of Creating an Obligation?’ in Sampford, Charles, Zifcak, Spencer and Derya Aydin Okur (eds.), Rethinking International Law and Justice (Ashgate, 2015) 127–48.Google Scholar

Jackson, John H., The World Trading System: Law and Policy of International Economic Relations, 2nd ed. (The MIT Press, 1997).Google Scholar

Jacob, Marc, ‘Investments, Bilateral Treaties’ in Wolfrum, Rüdiger (ed.), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol. VI (Oxford University Press, 2012) 317–28.Google Scholar

Jacob, Marc and Schill, Stephan W., ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment: Content, Practice, Method’ in Bungenberg, M., Griebel, Jörn, Hobe, Stephan and Reinisch, August (eds.), International Investment Law. A Handbook (Beck/Nomos/Hart, 2015) 700–63.Google Scholar

Jenkins, Benjamin W., ‘The Next Generation of Chilling Uncertainty: Indirect Expropriation Under CAFTA and Its Potential Impact on Environmental Protection’ (2007) 12 Ocean and Coastal Law Journal 269–304.Google Scholar

Jennings, Robert Y., ‘State Contracts in International Law’ (1961) 37 British Yearbook of International Law 156–82.Google Scholar

Jennings, Robert Y. and Sir Watts, Arthur, Oppenheim’s International Law, 9th ed., (Oxford University Press, 1996).Google Scholar

Jensen, J. Ole, ‘Die Auslegung von Investitionsschutzabkommen am Beispiel der “umbrella clause”’ (2016) 24 Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft 277–85.Google Scholar

Jonckheere, Katherine, ‘Practical Implications from an Expansive Interpretation of Umbrella Clauses in International Investment Law’ (2015) 11 South Carolina Journal of International Law and Business 143–62.Google Scholar

Kahn, Jordan C., ‘Striking NAFTA Gold: Glamis Advances Investor–State Arbitration’, (2009) 33 Fordham International Law Journal 101–55.Google Scholar

Kalicki, Jean and Medeiros, Suzana, ‘Fair, Equitable and Ambiguous: What Is Fair and Equitable Treatment in International Investment Law?’ (2007) 22 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 24–54.Google Scholar

Kantor, Mark, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment: Echoes of FDR’s Court-Packing Plan in the International Law Approach Towards Regulatory Expropriation’ (2006) 5 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 231–56.Google Scholar

Katselas, Anna, ‘Do Investment Treaties Prescribe a Deferential Standard of Review? A Comparative Analysis of the U.S. Administrative Procedure Act’s Arbitrary and Capricious Standard of Review and the Fair and Equitable Treatment and Arbitrary or Discriminatory Measures Treaty Standards’ (2012) 34 Michigan Journal of International Law 87–150.Google Scholar

Kaufmann-Kohler, Gabrielle, ‘Interpretation of Treaties: How Do Arbitral Tribunals Interpret Dispute Settlement Provisions Embodied in Investment Treaties?’ in Mistelis, Loukas A. and Lew, Julian D. M. QC (eds.), Pervasive Problems in International Arbitration (Kluwer Law International, 2006) 257–76.Google Scholar

Kaufmann-Kohler, Gabrielle, ‘Interpretive Powers of the NAFTA Free Trade Commission: Necessary Safety Valve or Infringement of the Rule of Law?’ in Bachand, Frédéric (ed.), Fifteen Years of NAFTA Chapter 11 Arbitration (JurisNet, 2011) 175–94.Google Scholar

Kern, Carsten, Schiedsgericht und Generalklausel. Zur Konkretisierung des Gebots des fair and equitable treatment in der internationalen Investitionsschiedsgerichtsbarkeit (Mohr Siebeck, 2018).Google Scholar

Kern, Carsten, ‘Transfer of Funds’ in Bungenberg, Marc, Griebel, Jörn, Hobe, Stephan and Reinisch, August (eds.), International Investment Law (Nomos, 2015) 870–86.Google Scholar

Khachvani, David, ‘Compensation for Unlawful Expropriation: Targeting the Illegality’ (2017) 32 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 385–403.Google Scholar

Kill, Theodore, ‘Don’t Cross the Streams: Past and Present Overstatement of Customary International Law in Connection with Conventional Fair and Equitable Treatment Obligations’ (2008) 106 Michigan Law Review 853–80.Google Scholar

Benedict, Kingsbury and Schill, Stephan W., ‘Investor–State Arbitration as Governance: Fair and Equitable Treatment, Proportionality and the Emerging Global Administration Law’ in Jan van den, Albert Berg, (ed.), Fifty Years of the New York Convention: ICCA International Arbitration Conference Series, Volume 14 (Kluwer Law International, 2009) 5–86.Google Scholar

Kingsbury, Benedict and Schill, Stephan W., ‘Public Law Concepts to Balance Investors’ Rights with State Regulatory Actions in the Public Interest: The Concept of Proportionality’ in Schill, Stephan W. (ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (Oxford University Press, 2010) 75–104.Google Scholar

Kinnear, Meg, ‘A Further Update on Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment: In Search of a Constant Jurisprudence’ in Rovine, Arthur W. (ed.), Contemporary Issues in International Arbitration and Mediation: The Fordham Papers 2009 (Martinus Nijhoff, 2010) 15–82.Google Scholar

Kinnear, Meg, ‘The Continuing Development of the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard’ in Bjorklund, Andrea K., Laird, Ian A. and Ripinsky, Sergey (eds.), Investment Treaty Law, Current Issues III: Remedies in International Investment Law. Emerging Jurisprudence of International Investment Law (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009) 209–40.Google Scholar

Kinnear, Meg N., Bjorklund, Andrea K. and Hannaford, John F. G., Investment Disputes Under NAFTA: An Annotated Guide to NAFTA Chapter 11 (Kluwer Law International, 2006).Google Scholar

Kinnear, Meg N., Bjorklund, Andrea K. and Hannaford, John F. G., Investment Disputes Under NAFTA: An Annotated Guide to NAFTA Chapter 11, 2007 Update (Kluwer Law International, 2007).Google Scholar

Kinnear, Meg N., Bjorklund, Andrea K. and Hannaford, John, Investment Disputes Under NAFTA: An Annotated Guide to NAFTA Chapter 11, 2009 Update (Kluwer Law International, 2009).Google Scholar

Kinsella, Stephan and Rubins, Noah, International Investment, Political Risk and Dispute Resolution: A Practitioner’s Guide (Oceana Publications, 2005).Google Scholar

Kirkman, Courtney, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment: Methanex v. United States and the Narrowing Scope of NAFTA Article 1105’ (2002) 34 Law and Policy in International Business 343–92.Google Scholar

Kishoiyian, Bernard, ‘The Utility of Bilateral Investment Treaties in the Formulation of Customary International Law’ (1994) 14 Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business 327–75.Google Scholar

Kiss, Alexandre-Charles, ‘La convention européenne d’établissement et la clause de la nation la plus favorisée’ (1957) 3 Annuaire francais de droit international 478–89.Google Scholar

Kjos, Hege E., Applicable Law in Investor–State Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar

Kläger, Roland, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment: A Look at the Theoretical Underpinnings of Legitimacy and Fairness’ (2010) 11 Journal of World Investment & Trade 435–55.Google Scholar

Kläger, Roland, Fair and Equitable Treatment in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2011).Google Scholar

Kläger, Roland, ‘Revising Treatment Standards: Fair and Equitable Treatment in Light of Sustainable Development’ in Hindelang, Steffen and Krajewski, Markus (eds.), Shifting Paradigms in International Investment Law: More Balanced, Less Isolated, Increasingly Diversified (Oxford University Press, 2016) 65–80.Google Scholar

Klein Bronfman, Marcela, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment: An Evolving Standard’ (2006) 10 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 609–80.Google Scholar

Knahr, Christina, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment and its Relationship with Other Treatment Standards’ in Klausegger, Christian, Klein, Peter, Kremslehner, Florian, Petsche, Alexander, Pitkowitz, Nikolaus, Power, Jenny, Welser, Irene and Zeiler, Gerold (eds.), Austrian Arbitration Yearbook 2009 (C.H. Beck, Stämpfli & Manz, 2009) 493–513.Google Scholar

Knahr, Christina, ‘Indirect Expropriation in Recent Investment Arbitration’ (2009) 6(1) Transnational Dispute Management 1–18.Google Scholar

Knoll-Tudor, Ioana, ‘The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard and Human Rights Norms’ in Dupuy, Pierre-Marie, Francioni, Francesco and Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich (eds.), Human Rights in International Investment Law and Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2009) 310–43.Google Scholar

Kolo, Abba, ‘Transfer of Funds: The Interaction Between the IMF Articles of Agreement and Modern Investment Treaties: A Comparative Law Perspective’ in Schill, Stephan W. (ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (Oxford University Press, 2010) 345–74.Google Scholar

Kolo, Abba and Wälde, Thomas, ‘Capital Transfer Restrictions under Modern Investment Treaties’ in Reinisch, August (ed.), Standards of Investment Protection (Oxford University Press, 2008) 205–43.Google Scholar

Kolo, Abba and Wälde, Thomas, ‘Economic crises, capital transfer restrictions and investor protection under modern investment treaties’ (2008) 3 Capital Markets Law Journal 154–85.Google Scholar

Korzun, Vera, ‘The Right to Regulate in Investor–State Arbitration: Slicing and Dicing Regulatory Carve-Outs’ (2016) 50 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 355–414.Google Scholar

Kotera, Akira, ‘Regulatory Transparency’ in Muchlinski, Peter, Ortino, Federico and Schreuer, Christoph (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law (Oxford University Press, 2008) 617–36.Google Scholar

Koutrakos, Panos, ‘Annotation on Case C-205/06, Commission v. Austria and Case C-249/06, Commission v. Sweden’ (2009) 46 Common Market Law Review 2059–76.Google Scholar

Kreindler, Richard H., ‘Perspectives on State Party Arbitration: The Future of BITS – The Practitioner’s Perspective’ (2007) 23 Arbitration International 43–62.Google Scholar

Kriebaum, Ursula, ‘Arbitrary/Unreasonable or Discriminatory Measures’ in Bungenberg, Marc, Griebel, Jörn, Hobe, Stephan and Reinisch, August (eds.), International Investment Law (Beck/Hart/Nomos, 2015) 790–806.Google Scholar

Kriebaum, Ursula, ‘Are Investment Treaty Standards Flexible Enough to Meet the Needs of Developing Countries?’ in Baetens, F. (ed.), Investment Law within International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2013) 330–40.Google Scholar

Kriebaum, Ursula, ‘Partial Expropriation’ (2007) 8 Journal of World Investment & Trade 69–84.Google Scholar

Kriebaum, Ursula, ‘Regulatory Takings: Balancing the Interests of the Investor and the State’ (2007) 8 Journal of World Investment & Trade 717–44.Google Scholar

Kriebaum, Ursula, ‘The Relevance of Economic and Political Conditions for the Protection under Investment Treaties’ (2011) 10 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 383–404.Google Scholar

Kriebaum, Ursula, Eigentumsschutz im Völkerrecht: Eine vergleichende Untersuchung zum internationalen Investitionsrecht sowie zum Menschenrechtsschutz (Duncker & Humblot, 2008).Google Scholar

Kriebaum, Ursula and Reinisch, August, ‘Property, Right to, International Protection’ in Wolfrum, Rüdiger (ed.), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol. VIII (Oxford University Press, 2012) 522–33.Google Scholar

Kühn, Wolfgang and Wiegel, Ulrike, ‘The Application of International Law and Treaty Provisions by Arbitrators’ (2003) 4 Journal of World Investment & Trade 451–72.Google Scholar

Kunoy, Bjørn, ‘Developments in Indirect Expropriation Case Law in ICSID Transnational Arbitration’ (2005) 6 Journal of World Investment & Trade 467–91.Google Scholar

Kunoy, Bjørn, ‘Singing in the Rain: Developments in the Interpretation of Umbrella Clauses’ (2006) 7 Journal of World Investment & Trade 275–300.Google Scholar

Kunoy, Bjørn, ‘The Notion of Time in ICSID’s Case Law on Indirect Expropriation’ (2006) 23 Journal of International Arbitration 337–49.Google Scholar

Kurtz, Jürgen, ‘Balancing Investor Protection and Regulatory Freedom in International Investment Law: The Necessary, Complex and Vital Search for State Purpose’ in Bjorklund, Andrea K. (ed.), Yearbook of International Investment Law and Policy 2013–2014 (Oxford University Press, 2015) 251–304.Google Scholar

Kurtz, Jürgen, ‘National Treatment’ in Kurtz, Jürgen, The WTO and International Investment Law: Converging Systems (Cambridge University Press, 2016) 79–135.Google Scholar

Kurtz, Jürgen, ‘National Treatment, Foreign Investment and Regulatory Autonomy: The Research for Protectionism or Something More?’ in Kahn, Philippe and Wälde, Thomas (eds.), Les aspects nouveaux du droit des investissements internationaux/New Aspects of International Investment Law (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007) 311–51.Google Scholar

Kurtz, Jürgen, ‘On the Evolution and Slow Convergence of International Trade and Investment Law’ in Sacerdoti, Giorgio (ed.), The General Interests of Host States in International Investment Law (Cambridge University Press, 2013) 104–29.Google Scholar

Kurtz, Jürgen, ‘The Delicate Extension of Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment to Foreign Investors: Maffezini v Kingdom of Spain’ in Weiler, Todd (ed.), International Investment Law and Arbitration (Cameron May, 2005) 523–55.Google Scholar

Kurtz, Jürgen, ‘The Merits and Limits of Comparativism: National Treatment in International Investment Law and the WTO’ in Schill, Stephan W. (ed.), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (Oxford University Press, 2010) 243–78.Google Scholar

Kurtz, Jürgen, ‘The MFN Standard and Foreign Investment: An Uneasy Fit?’ (2004) 6 Journal of World Investment & Trade 861–86.Google Scholar

Kurtz, Jürgen, ‘The Use and Abuse of WTO Law in Investor–State Arbitration: Competition and Discontents’ (2009) 20 European Journal of International Law 749–71.Google Scholar

Labidi, Hind, ‘Où va la clause de la nation la plus favorisée en droit international des investissements?’ in Horchani, Ferhat (ed.), Où va le droit de l’investissement? Désordre normatif et recherche d’équilibre (Éditions Pedone, 2006) 31–44.Google Scholar

Lalive, Pierre A., ‘The Doctrine of Acquired Rights’ in South Western Legal Foundation, Selected Readings on the Protection of Foreign Investments (M. Bender, 1964).Google Scholar

Lamm, Carolyn, Giorgetti, Chiara and Uran-Bidegain, Mairée, ‘The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes’ in Giorgetti, Chiara (ed.), The Rules, Practice, and Jurisprudence of International Courts and Tribunals (Brill, 2012) 77–110.Google Scholar

Lauterpacht, Elihu, ‘International Law and Private Foreign Investment’ (1997) 4 Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 259–76.Google Scholar

Lauterpacht, Hersch, ‘Restrictive Interpretation and the Principle of Effectiveness in the Interpretation of Treaties’ (1949) 26 British Yearbook of International Law 48.Google Scholar

Lavranos, Nikos, ‘Commission v. Austria. Case C-205/06. Judgment; Commission v. Sweden. Case C-249/06. Judgment’ (2009) 103 American Journal of International Law 716–22.Google Scholar

Lawrence, Jessica C., ‘Chicken Little Revisited: NAFTA Regulatory Expropriations after Methanex’ (2006) 41 Georgia Law Review 261–310.Google Scholar

Leben, Charles, ‘L’évolution de la notion de contrat d’Etat Les Etats dans le contentieux économique international’ (2003) (3) Revue de l’Arbitrage 629–46.Google Scholar

Lee, Jaemin, ‘Putting a Square Peg into a Round Hole? Assessment of the “Umbrella Clause” from the Perspective of Public International Law’ (2015) 14 Chinese Journal of International Law 341–73.Google Scholar

Leite, Kendra, ‘Comment: The Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard: A Search for a Better Balance in International Investment Agreements’ (2016) 32 American University International Law Review 363–401.Google Scholar

Lemaire, A., ‘Traitement juste et équitable’ (2004) 124 Gazette du Palais, Les Cahiers de l’Arbitrage 43.Google Scholar

Levashova, Yulia, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment and the Protection of the Environment: Recent Trends in Investment Treaties and Investment Cases’ in Levashova, Yulia, Lambooy, Tineke and Dekker, Ige (eds.), Bridging the Gap between International Investment Law and the Environment (Eleven International Publishing, 2016) 53–86.Google Scholar

Lévesque, Céline, ‘Distinguishing Expropriation and Regulation under NAFTA Chapter 11: Making Explicit the Link to Property’ in Kennedy, Kevin C. (ed.), The First Decade of NAFTA: The Future of Free Trade in North America (Brill/Nijhoff 2004) 293–324.Google Scholar

Levy, Tali, ‘Note, NAFTA’s Provisions for Compensation in the Event of Expropriation: A Reassessment of the “Prompt, Adequate and Effective” Standard’ (1995) 31 Stanford Journal of International Law 423–53.Google Scholar

Liberti, Lahra, ‘Arbitrato ICSID: Clausola della nazione più favorita e problemi di attribuzione’ (2004) Rivista dell’arbitrato 561–89.Google Scholar

Liddell, Kathleen and Waibel, Michael, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment and Judicial Patent Decisions’ (2016) 19 Journal of International Economic Law 145–74.Google Scholar

Lillich, Richard B., ‘The Current Status of the Law of State Responsibility for Injuries to Aliens’ in Lillich, Richard B. (ed.), International Law of State Responsibility for Injuries to Aliens (University Press of Virginia, 1983) 1–60.Google Scholar

Lillich, Richard B. (ed.), The Valuation of Nationalized Property in International Law (University Press of Virginia, 1972).Google Scholar

Lillich, Richard B. and Daniel, Barstow Magraw (eds.), The Iran–United States Claims Tribunal: Its Contribution to the Law of State Responsibility (Transnational, 1998).Google Scholar

López Escarcena, Sebastián, ‘La Aplicación de la Cláusula de la Nación Más Favorecida y del Trato Justo y Equitativo en la Jurisprudencia internacional en Materia de Inversión Extranjera. El Caso MTD’ (2005) 32 Revista Chilena de Derecho 79–88.Google Scholar

Lorz, Ralph Alexander, ‘Protection and Security (Including the NAFTA Approach)’ in Bungenberg, Marc, Griebel, Jörn, Hobe, Stephan and Reinisch, August (eds.), International Investment Law (C.H. Beck/Hart/Nomos, 2015) 764–89.Google Scholar

Lowe, Vaughan, ‘Arbitrary and Discriminatory Treatment’ in Kinnear, Meg, Fischer, Geraldine, Almeida, Jara Minguez, Torres, Luisa Fernanda and Bidegain, Mairée Uran (eds.), Building International Investment Law: The First Fifty Years of ICSID (Wolters Kluwer, 2016) 307–18.Google Scholar

Lowe, Vaughan, ‘Regulation or Expropriation?’ (2002) 55 Current Legal Problems 447–66.Google Scholar

Lowenfeld, Andreas F., International Economic Law (Oxford University Press, 2002).Google Scholar

Lowenfeld, Andreas F., International Economic Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2008).Google Scholar

Lupo-Pasini, Federico, ‘Monetary Policy Measures in Investment Law: The Uneasy Relationship between Monetary Stability and Investment Protection’ in Cottier, Thomas, Lastra, Rosa M., Tietje, Christian and Satragno, Lucia (eds.), The Rule of Law in Monetary Affairs (Cambridge University Press, 2014) 570–92.Google Scholar

Lyonnet, Geoffroy, ‘La clause de la nation la plus favorisée en droit des investissements: bilan et perspectives’ (2015) 119 Revue générale de droit international public 19–45.Google Scholar

Maniruzzaman, Abul F. M., ‘Expropriation of Alien Property and the Principle of Non-discrimination in International Law of Foreign Investment: An Overview’ (1998) 8 Journal of Transnational Law & Policy 57–77.Google Scholar

Mann, Frederick A., ‘British Treaties for the Promotion and Protection of Investments’ (1981) 52 British Yearbook of International Law 241–54.Google Scholar

Mann, Frederick A., ‘Money in Public International Law’ (1959) 96 Recueil des Cours 1–128.Google Scholar

Mann, Howard, ‘The Final Decision in Methanex v. United States: Some New Wine in Some New Bottles’ available at www.iisd.org/pdf/2005/commentarymethanex.pdf (International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2005).Google Scholar

Marboe, Irmgard, ‘Compensation and Damages in International Law: The Limits of “Fair Market Value”’ (2006) 7 Journal of World Investment & Trade 723–59.Google Scholar

Marboe, Irmgard, Calculation of Compensation and Damages in International Investment Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2017).Google Scholar

Marlies, Justin R., ‘Public Purpose, Private Losses: Regulatory Expropriation and Environmental Regulation in International Investment Law’ (2007) 16 Journal of Transnational Law & Policy 275–336.Google Scholar

Matsushita, Mitsuo, Schoenbaum, Thomas, Mavroidis, Petros C. and Hahn, Michael, The World Trade Organization: Law, Practice, and Policy, 3rd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2015).Google Scholar

Mattoo, Aaditya, ‘National Treatment in the GATS: Corner-Stone or Pandora’s Box’ (1997) 31 Journal of World Trade 107–35.Google Scholar

Maupin, Julie, ‘MFN-Based Jurisdiction in Investor–State Arbitration: Is There any Hope for a Consistent Approach?’ (2011) 14 Journal of International Economic Law 157–90.Google Scholar

Mayeda, Graham, ‘Playing Fair: The Meaning of Fair and Equitable Treatment in Bilateral Investment Treaties’ (2007) 41 Journal of World Trade 273–91.Google Scholar

McLachlan, Campbell, Shore, Laurence and Weiniger, Matthew (eds.), International Investment Arbitration: Substantive Principles (Oxford University Press, 2007).Google Scholar

McLachlan, Campbell, Shore, Laurence and Weiniger, Matthew (eds.), International Investment Arbitration: Substantive Principles, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2017).Google Scholar

McNair, Arnold, The Law of Treaties, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 1961).Google Scholar

Menon, Sundaresh, ‘The Transnational Protection of Private Rights: Issues, Challenges, and Possible Solutions’ (2014) 108 Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting 219–42.Google Scholar

Mereminskaya, Elina, ‘La cláusula paraguas: Lecciones de convivencia para los sistemas jurídicos’ (2009) 11 Revista Internacional de Arbitraje 13–59.Google Scholar

Mereminskaya, Elina and Mascareño, Aldo, ‘Collisions of Legal Regimes in World Society. The Umbrella Clause as a Substantive and Procedural Mechanism of Legal Coordination’ in Arias, David and Fernández-Ballesteros, Miguel A. (eds.), Liber Amicorum Bernardo Cremades (Wolters Kluwer, 2010) 819–41.Google Scholar

Merkouris, Panos, ‘In Dubio Mitius’ in Klingler, Joseph, Parkhomenko, Yuri and Salonidis, Constantinos (eds.), Between the Lines of the Vienna Convention? Canons and Other Principles of Interpretation in Public International Law (Wolters Kluwer, 2019) 259–306.Google Scholar

Merrill, Thomas W., ‘Incomplete Compensation for Takings’ (2002) 11 NYU Environmental Law Journal 110–35.Google Scholar

Miles, Craig S., ‘Where’s My Umbrella? – An “Ordinary Meaning” Approach to Answering Three Key Questions That Have Emerged from the “Umbrella Clause” Debate’ in Weiler, Todd J. Grierson (ed.), Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law (JurisNet, 2008) 3–26.Google Scholar

Miles, Kate, ‘Sustainable Development, National Treatment and Like Circumstances in Investment Law’ in Segger, Marie-Claire Cordonier, Gehring, Markus W. and Newcombe, Andrew (eds.), Sustainable Development in World Investment Law (Kluwer Law International, 2011) 265–94.Google Scholar

Miron, Smaranda, ‘In Love and War Anything is Fair – and in Arbitration?: An Overview of ICSID Awards on the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard’ (2011) 14 Zeitschrift für Europarechtliche Studien 197–211.Google Scholar

Mitchell, Andrew D., Heaton, David and Henckels, Caroline, Non-Discrimination and the Role of Regulatory Purpose in International Trade and Investment Law (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016).Google Scholar

Mitchell, Andrew D. and Munro, James, ‘Someone Else’s Deal: Interpreting International Investment Agreements in the Light of Third-Party Agreements’ (2017) 28 European Journal of International Law 669–95.Google Scholar

Mittelberger, Philipp, Der Eigentumsschutz nach Art. 1 des ersten Zusatzprotokolls zur EMRK im Lichte der Rechtsprechung der Strassburger Organe (Stämpfli Bern, 2000).Google Scholar

Molinuevo, Martín, Protecting Investment in Services: Investor–State Arbitration versus WTO Dispute Settlement (Kluwer Law International, 2011) 93–134.Google Scholar

Montt, Santiago, State Liability in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Global Constitutional and Administrative Law in the BIT Generation (Hart Publishing, 2009).Google Scholar

Moreiro González, Carlos J., ‘The Convergence of Recent International Investment Awards and Case Law on the Principle of Legitimate Expectations: Towards Common Criteria Regarding Fair and Equitable Treatment?’ (2017) 42 European Law Review 402–19.Google Scholar

Mosk, Richard M., ‘Expropriation: What To Do About It?’ (1993) 5 California International Practioner 11.Google Scholar

Mouri, Allahyar, The International Law of Expropriation as Reflected in the Work of the Iran–US Claims Tribunal (Martinus Nijhoff, 1994).Google Scholar

Mouzas, Stefanos and Furmston, Michael, ‘From Contract to Umbrella Agreement’ (2008) 67 Cambridge Law Journal 37–50.Google Scholar

Muchlinski, Peter, ‘“Caveat Investor”? The Relevance of the Conduct of the Investor under the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard’ (2006) 55 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 527–57.Google Scholar

Muchlinski, Peter, ‘Negotiating New Generation International Investment Agreements: New Sustainable Development Oriented Initiatives’ in Hindelang, Steffen and Krajewski, Markus (eds.), Shifting Paradigms in International Investment Law: More Balanced, Less Isolated, Increasingly Diversified (Oxford University Press, 2016) 41–64.Google Scholar

Muchlinski, Peter T., Multinational Enterprises and the Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2007).Google Scholar

Müller-Michaels, Olaf, Grundrechtlicher Eigentumsschutz in der Europäischen Union (Duncker & Humblot, 1997).Google Scholar

Munro, Marc A., ‘Expropriating Expropriation Law: The Implications of the Metalclad Decision on Canadian Expropriation Law and Environmental Land-Use Regulation’ (2005) 5 Asper Review of International Business and Trade Law 75–131.Google Scholar

Murase, Shinya, ‘The Most-Favored-Nation Treatment in Japan’s Treaty Practice During the Period 1854–1905’ (1976) 70 The American Journal of International Law 273–97.Google Scholar

Muse-Fisher, Michael, ‘CAFTA–DR and the Iterative Process of Bilateral Investment Treaty Making: Towards a U.S. Taking Framework for Analysing International Expropriation Claims’ (2006) 19 Pacific McGeorge Global Business and Development Law Journal 495–531.Google Scholar

Mutis Téllez, Felipe, ‘Conditions and Criteria for the Protection of Legitimate Expectations Under International Investment Law’ (2012) 27 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 432–42.Google Scholar

Nadakavukaren Schefer, Krista, International Investment Law: Text, Cases and Materials (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013) 327-360.Google Scholar

Newcombe, Andrew, Regulatory Expropriation, Investment Protection and International Law: When is Government Regulation Expropriatory and When Should Compensation Be Paid? (Thesis Toronto, 1999).Google Scholar

Newcombe, Andrew, ‘The Boundaries of Regulatory Expropriation in International Law’ (2005) 20 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 1–57.Google Scholar

Newcombe, Andrew and Paradell, Lluis, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standards of Treatment (Kluwer Law International, 2009).Google Scholar

Newmark, Chris and Poulton, Edward, ‘Siemens –v– Argentina: Most Favoured Nation Clause (Re)visited’ (2005) 3 Zeitschrift für Schiedsverfahren – German Arbitration Journal 30–3.Google Scholar

Nikièma, Suzy H., ‘The Most-Favoured-Nation Clause in Investment Treaties’ (2017) IISD Best Practice Series 1–25, available at www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/mfn-most-favoured-nation-clause-best-practices-en.pdf.Google Scholar

Nolde, Boris, ‘Droits et technique des traités de commerce’ (1924) 3 Recueil des Cours 295–461.Google Scholar

Nolde, Boris, ‘La clause de la nation la plus favorisée et les tarifs préférentiels’ (1932) 39 Recueil des Cours 5–130.Google Scholar

Norton, Patrick M., ‘A Law of the Future or a Law of the Past? Modern Tribunals and the International Law of Expropriation’ (1991) 85 American Journal of International Law 474–505.Google Scholar

Nouvel, Yves, ‘Les mesures équivalent à une expropriation dans la pratique récente des tribunaux arbitraux’ (2002) 106 Revue générale de droit international public 79–102.Google Scholar

Nussbaum, Arthur, ‘Arbitration Between the Lena Goldfields Ltd. and the Soviet Government’ (1950) 36 Cornell Law Review 31–53.Google Scholar

OECD, ‘Indirect Expropriation’ and the ‘Right to Regulate’ in International Investment Law, Working Papers on International Investment November 2004/4 (September 2004).Google Scholar

OECD, National Treatment for Foreign-Controlled Enterprises (2010), available at www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/21/1954854.pdf.Google Scholar

Oluwaseun Sadiq, Lawal, ‘Variability of Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard According to the Level of Development, Governance Capacity and Resources of Host Countries’ (2014) 9 Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology 229–35.Google Scholar

Orakhelashvili, Alexander, ‘The Normative Basis of “Fair and Equitable Treatment”: General International Law on Foreign Investment?’ (2008) 46 Archiv des Völkerrechts 74–105.Google Scholar

Orrego Vicuña, Francisco, ‘Bilateral Investment Treaties and the Most-Favored-Nation Clause: Implications for Arbitration in the Light of a Recent ICSID Case’ in Kaufmann-Kohler, Gabrielle (ed.), Investment Treaties and Arbitration: ASA Swiss Arbitration Association Conference in Zurich of January 25, 2002 (ASA Special Series, 2002) 133–58.Google Scholar

Orrego Vicuña, Francisco, ‘Customary International Law in Action: From the International Minimum Standard to Fair and Equitable Treatment’ in Hestermeyer, Holger et al. (ed.), Coexistence, Cooperation and Solidarity: Liber Amicorum Rüdiger Wolfrum (Nijhoff, 2012) 181–98.Google Scholar

Orrego Vicuña, Francisco, ‘Regulatory Authority and Legitimate Expectations: Balancing the Rights of the State and the Individual under International Law in a Global Society’ (2003) 5 International Law Forum 188–97.Google Scholar

Ortino, Federico, ‘Italy’ in Brown, Chester (ed.), Commentaries on Selected Model Investment Treaties (Oxford University Press, 2013), 321–46.Google Scholar

Ortino, Federico, ‘Non-discriminatory Treatment in Investment Disputes’ in Dupuy, Pierre-Marie, Francioni, Francesco and Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich (eds.), Human Rights in International Investment Law and Arbitration (Oxford University Press, 2009) 344–66.Google Scholar

Ostřanský, Josef, ‘An Exercise in Equivocation: A Critique of Legitimate Expectations as a General Principle of Law under the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard’ in Gattini, Andrea, Tanzi, Attila and Fontanelli, Filippo (eds.), General Principles of Law and International Investment Arbitration (Brill Nijhoff, 2018) 344–77.Google Scholar

Owen Verrill, Charles, ‘Are WTO Violations also Contrary to the Fair and Equitable Treatment Obligations in Investor Protection Agreements’ (2005) 11 ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law 287–95.Google Scholar

Palombino, Fulvio Maria, Fair and Equitable Treatment and the Fabric of General Principles (T.M.C. Asser Press, 2018).Google Scholar

Palombino, Fulvio Maria, Il trattamento ‘giusto ed equo’ degli investimenti stranieri (il Mulino, 2008).Google Scholar

Pandya, Abhijit P. G. and Mood, Andy, ‘Legitimate Expectations in Investment Treaty Arbitration: An Unclear Future’ (2010/2011) 15 Tilburg Law Review 93–121.Google Scholar

Paparinskis, Martins, ‘MFN Clauses and International Dispute Settlement: Moving beyond Maffezini and Plama?’ (2011) 26 ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 14–58.Google Scholar

Paparinskis, Martins, ‘MFN Clauses and Substantive Treatment: A Law of Treaties Perspective of the “Conventional Wisdom”’ (2018) 112 AJIL Unbound 49–54.Google Scholar

Paparinskis, Martins, ‘Regulatory Expropriation and Sustainable Development’ in Cordonier Segger, Marie-Claire, Gehring, Markus W., Newcombe, Andrew P. (eds.), Sustainable Development in World Investment Law (Wolters Kluwer, 2011) 295–328.Google Scholar

Paparinskis, Martins, The International Minimum Standard and Fair and Equitable Treatment (Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar

Paradell, Lluís, ‘The BIT Experience of the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard’ in Ortino, Federico, Liberti, Lahra, Sheppard, Audley and Warner, Hugo (eds.), Investment Treaty Law Current Issues, Volume II: Nationality and investment treaty claims. Fair and equitable treatment in investment treaty law (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2007) 117–46.Google Scholar

Parisi, Michael G., ‘Moving Toward Transparency? An Examination of Regulatory Takings in International Law’ (2005) 19 Emory International Law Review 383–426.Google Scholar

Park, William W., ‘Arbitration and the Fisc: NAFTA’s “Tax Veto”’ (2001) 2 Chicago Journal of International Law 231–41.Google Scholar

Park, William W., ‘Expropriation and Taxation Under the NAFTA’ in Weiler, Todd (ed.), NAFTA Investment Law and Arbitration: Past Issues, Current Practice, Future Prospects 93 (Brill/Nijhoff, 2004).Google Scholar

Parker, Stephanie L., ‘A BIT at a Time: The Proper Extension of the MFN Clause to Dispute Settlement Provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties’ (2012) 2 The Arbitration Brief 30–63.Google Scholar

Paulsson, Jan, Denial of Justice in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2005).Google Scholar

Paulsson, Jan, ‘Indirect Expropriation: Is the Right to Regulate at Risk?’ (2006) 3(2) Transnational Dispute Management 1–13.Google Scholar

Paulsson, Jan and Douglas, Zachary, ‘Indirect Expropriation in Investment Treaty Arbitrations’ in Horn, Norbert and Kröll, Stefan (eds.), Arbitrating Foreign Investment Disputes (Kluwer Law International, 2004) 145–59.Google Scholar

Pellonpää, Matti, ‘Compensable Claims before the Tribunal: Expropriation Claims’ in Lillich, Richard B. and Magraw, Daniel B. (eds.), The Iran–United States Claims Tribunal: Its Contribution to the Law of State Responsibility (Brill, 1998) 185–266.Google Scholar

Pellonpää, Matti and Fitzmaurice, Malgosia, ‘Taking of Property in the Practice of the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal’ (1988) 19 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 53–178.Google Scholar

Perera, Srilal M., ‘Equity-Based Decision-Making and the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard: Lessons From the Argentine Investment Disputes – Part I’ (2012) 13 Journal of World Investment & Trade 210–55.Google Scholar

Perera, Srilal M., ‘Equity-Based Decision-Making and the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard: Lessons From the Argentine Investment Disputes – Part II’ (2012) 13 Journal of World Investment & Trade 442–85.Google Scholar