This chapter follows the Lena Goldfields Arbitration of 1930 and examines the legal practices deployed by the parties and the tribunal in their relation to the internationalisation of concession agreements. The tribunal was constituted after a dispute arose between a British company and the Soviet state over the fate of a concession agreement granted in 1925 concerning goldmines in Siberia, and it is the only international arbitration the Soviet Union ever participated in. The chapter takes as a starting point that the socialist revolution in the Soviet Union led to a fundamental change in the structure of the legal order, especially with regard to property rights. Instead of private individual ownership, Soviet law prescribed collectivised state ownership. The chapter argues that the tribunal elevated the jurisdiction over the Lena Goldfields concession agreement to the international level in order to override the application of socialist Soviet law. This elevation was achieved by relying on legal techniques concerning the competence of the arbitral tribunal and the applicable law to the concession agreement. While the Soviet Union maintained that the dispute was a matter of domestic jurisdiction, the company and the tribunal claimed the jurisdiction of an international legal order.

This chapter expands on the concept of reciprocity, looking at how it can be defined, its key characteristics, and the three key functions it plays: in norm creation, as a condition, and in execution of the law. It examines the defining elements of reciprocity: proportionality, relativity, equality, and interdependence. The chapter goes on to examine the nature of reciprocity, and its relationship to custom and general principles, two sources of international law. It illustrates how it is reciprocity’s relationship with the structural characteristic of sovereign equality in international law that explains many of its roles and defining characteristics.

This chapter aims to show the role of oil concessions and arbitrations conducted on disputes arising from them for the internationalisation of contracts. The Sheikh of Abu Dhabi Arbitration between the British oil company Petroleum Development (Trucial Coast Ltd) and the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi of 1951 was one of the first of a number of arbitrations against oil-producing countries in the Middle East in the period after the Second World War and serves as a point of entry for this analysis. The argument this chapter advances is twofold. First, it aims to suggest that the construction of the international legal order over concession agreements shielded the economic sphere from sovereign assertions over production and resources and thereby maintained imperial patterns of domination in favour of Western states and their companies. Second, it argues that the driving force behind the making of this international legal order was the theory and practice of British international lawyers relying on notions of natural law, on creative argumentation and on repetition to establish the authority of the international legal order.

The 1959 Abs–Shawcross Draft Convention marks an important year in the early history of international investment law. Many accounts locate the origin of the field in 1959 with the ratification of the first bilateral investment treaty between Germany and Pakistan of the same year. This chapter aims at situating the Abs–Shawcross Draft Convention as a continuation, rather than a beginning, of the development of norms in the field of international investment law. The Draft Convention is one of the L10first to contain provisions that are recognisable to contemporary investment lawyers, but their content is an iteration of the older claims of the principles of acquired rights and the prohibition of unjust enrichment. The chapter demonstrates that the Abs–Shawcross Draft Convention brought the internationalisation of legal authority over concession agreements into formal shape.

This chapter engages with the Palestine Railway Arbitration of 1922 and draws out the techniques applied in the arbitration that framed new ways of protecting private property and laid the groundwork for the internationalisation of concession agreements. The chapter describes how introduction of the Mandate System and the inclusion of concession agreements into peace treaties (under the jurisdiction of mixed arbitral tribunals) enabled the advanced protection of private property on the international plane with special attention to the underlying modes of authorisation. It shows how these transformations can be understood as practices of jurisdiction that rely on a mode of self-authorisation. The Palestine Railway Arbitration is particularly illuminating of this point for two reasons. First, from a purely doctrinal perspective, the arbitration is full of formal flaws. It therefore raises the question of the source of the authority of law more pressingly than other arbitrations. Second, it appears that most legal inventions and changes were made out of a sense of necessity without much theorising. These observations point towards an account of law that is attentive to the actual practices of the actors involved.

The conclusion highlights some conclusions on the nature and role of reciprocity in public international law, on the basis of the analysis in foregoing chapters. It highlights the link between reciprocity and the principle of sovereign equality, before briefly outlining the functions, limits, and some of the specific meanings of reciprocity in public international law.

The negative connotations of reciprocity and its link to conduct-based responses in a lawless context have led to a juxtaposition in legal doctrine of reciprocity with community interests, institutionalisation, and the existence of objective legality. This chapter provides an overview of existing approaches to the subject and introduces the argument of this book, that reciprocity in public international law is not antithetical to community interests and obligations, but that its importance is explained by a structural factor: the sovereign equality of states. This explains and predicts where reciprocity will be relevant, and where it will find its limits.

This chapter provides an in-depth analysis of the role reciprocity plays in treaties. First looking at treaty law and how reciprocity functions in the rules on reservations to treaties, the chapter goes on to examine reciprocity’s role in bilateral treaties, drawing on the examples of air transport agreements and energy agreements in particular, before looking at reciprocity’s role in multilateral treaties of the bilateralizable, interdependent, and integral types. It then analyzes treaties creating international organizations, particularly the EU and ILO, and differentiated obligations in environmental and trade law, illustrating how reciprocity operates in these types of instrument. Finally, the chapter addresses "objective regimes" and the effects of treaties on third parties. While some limitations exist on reciprocity, these do not depend on the substance of obligations but rather on the legal equality of the subjects involved.

This chapter addresess the operation of reciprocity in the enforcement of international law. It looks at the roles reciprocity may play in the consequences of a breach of international law, analyzing the exception of nonperformance and State responsibility. In particular, it analyzes the consequences that attach to the breach of erga omnes obligations or peremptory norms, and the rules and limitations on countermeasures. The structure and mechanisms of international responsibility demonstrate the persisting importance of reciprocity in international law and the structural limitations that international law’s horizontal nature poses to establishing specific consequences for breaches of community obligations.

This final chapter revisits the main findings of the book and ties them to the inquired legal events. The first part restates how property protection came to be prioritised over redistributional policies. The second part draws out the contradiction in the simultaneous proposition of a universal timeless legal order that at once claims to represent modernity. The chapter goes on to summarise how law emerges as a self-authorising practice through the lens of jurisdiction and temporal ordering. It concludes with a reflection of the relationship between the structures developed in this book and the two main pillars of legitimation for the contemporary regime of international investment law, namely the depoliticisation of conflicts and the promotion of development.