1 Lowe, V., ‘The Politics of Law-Making’, in Byers, M. (ed.), The Role of Law in International Politics (2000), 207Google Scholar, at 221–6.

2 Cf. M. Koskenniemi, From Apology to Utopia (1989).

3 Rogers, W. D., ‘Of Missionaries, Fanatics and Lawyers: Some Thoughts on Investment Disputes in the Americas’, (1972) 78 AJIL 1Google Scholar.

4 In 1996, Schreuer began the commentary of the ICSID Convention for the ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal that was to culminate in the book-length commentary of the ICSID Convention in C. Schreuer, The ICSID Convention: A Commentary (2001); C. Schreuer et al., The ICSID Convention: A Commentary (2009).

5 C. Schreuer, Decisions of International Institutions before Domestic Courts (1981).

6 C. Schreuer, State Immunity: Some Recent Developments (1988).

7 Schreuer, C., ‘The Waning of the Sovereign State: Towards a New Paradigm for International Law’, (1993) 4 EJIL 447CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schreuer, C., ‘Regionalism v. Universalism’, (1995) 6 EJIL 477CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 E.g., I. Seidl-Hohenveldern, Internationales Konfiskations- und Enteignungsrecht (1952); I. Seidl-Hohenveldern, La régime des investissements en droit international (1960); Seidl-Hohenveldern, I., ‘International Economic Law: General Course on Public International Law’, (1986/III) 198 RCADI 9Google Scholar; I. Seidl-Hohenveldern, Corporation in and under International Law (1987); I. Seidl-Hohenveldern, International Economic Law (1999).

9 G. Hafner (ed.), Liber Amicorum Professor Ignaz Seidl-Hohenveldern (1998).

10 J. Werner and A. H. Ali (eds.), A Liber Amicorum: Thomas Wälde – Law beyond Conventional Thought (2009); T. Weiler and F. Baetens (eds.), New Directions in International Economic Law: In Memoriam Thomas Wälde (2011).

11 M. A. Fernández-Ballesteros and D. Arias (eds.), Liber Amicorum Bernardo Cremades (2010).

12 Writing about the 1930 Lena Goldfields award, Veeder states that ‘[j]uridically, over the last 65 years, its direct beneficiary has been the modern system of international commercial arbitration to which the Lena tribunal applied several innovative and hugely important ideas’; Veeder, V. V., ‘The Lena Goldfields Arbitration: The Historical Root of Three Ideas’, (1998) 47 ICLQ 747, at 747CrossRefGoogle Scholar. One of the arguments by the counsel in the case is even described as ‘a gigantic first step for international commercial arbitration, almost equivalent to the caveman's discovery of fire’, at 772.

13 There is some uncertainty surrounding the origins of this work: possibly, only the first part of the work that dealt with war had been written in 1360. T. E. Holland, ‘Introduction’, in T. E. Holland (ed.), J. L. Brierly (trans.), and G. de Legnano, Tractatus De Bello, de Represaliis et De Duello (1917), ix, at xii, xxiv, xxvii.

14 M. Byers (trans.) and W. G. Grewe, The Epochs of International Law (2000), Parts 1 and 2.

15 De Legnano, supra note 13, at 314–24.

16 Byers and Grewe, supra note 14, at 117.

17 1967 OECD Draft Convention on the Protection of Foreign Property, (1968) 7 ILM 117, Art. 7(b)(ii) and (c).

18 The usual narrative would consider the invocation of state responsibility by the home state through diplomatic protection in the nineteenth-century spirit to be the traditional model, with the invocation of responsibility by the investor (whether as a beneficiary or as an agent) supplementing or replacing the traditional model. However, if one takes de Legnano as the starting point, the traditional model already provides for enforcement of responsibility by the injured private actor with an anterior and posterior review of whether the claim is well founded and properly satisfied. The modern regime, then, is only a return to the origins, with the intervening seven centuries of international law-making only crossing a few t's, by adding corporate citizens to the claimants, creating a few new primary obligations and moving the review mechanisms to the international level. Or, to put it the other way around, the criticism of undue interference of rules protecting foreign business interests with sovereignty might be misconceived because prototypes for these rules and regimes pre-date at least the Westphalian notions of sovereignty.

19 E.g., J. C. Rolf (trans.) and A. Gentili, De Iure Belli Libri Tres (1933), 100–1; F. W. Kelsey (trans.) and H. Grotius, De jure belli ac pacis libri tres (1925), 626–8; J. Drake (trans.) and C. Wolff, Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractatum (1934), 302; E. de Vattel, Droit des gens ou principes de la loi naturelle (1758), 531–7.

20 F. Wharton, A Digest of the International Law of the United States, Taken from Documents Issued by Presidents and Secretaries of State, and from Decisions of Federal Courts and Opinions of Attorneys-General (1887), 490–516; J. B. Moore, History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to Which the United States Has Been a Party (1898), 3073–664; J. B. Moore, A Digest of International Law: As Embodied in Diplomatic Discussions, Treaties and Other International Agreements, International Awards, the Decisions of Municipal Law, and the Writings of Jurists, Vol. 4, (1906), Chapter XIII; M. M. Whiteman, Damages in International Law (1937); G. Hackworth, Digest of International Law, Vol. 3 (1942), 630–40, 652–90, 705–17; although see A.-C. Kiss (ed.), Répertoire de la pratique française en matière de droit international public (1962), Tome IV; C. Parry (ed.), A British Digest of International Law (1965), Part 6.

21 E.g., R. Phillimore, Commentaries upon International Law, Vol. 3 (1885), 19–20; L. Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. 1 (1905), 376; G. S. Baker (ed.), Halleck's International Law (1908), 505–6; E. Nys, Le droit international (1912), 266.

22 Venezuela–US, Belgium, Great Britain (1903–05), 9 RIAA 111–533; Venezuela–France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Norway (1903–05), 10 RIAA 1–770.

23 (1926–31) RIAA 1–746.

24 The US–Mexican General Claims Commission in the Neer case cited the statement to the effect by John Basset Moore, the editor of digests of US practice, LFH Neer and Pauline Neer (US v. Mexico), (1926) 4 RIAA 60, para. 4 (hereafter, Neer).

25 E. Borchard, Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad (1915).

26 C. de Visscher, ‘Le déni de justice en droit international’, (1935/II) 52 RCADI 369; C. T. Eustathiadès, La responsabilité international de l'état pour les actes des organes judiciaires et le problème du déni de justice en droit international (1936); A. V. Freeman, The International Responsibility of States for Denial of Justice (1938).

27 S. Rosenne (ed.), League of Nations Conference for the Codification of International Law [1930], Vol. 4 (1975), 1442–3, 1456–65, 1474–7, 1583.

28 E.g., N. Politis (Greece), ibid., at 1583.

29 Rosenne, S., ‘State Responsibility: Festina Lente’, (2004) 75 BYIL 363, at 364Google Scholar.

30 H. Neufeld, The International Protection of Private Creditors from the Treaties of Westphalia to the Congress of Vienna (1971), 110 ff.

31 Treaty of Peace and Commerce between Great Britain and Denmark (adopted 11 July 1670, entered into force 11 August 1670), C. Parry (ed.), The Consolidation Treaty Series, Vol. 11 (1969), 347, Art. 24; see Ambatielos Case (Greece v. UK), ICJ Pleadings, at 412 ff., 483 ff. (Fitzmaurice on behalf of the UK); Ambatielos Case (Greece v. UK), (1956) 4 RIAA 83, at 108–9.

32 Supra note 22.

33 See M. Paparinskis, ‘Equivalent Primary Rules and Differential Secondary Rules: Countermeasures in WTO and Investment Protection Law’, in T. Broude and Y. Shany (eds.), Multi-Sourced Equivalent Norms in International Law (2011), 259, at 260.

34 Convention (XII) relative à l'établissement d'une Cour internationale des aprises, Deuxième conférence internationale de la paix: Actes et documents (1907), at Tome I 668, Arts. 4, 5. The Convention never entered into force due to reasons unrelated to individual access to the Court. However, the negotiating materials demonstrate general acceptance of the principle of individual access to an international court; Deuxième conférence internationale de la paix: Actes et documents (1907), at Tome II 790–1, 811.

35 Recueil des décisions des Tribunaux Arbitraux Mixtes institués par les Traités de Paix, at Tomes I–X, 1922–30.

36 M. Paparinskis, ‘Limits of Depoliticisation in Contemporary Investor–State Arbitration’, (2010) 3 Select Proceedings of the European Society of International Law forthcoming.

37 See the discussion of the benefits that individual access to an International Prize Court might provide to strong states, weak states, and individuals, Deuxième conférence internationale de la paix. Actes et documents, (1907) Tome II 790–1, 811.

38 Cf. Allott, P., ‘Language, Method and the Nature of International Law’, (1971) 45 BYIL 79Google Scholar, at 100–1.

39 See the discussion of Neer, supra note 24, in most cases and legal writings that emphasize the conceptual distinctiveness and relative irrelevance of its paradigm.

40 E.g., M. Waibel et al., The Backlash against Investment Arbitration: Perceptions and Reality (2010).

41 Pleadings and submissions by states could constitute one element of state practice, even if the structure of mixed arbitration and the general non-availability of the full text of the pleadings would make any normative generalizations complicated. Arguably, if the almost total absence of state practice and investment-related dispute settlement between the 1930s and 1990s (or 1980s, if IUSCT is counted in) is considered to constitute a lacuna, it would be permissible to fill it by analogy. The exercise in analogy would look at the most similar regime within which states have engaged in comparable practice during the time period, and the clearest example of such a regime would probably be international human rights law.

42 Lowe, supra note 1, at 223–4.

43 Z. Douglas, The International Law of Investment Claims (2009).

44 E.g., C. Lardy (trans.) and J. C. Bluntschli, Le droit international codifié (1870, 1874, 1881, 1886, 1895); D. Field, Outlines of an International Code (1872, 1876); P. Fiore, Il diritto internazionale codificato e la sua sanzione guiridica (1890, 1898, 1900, 1909, 1915).

45 The Institute of International Law and the International Law Association; see M. Koskenniemi, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations (2001), Chapter 1.

46 Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations [1949] ICJ Pleadings 111.

47 CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB 01/08, Decision on Annulment of 25 September 2007, paras. 121–135.

48 Ibid., at paras. 129–135; Sempra Energy International v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Decision on Annulment of 29 June 2010, paras. 186–209.

49 Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Decision on the Application for Annulment, paras. 355–395.

50 Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. Russia (PCA Case No AA 227, Interim Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility), paras. 244–398.

51 M. Paparinskis, ‘Investment Treaty Interpretation and Customary Investment Law: Preliminary Remarks’, in C. Brown and K. Miles (eds.), Evolution in Investment Treaty Law and Arbitration (2011), 65.

52 Saluka Investments BV v. Czech Republic, UNCITRAL Case, Partial Award of 17 March 2006.

53 Mondev v. US, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/99/2, Award of 11 October 2002; Loewen v. US, ICSID Additional Facility Case No. ARB(AF)/98/3, Award of 26 June 2003.

54 Guggenheim, P., ‘Les principes de droit international public’, (1952) 80 RCADI 1Google Scholar, at 130.

55 Eustathiadès, C. T., ‘Les sujets de droit international et le responsabilité internationale: Nouvelles tendances’, (1953) 81 RCADI 397Google Scholar, at 597, 599.

56 For a brief overview of the debate, see Paparinskis, M., ‘Investment Arbitration and the Law of Countermeasures’, (2008) 79 BYIL 264Google Scholar, at 325–7.

57 Toto Construzioni Generali S.P.A. v. Lebanon, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/12, Decision on Jurisdiction of 11 September 2009, paras. 158–160.

58 Cf. M. Wood, ‘“Constitutionalization” of International Law: A Sceptical Voice’, in K. Kaikobad and M. Bohlander (eds.), International Law and Power: Perspectives on Legal Order and Justice (2009).

59 E.g., Case 459/03, Commission v. Ireland, [2006] ECR I-4635, paras. 168–183.

60 Lowe, supra note 1, at 224–5.