MODULE: INTERNATIONAL LAW AND BUSINESS
STUDENT NUMBER: 1345244
EMAIL ADDRESS: u1345244@uel.ac.uk
WORKING TITLE: CRITICALLY ANALYZE THE VIEW THAT “GLOBALIZATION
AND GROWTH IN FINANCIAL DIRECT INVESTMENTS HAVE CREATED A NEED
FOR A MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
ABSTRACT
The Multilateral Agreement on Investment was a draft agreement between members of the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, (OECD) negotiated from 1995 1998.The then 29 nations comprising the OECD, among them Canada, United States,
Australia, Japan and affluent European countries felt a need to protect Transnational
Corporations (TNC’s) by negotiating a treaty that would abolish (eliminate) barriers to
Foreign Direct Investment and establish a binding dispute settlement mechanism enabling
foreign companies to sue governments over discriminatory trade policies and asset
expropriation.
Although the negotiations of the draft MAI were suspended, and subsequently the draft was
never adopted, debate still remains as to whether the present international trade environment
influenced by globalization requires a multilateral treaty to regulate foreign investments. This
paper will look at the arguments for and against the ratification of such an instrument.
Is there need for a Multilateral Agreement on Investment?
In the post cold-war era, there has been a move towards greater international cooperation in
regard to economic regulation, as evidenced by the growing prominence of trade regulatory
bodies such as the International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization, European Union,
North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development.1 In the early 1980’s, the OECD member states recognized the need for the
1. Paul B. Stephan-Cornell international law journal vol.38, 2005, no.1 pg 173- 218
1
removal of regulatory barriers for cross- border investments due to the evolution of
multinational enterprises and the increasing complexity of their financing through offshore
tax jurisdiction. They drafted the prospective MAI largely in secret, but the negotiations had
to be suspended and it was never ratified.
The adoption of the draft MAI was thwarted by a spirited campaign by the Media and NonGovernmental Organizations (NGO’s), environmentalists and trade unions, who argued that
the MAI would compromise the sovereignty of the less powerful and poor Developing
Countries (DC’s) and Least Developing Countries (LDC’s).They argued that the MAI would
grant the Multinational Companies (MNC’s) the leeway to “ride roughshod” or threaten
environmental protection rules. They also claimed that the agreement would also compel
LDC’s to lower labour standards in order to attract foreign investment. There was also lack of
consensus among the Member states as stipulated in OECD procedures, with the host country
(France) retracting on its adoption.
The purpose of the proposed MAI was to develop multilateral rules that would ensure that
international investment was governed in a more systematic and uniform way between states.
There are also a host of Global Governance Regimes and Regional Trade Agreements that
regulate in all spheres of human activity with emphasis on economic management.
International Governance Regimes include international bodies such as the United Nations
(UN), International Criminal Court (ICC), The World Bank (WB) and The International
Monetary Fund (IMF) EU (European Union), NAFTA (North American Free Trade
Agreement). But with the exception of The World Trade Organization, largely due to its
rules- oriented Dispute Settlement Mechanism, they are deemed to have limited power to
enforce compliance by states or MNC’s in the sphere of international trade governance. Other
agreements in the WTO dealing with trade regulation include Trade-Related Investment
Measures (TRIMS), General Agree on Trade and Services (GATS) and Trade Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).
In view of the above inclusive and broad coverage of all areas of International Trade, it begs
the question as to what additional features a MAI can add on to global trade regulation to
justify the need by the industrialized nations for guarantees for global trade. The contention is
that none of these specifically dealt with the governing of foreign direct investment, and the
numerous Bilateral Investment Treaties and Regional Trade Agreements were highly
2
contradictory in their laws and insufficient in guaranteeing market access to the emerging
economies especially of Latin America and East Asia.2
The growing importance of FDI is one of the reasons why a MAI is required. Capital
movement has impact on both the capital exporting state (CES) and the capital importing
state (CIS), with benefits such as increased market access and improved competition with the
availability of cheaper goods. The CIS also benefits from improved access to technology and
strategic alliances with foreign partners, and this can improve the CIS’s economy. Foreign
Direct Investments face certain Regulatory restrictions such as; foreign equity limitations,
screening or approval mechanisms, restriction on the employment of foreigners as key
personnel and, operational restrictions which can be overcome with a binding MAI.
Another reason why it is imperative to have a multilateral agreement on investments is
because foreign investors need transparent and predictable rules on which they can operate,
which must include legal security (Zdenek 1998). This will create a secure environment for
investment, in order to attract FDI and foreign capital. This is line with the basic principles of
the WTO of non- discrimination and National Treatment, and Most Favoured Nation clause
(GATT Art I).This would enhance the free flow of capital with the free trade. But critics of
globalization and liberalization argue that states have lost control over local economies, with
the power shifting to global corporations, and that free flow of FDI is not necessarily
desirable by all developing countries. It is the basis for their opposition to the establishment
of an international investment treaty.
According to Kobrin 3 “the MAI was to provide the framework for international investment
what the GATT provided for international trade,” that is, the elimination of discriminatory
treatment in international commerce. He notes that the Global Stock of FDI quadrupled
between 1982 -1994, with annual flows of cross-border investment reaching $ 350 billion in
1996, 4 prompting industrialized countries to focus on the governance of international
investments by instituting a MAI to replace the estimated BIT’s in existence then, and
consolidating the overall regulatory framework for investments.
2. Andrew Walter,” Globalization and Policy Convergence: The Case of Direct Investment Rules” in R. Higgott and A.Beiler, Non –State
Actors in the Global Economy. London Routledge, 1999]
3. Kobrin, S .J, “The MAI and the clash of globalization,” foreign policy, 1998 no. 112, p.97
4. ibid
3
The proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment’s main objective was the creation and
protection of stable investment conditions in the international trading arena. Jeffrey Lang, the
Deputy US Trade Representative and co- leader of US Delegation to the OECD Negotiations
of the MAI] stated that,
“We intend for the MAI Agreement to provide a broad multilateral framework for
international investment, with high standard for the liberalization of investment regimes,
investment protection and effective dispute settlement.”5
Lang envisioned a MAI that would; - first, “lock-in” current MFN and National Treatment to
the greatest extent possible, and secondly, improve the current investment climate among
current OECD Members States and future MAI signatories. A third purpose of the proposed
MAI was to broaden acceptance of international investment norms, and, the fourth to provide
clear, predictable and transparent treatment of US investors. OECD Member states and nonOECD states that sought accession were to ensure investors have access to markets. Nations
were to repeal all barriers to trade and business regulations that violated MAI provisions. The
expropriation clause in the draft accord would give the right of investors to sue governments,
and enable compensation to corporations arising from proven unfair or discriminatory
investment conditions causing loss of profit.
Another argument for the need of foreign investment regulation is so as to achieve policy
consistency. This would incorporate the salient features of the numerous Bilateral and
regional trade agreements, and reduce the instances of conflicting regulation with regard to
investments.
Expropriation or the regulatory taking clause was one of the most contested clauses included
in the draft MAI. Expropriation can either be the physical confiscation of property of
property and assets, or the introduction of regulations which could amount to takings if it
results in the loss of profit in the MNC’s. Expropriation is recognized under customary
international law as a legal option for the host state when the state meets three principle
requirements, namely; that it should be for public purpose; that it should be nondiscriminatory; and that compensation should be promptly paid to the investor in mutually
acceptable terms.
5. Keynote address, Cornell International Law Journal, vol. 31, 1998, pg 455-466
4
The inclusion of the expropriation clause for both regulatory and physical taking of property
was so as to protect foreign investors and limit the rights of states to take property by
imposing certain prerequisites or preconditions for foreign investments entering their country.
It was intended to establish standards for the manner in which host states can justify the
taking of investors’ property. The draft MAI included appropriate or just compensation based
on the market value or use of the Hull formula in case of loss of profit arising from regulatory
takings.
The recent process policy liberalization in many developed and developing country has
greatly affected fiscal, infrastructural and financial policies of most nations. Therefore
investors need protection to do business and to secure their investments abroad, and the ideal
framework would be an MAI to guarantee stability in investment even with a change in other
domestic laws. In order to minimize the risk of doing business, investors are most likely to
choose to transact in countries where their business is most secure.
When the details of the MAI leaked to the media, there was a global uproar led by the Media,
Non Governmental Organization’s and the civil society, resulting in a spirited campaign
opposing the adoption of the accord. This led to a thorough scrutiny of the issues and topics
under discussion and a raging criticism compounded by the fact that the discussions had been
held in secret. There was also lack of consensus among the OECD members on some of the
provisions/ issues/ topics being negotiated. For instance, United States objected to the
Regional Economic Integration Organization (REIO) Clause put forward by members of the
EU arguing that it would discriminate and disadvantage the US if it wished to trade with
former East Bloc European Union countries.
The MAI was therefore not adopted, and the negotiations suspended. The NGO’s, scholars,
other non- state actors and even member states of the OECD denounced the MAI, and alleged
it was a ‘major and immediate’ threat to democracy, sovereignty, human rights, the
environment and economic development.
Among the provisions of the draft agreement was the ban on performance requirements, and
the expropriation clause. The expropriation clause bars any law or requirement or its
equivalent that impedes the investors right to make profit, and the nationalization of
investor’s assets by the host country. It was argued that the adoption of this clause would
have an adverse effect on national legislation, as countries would to repeal and reformulate
their national governing rules in order to accommodate the more wealthy international
5
players. This was regarded as a threat to the sovereignty of the Developing Countries who
were establishing themselves after a prolonged period of colonial rule. The ability to
formulate and enforce legislation is one of the hallmarks of statehood.
The Secretary - General of OECD Donald Johnson 6 argued that the Agreement “would not
interfere with the freedom governments to implement their own policies concerning Law and
Environmental Standards as long as these standards were not more stringent for foreign
investors.” He further assured that the MAI would not eliminate the authority of the domestic
courts, tribunals and regulatory authorities over foreign investors and their enterprises. The
MAI would not immunize foreign investors from domestic laws. Further, He reiterated that
countries were not required to lower labour and environmental protection standards to attract
foreign investment. The detractors of the MAI argued that workers rights and the
environment would be greatly compromised by the adoption of the MAI, since any laws for
environmental protection and labour laws, especially by the LDC’s who are the main source
of raw materials and cheap labour would be deemed limiting the investors’ right to profit and
would therefore be prohibited by the treaty.
Those opposed to the draft MAI alleged that codification of the draft would have a negative
effect on labour and environmental standards, and would dilute national legislation for the
protection of the environment. The antagonists of the MAI cited the US based Ethyl
Corporation case against the Canadian Government 7 in which the US claimed that Canada
had violated NAFTA commitments. Canada had banned the use of a fuel additive produced
by Ethyl Corporation due to health and environmental reasons. Ethyl argued that the
Canadian environmental laws amounted to regulatory takings and enforced/ espoused
performance requirements. They claimed that enforcing this law was in violation of the
National Treatment clause. In the end, Canada and to repel this law and pay compensation to
Ethyl for material injury.
In this context, the MAI appeared to establish a new body of universal investment laws to
guarantee corporations excessive powers to takeover and undertake financial operations all
over the world without regard to state sovereignty, requiring countries to change their laws to
accommodate the wishes of other nations with the performance clause.
6. European Report Feb., 1998
7. Ethyl Gasoline Corp.v. United States 309 US 436
6
Another basis for the opposition to the multilateral agreement was that it would adversely
affect the least developed countries. There was alleged that the implementation of the MAI
would result in a “race to the bottom” among countries willing to lower their labour their
labour and environmental standards to attract foreign investment.
Martin Khor, the director of the Malaysian –based Third World Network argued that,
“The economies of most developing countries were shaped to the advantage of foreign
countries and financial institutions and therefore local firms required special treatment for a
longer time before they can compete on more balanced terms with large companies”.
According to OECD Statistics 8 in 1998, OECD Member States collectively accounted for a
large part of FDI’s worldwide; 85% outflows and 60% inflows. Hence they had a large stake
in the protection of their investments abroad and attempted to guarantee this by spearheading
the formulation of the rules to govern international investment, hence their attempt at drafting
the MAI.
The MAI negotiations were an attempt to consolidate and complete the existing OECD
instruments such as, the 1961 Codes of Liberalization of Capital Movement,(promoting
liberalization of international trade in goods and services and progressive freedom of capital
movement), and the 1976 International Investment and Multinational Enterprises (a policy
commitment by OECD member governments to provide an open and transparent
environment for international trade and , multinational enterprises’ positive contribution
towards economic and social progress),9 which have helped promote international and
economic cooperation for many years.
There is a general consensus that the proliferation of Foreign Direct Investment and regional
trade liberalization have led to free trade and facilitated economic development. Scholars
argue that the arguments against the establishment of a multilateral framework for the
regulation of foreign investment are usually the arguments against globalization and its
effects such as the liberalization of global markets.
8..http://www.oecd.org/corporate/mne/statistics
9. oecd.org/
7
Globalization is the process by which businesses and organizations develop international
influence and start operating on an international scale;-moving investment funds beyond
domestic and national markets, increasing the interconnectedness of different markets.
Globalization is often broadly defined as “networks of interdependence that span
intercontinental distances” (Keohane and Nye 2000a, 105). Globalization has considerably
shaped world economy in the past century, and has had a great impact on individuals,
communities, and the environment. Globalization and liberalization have impacted on the
democratic process by influencing the way in which laws are formulated to adhere or
conform to international norms. International market liberalization has prompted a dramatic
growth in Foreign Direct Investments, a key driver of international economic integration,
which additionally provides stability, while promoting economic development.
Borensztein et al (1998) 10 argues that FDI’s contribute to economic growth by stimulating
technological progress rather than by increasing total capital accumulation
In order to “convince the sceptics” Drabek (1998) asserts that the positive aspects of the
multilateral agreement should outweigh the negative ones.11 According to the WTO report
(1996), there is recognition of the growing importance of FDI in international economic
relations, with FDI exceeding official assistance as the most important component of external
financial flows. Some of the benefits of FDI are increased market access and market
channels, improved skills, and augmentation of access to technology, and a growth in
domestic savings and investments. Developed as well as Developing Countries are all
confronted with the challenge of attracting and exploiting the gains of international
investments represented by Foreign Direct Investment and Portfolio Investment. Foreign
Direct Investment presents a higher risk for the investor because it entails (involves) long
term direct or indirect investment and participation by way of management, technology
transfer and capital, and thus greater challenges for the investor to strike the right policy
balance to generate better returns.
In his Keynote address, Jeffrey Lang, the then Deputy US Trade Representative and co-leader
of the US Delegation to OECD Negotiations on the MIA was of the opinion that although US
10. E. Borensztein et al, international economics, 1998, vol.45 ,pg 115 -135
11. Zdanek Drabek, A Multilateral Agreement on Investment: Convincing the Sceptics, WTO Staff Working Paper ERAD-98-05, 1998
8
foreign investments were extensively covered and protected by the existing Bilateral
Investment Treaties (BIT’s) and the NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), there
was further need to have a treaty that would “lock-in” and guarantee the current favourable
treatment to the greatest extent possible.12
With globalization and the liberalization of world trade emerge challenges to global
governance which can create uncertainty in global trading, with an adverse effect on financial
investments. Such challenges include; climate change (global warming), the threat of
violence (terrorism), pandemics (HIV/AIDS), Fiscal Markets meltdown ( 2008), dangers of
nuclear weapons, large scale Humanitarian crises and conflict , and failed states. Uncertainty
and unpredictability is unfavourable for any MTC’s seeking to invest in these regions,
because trade requires the assurance of the protection of the investments in the foreign
countries for it to thrive. For the management of these problems, cooperation between
governments and non-state actors is imperative, with emphasis on the means of securing
compliance of both states and non-state actors’ to the rules.
Historically, there have been many attempts to protect FDI with the use of bilateral
friendships and treaties. Within the last two decades, BIT’s have greatly increased in number;
with UNCTAD statistics of 2012(pg 84) showing a total of 3164 BIT’s and FTA’s involving
the regulation of FDI. Currently, FDI flows in both directions; between developed and
developing countries. In addition, outward FDI was $ 2.2 trillion in 2007 and still growing
thus warranting an international standardized set of rules for FDI. The numerous and similar
BIT’s could be consolidated and harmonized into one standardized regulatory framework. At
the end of the WWII, United States initiated negotiations for the creation of the International
Trade Organization (ITO) as an investment Platform. Failure to ratify the International Trade
Organization (ITO) treaty left the GATT, now WTO as the only regulatory instrument
dealing with trade issues, with various fragmented BIT’s. This was during the era of
decolonization during which BIT’s were signed between Developed countries and newly
independent Nations keen to attract investment while protecting their newly won
independence. The obligation to protect FDI fell on the developed countries (CIS), and was
viewed by the developing countries as intrusion and foreign control of their means of
12. Cornell International Law Journal vol.3, 1998, no.1 pg 455- 466
9
production (Anders 2013).13 The evolution towards broader Regionalization as evidenced by
the expansion of the EU validates the need for a broad multilateral order. Anders, a leading
specialist in post communist economic transformation, 14 argues that there is need for a
Multilateral Agreement on Investment framework to mediate in view of the growth and
expansion of state capitalism and Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWF’s) especially from China
and Russia, both geographically large markets. China and Russia want to invest abroad but
are viewed with suspicion because of their political orientation (both are communist
countries). The capital importing states (CIS) that are recipient of these SWF’s question the
transparency and objectives of these SWF’s due to concerns of national security (Truman
2010). A MAI Framework is thus needed to regulate and facilitate FDI, considering the
interests of state investors and national security concerns in the recipient countries.
The MAI negotiations attracted negative debate from civil society and both private and public
sectors and had to be discontinued. Any future negotiations for International Investment
Agreements (IIA’s) will be influenced by this experience.
The proponents of the performance clause in the MAI called for nations to allow for greater
market access by repealing all barriers and a “roll back” of existing laws not in accordance
with the draft MAI, and further to refrain from passing new laws that contradict it. (Kobrin
1998Government measures, for instance, domestic production requirements, tax incentives
and export requirements would be tantamount to protectionism and lead to investment wars
similar to the trade wars of the 1930’s (Bergsten 1974). These “beggar thy neighbour
policies” were prevalent in response to United States’ adoption of the Smoot – Hawley Tariff
of 1930 which was formulated for the protection of agricultural production by the American
farmers. According to Graham (Graham 2006), government measures should not discriminate
against foreign-owned enterprises, except for the protection of national security.15
13. Anders Aslud, “The World Needs a Multilateral Investment Agreement, Policy Brief, Petersen Institute for International Economics,
2013
14. ibid
15. Kobrin S.J, “The MAI and the clash of Globalization,” Foreign Policy, (1998) no.112, p 97.
10
Those opposed to the MAI claimed that a ban on performance requirements and the
expropriation clause provisions would put all business above the regulation of municipal
governments, placing Multinational Corporations beyond the reach of national and local
economic governance. It would limit the ability of local and national legislation in the areas
of health, workers’ rights, environment and natural resources. This would lead to a threat to
national sovereignty and democracy, as the LDC’s would have to alter and formulate
legislation to accommodate the more prosperous nations
Performance requirements (such as local content, local manufacture and technology transfer
requirements) are development strategies and economic policies employed by developed
nations to achieve industrialization and economic growth (Malhotra 2004), and prohibition,
LDC’s argue, would impede their economic development.
The opponents of a MAI argued that the ratification of the treaty /MAI would compromise
the sovereignty of states, and would influence the drafting of legislation.
The US Ethyl corporation v Canada case was cited as an example of ways in which foreign
MTC’s could influence domestic legislation. In the rulings, Canada was forced to repeal the
offending measure and pay compensation to Ethyl despite the fact that the laws had been
enacted as a means of environmental protection.
The US.V, EU beef- hormones case 16 involving the Agreement on the application of Sanitary
and Phyto Sanitary measures (SPS Agreement) is an example of how conflicting regulation
can pose a dilemma in the area of trade dispute settlement.
16. WTO/DS320
11
Recommendations
The United Nations Committee on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) serves as the focal
point within the United Nations Secretariat for all matters related to foreign direct investment
and transnational corporations. In the aftermath of the collapse of the MAI talks, UNCTAD
commissioned research on the need and viability of an international investment treaty, with a
view to assisting the Less Developed Countries (LDC’s) to fully participate as effectively as
possible in international investment rule making at the bilateral, regional, plurilateral and
multilateral levels. This will be achieved by capacity building seminars, regional symposia,
training courses, dialogues between negotiators and groups of civil society.17
Sauvant K. P et al 18 the lead author of the paper recognizes codification of investment law as
a powerful and integral part in economy and commerce, and proposes for the participation of
all states in its formulation.
To overcome some of the impediments put forward by the critics, Anders Aslud
(2013)19proposes that a future MAI should address the following issues; First, it should be
clear about the treatment of investors with special emphasis on the MFN clause and the
National Treatment clause, and lay down the guidelines for investor protection, preferably
compensation at full market value in case of expropriation. Dispute settlement redress
stipulated in the draft accord should include state- to -state procedures as well as investor- to state procedure, bearing in mind that it is not actually the states that own the businesses but
mostly investors.
Aslud (2013) 20 advocates that a future MAI should include corporate social responsibility
and environmental issues. The rights and obligations of states as investors [SWF’s] need to
be clarified which would be essential to overcome bureaucratic resistance, for instance, that
experienced by Chinese High-Tech companies and Russian energy companies that are state 17. UNCTAD, IIA Issues Paper Series, Taking of Property (2000)
18. ibid
19. Anders Aslud, “The World Needs a Multilateral Investment Agreement, Policy Brief, Petersen Institute for International Economic,
2013
20. ibid
12
owned investing in the global trading arena. Additionally, state owned companies should be
required to be more transparent and clearly regulated.
Since the failure to conclude the draft MAI was due in part to the prevailing ideological
outlook at the time, and also the choice of home organization [OECD], Aslud (2013) suggests
that G-20 nations should lead the negotiations, but that they should be carried out under the
umbrella of the WTO. It should be a plurilateral agreement within the framework of the WTO
or the ICSID. Given that the WTO already harbours such other similar agreements it should
not be problematic. Relevant examples include Information Technology Agreement, and the
Government Procurement Agreement.
A suitable international commercial agreement should complement the prior achievements of
BITS and FTA’s and provides a floor of standards and obligations for the settlement of trade
disputes. The Financial Times London (1998) hailed the MAI as an important contribution to
the new international architecture needed to cope with financial turbulence of increasing trade
integration. MAI was to include three key areas of investment rule making, namely; investment protection, investment liberalization and binding dispute settlement (European
Report Feb 1998).
Zdenek Drabek in his paper, “....convincing the sceptics” Drabek (1998) states that “the
recent currency turmoil and the widespread concerns about the volatility of international
capital inflows have provided an impetus to the debate on the desirability of a multilateral
agreement on foreign investment due to spread of regionalism and the role of foreign
investment and multilateral enterprises
Developed Countries sort to integrate the LDC’s into the multilateral trading system, largely
regarded as marginalized by globalization. But although an investment treaty does not
guarantee expansion in FDI, it can increase transparency of government commitments and
improve conditions for access of FDI. Foreign investors need transparent and predictable
rules on which they can operate and this must include/ incorporate legal security, (Drabek
1998)
National legislation is usually not sufficient to guarantee amble security to foreign investors
since there is risk of inconsistent rules entrenched in various /different agreements. The
procedures and mechanisms for the settlement of trade disputes should be clearly spelt out,
and prospect of investor – state arbitration explored.
13
In conclusion, we must acknowledge that it is impossible to roll back the effects of
globalization which had led to substantial growth in international trade. This encompasses
trade in goods as well as services, portfolio investments and Foreign Direct Investment. This
growth has been largely beneficial in that it has helped boost economies in the developing
and less developed countries, and as resulted in the transfer of technology and skills in the
regions where the investments are situated. To ensure the security and protection required for
commercial growth, an international investment agreement would be beneficial especially by
stipulating the regulatory framework for foreign direct investments.
It should have a broad framework to tackle the contentious issues pointed out in the
UNCTAD (1998) IIA paper series including labour and environmental laws, cultural
exception and arbitration of trade disputes. The accord should revisit the controversial
performance requirement and expropriation clauses, and address investment protection with
is fundamental for economic stability and growth.
REFERENCES
Michael Trebilcock and Robert Howse: The Regulation of International Trade (Routledge
Great Britain 2005)
Margaret P. Karns and Karen A. Mingst: International Organisations: The Politics and
Processes of Global Governance. (Portland: Lynne Rienner 2009).
Walter Mattli and Woods, N: The Politics of Global Regulation. (New Jersey: Princeton
University Press 2009).
Joseph Stiglitz: Making Globalization Work: The Next Steps To Global Justice, (London:
Penguin books 2006)
Kenneth Abbott and David Snidal, International organizations: “hard and soft law in
international governance”,
http://www.wto.org/ - accessed on 20-12- 2014
http://www.oecd.org/corporate/mne/statistics.htm - accessed on 15-12-2014
http://www.oecd.org/statistics/ - accessed on 15.12.2014
http://www.naftanow.org/ - accessed on 28-12-2014
http://www.citizen.org/nafta accessed on 08-12-2014
14
www.oecd.org/ -accessed on 18-12-2014
Ray Dennis .M, “The Multilateral Agreement on Investment; implications for
Entrepreneurship and New Venture Development”, Globalization, vol.7 no.1 (2008) p 146.
Walter A, NGO’s. “Business, And international Investment: The Multilateral Agreement on
Investment, Seattle and Beyond”, Global Governance, vol.7 no.1 (2001) p51.
Kamal Malhotra, “Will a Trade and Investment Link in the Global Trade Regime Be Good
for Human Development,” The European Journal of Development Research,(2004) vol.16,
no.3, pp 716 -736.
M Daly, “some taxing questions for the multilateral agreement on Investment, world
economy,1997, vol.20, no.6, p 787 -808
UNCTAD IIA Issues Paper Series, UNCTAD series on issues in international investment
agreement, Geneva 2000. Authors Karl P. Sauvant, Pedro Roffe et al
Kobrin, S .J, “The MAI and the clash of globalization,” foreign policy, 1998 no. 112, p.97
Andrew Walter,” Globalization and Policy Convergence: The Case of Direct Investment
Rules” in R. Higgott and A.Beiler, Non –State Actors in the Global Economy.( London
Routledge, 1999)
Paul B. Stephan-Cornell international law journal vol.38, 2005, no.1 pg 173- 218
Jeffrey Lang: Keynote address, Cornell International Law Journal, vol. 31, 1998, pg 455-466
European Report Feb., 1998
. E. Borensztein et al, international economics, 1998, vol.45 ,pg 115 -135
Zdanek Drabek, A Multilateral Agreement on Investment: Convincing the Sceptics, WTO
Staff Working Paper ERAD-98-05, 1998
Cornell International Law Journal vol.3, 1998, no.1 pg 455- 466
UNCTAD, IIA Issues Paper Series, Taking of Property (2000)
Anders Aslud, “The World Needs a Multilateral Investment Agreement, Policy Brief,
Petersen Institute for International Economic, 2013
15
Jonquieres de, G., & Kuper, S. (Push to keep alive effort to draft global investment rules
OECD MINISTERS FAIL TO SET DATE FOR MAI AGREEMENT AFTER MISSING
TWO DEADLINES: Financial Times Apr 1998 Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/248651142?accountid=17234
Jonquieres de, G. (1998, Oct 21). OECD urged to agree MAI pact. Financial Times Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/248781824?accountid=17234
EU/OECD: INVESTMENT PACT TALKS REACH CRUCIAL STAGE. (1998). European
Report, , 1. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/230444162?accountid=17234
OECD's future. (1998, Apr 28). Financial Times Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/248657065?accountid=17234
OECD INVESTMENT DEAL EXAMINED FOR IMPACT ON TRADE PACTS.
(1997). European Report, 8(2257), 1. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/230464160?accountid=17234
Schwanen, D. (1998). Chilling out: The MAI is on ice but global investment remains hot
multilateral agreement on investment].Commentary - C.D.Howe Institute, (107-111), 1.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/216603473?accountid=17234
Malanczuk, P. (2000). State-state and investor-state dispute settlement in the OECD draft
multilateral investment agreement.Journal of International Economic Law, 3(3), 417.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/218105815?accountid=17234
By, E. L. (1996, Sep 10). OECD touts progress on investors' rights pact. Asian Wall Street
Journal Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/315653732?accountid=17234
Kudrle, R. T. (2012). Governing economic globalization: The pioneering experience of the
OECD. Journal of World Trade, 46(3), 695-731. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1035328858?accountid=17234
India: Third world must learn lessons from OECD meet: Unctad secy-gen.
(1998). Businessline, , 1. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/221523693?accountid=17234
Johnston, D. (1998, Feb 24). The case for MAI: Personal view . donald johnston: The
multilateral agreement on investment would ensure greater liberalisation. Financial
Times Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/248623690?accountid=17234
Cuong, H. C. (2013). The impact of the world trade organization (WTO) regime on foreign
direct investment (FDI) flows to vietnam: A gravity model approach. Journal of Modern
Accounting and Auditing, 9(7), 961-987. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1469000385?accountid=17234
16
Hur, J., & Park, D. (2004). Welfare implications of RTAs within the WTO system in the
presence of FDI. Open Economies Review,15(1), 87-103. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/206484697?accountid=17234
WTO and FDI. (2003). Businessline, , 1. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/221787175?accountid=17234
FDI increases after WTO entry. (2002). Economic View, Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/215561721?accountid=17234
Benmamoun, M. (2009). The decision to participate in WTO dispute settlement (Order No.
3351843). Available from ProQuest Business Collection. (304993564). Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/304993564?accountid=17234
17