Taking Investments Too Far: Expropriations in the Semi-periphery

Governing under Stress: Middle Powers and the Challenge of Globalization

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 218-238

  Schneiderman, David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85187619387     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (77)

1. Alden, Edward (2002) ‘US Does About-Face on Expropriation’, National Post, 2 October, FP16.
2. American Law Institute (1987) Restatement of the Law Third, The Foreign Relations of the United States, vol. 2, St Paul, MN: The American Law Institute.
3. Andrews, Edmund L. (2001) ‘Backing UPS Complaint, Europeans Fine German Postal Service’, New York Times, 21 March: C6.
4. Banks, Kevin (1999) ‘NAFTA’s Article 1110: Can Regulation Be Expropriation?’ NAFTA: Law and Business Review of the Americas 5: 499.
5. Bauman, Zygmunt (1998) Work, Consumerism and the New Poor, Buckingham: Open University Press.
6. Bauman, Zygmunt (1999) In Search of Politics, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
7. Borchard, Edwin (1939) ‘The “Minimum Standard” of the Treatment of Aliens’, Proceedings of the American Society of International Law 33: 51-63.
8. Campbell, Bruce (1993) ‘Restructuring the Economy: Canada into the Free Trade Era’, in Ricardo Grinspun and Maxwell A. Cameron (eds) The Political Economy of North American Free Trade, Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press: 89-104
9. Chase, Steven (2001) ‘Ottawa Faces Suit Over Banned Pesticide’, Globe and Mail, 10 December: B1.
10. Chase, Steven (2002a) ‘Tobacco Firm Warns “Mild” Cigarette Ban May Violate NAFTA’, Globe and Mail, 16 March: A6.
11. Chase, Steven (2002b) ‘Ottawa Loses Pope Lumber Spat’, Globe and Mail, 1 June: E1.
12. Chemerinsky, Erwin (1997) Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies, New York: Aspen.
13. Dezalay, Yves and Bryant G. Garth (1996) Dealing in Virtue: International Commercial Arbitration and the Construction of a Transnational Legal Order, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14. Dolzer, Rudolf (1981) ‘New Foundations of the Law of Expropriations of Alien Property’, American Journal of International Law 75: 553-89.
15. Dolzer, Rudolf and Margrete Stevens (1995) Bilateral Investment Treaties, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
16. Dumberry, Patrick (2001) ‘The NAFTA Investment Dispute Settlement Mechanism: A Review of the Latest Case Law’, Journal of World Investment 2: 151-95.
17. Dunn, Frederick Sherwood (1928) ‘International Law and Private Property Rights’, Columbia Law Review 28: 166-80.
18. Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel (1998) 524 US 498 per O’Connor J., US Supreme Court.
19. Elster, Jon (2000) Ulysses Unbound, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. Ethyl Corporation v. Government of Canada (2000)
21. Friedman, S. (1981) Expropriation in International Law [reprint 1953], Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
22. Friedmann, W (1956) ‘Some Aspects of Social Organization in International Law’, American Journal of International Law 156, no. 50: 475-513.
23. Gaillard, Emmanuel (2000) ‘A Strong Start for NAFTA’, New York Law, 3 February: 3.
24. Herz, John (1941) ‘Expropriation of Foreign Property’, American Journal of International Law 35: 243-62.
25. Higgins, Rosalyn (1982) ‘The Taking of Property by the State: Recent Developments in International Law’, Recueil des Cours, vol. 176, no. 259: 259-351.
26. Hull, Cordell, US Secretary of State and the Mexican Ambassador (1938) ‘Mexico-United States: Expropriation by Mexico of Agrarian Properties Owned by American Citizens’, American Journal of International Law 32 (Supp.): 181-207.
27. ‘Iran-United States: Settlement of Hostage Crisis’ (1980) International Legal Materials 20: 230.
28. Jack, Ian (2000a) ‘UPS Suing Ottawa for $230M’, National Post, 22 April: D1.
29. Jack, Ian (2000b) ‘Ottawa Wants to Trim NAFTA Powers’, National Post, 30 May: A9.
30. Jack, Ian (2001a) ‘New Debate on Controversial NAFTA Clause’, Financial Post, 6 March: C4.
31. Jack, Ian (2001b) ‘Canada Loses Bid to Change NAFTA Chapter 11’, Financial Post, 5 April: C4.
32. Jack, Ian (2001c) ‘Prime Minister Contradicts Trade on Chapter 11’, Financial Post, 24 April: C8.
33. Kaiser Aetna v. United States(1979) 444 US 164, 175, US Supreme Court.
34. Kelman, Mark (1999) Strategy or Principle? The Choice Between Taxation and Regulation, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
35. Lauterpacht, H. (1929) ‘Decisions of Municipal Courts as a Source of International Law’, British Yearbook of International Law, vol. 10, no. 65: 65-95.
36. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) 112 S. Ct. 2886, US Supreme Court.
37. McCarthy, Shawn (2000) ‘Ottawa Wins Round in Lumber Suit’, Globe and Mail, 28 June: B3.
38. McKinnon, Mark (2000) ‘Canada Seeks Review of NAFTA’s Chapter 11’, Globe and Mail, 13 December: B1.
39. McUsic, Molly S. (1996) ‘The Ghost of Lochner: Modern Takings Doctrine and Its Impact on Economic Legislation’, Boston University Law Review 76: 605-67.
40. Mann, Howard and Konrad von Moltke (1999) ‘NAFTA’s Chapter 11 and the Environment: Addressing the Impacts of the Investor-State Process on the Environment’, Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development.
41. Metalclad Corporation and the United Mexican States (24 August 2000) (2001) World Trade and Arbitration Materials 13: 47-80.
42. Michelman, Frank (1988) ‘Takings, 1987’, Columbia Law Review 88: 1600-29.
43. NAFTA Free Trade Commission (2001) ‘Notes of Interpretation of Certain Chapter 11 Provisions’, World Trade and Arbitration Materials 13, 31 July
44. Oppenheim, L. (1949) International Law: A Treatise (8th edn), vol. 1, ed. H. Lauterpacht, London: Longmans Green.
45. Ostry, Sylvia and Julie Soloway (1998) ‘The MMT Case Ended Too Soon’, Globe and Mail, 24 July: A21.
46. Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon (1922) 438 US 393: 1569, US Supreme Court.
47. ‘Petitioners Outline of Argument’, 5 February 2001 (2001) United Mexican States v. Metalclad Corporation, Supreme Court of British Columbia, no. L002904, Vancouver Registry.
48. Polanyi, Karl (1944) The Great Transformation, Boston: Beacon Press.
49. Pope & Talbot Inc and the Government of Canada, Interim Award (26 June 2000) (2001a) World Trade and Arbitration Materials 13: 19-59.
50. Pope & Talbot and Government of Canada, Award on Merits Phase 2 (10 April 2001) (2001b) World Trade and Arbitration Materials 13: 61-155.
51. Roth, Andreas H. (1949) The Minimum Standard of International Law Applied to Aliens, Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff’s Uitgeversmaatschappij.
52. S.D. Myers, Inc. v. Government of Canada (2001) International Legal Materials 40: 1408.
53. Sacerdoti, Giorgio (1997) ‘Bilateral Treaties and Multilateral Instruments on Investment Protection’, Recueil des Cours 269: 251-460.
54. Samrat, Ganguly (1999) ‘The Investor-State Dispute Mechanism (ISDM) and a Sovereign’s Power to Protect Public Health’, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 38: 113-68.
55. Schneiderman, David (1999a) ‘MMT Promises: How the Ethyl Corporation Beat the Federal Ban’, Encompass Magazine, vol. 3, no. 3: 12-13.
56. Schneiderman, David (1999b) ‘The Constitutional Strictures of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment’, The Good Society, vol. 9, no. 2: 90-95.
57. Schneiderman, David (2000) ‘Investment Rules and the New Constitutionalism’, Law & Social Inquiry 25: 757.
58. Scoffield, Heather (1998a) ‘US Firm Hits Ottawa With NAFTA Suit’, Globe and Mail, 21 August: B1.
59. Scoffield, Heather (1998b) ‘PCB Export Ban Breached NAFTA, Firm Says’, Globe and Mail, 1 September: B2.
60. Scoffield, Heather (1999) ‘Methanex Set to Sue Uncle Sam under NAFTA over Gas Additive’, Globe and Mail, 3 November: B7.
61. Scoffield, Heather (2000) ‘Mexico Holds Firm on NAFTA Investment Rules’, Globe and Mail, 2 September: B3.
62. Soloway, Julie (1999) ‘Environmental Trade Barriers under NAFTA: The MMT Fuel Additives Controversy’, Minnesota Journal of Global Trade 8: 55-95.
63. Sornarajah, M. (1994) The International Law of Foreign Investment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
64. Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002) 535, US Supreme Court.
65. Tamayo, Arturo Boja (2000) ‘The New Federalism, Internationalization and Political Change in Mexico: A Theoretical Analysis of the Metalclad Case’, Documento de Trabajo 59.
66. The United Mexican States v. Metalclad Corporation (2001) BCSC, vol. 664: paras 72, 79, 99, and 100.
67. US Library of Congress (1963) Expropriation of American-Owned Property by Foreign Governments in the Twentieth Century, Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
68. Vandevelde, Kenneth J. (1992a) United States Investment Treaties: Policy and Practice, Deventer: Kluwer.
69. Vandevelde, Kenneth J. (1992b) ‘The BIT Program: A Fifteen-Year Appraisal’, in ASIL Proceedings, Washington, DC, 1-4 April.
70. Vandevelde, Kenneth J. (1998) ‘The Political Economy of a Bilateral Investment Treaty’, American Journal of International Law 92: 621-41.
71. Wagner, J. Martin (1999) ‘International Investment, Expropriation and Environ­mental Protection’, Golden Gate University Law Review 29: 465-527.
72. Weiler, Todd J. (2000) ‘“The Minimum Standard ofTreatment” in International Law: Some Old Cases, Some New’, Canadian International Lawyer 3: 207-11.
73. Wells, Louis T., Jr. (1998) ‘God and Fair Competition: Does the Foreign Direct Investor Face Still Other Risks in Emerging Markets?’, in Theodore H. Moran (ed.) Managing International Political Risk, Oxford: Blackwell: 15-43.
74. Weston, Burns H. (1975) ‘“Constructive Takings” under International Law: A Modest Foray into the Problem of “Creeping Expropriation”’, Virginia Journal of International Law 103: 103-75.
75. Wheat, Andrew (1995) ‘Toxic Shock in a Mexican Village’, Multinational Monitor, vol. 16, no. 10.
76. Wilson, Timothy Ross (2000) ‘Trade Rules: Ethyl Corporation v. Canada (NAFTA Chapter 11)’, NAFTA: Law and Business Review of the Americas 52: 952.
77. Wortley, B.A. (1959) Expropriation in Public International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.