| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
106862
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Sovereign investment, particularly by Sovereign Wealth Funds, constitutes an increasingly important portion of foreign investment. In 2009, Sovereign Wealth Funds invested US$22.9 billion in foreign direct investment, 15 per cent more than in 2008.1 Investment treaties protect investments of investors of the contracting parties. Whether sovereign investors benefit from investment treaty protection depends on the definitions of "investor" and "investment" in an otherwise applicable investment treaty. Investments made by sovereign investors are clearly protected under an investment treaty if these definitions expressly include the State, State entities and companies and their investments. This article addresses the more difficult question of protection where the definitions are silent or ambiguous as to whether sovereign investment is covered. Also addressed are the evolving standards of admission of sovereign investment and access of sovereign investors to investor-State arbitration, ICSID arbitration constituting a special case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
096903
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
089543
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Concerns have been raised that Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs) might be used by governments to advance international political goals, raising red flags about their possible economic and national security consequences. These concerns are overstated. Warnings about national security threats related to foreign investment have been sounded repeatedly throughout history, but they have invariably been false alarms. Although there are novel attributes about SWFs in contemporary world politics, establishing their national security consequences is much more difficult than it might seem. And in those instances where theoretical connections between SWFs and "high politics" can be established, on closer inspection the SWFs appear to be intervening variables - manifestations of other pathologies - rather than the root cause of the postulated problem. The potential geopolitical problems caused by SWFs are the result of shifts in wealth in the international system, and not by the establishment or functioning of wealth funds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
086570
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
A spectre is stalking the world: the spectre of a rich Chinese state buying strategic resources, hollowing out companies, gobbling up financial institutions and threatening the sovereignty of the countries in whose resources and companies it invests. The China Investment Corporation (CIC) - a sovereign wealth fund company (SWF) - is the stalking horse of the Chinese state. Using the CIC as an example, this article argues that the warning about SWFs has little to do with their size, the speed of their growth or what SWFs have or have not done. It is about a shifting power relationship in the global economy. This broader realignment may have been occurring slowly, but it is happening. Neither side - those who have been writing the rules of the game for international political economy and those who are historically rule-takers - is fully willing to acknowledge the shift and take responsibility to build a new architecture of an international financial system that can accommodate interests of old and new players.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|