Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.advisorBantekas, I-
dc.contributor.advisorCole, T-
dc.contributor.advisorMalinauskaite, J-
dc.contributor.authorOnyeani, Onyema Awa-
dc.descriptionThis thesis was submitted for the award of Doctor of Philosophy and was awarded by Brunel University Londonen_US
dc.description.abstractThe analysis of this thesis is to examine whether foreign investors can fully rely on the standard of FPS in BITs for the protection of their investments in the territories of host States which has been mandated to States by international law. This question cannot be answered without giving insights into the content and structure of the origin of FPS standard and adopts a dynamic based-perspective of the interpretation of FPS under VCLT 1969, encompassing the relationship between FPS and CIL. It investigates the tribunals’ interpretation of the clause using case laws and literatures to identify and explore the underlying explanatory process behind tribunals’ case findings and outcomes. The study examines the critical realism that the obligation of FPS standard does not place absolute liability to a host State, rather the exercise of a reasonable degree of vigilance. It evaluates the controversy surrounding the relationships between FPS and FET, and illuminates on how the two standards may co-evolve which has led to various arbitral tribunals’ divergence opinions interpretation of the two principles. The evaluation of the application of FPS to digital assets is dynamic in this research as it addresses the nature of threats investors face globally today over cyber attacks of digital investments. The thesis also emphasis on balancing up investors’ rights and obligation, which explains the measures that States can apply to prevent foreign investors from engaging in illegitimate activities. Having look at all these issues, circumstances, and the controversies surrounding FPS standard, the result found is that there is a existence of a gap in this area of the law, that would mean that foreign investors cannot completely rely on the principle of FPS for the protection of their investments in the territories of the host unless this lacunae is properly filled by both the States and arbitral tribunals, especially the tribunals’ interpretative meaning of the standard of FPS.en_US
dc.publisherBrunel University Londonen_US
dc.subjectBilateral investment treatiesen_US
dc.subjectDue diligenceen_US
dc.subjectFPS analytic arbitral decisionsen_US
dc.subjectThe relationships between FPS and FETen_US
dc.subjectFPS interpretation under VCLTen_US
dc.titleThe obligation of host states to accord the standard of “full protection and security” to foreign investments under international investment lawen_US
Appears in Collections:Law
Brunel Law School Theses

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
FulltextThesis.pdf2.73 MBAdobe PDFView/Open

Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.