Brésil

Mettre le droit de réglementer consacré dans les politiques et lois relatives à l’investissement au service du développement : réflexions à partir des données d’expérience de l’Afrique du Sud et du Brésil

Le droit de réglementer peut être défini comme le droit souverain des États des réglementer dans l’intérêt public, c’est-à-dire leur marge de manœuvre politique. Compte tenu que les Accords internationaux d’investissement (AII) ont été créé pour limiter certains aspects du droit de réglementer des pays, la première vague d’AII a inhibé les tentatives réglementaires des pays d’accueil qui pourraient être dommageables pour les droits des investisseurs étrangers.

ITN  |  décembre 12, 2016

News in Brief

(English) Trump election affects mega-regional negotiations including TTIP, TPP and RCEP

Brazil and India initial Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT); text yet to be published

CETA signed; Canada and European Union to “work expeditiously” on creating a Multilateral Investment Court

The Brazilian Agreement on Cooperation and Facilitation of Investments (ACFI): A New Formula for International Investment Agreements?

(English) Since the signing of the first Agreement on Cooperation and Facilitation of Investments (ACFI) by Brazil, in March 2015, English translations of the document and analyses of its innovative aspects have been published. The hidden question is: to what extent do Brazil’s ACFIs innovate in the regulation of foreign investments?

The Brazil–Mozambique and Brazil–Angola Cooperation and Investment Facilitation Agreements (CIFAs): A Descriptive Overview

(English) Brazil and Mozambique signed on March 30, 2015 the first Cooperation and Investment Facilitation Agreement (CIFA) based on Brazil’s new model bilateral investment treaty (BIT). The second was signed on April 1, 2015 between Brazil and Angola. Unlike traditional BITs, which are geared towards investor protection, the CIFAs focus primarily on cooperation and investment facilitation. They promote amicable ways to settle disputes and propose state–state dispute settlement as a backup; notably, they do not include provisions on investor–state arbitration.

ITN  |  décembre 10, 2008

re: Investment Arbitration in Brazil: Yes or No?

As an arbitrator and one who does not have any connection with the Brazilian legal system, I  can more particularly identify with the views of Weiler and de Oliveira. I can understand the confidence that Brazilians may have in their own courts when faced with the issue of resolving international investment disputes and the question […]

Investment Arbitration in Brazil: Yes or No?

By Elizabeth Whitsitt and Damon Vis-Dunbar30 November 2008 In 1991, Brazil began one of the world’s largest privatization programs, selling more than US$100 billion worth of assets. Seventeen years later and with a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) that ranks tenth in the world, Brazil is an industrial power that, according to the World Bank, is […]