Edward Guntrip

Private actors, public goods and responsibility for the right to water in international investment law: an analysis of Urbaser v. Argentina

International investment law balances public and private interests within the broader framework of international law. Consequently, when water supply services, which constitute a public good, are privatized and operated by foreign investors, questions arise regarding whether foreign investors could be held responsible for the right to water under international law. This article considers how the tribunal in Urbaser v. Argentina allocated responsibility for compliance with the right to water between the host State and the foreign investor when resolving a dispute over privatized water services. It highlights how the tribunal in Urbaser v. Argentina supports different understandings of public and private based on whether the human rights obligation is framed in terms of the duty to respect or protect. It is argued that the tribunals rationale overcomplicates the process of allocating responsibility for violations of the human right to water when water supply services have been privatized.

Self-determination and foreign direct investment: reimagining sovereignty in international investment law

International investment law can be criticized for its understanding of sovereignty. Informed by the works of Koskenniemi, this article re-imagines ‘sovereignty’ based on a host state population exercising its right to economic self-determination. Recent transparency initiatives in international investment law support this conceptualization of sovereignty. Further, the stance taken aligns with the continuous evolution of the international investment law regime. The establishment of a different perspective on sovereignty in international investment law highlights the need for an alternative understanding of this term if international investment law is to achieve widespread approval.

Chapter 10 The Kosovo Question and Uti Possidetis: The Potential for a Negotiated Settlement

This chapter addresses the issue of whether there are principles of international law that are not currently being considered that could assist with the resolution of the ongoing dispute between Kosovo and Serbia over Kosovos claim to statehood. It examines the Kosovo Question through the lens of the ongoing ethnic tensions between the Kosovo Albanians and the Kosovo Serbs in those areas of Northern Kosovo where the latter group predominates. The chapter considers whether the principle of uti possidetis could offer a legal criterion to inform a process of negotiation to break the current deadlock, which might contribute to the resolution of the Kosovo Question. To determine the viability of using alternative principles of international law to resolve the ongoing dispute between Kosovo and Serbia regarding Kosovos claim to statehood, it is first necessary to identify where there may be scope for a form of negotiated settlement. Keywords:international law; Kosovo Question; Serbian; Uti Possidetis