BRICS and the Global Investment Regime

Yoram Z. Haftel
{"title":"BRICS and the Global Investment Regime","authors":"Yoram Z. Haftel","doi":"10.1142/9789811202308_0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What role do Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) play in the global investment regime and what policies do they espouse? How can we account for similarities among and differences across these countries with respect to their approach to international investment agreements (IIAs) and investment arbitration? What are their implications for the future of this regime? This study addresses these questions by situating emerging market economies in the persistent North-South divide, that is endemic to the global politics of foreign direct investment (FDI). Surveying the policies of the five countries since the 1980s, it shows that all were initially motivated to provide foreign investors with protection against political risk in order to attract FDI. As their own position in the global economy has changed and the rules of the regime itself have evolved, the investment policies of the BRICS countries have transformed, albeit in distinct ways. China and, to a lesser extent, Russia appear broadly content with the current state of affairs. Brazil, India, and South Africa, on the other hand, seem to object to current rules, which they view as overly protective of foreign investors at the expense of host state regulatory space. I argue and show that two factors – the amount of FDI outflows and regime type – usefully account for the observed variation across BRICS' international investment policies, but that more research is needed to fully understand this matter. Regardless its sources, the diversity between the BRICS countries suggests that the prospects of them shaping the rules of the global investment regime, either individually or collectively, are rather bleak.","PeriodicalId":320446,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Regional Arrangements (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Regional Arrangements (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1142/9789811202308_0008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

What role do Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) play in the global investment regime and what policies do they espouse? How can we account for similarities among and differences across these countries with respect to their approach to international investment agreements (IIAs) and investment arbitration? What are their implications for the future of this regime? This study addresses these questions by situating emerging market economies in the persistent North-South divide, that is endemic to the global politics of foreign direct investment (FDI). Surveying the policies of the five countries since the 1980s, it shows that all were initially motivated to provide foreign investors with protection against political risk in order to attract FDI. As their own position in the global economy has changed and the rules of the regime itself have evolved, the investment policies of the BRICS countries have transformed, albeit in distinct ways. China and, to a lesser extent, Russia appear broadly content with the current state of affairs. Brazil, India, and South Africa, on the other hand, seem to object to current rules, which they view as overly protective of foreign investors at the expense of host state regulatory space. I argue and show that two factors – the amount of FDI outflows and regime type – usefully account for the observed variation across BRICS' international investment policies, but that more research is needed to fully understand this matter. Regardless its sources, the diversity between the BRICS countries suggests that the prospects of them shaping the rules of the global investment regime, either individually or collectively, are rather bleak.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
金砖国家与全球投资机制
巴西、俄罗斯、印度、中国和南非(金砖国家)在全球投资体系中扮演什么角色?他们支持什么政策?我们如何解释这些国家在处理国际投资协定和投资仲裁方面的异同?它们对这个政权的未来意味着什么?本研究通过将新兴市场经济体置于持续存在的南北鸿沟中来解决这些问题,这是全球外国直接投资(FDI)政治所特有的。对这五个国家自1980年代以来的政策进行调查后发现,它们最初的动机都是为了吸引外国直接投资而向外国投资者提供防范政治风险的保护。随着金砖国家自身在全球经济中的地位发生变化,体制本身的规则也在演变,金砖国家的投资政策也发生了变化,尽管方式各不相同。中国和俄罗斯(在较小程度上)似乎对目前的局势大致满意。另一方面,巴西、印度和南非似乎反对目前的规定,他们认为这些规定以牺牲东道国的监管空间为代价,过度保护了外国投资者。我认为,两个因素——外国直接投资流出的数量和制度类型——有效地解释了金砖国家国际投资政策的差异,但需要更多的研究来充分理解这一问题。无论其来源如何,金砖国家之间的多样性表明,它们单独或集体塑造全球投资体制规则的前景相当黯淡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Mandate of the ECB: Legal Considerations in the Ecb's Monetary Policy Strategy Review Modeling the Impact of Non-Tariff Barriers in Services on Intra-African Trade: Global Trade Analysis Project Model Towards an Analyses of the Mega-Politics Jurisprudence of the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice Front-of-Pack Labelling and International Trade Law: Revisiting the Health Star Rating System Shared Obligations and the Responsibility of an International Organization and its Member States: The Case of EU Mixed Agreements
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1