Missing Calvo? Latin America’s love-hate relationship with the Investment Treaty Regime

Abstract

For decades, following the views of the Argentine legal scholar Carlos Calvo, Latin American countries avoided adopting international investment treaties. The Calvo doctrine established that disputes between foreign investors and the state should only be settled by national courts, to the exclusion of international jurisdictions. This position eroded as numerous bilateral investment treaties (BITs) were signed during the 1980s and 1990s, exposing the countries of the region to investment lawsuits. Recently, a crisis of the investment treaty regime has been noticed in the region, with the denunciation of both BITs and the ICSID Convention, the non-recognition of arbitral awards, and the negotiation of a new model of investment treaties. The analysis of the historical process of rise and crisis of the investment regime in the region, through the review of documents and data on its effects, demonstrate that countries have taken measures to restrict the possibility of investor-State arbitration. In this sense, the region seems to be experiencing a return to Calvo's doctrine on the need to guarantee countries’ decision-making autonomy in strategic policies.