Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-11T23:31:13.867Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Colombian Peace Negotiation and Foreign Investment Law

Part of: Colombian Peace Talks and International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

René Urueña
René Urueña*
Affiliation:
Universidad de Los Andes Faculty of Law (Bogota, Colombia)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The stunning vote against the Colombian Peace Agreement opens an opportunity to include in the negotiations issues that were not included in the first deal—despite the fact that their omission had the potential to undermine the goal of a sustainable peace. One such issue is foreign investment law. Since the beginning of the talks, the Colombian government was keen on emphasizing that the country’s “economic model” was not subject to negotiation. The shadow of Venezuela loomed large in that position. Whatever came out of the talks was to be integrated in a framework of a free market economy, where private property and, above all, foreign investments would be respected.

Type
Symposium on the Colombian Peace Talks and International Law
Information
AJIL Unbound , Volume 110 , 2016 , pp. 199 - 204
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2016

References

1 El País, “Aquí no venimos a negociar el modelo de desarrollo del país”: Humberto de la Calle, El País (Colombia) (Oct. 18, 2012).

2 Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias De Colombia, EjéRcito Del Pueblo (FARC-EP), Desarrollo Rural Y Agrario Para La Democratización Y La Paz Con Justicia Social En Colombia: 100 Propuestas MíNimas 71-74 (2014).

3 Procuraduría General De La Nación, Control Preventivo Y Seguimiento A Las Políticas Püblicas En Materia De Reinserción Y Desmovilización 185 (2006).

4 Luis Jorge Garay & Fernando Barberi, Decimo Primer Informe. Cuantificación Y Valoración De Las Tierras Y Los Bienes Abandonados O Despojados A La Población Desplazada En Colombia: Bases Para El Desarrollo De Procesos De Reparación 10 (2009).

5 Londoño, Ana Maria Ibáñez, La persistencia de la concentración de la tierra en Colombia: ¿Qué pasó entre 2000 y 2010?, in Distributive Justice in Transitions 279 (Bergsmo, Morten et al. eds., 2010)Google Scholar.

6 FARC-EP & Gobierno De Colombia, Acuerdo Final Para La Terminación Del Conflicto Y La Construcción De Una Paz Estable Y Duradera 163-164 (2016).

7 First came Law 1152 of 2007 (arts. 90-91) (declared unconstitutional in decision C-175 of 2009); then came Law 1450 of 2011 (arts. 61-62) (declared unconstitutional in decision C-644 of 2012); then a 2013 bill to create “special interest zones,” that failed in Congress in 2013 (Bill 162 of 2013, Chamber) an a 2013 bill to regulate foreign land investment (Bill 164 of 2013, Senate), that failed in Congress in 2014.

8 See Tribunal Superior de Antioquia, Sala Civil Especializada en Restitución de Tierras, septiembre 23, 2014, Andágueda v. Continental Gold Ltd. Sucursal Colombia y otros (Colom.).

9 OXFAM, Divide and Purchase: How Land Ownership Is Being Concentrated in Colombia (2013).

10 Cargill’s response to Oxfam’s “Smallholders at Risk” and “Divide and Purchase” reports, Cargill (Apr. 23, 2014).

11 Colombia ranks 98th in Transport Infrastructure in the World Economic Forum’s Competitiveness Ranking, with worse infrastructure than Botswana, Ethiopia, or Guyana.

12 See Burke-White, William W. & von Staden, Andreas, Investment Protection in Extraordinary Times: The Interpretation and Application of Non-Precluded Measures Provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties, 48 VA. J. Int’l Law 307 (20071) Google Scholar. But see, Alvarez, José E. & Brink, Tegan, Revisiting the Necessity Defense: Continental Casualty v. Argentina, in 2011-2012 Y.B. Int’l Inv. L. & Pol’y 315 Google Scholar.

13 See Cms Transmission Co. v. Argentina, Icsid Case No. Arb/01/8, Award, para. 373 (May 12, 2005); LG&E Energy Corp. v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. Arb/02/1, Decision on Liability, paras. 214, 257 (Oct. 3, 2006); Enron Corp., Ponderosa Assets, L.P. v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. Arb/01/3, Award, para. 332 (May 22, 2007); Sempra Energy Int’l v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. Arb/02/16, Award, para. 385 (Sept. 28, 2007); Continental Casualty Co. v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. Arb/03/9, Award, para. 182 (Sept. 5, 2008); Sempra Energy Int’l v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. Arb 02/16, Annulment, para. 175 (June 29, 2010).

14 Piero Foresti v. South Africa, Icsid Case No. Arb(AF)/07/01, Award (Aug. 4, 2010).

15 Bernardus Henricus Funnekotter v. Zimbabwe, ICSID Case No Arb/05/6, Award (Apr. 15, 2009).

16 Id. at para. 124.

17 See Urueña, René, Subsidiarity and the Public–Private Distinction in Investment Treaty Arbitration, 79 Law & Contemp. Probl. 99 (2016)Google Scholar.

18 Mr. Hassan Awdi, Enterprise Business Consultants, Inc. and Alfa El Corporation v. Romania, ICSID Case No. Arb/10/13, Award, paras. 438-442 (Mar. 2, 2015).

19 Larry May, Jus Post Bellum, Grotius and Meionexia, in Jus Post Bellum : Mapping the Normative Foundations 18 (Carsten Stahn et al. eds., 2014).

20 CME, Czech Republic B.V. v. The Czech Republic; Separate Opinion of Professor Brownlie, paras. 75-80 (March 14, 2003).

21 Cms Transmission Co. v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. Arb/01/8, Award, para. 406 (May 12, 2005); Sempra Energy Int’l v. Argentina, Icsid Case No. Arb/02/16, Award, para. 396 (Sept. 28, 2007).

22 Comunidad Indígena Sawhoyamaxa v. Paraguay, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 146 (Mar. 29, 2006).

23 Caso Goiburú y otros v. Paraguay, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 153 (Sept. 22, 2006).