David Schneiderman – författare

There is no denying that the rules and enforcement mechanisms of investment law and arbitration reach deep into the regulatory and policy space of host states. Investment tribunals have the ability to second-guess all variety of state measures and, in doing so, have displayed a remarkable lack of restraint. Despite investment law's muscularity, without equal in international law, the prevailing orthodoxy treats investment law as a defensible and just restraint on government and politics. This volume helps to correct the prevailing view. Rethinking Investment Law illustrates how investment law protections for foreign investors constrains states and over-compensates investors. It offers a more balanced vision of how international law can protect all those affected, not just foreign investors. An expert set of contributors explain both the conventional law and its limitations. Their analysis shows that doctrines, now widely entrenched, in orthodox accounts of investment law could have taken, and could still take, a different turn. They offer a more respectful approach to states' roles and responsibilities to enact laws in the public interest. This text will be an illuminating read for students and academics in areas such as investment law and international economic law. It provides cutting-edge analysis for researchers, practitioners, and students seeking to understand and question the usual standards of treatment under investment treaties.

The revival of interest in comparative constitutional studies, alongside the rise of legal limitations to state action due to investment treaty commitments, calls for a unique analysis of both investment law and comparative constitutional law. The unresolved tensions that arise between the two are only beginning to be addressed by judges. Are courts resisting these new international limitations on their constitutional space? Constitutional Review and International Investment Law: Deference or Defiance? pioneers this discussion by examining how a selection of the highest courts around the world have addressed this potential discord. A comparison of decisions in the US, Europe, Colombia, Indonesia, Israel, and elsewhere reveals that, rather than issuing declarations of constitutional incompatibility, courts are more likely to respond to constitutional tensions indirectly. Their rulings adopt stances that range from hard deference (such as the Peruvian Constitutional Court viewing constitutional law and investment law as entirely compatible) to soft defiance (for example the Colombian Constitutional Court requiring only modest renegotiation of some treaty terms so that they are constitutionally compliant). Readers learn that judges are not aiming to undermine the investment law regime but are seeking to mitigate constitutional collision.

The revival of interest in comparative constitutional studies, alongside the rise of legal limitations to state action due to investment treaty commitments, calls for a unique analysis of both investment law and comparative constitutional law. The unresolved tensions that arise between the two are only beginning to be addressed by judges. Are courts resisting these new international limitations on their constitutional space? Constitutional Review and International Investment Law: Deference or Defiance? pioneers this discussion by examining how a selection of the highest courts around the world have addressed this potential discord. A comparison of decisions in the US, Europe, Colombia, Indonesia, Israel, and elsewhere reveals that, rather than issuing declarations of constitutional incompatibility, courts are more likely to respond to constitutional tensions indirectly. Their rulings adopt stances that range from hard deference (such as the Peruvian Constitutional Court viewing constitutional law and investment law as entirely compatible) to soft defiance (for example the Colombian Constitutional Court requiring only modest renegotiation of some treaty terms so that they are constitutionally compliant). Readers learn that judges are not aiming to undermine the investment law regime but are seeking to mitigate constitutional collision.

The revival of interest in comparative constitutional studies, alongside the rise of legal limitations to state action due to investment treaty commitments, calls for a unique analysis of both investment law and comparative constitutional law. The unresolved tensions that arise between the two are only beginning to be addressed by judges. Are courts resisting these new international limitations on their constitutional space? Constitutional Review and International Investment Law: Deference or Defiance? pioneers this discussion by examining how a selection of the highest courts around the world have addressed this potential discord. A comparison of decisions in the US, Europe, Colombia, Indonesia, Israel, and elsewhere reveals that, rather than issuing declarations of constitutional incompatibility, courts are more likely to respond to constitutional tensions indirectly. Their rulings adopt stances that range from hard deference (such as the Peruvian Constitutional Court viewing constitutional law and investment law as entirely compatible) to soft defiance (for example the Colombian Constitutional Court requiring only modest renegotiation of some treaty terms so that they are constitutionally compliant). Readers learn that judges are not aiming to undermine the investment law regime but are seeking to mitigate constitutional collision.

A Sociology of International Investment Law applies methods associated with the sociologist Max Weber to illuminate aspects of international investment law - a regime made up of thousands of treaties that protect foreign investors from state action diminishing the value of their investments. By applying many of Weber's key themes associated with legal modernity - legitimacy, rationality, domination, bureaucracy, and charisma - the book conscripts tools of analysis that enable the testing of many of investment law's operating assumptions. A Sociology of International Investment Law Law is premised on the belief that theory informs practice and that enlisting aspects of Weber's work illuminates the contemporary practice of, and debates over, international investment law. Utilizing Weber's themes and methods, results in a deeper appreciation of the connections of international investment law has with classical social theory. The book also reveals how the field fails to measure up to many of the analytical challenges that Weber's sociological interventions provoke. This book offers an exploration of the commonalities, differences, and blind spots shared by this relatively new international legal field with one of the most influential theorists of modernity.This is an open access title. It is available to read and download as a free PDF version on Oxford Academic and is made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International licence.

Are foreign investors the privileged citizens of a new constitutional order that guarantees rates of return on investment interests? Schneiderman explores the linkages between a new investment rules regime and state constitutions - between a constitution-like regime for the protection of foreign investment and the constitutional projects of national states. The investment rules regime, as in classical accounts of constitutionalism, considers democratically authorized state action as inherently suspect. Despite the myriad purposes served by constitutionalism, the investment rules regime aims solely to enforce limits, both inside and outside of national constitutional systems, beyond which citizen-driven politics will be disabled. Drawing on contemporary and historical case studies, the author argues that any transnational regime should encourage innovation, experimentation, and the capacity to imagine alternative futures for managing the relationship between politics and markets. These objectives have been best accomplished via democratic institutions operating at national, sub-national, and local levels.

The television spectacles of Oka and the Rodney King affair served to focus public disaffection with the police, a disaffection that has been growing for several years. In Canada, confidence in the police is at an all-time low. At the same time crime rates continue to rise. Canada now has the dubious distinction of having the second highest crime rate in the Western world.How did this state of affairs come about? What do we want from our police? How do we achieve policing that is consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? The essays in this volume set out to explore these questions. In their introduction, the editors point out that constitutional order is tied to the exercise of power by law enforcement agencies, and that if relations between the police and civil society continue to erode, the exercise of force will rise - a dangerous prospect for democratic societies.

This book aims to connect narratives associated with the past to the international regime that protects property and contract rights of foreign investors. The book scrutinizes justifications offered to sustain practices associated with colonialism, imperialism, civilized justice, debt, and development, revealing that a number of the rationales offered in support of investment law disciplines replicate those arising out of this discredited past. By revealing these linkages, the book raises concerns about investment law's premises. It would appear that the normative foundations for today's regime reproduces discursive practices that are less than compelling. The book argues that citizens deserve something more than historically discredited reasons to justify the exercise of power over them - something more than mere pretext.

This book aims to connect narratives associated with the past to the international regime that protects property and contract rights of foreign investors. The book scrutinizes justifications offered to sustain practices associated with colonialism, imperialism, civilized justice, debt, and development, revealing that a number of the rationales offered in support of investment law disciplines replicate those arising out of this discredited past. By revealing these linkages, the book raises concerns about investment law's premises. It would appear that the normative foundations for today's regime reproduces discursive practices that are less than compelling. The book argues that citizens deserve something more than historically discredited reasons to justify the exercise of power over them - something more than mere pretext.

This book aims to connect narratives associated with the past to the international regime that protects property and contract rights of foreign investors. The book scrutinizes justifications offered to sustain practices associated with colonialism, imperialism, civilized justice, debt, and development, revealing that a number of the rationales offered in support of investment law disciplines replicate those arising out of this discredited past. By revealing these linkages, the book raises concerns about investment law''s premises. It would appear that the normative foundations for today''s regime reproduces discursive practices that are less than compelling. The book argues that citizens deserve something more than historically discredited reasons to justify the exercise of power over them – something more than mere pretext.

This book aims to connect narratives associated with the past to the international regime that protects property and contract rights of foreign investors. The book scrutinizes justifications offered to sustain practices associated with colonialism, imperialism, civilized justice, debt, and development, revealing that a number of the rationales offered in support of investment law disciplines replicate those arising out of this discredited past. By revealing these linkages, the book raises concerns about investment law''s premises. It would appear that the normative foundations for today''s regime reproduces discursive practices that are less than compelling. The book argues that citizens deserve something more than historically discredited reasons to justify the exercise of power over them – something more than mere pretext.

Situated between two different constitutional traditions, those of the United Kingdom and the United States, Canada has maintained a distinctive third way: federal, parliamentary, and flexible. Yet in recent years it seems that Canadian constitutional culture has been moving increasingly in an American direction. Through the prorogation crises of 2008 and 2009, its senate reform proposals, and the appointment process for Supreme Court judges, Stephen Harper’s Conservative government has repeatedly shown a tendency to push Canada further into the US constitutional orbit.Red, White, and Kind of Blue? is a comparative legal analysis of this creeping Americanization, as well as a probing examination of the costs and benefits that come with it. Comparing British, Canadian, and American constitutional traditions, David Schneiderman offers a critical perspective on the Americanization of Canadian constitutional practice and a timely warning about its unexamined consequences.

Situated between two different constitutional traditions, those of the United Kingdom and the United States, Canada has maintained a distinctive third way: federal, parliamentary, and flexible. Yet in recent years it seems that Canadian constitutional culture has been moving increasingly in an American direction. Through the prorogation crises of 2008 and 2009, its senate reform proposals, and the appointment process for Supreme Court judges, Stephen Harper’s Conservative government has repeatedly shown a tendency to push Canada further into the US constitutional orbit.Red, White, and Kind of Blue? is a comparative legal analysis of this creeping Americanization, as well as a probing examination of the costs and benefits that come with it. Comparing British, Canadian, and American constitutional traditions, David Schneiderman offers a critical perspective on the Americanization of Canadian constitutional practice and a timely warning about its unexamined consequences.

Situated between two different constitutional traditions, those of the United Kingdom and the United States, Canada has maintained a distinctive third way: federal, parliamentary, and flexible. Yet in recent years it seems that Canadian constitutional culture has been moving increasingly in an American direction. Through the prorogation crises of 2008 and 2009, its senate reform proposals, and the appointment process for Supreme Court judges, Stephen Harper’s Conservative government has repeatedly shown a tendency to push Canada further into the US constitutional orbit.Red, White, and Kind of Blue? is a comparative legal analysis of this creeping Americanization, as well as a probing examination of the costs and benefits that come with it. Comparing British, Canadian, and American constitutional traditions, David Schneiderman offers a critical perspective on the Americanization of Canadian constitutional practice and a timely warning about its unexamined consequences.

Situated between two different constitutional traditions, those of the United Kingdom and the United States, Canada has maintained a distinctive third way: federal, parliamentary, and flexible. Yet in recent years it seems that Canadian constitutional culture has been moving increasingly in an American direction. Through the prorogation crises of 2008 and 2009, its senate reform proposals, and the appointment process for Supreme Court judges, Stephen Harper’s Conservative government has repeatedly shown a tendency to push Canada further into the US constitutional orbit.Red, White, and Kind of Blue? is a comparative legal analysis of this creeping Americanization, as well as a probing examination of the costs and benefits that come with it. Comparing British, Canadian, and American constitutional traditions, David Schneiderman offers a critical perspective on the Americanization of Canadian constitutional practice and a timely warning about its unexamined consequences.

The television spectacles of Oka and the Rodney King affair served to focus public disaffection with the police, a disaffection that has been growing for several years. In Canada, confidence in the police is at an all-time low. At the same time crime rates continue to rise. Canada now has the dubious distinction of having the second highest crime rate in the Western world.How did this state of affairs come about? What do we want from our police? How do we achieve policing that is consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? The essays in this volume set out to explore these questions. In their introduction, the editors point out that constitutional order is tied to the exercise of power by law enforcement agencies, and that if relations between the police and civil society continue to erode, the exercise of force will rise - a dangerous prospect for democratic societies.