Lukas Vanhonnaeker – författare

In recent years, investor-state tribunals have often permitted shareholders' claims for reflective loss despite the well-established principle of no reflective loss applied consistently in domestic regimes and in other fields of international law. Investment tribunals have justified their decisions by relying on definitions of 'investment' in investment agreements that often include 'shares', while the no-reflective-loss principle is generally justified on the basis of policy considerations pertaining to the preservation of the efficiency of the adjudicatory process and to the protection of other stakeholders, such as creditors. Although these policy considerations militating for the prohibition of shareholders' claims for reflective loss also apply in investor-state arbitration, they are curable in that context and must be balanced with policy considerations specific to the field of international investment law that weigh in favor of such claims: the protection of foreign investors in order to promote trade and investment liberalization.

In recent years, investor-state tribunals have often permitted shareholders' claims for reflective loss despite the well-established principle of no reflective loss applied consistently in domestic regimes and in other fields of international law. Investment tribunals have justified their decisions by relying on definitions of 'investment' in investment agreements that often include 'shares', while the no-reflective-loss principle is generally justified on the basis of policy considerations pertaining to the preservation of the efficiency of the adjudicatory process and to the protection of other stakeholders, such as creditors. Although these policy considerations militating for the prohibition of shareholders' claims for reflective loss also apply in investor-state arbitration, they are curable in that context and must be balanced with policy considerations specific to the field of international investment law that weigh in favor of such claims: the protection of foreign investors in order to promote trade and investment liberalization.

In recent years, investor-state tribunals have often permitted shareholders'' claims for reflective loss despite the well-established principle of no reflective loss applied consistently in domestic regimes and in other fields of international law. Investment tribunals have justified their decisions by relying on definitions of ''investment'' in investment agreements that often include ''shares'', while the no-reflective-loss principle is generally justified on the basis of policy considerations pertaining to the preservation of the efficiency of the adjudicatory process and to the protection of other stakeholders, such as creditors. Although these policy considerations militating for the prohibition of shareholders'' claims for reflective loss also apply in investor-state arbitration, they are curable in that context and must be balanced with policy considerations specific to the field of international investment law that weigh in favor of such claims: the protection of foreign investors in order to promote trade and investment liberalization.

In recent years, investor-state tribunals have often permitted shareholders'' claims for reflective loss despite the well-established principle of no reflective loss applied consistently in domestic regimes and in other fields of international law. Investment tribunals have justified their decisions by relying on definitions of ''investment'' in investment agreements that often include ''shares'', while the no-reflective-loss principle is generally justified on the basis of policy considerations pertaining to the preservation of the efficiency of the adjudicatory process and to the protection of other stakeholders, such as creditors. Although these policy considerations militating for the prohibition of shareholders'' claims for reflective loss also apply in investor-state arbitration, they are curable in that context and must be balanced with policy considerations specific to the field of international investment law that weigh in favor of such claims: the protection of foreign investors in order to promote trade and investment liberalization.

What is the level of convergence between the international investment law framework and the international legal regime regulating intellectual property rights? This discerning book examines the interface between intellectual property and foreign direct investments.Taking a multi-disciplinary approach, the author scrutinizes the circumstances in which, and the extent to which, international investment law's traditional protective standards apply to intellectual property rights investments. After concluding that the TRIPS agreement has shortcomings in this respect, the author analyses intellectual property rights in the context of international investment law in light of traditional standards of protection including the protection against indirect expropriation, the National Treatment Principle, the Most-Favoured Nation clause, fair and equitable treatment, and the prohibition of performance requirements, while emphasizing the importance of transfers of technology within and to developing countries. These explorations contribute to the debates surrounding the fragmentation of international law arising from its expansion and diversification.Scholars, students and practitioners in the field of international investment law, as well as those interested in the protection of intellectual property rights at an international level, will find this book to be a useful and informative read.

This book addresses emerging questions concerning who should bear responsibility for shouldering risk, as well as the viability of existing and experimental governance mechanisms in connection with new technologies. Scholars from 14 jurisdictions unite their efforts in this edited collection to provide a comparative analysis of how various legal systems are tackling the challenges produced by the legal aspects of genetic testing in insurance and employment. They cover the diverse set of norms that surround this issue, and share insights into relevant international, regional and national incursions into the field. By doing so, the authors offer a basis for comparative reflection, including on whether transnational standard setting might be useful or necessary for the legal aspects of genetic testing as they relate to the insurance and employment contexts. The respective texts cover a broad range of topics, including the prevalence of genetic testing in the contexts of insurance and employment, and policy factors that might affect this prevalence, such as the design of national health or social insurance systems, of private insurance schemes or the availability of low-cost direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Further, the field of genetics is gaining in importance at the international and regional levels. Relevant concepts – mainly genetic tests and genetic data/information – have been internationally defined, and these definitions have influenced definitions adopted nationally. International law also recognizes a “special status” for human genetic data. The authors therefore also consider these definitions and the recognition of the special status of human genetic data within regional and national legal orders. They investigate the range of norms that specifically address the use of genetic testing in employment and insurance, encompassing international sources – including human rights norms – that may be binding or non-binding, as well national statutory, regulatory and soft-law mechanisms. Accordingly, some of the texts examine general frameworks relevant to genetic testing in each country, including those that stem from general anti-discrimination rules and norms protecting rights to autonomy, self-determination, confidentiality and privacy. In closing, the authors provide an overview of the efficiency of their respective legal regimes’ approaches – specific and generalist – to genetic testing or disclosure of genetic information in the employment or insurance contexts, including the effect of lack of legal guidance. In this regard, some of the authors highlight the need for transnational action in the field and make recommendation for future legal developments.

This book addresses emerging questions concerning who should bear responsibility for shouldering risk, as well as the viability of existing and experimental governance mechanisms in connection with new technologies. Scholars from 14 jurisdictions unite their efforts in this edited collection to provide a comparative analysis of how various legal systems are tackling the challenges produced by the legal aspects of genetic testing in insurance and employment. They cover the diverse set of norms that surround this issue, and share insights into relevant international, regional and national incursions into the field. By doing so, the authors offer a basis for comparative reflection, including on whether transnational standard setting might be useful or necessary for the legal aspects of genetic testing as they relate to the insurance and employment contexts.

The respective texts cover a broad range of topics, including the prevalence of genetic testing in the contexts of insurance and employment, and policy factors that might affect this prevalence, such as the design of national health or social insurance systems, of private insurance schemes or the availability of low-cost direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Further, the field of genetics is gaining in importance at the international and regional levels. Relevant concepts – mainly genetic tests and genetic data/information – have been internationally defined, and these definitions have influenced definitions adopted nationally. International law also recognizes a “special status” for human genetic data. The authors therefore also consider these definitions and the recognition of the special status of human genetic data within regional and national legal orders. They investigate the range of norms that specifically address the use of genetic testing in employment and insurance, encompassing international sources – including human rights norms – that may be binding or non-binding, as well national statutory, regulatory and soft-law mechanisms. Accordingly, some of the texts examine general frameworks relevant to genetic testing in each country, including those that stem from general anti-discrimination rules and norms protecting rights to autonomy, self-determination, confidentiality and privacy. In closing, the authors provide an overview of the efficiency of their respective legal regimes’ approaches – specific and generalist – to genetic testing or disclosure of genetic information in the employment or insurance contexts, including the effect of lack of legal guidance. In this regard, some of the authors highlight the need for transnational action in the field and make recommendation for future legal developments.