Search

Applying new technologies to agriculture is considered paramount for securing a more efficient global food system. Digital Sequence Information (DSI), or the process of electronically mapping, processing, using, and exchanging the genetic information and traditional knowledge embodied in plant and seed varieties, has become pivotal for pursuing better output and food quality. Nevertheless, growing concerns exist regarding the effects of this practice. Intervening in the interphase between human rights and international economic law, this article suggests that the global governance of DSI should consider political demands for a global food system premised on human rights and environmental justice. By doing so, policymakers would contribute to dissociating the global food system from the commodification of nature, advancing instead towards a more just future for agricultural production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Derecho del Estado is the property of Universidad Externado de Colombia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Anuario Colombiano de Derecho Internacional is the property of Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Senora del Rosario and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Investment treaty arbitration has become a laboratory for testing the limits of international corporate responsibility, because arbitrators are often asked to consider instances of investors' misconduct that compromise fundamental social values and interests. The decision in David Aven v Costa Rica is a glaring example of this case law. The dispute originated from a real estate project halted by local authorities for adversely impacting fragile ecosystems. This case note examines the arbitral tribunal's approach to environmental harm caused by foreign investors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Trade-based money laundering (TBML) is a major concern in Colombia, where criminal organisations employ under-invoicing to conceal drug-trafficking proceeds. In response, Colombia imposed a compound tariff on certain Panamanian importations that were considered linked to this phenomenon. Alleging that the policy measure infringed Colombia's tariff concessions, Panama activated the World Trade Organisation (WTO) dispute settlement mechanism. The dispute revolved around Article II:1 of the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade 1994. Colombia argued that this norm should be interpreted as to encompass licit trade only. Colombia looked for normative support in the investment treaty regime by establishing a parallel between undervalued imports and illegal investments. Therefore, just as investment treaty tribunals abstain from extending international legal protection to illegal investments, the WTO adjudicating bodies should not extend tariff concessions to importations linked to TBML activities. This article contends that by transplanting a more favourable doctrine of legality from the investment treaty regime to the multilateral trade regime, Colombia engaged in strategic regime shifting. Accordingly, drawing on regime complexes analysis, the article argues that by considering development a common issue-area, it is possible to articulate strategic connections between both regimes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyses the normative tensions existing between Colombia's land restitution programme for the reparation of victims forcibly displaced during the internal armed conflict and international investment law. Specifically, the focus is on the qualified conception of the good faith principle as a form of diligent behaviour that informs land restitution proceedings. This conception entails an utterly demanding threshold for diligent behaviour as a condition for obtaining monetary compensation for property interests lost on restored lands. In the particular instance of foreign investors, conditioning compensation upon demonstration of a severe standard of good faith may run afoul of investment treaties' provisions on expropriation and fair and equitable treatment. Nonetheless, the lack of diligent behaviour by foreign investors is a matter of growing concern in the context of investment treaty arbitration. As a result, there is an emerging duty of good diligence incumbent upon foreign investors, informed by normative sources such as the principle of good faith. Therefore, the article also explores possible converging points between the Colombian land restitution programme and international investment law under the prism of investor diligence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]