Uzbekistan's New Bilateral Investment Treaty Standpoint: In Case of Uzbekistan-Turkey bit (2018) by F. Muminov and J. Górski About tdm tdm

due process, which are all consistent with prevalent 
international standards. Furthermore, the expropriation provision makes reference to due 
process of law meaning that the expropriation shall be consistent with domestic legislation and 
customary international law. Apart from that, foreign investors have an opportunity to file anti-
expropriation cases before independent impartial bodies. This is crucial when principles of due 
process are grossly violated at the domestic level, for example when the foreign is deprived of 
a right to recourse to domestic courts or administrative tribunals against abusive conduct of the 
host country
21
. 
Other than such right to a fair trial, principles of due process require public authorities to act in 
accordance with all procedural provisions applicable to the process of decision-making and 
respect foreign investor’s procedural rights.
22
Procedural due process may be violated in a 
variety of ways; such as failure to provide notice or a fair hearing, non-compliance with 
18
World Bank Group, ‘Investment Law Reform: A Handbook for Development Practitioners Investment Climate 
Advisory Service’ (2016) investment-climate-advisory-services-FIAS-strategy-for-FY17-21> accessed 12 February 2019.
19
Sornarajah, 235. 
20
World Bank Guidelines on the Treatment of Foreign Direct Investment 
 accessed 4 October 2019.
21
UNCTAD ‘Expropriation’: UNCAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements (2012) < 
https://unctad.org/en/Docs/unctaddiaeia2011d7_en.pdf> accessed 25 September, 2019. 
22
Giacinto della Cananea, 
Due Process of Law Beyond the State: Requirement of Administrative Procedure (OUP 
2016) 148. 

---

7 
domestic law or failure to provide means of legal redress. Any defect in the process of 
expropriation may be considered as a breach of due process.
23
For example, of the host country 
fails to deliver a notice expropriation to the investor, this constitutes a blatant violation of the 
due process. 
2.4. Public Policy Commitments 
The host country may impose some social commitments on foreign investors, such as 
protection of the environment and public health. These kind of provisions allows the host 
country to impose certain additional regulations on foreign investments. It used to be a common 
practice among developing countries to attract foreign investment at the expense of the 
environment, public health, and labor standards. However, comparative studies show that 
several countries in recent years have been introducing environmental and public health 
provisions in their national legislation as well as BITs. Some such provisions are symbolic 
rather than mandatory. Others would impose actual environmental and public health standards 
on foreign investors. For example, the Turkey Model BIT includes some exceptions related to 
environment and public health standards which should excluded from the scope of the BITs 
following this model treaty. 
Even though typical Uzbekistan BITs do not contain social commitments, the Uzbekistan-
Turkey BIT encumbers foreign investors with some duties toward the protection of the 
environment and public health. Such social commitments create a policy-space for the host 
country to regulate these matters and balance the interest of the foreign investor and the host 
country. It is generally recognized that the realization of higher regulatory standards, such as 
environmental, public health and labor standards, would have a positive impact on the host 
country’s income level. However, small countries could be in a weaker position when 
negotiating terms if specific projects with large companies or BITs with large neighboring 
countries. 
One cannot overemphasize in the context of social commitment that high standards of the host 
country themselves are not the main concern of foreign investors. Rather, as already mentioned, 
the main concern of foreign investors is the predictability of the host country’s legal 
framework, as such predictability could decrease uncertainty and increase the attractiveness of 
investment in a specific destination.
24
However, the main difficulty with such host state’s 
requirements, when driven by public-policy imperative, is indeed the lack of their certainty and 
transparency. Simply put, host countries, including their bureaucrats and rent-seeking 
protectionist lobbies, likely use this loophole
25
 against foreign investors thanks to uncertainty 
surrounding increasingly strict environmental or other public-policy requirements. Beyond 
that, high standards do not significantly discourage foreign investors from choosing a specific 
host country while, again, uncertainty and frequent changes of regulatory framework could be 
problematic.
26
23
Andrew Newcombe and Lluis Paradell, 
Law and Practice of Investment Treaties (Kluwer Law International 
2009) 375. 
24
OECD ‘Policy Framework for Investment’ (2015), 23 < https://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/investment-
policy/Policy-Framework-for-Investment-2015-CMIN2015-5.pdf > accessed 4 October 2019. 
25
Thomas Walde and Abba Kolo ‘Environmental Regulation, Investment Protection and Regulatory Taking in 
International Law’ (2001), 50 The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 812. 
26
Gaetan Verhoosel ‘Foreign Direct Investment and Legal Constraints on Domestic Environmental Policies: 
Striking a “Reasonable” Balance between Stability Change’ (1998) 29 Law and Policy International Law 453. 

---

8