“International investment law enslaves states. This set of rules is the extension of the domination of Western states over developing countries. It is therefore not insignificant that its rapid development in the early 1960’s is contemporary with decolonization. Thus, the former colonial powers manage to maintain a relationship of authority over their former colonial dependencies.
Through investment law, the Western powers deprive States of their ability to regulate the activities that take place on their territory. When the protection of an investor, even if it is already exceptionally developed, appears too limited, it is always possible to extend it by applying the most-favored-nation clause or the principle of national treatment.
The protection thus appears to be unlimited, the protection of the investor being able, with the most-favored-nation clause, to borrow from any treaty concluded by the State, while the principle of national treatment allows the investor to demand equality of treatment with its national competitors.
This orientation aimed exclusively at investor protection is also illustrated in terms of the dispute settlement procedure. In defiance of state sovereignty, national courts are deprived of their natural jurisdiction to settle disputes between an investor and the host state. The investor can, without exposing himself to any legal risk, bring an action against the State before an international arbitral tribunal. These tribunals systematically adopt awards condemning host states in the utmost opacity”.