Fernando Dias Simões

Assessing the Impact of International Investment Law: An Asian Perspective

Asian SIL

The 6th Biennial Conference of the Asian Society of International Law will take place in Seoul, Republic of Korea, on 25 and 26 August. The theme of the conference is ‘Asia and International Law in Times of Uncertainty’. On 26 August (Saturday) I will be joining panel 4E (International Investment IV: Recent Issues in Investment Law in Asia), presenting a paper titled ‘Assessing the Impact of International Investment Law: An Asian Perspective’. You can read the full programme here.


 Kobe University Summer School of Asian Law and Dispute Management

Kobe Salad 2017

Between 21 and 25 August I will be taking part in the Kobe University Summer School of Asian Law and Dispute Management (Kobe SALAD 2017), hosted by the Graduate School of Law, Kobe University, in Kobe, Japan. On Monday, 21 August, I will be delivering a lecture titled ‘A Roadmap for Up-and-Coming Arbitral Institutions’. You can read more about the Summer School here.

Summer Law Institute in China 2017


During the next week I will be teaching at the Summer Law Institute in China – Executive Education Training Program, hosted by the Beijing Foreign Studies University  and organized by gLAWcal – Global Law Initiatives For Sustainable Development in partnership with universities around the world. I will be delivering a seminar titled ‘Nudging the Dragon – Environmental Policymaking and Behaviour Change in China’ and a short course on ‘Investment Arbitration and Environmental Policymaking’. You can follow the activities of the Summer Law Institute here.

New book chapter: ‘Interpretation and Application of the New York Convention in Macau’

Recognition and enforcement

The book ‘Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: The Interpretation and Application of the New York Convention by National Courts’, edited by Professor George A. Bermann, has just been published by Springer. I have contributed with a chapter on Macau (pp. 631-649). Here is the abstract:

This chapter reviews the interpretation and application of the New York Convention in Macau. Macanese courts have yet to apply the Convention even once. The case law is non-existent and the doctrine is silent. As such, judges and other practitioners have no experience in the Convention’s practical application. However, given the rise of arbitration generally in Asia over the past decade, it is expected that arbitration will become more popular in Macau. Further, as economic development in Macau continues to boom, disputes involving Macau and Macanese parties are expected to rise. As the caseload increases in the future, the law in Macau on the Convention will develop. Due to the lack of experience with the Convention in Macau, there are no suggestions to offer for its improvement.

New article: ‘Charanne and Construction Investments v. Spain: Legitimate Expectations and Investments in Renewable Energy’


My latest article, titled ‘Charanne and Construction Investments v. Spain: Legitimate Expectations and Investments in Renewable Energy’, has been published in the Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law 26(2), 2017, pp. 174-180. The article is available here.

Here is the abstract:  The award in Charanne and Construction Investments v. Spain is the first decision in a growing cluster of investment arbitrations relating to the enactment of legislative measures reducing or withdrawing economic support mechanisms previously introduced in support of renewable sources of energy. These disputes raise the question of whether investors can seek compensation under investment treaties when governments encourage investment via economic support schemes, but decide to reduce or eliminate them after the investment has been made. This case note focuses on the most noteworthy aspects of the Charanne decision: the requirements for breach of the standards of investment protection (namely, the prohibition of expropriation and the fair and equitable treatment standard); and the conditions for the protection of the investors’ legitimate expectations. The conclusions reflect on the tribunal’s finding that in the absence of specific commitments, international investment law does not require States to freeze regulatory frameworks.