By Ross JacksonLaw firm McNair Chambers yesterday held their Fifth Annual Conference to discuss ‘Hot Topics in International Law’. Experts presented new trends in ‘fair and equitable treatment of investors’, the issues involved with sovereign wealth funds, international law in the ‘Arab Spring’, and the developments and challenges of the UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL).Rudolf Dolzer, an expert on Public International Law, said that globalisation has lead to the rapid development of international investment law. The last few generations have seen a dramatic increase in the number of treaties and legal agreements governing investment, and “today, ‘fair and equitable treatment’ is the most widely used term and standard in international investment practice”. Dozer also said that ‘fair and equitable treatment’ is the most controversial topic in terms of arbitral practice and legal policy. “Today about half of the treaties have ‘fair and equitable treatment’, other treaties have ‘fair and equitable treatment’ in accordance with international law, other treaties have ‘fair and equitable treatment’ as identical with the minimum standard of international law, so there is no uniform concept of ‘fair and equitable treatment’.” Controversy arises whether or not ‘fair and equitable treatment’ is the same as in customary law, or is in keeping with the minimum standard, especially as the minimum standard is not clearly defined. Dozer explained that in many cases arbitrators have simply determined what is fair and what is not from their own perspective. He said: “what the arbitral tribunals have done is broken down the concept into sub-categories,” which are: consistency in living up to the standard of ‘fair and equitable treatment’; being open minded; impartial; having legitimate expectations based upon the law and the contract, and then meeting those expectations; and proper observance of due process. Dozer also said: “Some states are reconsidering the formulation of ‘fair and equitable treatment’ in their treaties.” In Asia there is a tendency to treat ‘fair and equitable treatment’ as simply a matter for the procedures of local courts, which is a “radical transformation of the term.” Dozer expects the term will remain as it is in Europe, but will change in the US as skepticism grows. “They have been on the receiving side of claims twelve times now. Every time, the United States is nervous when the claim comes, and I think they have decided, for good reasons maybe, that the main issue is always ‘fair and equitable treatment,’ and will cut back on the content in terms of formulation.”On the whole, Dozer expects the term to stay. While there was previously no precedent, there is now a significant body of jurisprudence, which the tribunals will continue to apply. Abdul Hamid al-Ahdab, President of the Arab Association for International Arbitration, hailed the increasing awareness of international law that has come from the ‘Arab Spring,’ and the intervention of the UN and the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the case of Libya, as a positive step towards freedom and the respect of human rights. One of the main demands of Arab peoples currently demanding reform should be, according to al-Ahdab, the signing and ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, governing the jurisdiction and functions of the court, which he argued is “parallel” to calling for freedom. Al-Ahdab also explained that as Lebanon was not a signatory to the statute, the Security Council had to establish a special tribunal to deal with important legal issues in the country, such as the assassination of the former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Signing on the the statute, argues al-Ahdab, would make leaders accountable for their actions and prevent them from abusing their people.Nidal Jurdi of the American University in Beirut provided an overview the UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), which came about to address the “culture of impunity,” an “absence of truth-seeking” and the perception of the lack of the rule of law after the assassination of Hariri and many other key figures. The Lebanese judiciary was deemed as lacking independence and was itself susceptible to assassination attempts and existed in a state of fear rendering it ineffective in such high profile cases.As this was the first international tribunal regarding a terrorism case, it lead to, said Jurdi, an official internationally recognised definition of terrorism, although for the purposes of the STL case the Lebanese legal definition is the one used. The UN definition incorporates more of the mental elements behind terrorism, including political aspects, intent and motivation, as well as transnational aspects. Jurdi said that the UN investigating team suffered from an insecure environment and monitoring, were often stuck in their “bunker” waiting for UN approval to leave, and as a result had to deal with high staff turnover. This problem often led to a failure to understand the complexity of the crime and subsequent assassinations, which were part of an ongoing conflict. Jurdi explained that the lack of consequences for witnesses giving false testimony, no direct enforcement mechanisms and poor cooperation from the Lebanese state posed additional challenges for investigators conducting what is still a unique and novel case.