Summary paper of the Conference "Sustainable Development, FDI and Investment Treaties in Latin America"

Embassy of Ecuador / Vale Columbia Center Conference on ‘Development, Foreign Direct Investment and Investment Treaties in

Latin America’

Summary Paper

Ha-Joon Chang University of Cambridge

Conference Summary Paper: Development, FDI and Investment Treaties in Latin America

Page 2 of 20

As an academic convener of the April 8 conference on ‘Development, Foreign Direct

Investment and Investment Treaties in Latin America’, I am pleased to offer a Summary Paper

on the presentations and the conclusions we reached. The conference succeeded in elevating

to a new level the synergies that need to be cultivated between development and investment

policies, which should inform better investment treaty practice, on the other. This

unprecedented gathering of economists, lawyers, political scientists and policymakers

demonstrated the breakthroughs that can be made when we leave our individual silos and

reach together for the goal we all share: sustainable development throughout the region and

globe.

I thank the Embassy of Ecuador and Vale Columbia Center for their generous sponsorship of

the conference, which allowed us to invite 16 dynamic speakers and moderators, drawn from

the world's top economics departments, law faculties, and from governmental,

intergovernmental and non-governmental agencies. I also thank the Inter-American

Development Bank for hosting the event at their Enrique Iglesias Conference Center. I also

thank Todd Tucker for his critical inputs into the writing of this Summary Paper.

The first part of this Summary Paper outlines the overall conclusions of the conference, while

the second part offers further detail on the individual presentations. An appendix contains

biographies of the speakers and moderators.


Page 3 of 20

I. Conclusions

-‐ The conventional wisdom that laissez faire policies promote growth and other desirable

outcomes, such as economic stability, is incorrect and must be challenged.

-‐ Foreign direct investment should not be pursued as an end in itself, but as a means to

achieve national development goals.

-‐ National development strategies should be tailored to fit their time and place. Strategies

that fit (or were thought to fit) other countries or previous eras cannot be transplanted

without significant modifications.

-‐ Recent experiences, most notably the Chevron vs. Ecuador case, have illustrated the

need for a fundamental rethinking of investment treaties to better balance the need for

investor protection with national development objectives.

-‐ Investment treaties should permit industrial policy and capital controls, given that the

very high degree capital mobility, which is sought by current investment treaties, has

not been shown to promote growth.

-‐ Investment treaty arbitrators should be subject to stronger conflict-of-interest

requirements that can help nudge them towards less pro-investor interpretations.

-‐ Researchers should be more transparent in highlighting differential and negative

outcomes for poorer countries in the existing arbitral process.

-‐ States can exert greater control over the arbitrators’ interpretations than many of them

do currently, such as through the negotiation of binding interpretive notes.

-‐ Arbitrators should not treat private contracts as a source of law and should alter

doctrinal predispositions that favor investors.


Page 4 of 20

-‐ States should be able to launch arbitrations against investors, while creating

mechanisms to give citizens affected by specific investment treaty disputes a greater

role in the proceedings.

-‐ Academics should work better across disciplines to find synergies that advance the

frontier of knowledge about best practices in treaties and domestic policies. For

example, economists have detailed understanding of transfer pricing and market failure.

Lawyers have detailed understanding of the doctrinal and institutional constraints

shaping arbitrators. By merging insights from the two disciplines, we can avoid a type

of property rights absolutism that create misalignments between public and private

incentives.

-‐ Regional organizations like the UNASUR have a role to play in in offering alternatives to

arbitration, such as mediation and facilitation.


Page 5 of 20

II. Individual Presentations

The conference featured an opening event, four panel sessions and brief closing remarks, each

covering different aspects of the economic, legal and political challenges facing Latin American

countries in an era of looser restrictions on investment flows and tighter restrictions on

government policy space. They are summarized below, while many of the full-length

presentations can be found online at the following links:

-‐ www.ecuador.org/blog/?p=3596;

-‐ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76JbrOi71ig

-‐ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQWhg05_cwk

Opening Event

Introduction: Gustavo Dominguez, Embassy of Ecuador

Speaker: Her Excellency Ambassador Nathalie Cely, 'The Challenges of Attracting Foreign

Direct Investment for Latin America’s Sustainable and Diversified Economy: Lessons Learned

From Ecuador'

In this opening event, Ambassador Cely set the frame for the entire conference: using data

from the lived experience of developing countries to analyze the challenges and opportunities

for sustainable investment policies. Her paper reviewed Latin America's economic record,

finding that - after decades of stagnation - the region has made significant progress in the last

decade towards poverty reduction and the creation of a middle class. Nonetheless, the region

still faces severe productivity constraints and is overly reliant on natural resource exports. In

order to harness investment towards more sustainable growth, Latin American countries

should implement strategic industrial policies focusing on the cultivation of human talent,

learning, balanced intellectual property rights so that the priority sectors can attain international

competitiveness.

Cely then noted that these industrial policies face new hurdles: investment treaties signed by

earlier governments impose restrictions on current governments' ability to utilize capital

controls and alter regulatory structures without risking lawsuits from foreign investors. Cely


Page 6 of 20

delved deeply into an exploration of the iconic Chevron v. Ecuador disputes under the US-

Ecuador bilateral investment treaty. The dispute shows that more attention should be paid to

updating investment treaties to take into account the need for regulatory flexibility, arbitrator

accountability and deference to human and ecological rights. Ecuador's newly adopted

Constitution provides important benchmarks in these regards.

Session I: Globalization, Development and FDI

Moderator: Rogerio Studart, Alternate Executive Director, The World Bank

Speaker 1: Ha-Joon Chang, University of Cambridge, 'An overview on the evolution of the

global economy and economic development’

Speaker 2: Richard Kozul-Wright, UNCTAD, ‘FDI and economic development in historical

perspective’

Speaker 3: Timothy Sturgeon, MIT, 'Global Value Chains, Investment, and Compressed

Development'

Studart opened the session by noting that Brazil has recently passed an anniversary of the

military dictatorship, a time that was marked by positive economic growth but social

regression. Latin America, as a region, has experienced economic volatility that overlaps

significantly with suspension of democracy and lack of attention to social inclusion. With more

democracy, there has been a partial exit from these negative cycles, and a new model of

balanced economic development has emerged in the region. This new model, which

emphasizes tackling income inequality, has also filtered up to influence international institutions

like the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Chang compared the economic track record of policy frameworks pursued under various

historical periods. In contrast to prevailing conventional wisdom, the current era of

globalization is neither unprecedented nor does it eliminate a strong role for the state in

fostering development. By some trade and investment measures, the pre-World War I period

was as 'globalized' as today. Policymakers learned from the negative experiences and

instability of that period, and emphasized the state's role in promoting industrial planning and

social welfare. However, by the 1980s, neoliberal discourse (promoted by right wing politicians


Page 7 of 20

and international agencies) had largely succeeded in painting these successful tools of

economic development as undesirable. Through conditionalities on international loans and new

treaties, neoliberals were able to radically refashion the role of states in economies. Far from

fostering growth miracles, as their proponents had promised, laissez faire policies have

produced slower growth, steep increases in within-country inequality, and much greater

financial instability.

Kozul-Wright explored the track record of international investment flows since the 1980s. FDI

flows as a percentage of GDP have increased markedly during this period, outpacing growth in

trade and manufacturing exports. However, he questioned the desirability and the utility of

these flows as an independent indicator of successful economic performance, noting that

much of it reflects merger activity rather than new productive enterprises. Moreover, certain

developing countries (such as China) have captured a large share of FDI inflows into

developing nations, while other regions (Africa) have seen much less FDI activity. He concluded

that a dollar of FDI is on average worth no more than other kinds of investment, and that

policymakers should focus on improving growth rather than FDI, as FDI will follow a healthy

growth record.

Sturgeon discussed how changes in the global economic context have radically altered policy

options for developing countries. In the past, "late developing" countries could gradually

improve their productive infrastructure through steady vertical integration and reliance on

domestic consumer markets. The slow pace of these changes allowed social and institutional

adaptation. In contrast, today's developing countries are put under considerably more stress.

Supply chains are globalized, and developing countries wishing to integrate into a link in this

chain will face competitive pressure to have the best possible technologies and adapted

institutions right out of the gate. Simultaneously industrializing and deindustrializing, the

mandates of this "compressed development" model put strain on the state's ability to provide

public goods and ensure health and wellbeing of citizens. States that succeed in this

challenging terrain must be highly flexible and adaptive.

Session II: Investment Treaties


Page 8 of 20

Moderator: Mark Bravin, Winston & Strawn LLP, Georgetown University

Speaker 1: Kevin Gallagher (Boston University), ‘The political economy of investment treaties’

Speaker 2: Gus van Harten (York University), ‘Overview of research on investment treaties’

Speaker 3: Todd Tucker (University of Cambridge), ‘Development matters: emerging trends in

investment treaty arbitration’

Bravin launched the session by recounting the historical antecedents to investment treaty

arbitration, such as the US-Iran Claims Tribunal. Created to resolve disputes between US

investors and the Iranian government in the wake of the Iranian Revolution, the tribunal had a

roster of arbitrators that developed procedures and norms that would later prove influential in

investment treaty arbitration.

Gallagher explored the implications of investment treaties for developing countries' financial

and industrial policies. While the World Trade Organization allows some flexibility in this regard,

investment treaties impose wide-ranging constraints on nations' ability to control the pace and

the type of capital inflows and outflows. There is little academic support for the desirability of

unfettered capital flows. Indeed, these types of flows are often associated with slower growth

and more financial crises. He added that, whatever the benefits or costs to FDI, the academic

literature shows no steady increase in sustainable investment flows from investment treaties.

He cited the widespread recognition that these rules must be changed to allow greater

safeguards and policy space, including from the IMF, UN agencies, and leading academics.

Van Harten offered extensive examination of the arbitral process itself. While domestic courts

typically have doctrinal practices of deference to regulators and have institutional mechanisms

to ensure judicial independence (such as secure tenure, set salaries, objective means of

assigning cases and extensive protection against conflict of interest), investment treaty

arbitration possesses few such limitations. Investors have a direct role in arbitrator selection

and the generation of case load, while arbitrators are not subject to substantive review. As a

consequence, empirical research shows that arbitrators favor expansive and investor-friendly

interpretations of imprecisely worded treaty obligations. Reforms should ensure greater

‘judicialization’ of investment treaty arbitration, such as the creation of an international


Page 9 of 20

investment court with more predictable and accountable procedures. Treaty renegotiation

could also ensure a greater role for domestic courts in helping to resolve disputes before

investors can access international arbitration that has proved costly for states.

Tucker outlined the quantitative trends in investment treaty arbitration. The total number of

investment treaties went from dozens in the 1980s to over 3,000 today, while a handful of

arbitrations in the early 2000s rose to over 500 today. While some academics have argued that

arbitration outcomes have been balanced (for states generally and developing countries

specifically), more nuanced replication and extension of their work do not support such claims.

While states succeed in dismissing many cases at the jurisdiction stage, an apples-to-apples

comparison of those cases that proceed to the merits stage shows developing countries lose

more than they win, and lose at statistically significant greater rates than do developed

countries. Moreover, developing countries fare worse than richer countries in terms of the

damages they are ordered to pay, as a share of their national income. Investment arbitration is

an unpredictable institution; as the least precise obligations are the most successfully invoked,

arbitrators do not rely on case law, and arbitrators display skepticism of state regulatory

prerogatives. More research is needed to understand how arbitral decisions affect state

behavior over the longer run.

Session III: Investor-State Arbitration: Experiences and Impacts

Moderator: Martins Paparinskis, University College London

Speaker 1: Andrea Kay Bjorklund, McGill University, ‘Subsequent agreement and subsequent

practice in investment treaty law’

Speaker 2: Julian Arato, Columbia University and Vale Center, ‘Corporations as lawmakers’

Speaker 3: José Daniel Amado, University of Cambridge, ’From investors’ arbitration to

investment arbitration’

Paparinskis opened the session by noting that the speakers' papers explored, in different

ways, the relationship between (1) what type of legal relationship exists between a foreign

investor and the host State; (2) the procedural nature of that relationship, and (3) whether that

relationship is unilateral and non-reciprocal, granting the discretion and right solely to the


Page 10 of 20

investor. He urged the panel to think about potential unanticipated consequences from their

reform proposals.

Bjorklund, situating her comments amidst the growing legitimacy concerns around investment

arbitration, outlined some avenues that states already have to influence the outcomes of

investment arbitration. In the early stage of arbitrations, states can challenge the jurisdictional

competence of arbitral panels. This can include objections to frivolous claims, to the

appropriateness of the subject matter, and to corporate standing. Throughout the arbitrations,

states can submit amicus briefs and increase the transparency of the proceedings. Outside of

arbitrations, states can issue joint interpretive notes to clarify how they wish arbitrators to

interpret treaty provisions. When differences over interpretation are impossible to remedy,

states can challenge one another in state-to-state arbitration, an option Ecuador recently

exercised with respect to its bilateral investment treaty with the United States.

Arato's presentation shifted focus from investment treaties to contracts that sovereigns sign

with private foreign corporations. He criticized the growing influence of corporate-sovereign

contracts as a form of pseudo-public law. He attributed this phenomenon to three

developments: the recognition that corporate-state contracts are entitled to treaty protection

(form); the entrenchment of an uncommonly robust level of property protection in international

investment law along with the ascription of that property-style protection to corporate-

sovereign contracts (substance); and the recognition that multinational corporations can alter

or supplement their nationality to shop for treaty protections otherwise unavailable to nationals

of their original home state (lawmaking autonomy). He concluded by arguing that corporate-

sovereign contracts should not be treated as form of property to which corporate contractors

are entitled, and that arbitrators should be more aggressive in 'piercing the veil' and

establishing the true identity and nationality of investor claimants.

Amado elaborated on a proposal to allow host state citizens greater involvement in investment

treaty arbitrations that broadly affect their interests. Noting the broad implications of cases like

Chevron to domestic groups within Ecuador, Amado argued that concerns about the

legitimacy of investment treaty arbitration should be addressed directly through an opening up


Page 11 of 20

of the proceedings. To facilitate this, states could establish ombudsmen-like central agencies

that can collect the views and articulate (within the arbitral hearings) the interests of citizens

affected by foreign investors’ activities. Citing historical and negotiating documents, he argued

against the current notion that state consent to arbitrate is a one-way street. By launching

arbitral claims, investors also cede some ground to states. Amado argued that there was more

doctrinal space to allow states to bring claims against investors than is currently being taken

advantage of.

Session IV: Closing Roundtable

Introduction: Efrain Baus, Embassy of Ecuador

Moderator: Don Wallace, Georgetown University

Speaker 1: Ha-Joon Chang, ‘Looking for synergies in investment, trade and industrial policy’

Speaker 2: Cristel Gaibor, Office of the Ecuador’s Attorney General, ‘Lessons learned in the

Chevron Case’

Speaker 3: Marco Albuja, Ecuador’s Ambassador to the OAS, ‘UNASUR, Arbitrage Center’

Wallace opened the session by noting that, historically; policymakers did not see the

promotion of foreign direct investment as a goal in itself. In recent decades, states have

chosen to implement treaties with the idea that these show their openness to markets and

capitalism. He suggested that the ball is in the states' court if they want to change these

treaties to align them with national policy goals.

Chang, summarizing the day's presentations, noted that academics needed to be more active

about promoting synergies across disciplines. Economists bring certain tools to help

understand the dynamic interplay of states and markets, while lawyers specialize in

understanding the interplay of litigants' expectations, treaty terms and arbitral interpretations.

For example, economists have shown that treaties on their own do not bring investment and

that many tools that were historically used to align foreign investments to national development

objectives (such as local contents requirement) have been banned by investment treaties.

Lawyers have shown how arbitrators appointed to perform Supreme Court-like functions

through an opaque process have construed current treaties as a one-way street. Both


Page 12 of 20

disciplines need a better understanding of how differential legal capacity limits regulatory

space at both the domestic and international level. As an illustration of what economists could

bring to lawyers, Chang noted that what lawyers call nationality shopping is what economists

call transfer pricing - a literature stretching back to the 1960s. If this type of tax dodging is

allowed to persist, it eliminates the government revenue needed to finance public goods that

benefit the corporations themselves. More broadly, the overemphasis on private property rights

in investment treaties limits governments’ ability to resolve market failures. Governments need

more tools to better align private and public benefits. With more cross-fertilization of the kind

demonstrated at this conference, academics can be better positioned to advise policy-makers

and the general public about potential risks and rewards from alternative policies for

development and international law.

Gaibor, building on remarks by Cely and Baus, explored the current state of litigation involving

Chevron and Ecuador. Ecuador has been the subject of repeated injunction-like provisional

measure rulings. Ecuador has argued that the damages assessments issued by Ecuador

courts should be respected and that Ecuador did not collude with those plaintiffs. It has also

argued that it should not now be asked to interfere with the working of an independent branch

of its own state - as arbitrators had recently ordered.

Albuja explored the alternatives to ICSID-based arbitration that Ecuador is instigating under

the UNASUR umbrella. While UNASUR's proposed Center for Dispute Resolution would

resolve investor-state conflicts through arbitration, they would also privilege mediation and

facilitation, so that sustainable growth-promoting investments can be preserved before more

serious disputes arise. Given the reluctance of Brazil, Bolivia and other countries to agree to

arbitration, this focus on mediation as a tool is a more appropriate for the region. Before

launching arbitration, there would also be a greater emphasis on exhaustion of remedies in

national courts.

Closing Remarks

Julian Arato, Columbia University and Vale Center


Page 13 of 20

Arato noted that Ambassador Cely had opened the day outlining Ecuador's perspective that,

while investors deserve protection, this must be balanced against the regulatory objectives of

the state. This coincides with the Vale Center's five-prong framework, which emphasizes the

need for: 1) A transparent and mutually beneficial legal framework; 2) A commitment to long-

term planning and revenue management; 3) A strategy to leverage investments for

development through infrastructure and linkages; 4) An approach that promotes human rights

and integrated development; and 5) A system to manage environmental risks and impacts. All

are based on the notion of the harmonizability of the needs of investors and states. As the

conference showed, economics, law and other social sciences all have strengths in helping

understand how to achieve these balances.


Page 14 of 20

Appendix: Biographies

• Ambassador Nathalie Cely

Nathalie Cely has been the Ambassador of Ecuador to The United States since 2012. From

May 2009 until November 2011, she was Coordinating Minister of Production, Employment

and Competitiveness. During that time, she headed the Production Policy Council and was

responsible for the design and implementation of the Agenda of Competitiveness, Employment

and Trade. Ambassador Cely also championed socio-economic inclusion policies enhancing

the lives of thousands of Ecuadorians as she served as Ecuador’s Coordinating Minister of

Social Development from March 2007 to April 2009. She earned her degree in economics from

the Catholic University of Guayaquil in 1990 and in 2001; she earned a Master’s in Public

Administration and a Diploma in Public and Social Policy at Harvard University’s John F.

Kennedy School of Government.

• Ha-Joon Chang

Mr. Chang is one of the leading heterodox economists in the world, specialized in economic

development. He works within the paradigm of the new institutional economics. He is currently

professor of Economic Policy Development at the University of Cambridge. He is the author of

several influential books, including Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in

historical perspective. He has also been a consultant to the World Bank and the European

Investment Bank as well as Oxfam and various United Nations agencies. He is a member of the

Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington DC.

• Richard Kozul – Wright

Richard Kozul-Wright is director of the Unit on Economic Cooperation and Integration of

Developing Countries in the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development UNCTAD.

He previously served as head of Strategy Analysis and Development, Department of Economic


Page 15 of 20

and Social Affairs of the United Nations and has worked on a number of flagship publications

of the UN, as the report on trade and development, social economic survey and world

investment report.

• Timothy J. Sturgeon

Mr. Sturgeon went to MIT from the University of California at Berkeley, where he was a

Research Specialist at the Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy for five years

while earning his PhD in Economic Geography. He is co-organizer of the Global Value Chains

Initiative and a Research Fellow at the Institute for Technology, Enterprise, and

Competitiveness at the Doshisha Management School in Kyoto, Japan. Dr. Sturgeon has also

been a Research Associate at MIT, and has served as Executive Director of the IPC's

Globalization Study and the Globalization Research Director for the International Motor Vehicle

Program at the Center for Technology, Policy and Industrial Development. Mr. Sturgeon holds

a Bachelor of Arts degree, a Master Degree in Urban-Economic Geography and a Ph.D. from

University of Berkley at California in Urban-Economic Geography.

• Kevin Gallagher

He is an Associate Professor of International Relations at Boston University. (BA, Northeastern

University, MA, PhD, Tufts University). His areas of expertise include: economic development,

trade, investment policy and international environmental policy in Latin America. Gallagher is

the coordinator of the Global Development Policy at the University of Boston. He has served as

a professor at the Fletcher Diplomacy at Tufts University Law School and the Kennedy School

of Government of Harvard University, The School of Mexico in Mexico, Tsinghua University in

China, and the Center for the Study of State and Society in Argentina. He currently serves on

the National Advisory Committee for the Free Trade Agreement of North America in the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency and China as a member of the Inter -American Dialogue and

the Working Group on Latin America.

• Gus van Harten


Page 16 of 20

Gus Van Harten has worked since 2008 as Professor of Administrative Law, International

Investment Law and Government of the International Financial System at York University. He

studied at the London School of Economics, where he taught administrative law, international

economic law, international commercial arbitration and public international law. His book,

Investment Treaty Arbitration and Public Law (OUP, 2007), presents a critique of the

investment treaty arbitration and proposes the creation of an international investment tribunal

to ensure the independence and accountability in the international jurisdiction of normative

conflicts between states and investors. He previously worked at the Arar Inquiry, the Walkerton

Inquiry, and as a law clerk at the Court of Appeal for Ontario. He received the William Robson

Humanities Research Council of Canada Memorial Award LSE.

• Todd Tucker

Writer and researcher on Global Governance issues. He is a Gates Scholar at the University of

Cambridge´s Center of Development Studies. Prior to this, he spent a decade as a researcher

and advisor on service trade and investment policy to governments, media outlets, foundations

and civil society organizations from perches at Public Citizen and the Center for Economic and

Policy Research. He earned a bachelor's degree from the Elliot School of International Affairs

and a master's degree in development studies at Cambridge University with the support of a

GW Bender Scholarship.

• Julian Arato

He currently serves as Co-Chair of the International Organizations Interest Group of the

American Society of International Law, and as a Fellow at the Vale Columbia Center on

Sustainable Development. Julian Arato’s scholarship draws on his background in law, history,

and political theory, bridging public and private international law. His current work-in-progress

examines the lawmaking capacity and autonomy of the multinational corporation under

international law, particularly in the context of treaty regimes for the protection of international

investment and human rights. His recent publications have focused on international investment


Page 17 of 20

law and international arbitration, public international law, constitutional theory, and the law of

international organizations.

• Andrea K. Bjorklund

Andrea K. Bjorklund is the L. Yves Fortier Chair in International Arbitration and International

Commercial Law) at McGill University Faculty of Law. Professor Bjorklund has a J.D. from Yale

Law School, an M.A. in French Studies from UC Davis School of Law, and a B.A. (with High

Honors) in History and French from the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. She has taught a

variety of courses in such areas as international arbitration and litigation, international trade,

international investment, public international law, international business transactions, conflict of

laws, and contracts. She is Chair of the Academic Council of the Institute of Transnational

Arbitration, co-rapporteur of the International Law Association's Study Group on the Role of

Soft-Law Instruments in International Investment Law and an adviser to the American Law

Institute’s project on restating the U.S. law of international commercial arbitration. Professor

Bjorklund is widely published in investment law and dispute resolution and transnational

contracts. Her articles have appeared, inter alia, in the Oxford Handbook of International

Investment Law, the American Review of International Arbitration, the Hastings Law Journal,

and the Virginia Journal of International Law.

• José Daniel Amado

Mr. Amado earned his degree in Law in the Catholic University of Peru and a Master Degree at

Harvard University. He is partner of Miranda & Amado since 1999. He has been General

Secretary of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers and Chief Advisor to the Prime Minister.

He has participated in several major local and international corporate disputes in recent years

as well as some of the most important transactions related to Peru in the last two decades. In

2009 Latin Lawyer Magazine recognized him as Latin American Law Firm Leader.

• Marco Albuja


Page 18 of 20

Marco Albuja is the current Ecuadorian Ambassador to the Organization of American States.

Before coming to Washington D.C., he served as Vice Chancellor at the Ministry of Foreign

Affairs in Ecuador. He has a large experience as a legal advisor on international affairs and as a

University Professor at University of Espiritu Santo in Guayaquil, San Francisco de Quito

University, Pacific University and Lexis Foundation. He obtained a Bachelor of Law Science

degree from the Pontific Catholic University of Ecuador and a Master in Business

Management, Marketing, Advertising, Communication and E -commerce in the Spanish

Institute Training IEFOL Madrid.

• Christel Gaibor

Cristel Gaibor is the National Director for International Affairs and Arbitration at the State

General Attorney Office in Ecuador.

• Rogerio Studart

Mr. Studart is the Alternate Executive Director to the World Bank Group, representing Brazil,

Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Haiti, Panama, the Philippines, Suriname and

Trinidad & Tobago. He is an economist by training and earned a Doctorate in Economics from

the University of London in 1993. He also earned a Master of Arts and a Bachelor of Arts in

Economics from Federal University of Rio de Janeiro in 1987 and 1982, respectively. Prior to

his current role, Studart served as Executive Director of the same country constituency (2011

to 2012), as Vice-Chairman of the G-24 (2008 to 2009) and as Executive Director for Brazil and

Suriname at the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and Inter-American Investment

Corporation (IIC) from 2004 to 2007

• Mark Bravin

Mr. Bravin is Professor of Law at Georgetown University. He has a B.A., of the University of

California, Los Angeles; and a M.P.P., J.D., of Harvard. Professor Bravin is a partner in Winston

& Strawn's Litigation practice, where he co-leads the International Arbitration and Litigation

Practice and focuses on transnational litigation and commercial arbitration matters. He


Page 19 of 20

represents private parties and sovereign governments before U.S. courts and international

arbitral tribunals. He also has experience in international regulatory compliance matters, such

as customs, export controls, and embargo laws.

• Martins Paparinskis

Martin Paparinskis, D. Phil. (Oxon), is a Lecturer in Law at the University College London. He

was previously a Junior Research Fellow at Merton College, University of Oxford and a Hauser

Research Scholar at the New York University. He is a general international lawyer with a

particular interest in international investment law and international dispute settlement. His

publications include a monograph, The International Minimum Standard and Fair and Equitable

Treatment (Oxford University Press, 2013), a compilation of Basic Documents on International

Investment Protection (Hart Publishing, 2012), and articles in such journals as the British

Yearbook of International Law and the European Journal of International Law. He is a member

of the International Law Association's Study Group on the Use of Domestic Law Principles for

the Development of International Law, a member of the Council of Independent Experts in

International and European Law with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Latvia, and a member of

the Panel of Arbitrators of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes.

• Don Wallace

Professor Wallace is chairman of the International Law Institute and a professor emeritus at

Georgetown University. He was the Regional Legal Advisor for the Middle East and Deputy

Assistant General Counsel to AID in the Department of State from 1962-66, a founding board

member of the International Development Law Organization in Rome, and has been the head

of the International Law Institute since 1970. He chaired the Advisory Committee on World

Trade and Technology to the Office of Technology Assessment of the U.S. Congress from

1976-79, and is currently a member of the Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on Private

International Law, a U.S. Delegate to UNCITRAL, and a correspondent of UNIDROIT and the

vice president of the UNIDROIT Foundation in Rome. He has also been chair of the Section of

International Law and Practice of the American Bar Association and a member of the ABA


Page 20 of 20

House of Delegates. Recent and current activities also include assisting Rwanda with the

preparation of its constitution and commercial law, teaching in China, directing a research and

exchange project with Russia, serving on boards involving academic activities in Egypt, in

Indonesia, in Serbia and in Bulgaria, the advisory board of the ABA Rule of Law Initiative

(ROLI), and serving as national chair of Law Professors for Bush and Quayle in 1988 and 1992,

co-chair of Law Professors for Dole and Kemp in 1996, and during the 2000 campaign

member; board of governors, Republican National Lawyers Association. He has been on the

roster of World Trade Organization (WTO) panelists, and served as arbitrator and counsel in

various investment treaty cases.

• Gustavo Domínguez

Mr. Domínguez obtained a Bachelor of Economics degree from the Universidad Vicente

Rocafuerte of Ecuador and a Master in Business Administration from the Instituto de

Deasarrollo Empresarial in Guayaquil, Ecuador. Mr. Domínguez also holds a Master in Science

of Foreign Service from Georgetown University as well as a Diplomas in Nonprofit Management

from Georgetown University and Government and Political Leadership from the Government

School of the Instituto de Desarrollo Empresarial of Quito, Ecuador.

Economy & Finance

Summary paper of the Conference "Sustainable Development, FDI and Investment Treaties in Latin America"