International BusinessLaw (The Fair and Equitable Treatment standard Assignment

International BusinessLaw (The Fair and Equitable Treatment standard in International Investment Law) - duty assignment ExampleThe HCITO charter expressed the rules that needed establishment. Its negotiating materials provided an insight into the way the just and equitable in fellowship with the relation to the law on investments received an understanding in the 1940s. However, just and equitable treatment received limited attentions in the public debates. It received treatment from the evinces as being an umbrella term that cover noble policies, which needed achievement by the conclusions made on the treaties1. Fundamentally, FET strives to strike a sleep between protection of the multinational investment and the capability of the states to regulate the key public policies.The HCITO faced triplet consecutive failures. For instance, in 1948, the Bogota Economic Agreement treated the notion of just treatment as an obligation. Further, it displayed the notion as a hindrance to u nreasonable, unjustified, and discriminatory measures of the government policies to the public, which might impair the rights and interests acquired legally. Secondly, in 1959, the Abs-Shawcross adumbrate drawing on both the international law principles and the US treaty practice indicated that the FET was an umbrella term. The term was inclusive of security and protection while excluding discriminatory measures taken in favour of the international investors and their investment. Consequently, in 1963 and 1967, the OECD drafts pertaining to the PFP needed action of the FET and explained it as customary in relation to the bilateral agreements and state policies. Moreover, it equated the FET contents with that of the IMS. Henceforth, the requirements of clear and simple rules rendered the international and the state policies in relation to international investments standards obsolete. In particular, the elasticity of FET as a concept seemed to outweigh its