Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Foreign shareholders can avail themselves of legal protection under three different legal regimes: diplomatic protection, international investment law and international human rights law. Adopting a historic and comparative approach, this article tracks the faded role of diplomatic protection for protecting shareholders. It identifies the legal instruments that protect shareholders under international investment law and international human rights law, and examines how each regime protects shareholders to assess whether there is a genuine conflict in terms of protection. It uses the nationalization of the British bank Northern Rock as a case study to demonstrate the differing levels of protection each regime provides. Investment law gives shareholders the greatest protection: it protects a wider range of shareholders and, critically, allows shareholders to claim for reflective loss. While there is no genuine conflict, investment law and human rights provide remarkably different levels of protection to shareholders.
McMenamin et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: