Policy Discussion Case Study Paper
Order ID 53563633773 Type Essay Writer Level Masters Style APA Sources/References 4 Perfect Number of Pages to Order 5-10 Pages Description/Paper Instructions
Description
PLEASE STRICTLY USE MATERIAL PROVIDED.
Answer each one of the separated short questions and subjections.
BACKGROUND QUESTIONS:
For purposes of the Exam, imagine yourself as a policy analyst for Prime Minister Juana Soto of the relatively small, fictional, Caribbean island of Rendonia. The population of Rendonia is approximately 6.6 million, with a per capita GDP of US $20,190. Rendonia gained Independence from the Strasburg Kingdom in 2005, following a protracted period of violent popular resistance to colonial rule, led by Rendonia’s two large indigenous communities: the Robles and the Suzukis.
Rendonia has historically been the recipient of significant inward FDI, primarily from large Strasburg state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Rendonia is endowed with large oil deposits, which were historically exploited by Scherzer Petroleum, Strasburg’s state-owned petroleum company. However, following Independence, Rendonia’s first Prime Minister Dave Martinez, formed Rendonia’s largely state-owned petroleum company, Parra Petroleum, which has grown steadily since that time. Soto envisions even larger growth for Parra in the future. He hopes that Parra will eventually expand its operations to neighboring independent island states and participate in joint ventures with US and European firms in oil exploration operations in the US, French, and British territorial waters of the overseas protectorates of these countries.
In 2005, former Prime Minister Martinez signed a concession agreement with Scherzer Petroleum to continue conducting Rendonia’s oil operations for 20 years. Thus, Rendonia’s agreement with Scherzer will terminate in less than five years, and at that time, Soto would like Parra Petroleum to take over all operations formerly controlled by Scherzer. For this to be feasible, significant foreign investment in Parra will be necessary, as well as joint ventures with other foreign petroleum companies.
Because Prime Minister Juana Soto’s professional background is in the medical field, having become one of the most acclaimed cardiologists in her country prior to her foray into politics, Soto knows little about BITs. Rendonia has only signed one bilateral investment treaty, with Strasburg in 2005, which provides protection for SOEs, as is typical of nearly all BITs. The treaty is currently in force, though Strasburg’s investors have never brought a claim against Rendonia alleging a BIT violation. Soto understands that Rendonia signed its agreement as part of its negotiation with Strasburg over Rendonia’s Independence. As a result of this negotiation, Rendonia also became a member of the International Centre for the Settlement of Disputes (ICSID). Rendonia’s neighboring island states, as well as neighboring continental states in Central and South America, have signed numerous BITs with European nations and the United States. Now Prime Minister Soto wonders if she should implement a BIT program for Rendonia, as many of her neighboring states have done. She has brought you into her executive office at 2019 Rizzo Ave., in Rendonia’s capital city of Treaturn, seeking your expertise as a policy analyst.
Please include what you would tell Prime Minister Soto in your responses to the exam questions found below. You may use an informal tone, because you are engaged in an informal conversation with the Prime Minister, but you still must attempt to organize your thoughts effectively, write clearly, and reference course materials and any other source you use for your information.
EXAM QUESTIONS:
Part 1:
1. Prime Minister Juana Soto asks you to briefly explain/define what Bilateral Investment Treaties are and what they contain.
2. The Prime Minister proceeds to ask you to explain the potential advantages and disadvantages for both Rendonia, and potentially for Parra Petroleum, of signing Bilateral Investment Treaties with the US, the UK, and France, as well as with other smaller neighboring states.
Part 2:
Prime Minister Soto expresses to you her greatest appreciation for the clarity and thoughtfulness of your response. You then proceed to review the text of various Model BITs with the Prime Minister, during which time she brings to your attention the differences in the “Fair and Equitable Treatment” clauses contained in the 1994 US Model BIT and the 2012 US Model BIT, respectively.
Article II, 3 (a) of the 1994 Model BIT, used by the United States in its bilateral investment treaties, contains the following “Fair and Equitable Standard of Treatment” provision:
Each Party shall at all times accord to covered investments fair and equitable
treatment and full protection and security, and shall in no case accord treatment less
favorable than that required by international law.
Article 5 of the 2012 Model BIT, used by the United States in its bilateral investment treaties, contains the following “Fair and Equitable Standard of Treatment” provision:
1. Each Party shall accord to covered investments treatment in accordance with customary international law, including fair and equitable treatment and full protection and security.
2. For greater certainty, paragraph 1 prescribes the customary international law minimum
standard of treatment of aliens as the minimum standard of treatment to be afforded to covered investments. The concepts of “fair and equitable treatment” and “full protection and security” do not require treatment in addition to or beyond that which is required by that standard, and do not create additional substantive rights. The obligation in paragraph 1 to provide:
(a) “fair and equitable treatment” includes the obligation not to deny justice in criminal, civil, or administrative adjudicatory proceedings in accordance with the principle of due process embodied in the principal legal systems of the world;
(b) “full protection and security” requires each Party to provide the level of police protection required under customary international law.
A footnote in the 2012 US Model BIT also states that “Article 5 [Minimum Standard of Treatment] shall be interpreted in accordance with Annex A.” Annex A reads as follows:
The Parties confirm their shared understanding that “customary international law” generally and as specifically referenced in Article 5 [Minimum Standard of Treatment] and Annex B [Expropriation] results from a general and consistent practice of States that they follow from a sense of legal obligation. With regard to Article 5 [Minimum Standard of Treatment], the customary international law minimum standard of treatment of aliens refers to all customary international law principles that protect the economic rights and interests of aliens.
Prime Minister Soto is intrigued by these differences and asks you the following questions:
1. What might explain the change that occurred in the text of the FET clause in the US’s 2012 Model BIT from that which was included in the US’s 1994 Model BIT?
2. Do these FET provisions seem vague to you as a policy analyst? What are the advantages and disadvantages of having a more or less vague Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard provision for the interests of both Rendonia and Parra Petroleum?
Part 3:
Prime Minister Soto again expresses to you her deepest gratitude for the quality of your analysis. Prime Minister Soto then reviews with you her own personal sacrifices made toward the achievement of Rendonia’s Independence as well as the significant losses suffered by the people of Rendonia in their hard-fought campaign against colonial rule. But given your response in Part 2, with even greater urgency, yet with the elegance and wisdom of a woman seasoned by decades of diligent study and personal trials, she presses you on your views regarding the following questions:
1. How would signing multiple BITs potentially impact Rendonia’s adolescent democratic institutions?
2. How might signing multiple BITs potentially impact the Rendonian public’s view of Rendonia’s democracy?
3. How might signing multiple BITs potentially impact the views of other states and potential foreign investors regarding Rendonia’s democracy?
Part 4:
As you conclude your remarks under Part 3, the Minister of Internal Affairs, Howie Kendrick, bursts into Prime Minister Soto’s office and disrupts your meeting. After speaking in confidences with Kendrick, Prime Minister Soto returns to reveal to you the reason for the interruption. A local NGO associated with the Robles indigenous group has just released a report revealing Scherzer Petroleum’s gross negligence in disposing of waste-water used in its petroleum refining operations, which, if true, would be in violation of Rendonian law. Soto relates that said disposal has severely contaminated the Long River, which runs through the heart of Robles community land, and from which the Robles indigenous community obtains 80% of its drinking water. Soto is furious and asks your opinion on the following matters:
1. If Rendonia terminates immediately its concession agreement with Scherzer Petroleum, what are Scherzer’s legal options under Rendonia’s BIT with the Strasburg Empire?
2. Would a cancellation of the concession does contract likely constitute a violation of the Rendonia-Strasburg BIT?
3. Approximately how long do these types of cases take to be resolved?
4. Approximately how much would it cost Rendonia to defend itself, given the costs of other similar cases?
5. What do you think the likely outcome of the case would be? Why?
RUBRIC
QUALITY OF RESPONSE NO RESPONSE POOR / UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT Content (worth a maximum of 50% of the total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 20 points out of 50: The essay illustrates poor understanding of the relevant material by failing to address or incorrectly addressing the relevant content; failing to identify or inaccurately explaining/defining key concepts/ideas; ignoring or incorrectly explaining key points/claims and the reasoning behind them; and/or incorrectly or inappropriately using terminology; and elements of the response are lacking. 30 points out of 50: The essay illustrates a rudimentary understanding of the relevant material by mentioning but not full explaining the relevant content; identifying some of the key concepts/ideas though failing to fully or accurately explain many of them; using terminology, though sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately; and/or incorporating some key claims/points but failing to explain the reasoning behind them or doing so inaccurately. Elements of the required response may also be lacking. 40 points out of 50: The essay illustrates solid understanding of the relevant material by correctly addressing most of the relevant content; identifying and explaining most of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology; explaining the reasoning behind most of the key points/claims; and/or where necessary or useful, substantiating some points with accurate examples. The answer is complete. 50 points: The essay illustrates exemplary understanding of the relevant material by thoroughly and correctly addressing the relevant content; identifying and explaining all of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology explaining the reasoning behind key points/claims and substantiating, as necessary/useful, points with several accurate and illuminating examples. No aspects of the required answer are missing. Use of Sources (worth a maximum of 20% of the total points). Zero points: Student failed to include citations and/or references. Or the student failed to submit a final paper. 5 out 20 points: Sources are seldom cited to support statements and/or format of citations are not recognizable as APA 6th Edition format. There are major errors in the formation of the references and citations. And/or there is a major reliance on highly questionable. The Student fails to provide an adequate synthesis of research collected for the paper. 10 out 20 points: References to scholarly sources are occasionally given; many statements seem unsubstantiated. Frequent errors in APA 6th Edition format, leaving the reader confused about the source of the information. There are significant errors of the formation in the references and citations. And/or there is a significant use of highly questionable sources. 15 out 20 points: Credible Scholarly sources are used effectively support claims and are, for the most part, clear and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition is used with only a few minor errors. There are minor errors in reference and/or citations. And/or there is some use of questionable sources. 20 points: Credible scholarly sources are used to give compelling evidence to support claims and are clearly and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition format is used accurately and consistently. The student uses above the maximum required references in the development of the assignment. Grammar (worth maximum of 20% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 5 points out of 20: The paper does not communicate ideas/points clearly due to inappropriate use of terminology and vague language; thoughts and sentences are disjointed or incomprehensible; organization lacking; and/or numerous grammatical, spelling/punctuation errors 10 points out 20: The paper is often unclear and difficult to follow due to some inappropriate terminology and/or vague language; ideas may be fragmented, wandering and/or repetitive; poor organization; and/or some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors 15 points out of 20: The paper is mostly clear as a result of appropriate use of terminology and minimal vagueness; no tangents and no repetition; fairly good organization; almost perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage. 20 points: The paper is clear, concise, and a pleasure to read as a result of appropriate and precise use of terminology; total coherence of thoughts and presentation and logical organization; and the essay is error free. Structure of the Paper (worth 10% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 3 points out of 10: Student needs to develop better formatting skills. The paper omits significant structural elements required for and APA 6th edition paper. Formatting of the paper has major flaws. The paper does not conform to APA 6th edition requirements whatsoever. 5 points out of 10: Appearance of final paper demonstrates the student’s limited ability to format the paper. There are significant errors in formatting and/or the total omission of major components of an APA 6th edition paper. They can include the omission of the cover page, abstract, and page numbers. Additionally the page has major formatting issues with spacing or paragraph formation. Font size might not conform to size requirements. The student also significantly writes too large or too short of and paper 7 points out of 10: Research paper presents an above-average use of formatting skills. The paper has slight errors within the paper. This can include small errors or omissions with the cover page, abstract, page number, and headers. There could be also slight formatting issues with the document spacing or the font Additionally the paper might slightly exceed or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment. 10 points: Student provides a high-caliber, formatted paper. This includes an APA 6th edition cover page, abstract, page number, headers and is double spaced in 12’ Times Roman Font. Additionally, the paper conforms to the specific number of required written pages and neither goes over or under the specified length of the paper. GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDER
CLICK ON THE LINK HERE: https://www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow
Also, you can place the order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow / www.phdwriters.com/orders/ordernow
Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME]and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!
|