Su

1.
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

2. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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