the treaties grant investors rights but not obligations, while imposing upon states obligations unaccompanied by rights. Accordingly, he suggests that the corruption
defense effectively creates investor obligations, which begin to address the BIT imbalance. I am not entirely persuaded such a perspective adds to the analysis. After all, a corruption
defense does not impose any meaningful obligation whose breach entitles states to bring claims against investors; it simply affords states cover from investor claims, cover that is surely undeserved if the states themselves participated in the misbehavior. In closing, let...