Normative Control in the EU and the Responsibility of Member States: An Analysis of the Responsibility of the EU in International Investment Law

Author(s):  
Andres Delgado Casteleiro
2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 409-441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikos Lavranos

AbstractThis article analyzes new developments in the interaction between international investment law and EU law. The analysis focuses on the consequences resulting from the recent changes that have been introduced by the Lisbon Treaty and the jurisprudence of the ECJ. The author argues that the new exclusive competence of the EU regarding foreign direct investment (FDI) will have major implications for the existing Member States’ BITs as well as for the interaction with international investment law. While it is too early for a full assessment of this new situation, it has already become clear that the European institutions and the supremacy of EU law will significantly reduce the powers of the Member States, thereby fundamentally changing the current situation. Throughout this process, ensuring legal security for investors and Contracting Parties will become of utmost importance.


De Jure ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Steliyana Zlateva ◽  
◽  
◽  

The Judgement of the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court in the long Micula v. Romania investment treaty dispute confirmed that the arbitral awards of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), rendered by tribunals established under intra-EU BITs, could be enforced in the UK. The Micula case concerns the interplay between the obligations under the ICSID Convention and EU law. In particular, it addresses the question of whether the award obtained by the Micula brothers against Romania constitutes state aid prohibited by EU law, as well as the enforcement obligations under the ICSID Convention in view of the EU duty of sincere cooperation.


Author(s):  
Laurens Ankersmit

This article analyses the aspect of the Court’s reasoning in Opinion 1/17 that focuses on the regulatory autonomy of the Parties to the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) to decide on levels of protection of public interests. The European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) introduction of regulatory autonomy under EU law coincides with the wider debate around ‘regulatory chill’ under international investment law. This article finds the ECJ’s concept of regulatory autonomy to be narrower than that of the regulatory chill hypothesis put forward by critics of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). It further analyses the ECJ’s reasoning that the CETA’s investment tribunals do not have jurisdiction to call into question the levels of protection sought by the EU. In so doing, it will critically evaluate the certainty of the ECJ’s promise that there will be no negative effect on public interest decision-making through CETA’s investment chapter. Finally, it will explore the legal consequences of Opinion 1/17 for future awards and investment agreements.


2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-71
Author(s):  
James Day

This paper turns to the popular field of international investment law, but rather than assessing the consequences of the various bilateral and free trade agreements that dominate this area, it looks at how these agreements are made. Particularly, in an area that is perceived as wanting in legitimacy, it analyses the structures that are involved in making these agreements and assesses them against principles of participatory democracy. Using three participatory sub-principles of openness, inclusiveness and responsiveness as benchmarks, it comments on just how involved the people of the EU and Australia are in making their respective international investment law policies. It uses the recent and ongoing TTIP and TTP negotiations as principal case studies. Ultimately, it concludes that, while both subjects inherit strong foundations for the participation of its people and their processes are not as dismissive as is perhaps publicly perceived, both have a way to go in being truly participatory.


2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-64
Author(s):  
Emmanuel T. Laryea ◽  
Oladapo O. Fabusuyi

Purpose The purpose of this study is to critically examine the move to Africanise international investment law (IIL) aimed at promoting sustainable development on the continent. Design/methodology/approach The study analyses the move by African countries to “Africanise” IIL by incorporating specific and innovative provisions and features in their international investment agreements (IIAs) for the benefit of African economies. This is evidenced by provisions in African regional investment instruments such as the 2007 Common Market of Eastern and Southern Africa Investment Agreement and the 2008 Economic Community of West African States Supplementary Act on Investments produced by the different African regional economic communities (RECs), new-generation IIAs such as the 2016 Nigeria-Morocco IIA and the China-Tanzania IIA and the African Union’s Pan-African Investment Code 2016. The common features of these instruments include linking the objective of investment promotion and protection to sustainable development; excluding portfolio investments; including provisions on investor-obligations; and reserving wide scope of regulatory space for host-states, including the ability to take emergency measures without incurring liability to investors. Some of these provisions are rare in IIAs. Findings The study finds that, while the efforts are commendable, there are real challenges. Firstly, there are inconsistencies in the regimes existing on the continent due to differences in the contents of the international investment instruments promulgated by the different RECs, and also differences in the content of IIAs signed by some member-states of the RECs with countries external to the RECs. Secondly, there are governance gaps and a lack of enforcement in practice, which would undermine the effectiveness of the laws being forged. Thirdly, the Africanised IIL alone would not attract investment if other important determinants, such as critical infrastructure, remain lacking. Fourthly, there is under-representation of Africa in the arbitral institutions that develop and enrich the laws, which, if it continues, would undermine the effectiveness of the Africanisation provisions being included in IIAs. Research limitations/implications While the research discusses both law and policy, more is discussed of the law, owing to space limitation. Practical implications It is anticipated that this research will impact the content of the investment protocol under the African continental free trade area and beyond and will prompt review of existing and future IIAs by member states of the various RECs to align them for consistency. It is also hoped that this research will impact the review of various investment instruments of the RECs with the aim of harmonising them. It is further hoped that this research would contribute to addressing the challenges that militate against the achievement of the goals of Africanising ILL for sustainable development. Originality/value The study is original. It has not been published previously and the authors have found no existing publication that addresses the issues covered in this study.


2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 767-792 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luke Nottage ◽  
Sakda Thanitcul

Abstract The dynamic economies of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have individually concluded many standalone bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and a growing number of bilateral and regional free trade agreements (FTAs), supplemented by intra-ASEAN and ‘ASEAN+’ agreements. These aim to facilitate and protect burgeoning foreign direct investment (FDI) flows, outlined in Part 2, including large outflows recently from several states. Part 3 outlines treaty-making trends, including considerable consistency from many member states as well as some interesting innovations, against the backdrop of persistent problems of poor governance. Part 4 highlights nonetheless the relative paucity of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) claims against ASEAN member states, with only a few adverse awards, which helps explain why treaty-based ISDS has not been abandoned. Part 5 also notes several contributions from this ISDS case law to international investment law, and Southeast Asia’s potential to keep influencing its trajectory.


2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-104
Author(s):  
Riccardo Vecellio Segate

Tensions between the EU’s legal order and the international investment law regime are not exclusive to the Brexit era, but they certainly gained momentum in the aftermath of this referendum. By incautiously declaring that the UK will remain a party to the Unified Patent System regardless of Brexit, the British government arguably shaped (il)legitimate expectations on the part of investors who aimed at exploiting their intellectual property rights in the UK while benefitting from the judicial protection of the forthcoming Unified Patent Court as much as of the European institutions (and market) as a whole. Indeed, not only the System itself will undergo a process of major rebalancing after London’s departure from the EU, but more importantly, the UK will most probably be unable to retain its membership in the System after the actual delivery of Brexit. These complications trigger a wide spectrum of fundamental dilemmas investing the definition and scope of concepts such as unilateral declaration, indirect expropriation, reasonable expectation, estoppel, and public policy exception, under both EU law and international investment law. It is therefore essential to explore these intersections as to anticipate possible scenarios in the event of both domestic court and international arbitral claims lodged by patent investors pre- and post-Brexit, having due regard for competition concerns on the side of the EU, yet referring to recent Canadian case law which opened the gate to investor-State claims in the field of intellectual property.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document