scholarly journals Intra-EU Bilateral Investment Treaties and EU Law AfterAchmea: “Know Well What Leads You Forward and What Holds You Back”

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 981-1016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Csongor István Nagy
Keyword(s):  
Internal Market ◽  
Alternative Theory ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaties ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
The Status ◽  
Heated Debate ◽  
Central Argument ◽  
Investment Treaties ◽  
The Eu

This paper analyzes the compatibility of intra-EU bilateral investment treaties—intra-EU BITs—with EU law. The status and validity of intra-EU BITs gave rise to a heated debate in Europe, which culminated in the CJEU's recent controversial judgment inAchmea.This Article demonstrates that although the CJEU approached intra-EU BITs from the angle of federalism—where they are both redundant and illegitimate—the reality is that EU law does not provide for the kind of protection afforded by BITs. The paper gives both a positivist and a critical assessment of theAchmearuling. It argues that the judgment should be construed in the context of the underlying facts and, hence, notwithstanding the CJEU's apparently anti-arbitration attitude, its holding is rather narrow. It gives an alternative theory on intra-EU BITs' fit in the EU internal market—based on European reality—showing that the complete invalidation of intra-EU BITs is flawed because the overlap between BITs and EU law is merely partial: BITs address a subject EU law does not. This Article's central argument is that intra-EU BITs accelerate the internal market and, hence, their suppression does not lead the European integration further, but holds it back. Finally, this Article argues that the prevailing pattern of investment protection is a global scheme that cannot be arrested through regional unilateralism as essayed by the CJEU.

scholarly journals Ethiopia’s Bilateral Investment Treaties and Environmental Protection; The Need of Re-Negotiation for Corporate Responsibility

Global Jurist ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ayalew Abate
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Foreign Investment ◽  
Corporate Responsibility ◽  
International Perspective ◽  
Environmental Responsibility ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaties ◽  
The Status ◽  
Investment Treaties

Abstract This article argues that the bulk of the bilateral investment treaties (BITs) that Ethiopia has ever concluded, to regulate its bilateral foreign investment relations, don’t contain an environmental provision that require investing corporations to discharge responsibility towards environment and there is a pressing call for either to re-negotiate, update or engage in concluding of environmental side agreements (ESA). To substantiate the argument the trends of BIT making is assessed, the status of Ethiopian BITs have been evaluated through content analysis, environmental responsibility of Ethiopia has been examined both from domestic and international perspective, relevant reasons for the regulation of environment in foreign investment through BIT have been discussed and justifications for the need to renegotiate, update or make ESA in Ethiopia have been highlighted.

9. European Union law and institutions

2021 ◽  
pp. 124-141
Author(s):  
Colin Faragher
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Cooperation Agreement ◽  
The Status ◽  
Fundamental Rights And Freedoms ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses the Treaty framework and sources of EU law as well as the institutions of the EU. It covers the legal background to the UK’s departure from the EU, the legal process through which the UK left the EU, the key provisions of the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (2020), and the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020. This chapter also discusses the effect of the UK’s departure from the EU on the status of the sources of EU law and the effect of leaving the EU on the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms as well as failure to transpose a Directive into national law and the effect of leaving the EU on the Francovich principle.

Europe’s Cosmopolitan Union

2021 ◽  
pp. 204-226
Author(s):  
Bertjan Wolthuis ◽  
Luigi Corrias
Keyword(s):  
Public Law ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
The Other ◽  
Refugee Crisis ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Cosmopolitan Law ◽  
Migration Law ◽  
Legal Condition ◽  
The Eu

The chapter provides a Kantian reading of EU internal market law and the refugee crisis of 2015. The chapter argues that the EU should be viewed as a cosmopolitan union. The authors ask whether EU law, understood as positive cosmopolitan law, can be qualified as an extension of the legal condition, and whether it can be viewed as consistent with the other two parts of public law, especially with the freedom of EU member states which also depend on the possible connection to global, much less extensive, systems of positive cosmopolitan law such as migration law.

11. Free movement of goods

2020 ◽  
pp. 294-322
Author(s):  
Sylvia de Mars
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Specific Volume ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

This chapter explores the free movement of goods, which lies at the very heart of the internal market. The idea of the free movement of goods was the starting point that the EEC Treaty aimed for, and remains one of the greatest achievements of the EU to date. However, as with everything in EU law, there are a lot of legal rules underpinning a fairly straightforward concept. The Treaty contains two separate sets of provisions that address matters of taxation when it comes to trade in products. The first relates to border taxation, while the second relates to internal taxation. With regard to non-taxation issues, the primary issue is quantitative restrictions: situations where a Member State either blocks a specific volume of products from entering its market, or outlaws/bans a product altogether. The chapter then considers the exceptions to free movement of goods, and assesses how Brexit may impact on the free movement of goods between the UK and the EU.

The CETA Opinion of the European Court of Justice and its Implications—Not that Selfish After All

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 503-521 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Riffel
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court System ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Eu

Abstract In Opinion 1/17, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) found the investment court system compatible with European Union (EU) law. The ruling concerned the mechanism in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) but the Court’s reasoning is equally applicable to other investment courts as established, for example, in the EU’s investment protection agreements with Singapore and Vietnam. This outcome was far from clear, given that in the past the accession to international dispute settlement bodies regularly foundered on the autonomy of the EU legal order. The present article parses the CETA Opinion and explores its implications. It particularly focuses on autonomy as a constitutional principle and its advancement in Opinion 1/17. Importantly, the ECJ accepted the superiority of a court created by international agreement in relation to the said agreement. Furthermore, it clarified that it is not prerequisite for the Court to rule first on the meaning to be given to an act of EU law before that act can be the subject matter of an investment dispute. Finally, the pdrerogative of the EU to autonomously set the level of protection of a public welfare goal must be secured in a treaty for the EU to join it.

Approaches to the law applicable to proprietary effects of transactions in securities taken in uniform law: a lesson for the EU

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 711-723
Author(s):  
Michael F Müller
Keyword(s):  
Status Quo ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
The Status ◽  
Uniform Solution ◽  
Uniform Law ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Securities Trading ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The modern practice of securities trading has led to almost insurmountable tensions with classical conflict-of-laws doctrine. The Hague Securities Convention set out to provide for a new and uniform solution. In a recent communication from the Commission, the topic has resurfaced on the European agenda. Against this background, this article poses the question of whether the discussion around the Convention can serve as a lesson for the European Union (EU). It is submitted that neither the status quo of EU law is satisfactory nor does the adoption of the Convention offer a fully convincing solution but that the problem should be targeted at its root: the outdated concept of some national substantive laws in intermediated securities.

scholarly journals Federico Ortino

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 67-68
Author(s):  
Federico Ortino
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Market Access ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Treatment ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Investment Treaties ◽  
The Eu

Even when it comes to investment, despite appearances to the contrary, it does not seem to me that there is a shift to the non-discrimination principle. First, there is no doubt that absolute standards such as fair and equitable treatment or the provision on expropriation have by far overshadowed the relative standards, in particular national treatment. Second, while the MFN standard has, on the other hand, been a key provision in investment treaty arbitration, particularly as an instrument to expand the scope of the ISDS system (based on more favorable provisions found in third-party treaties), there are clear signs in recent investment treaties of the willingness to curtail the use of the MFN provision as a way to extend the procedural and substantive protections of investors. This seems to be the current position, for example, of both the United States and the European Union (EU). Third, when it comes to the apparent disappearance of the absolute standards of treatment in some of the treaties being negotiated by the European Union (such as with Japan), this is more simply due to a question of the nature of the EU external competence in commercial matters. In its recent opinion on the EU-Singapore FTA, the Court of Justice of the EU has determined that the EU does not have exclusive competence to conclude agreements covering non-FDI and ISDS. The EU has thus responded to such opinion by splitting investment protection (with ISDS) from the rest of the trade agreement, thus keeping investment liberalization (including market access and national treatment) in the latter. In this way, while the trade agreement will fall under the exclusive competence of the EU, the former will still require ratification by each member state. While it is not clear whether the backlash vis-à-vis investment protection and ISDS in some quarters within some of the member states will eventually lead to the end of EU investment treaties, a decision in this sense has not yet been taken by EU institutions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document