A New Era in Cross-strait Relations? A Post-sovereign Enquiry in Taiwan’s Investment Treaty System

2019 ◽  
pp. 290-310
Author(s):  
Horia Ciurtin
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Main Trend ◽  
The European Union ◽  
New Era ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
System P ◽  
International Economic Law ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Eye Opening ◽  
Litmus Test

The author provides a post-sovereign enquiry in Taiwan’s investment treaty system. Going beyond the traditional legal divisions, Taiwan showed that it can bypass such limitations, being a main trend-setter in innovating the area of international economic law. Specifically, a close look at Taiwan’s nexus of investment treaty is eye-opening; Taiwan concluded twenty-nine BITs and six ample economic cooperation agreements with related investment provisions. The number and the importance of these agreements reveal that the concept of international recognition does not directly influence the behaviour of states which are willing to interact legally and economically. In this regard, non-diplomatic relations might be used as a step forward, as Taiwan is closer to conclude an agreement with another post-sovereign entity, the European Union. This global actor may open up the scene for a multi-tier dynamic where some of its component member states are in principle against any liaison with Taiwan, but will be bound to it because of their membership to the EU. To solve such legal contradiction, the established instruments of international law cannot be applied, and a new theoretical framework shall be developed. To this end, the starting point must be to discuss sovereignty thoroughly. The chapter assesses the polity’s effort for the development of diplomatic structures by means of investment agreements, in this way avoiding the problems related to recognition. This kind of agreement can be considered as a litmus test, showing Taiwan’s capacity to shift traditional categories of Westphalian international law and emerge as a self-standing actor.

9. The Individual and the International Legal System

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert McCorquodale
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
System P ◽  
International Economic Law ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
International Legal System ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Degree Of Participation

This chapter examines the role of the individual in the international legal system. It considers the direct rights and responsibilities of individuals under the international legal system; their capacity to bring international claims; and their ability to participate in the creation, development, and enforcement of international law. Particular examples from a wide range of areas of international law, including international human rights law, international criminal law, and international economic law, are used to illustrate the conceptual and practical participation of individuals in the international legal system. It is argued that individuals are participants in that system, and are not solely objects that are subject to States’ consent, though their degree of participation varies depending on the changing nature of the international legal system.

scholarly journals The European Union and the Law of Treaties: A Fruitful Relationship

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 721-751
Author(s):  
Paz Andrés Sáenz De Santa María
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Provisional Application ◽  
Frequent Use ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Treaty Law ◽  
Treaty Interpretation

Abstract This article examines the European Union’s (EU) treaty practice from the perspective of the international law of treaties, focusing on its most significant examples. The starting point is the EU’s attitude towards the codification of treaty law involving states and international organizations. The article discusses certain terminological specificities and a few remarkable aspects, such as the frequent use of provisional application mechanisms as opposed to much less use of reservations, the contributions regarding treaty interpretation, the wide variety of clauses and the difficulties in determining the legal nature of certain texts. The study underlines that treaty law is a useful instrument for the Union and is further enriched with creative contributions; the outcome is a fruitful relationship.

scholarly journals eu Law Constraints on Intra-eu Investment Arbitration?

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eirik Bjorge
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Energy Charter Treaty ◽  
The Law

This article questions whether the law of the European Union (eu) can impose jurisdictional constraints on so-called intra-eu investment arbitration proceedings. Would an arbitral tribunal hearing an intra-eu case under either a bilateral investment treaty (bit) or under the Energy Charter Treaty (ect) have to declare itself incompetent to conduct the case proceedings owing to the operation of eu law? This article subjects that proposition to criticism, finding that, for a number of reasons, connected either with the drafting of the bit or the ect or the operation of general principles of international law, it does not withstand scrutiny. An arbitral tribunal seized of a treaty claim under a bit or the ect cannot rely on eu law to negate rights expressly granted under the instrument providing for its jurisdiction.

The setting aside and enforcement of intra-EU investment arbitration awards after Achmea

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 253-274
Author(s):  
Julian Scheu ◽  
Petyo Nikolov
Keyword(s):  
Analytical Framework ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Present Contribution ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
European Court ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Energy Charter Treaty ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Investment Treaty Arbitration

Abstract By rendering its preliminary ruling in Achmea v Slovakia, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) declared intra-EU investment treaty arbitration to be incompatible with fundamental principles of the European legal order. This decision does not only illustrate the challenge of regime interaction in international economic law but is also of highest practical relevance. Diverse and critical reactions from arbitral practice and legal scholarship suggest that it will ultimately be up to the courts within and outside of the EU to clarify how the ECJ’s findings in Achmea relate to the legal fate of arbitral awards. Against this background, the aim of the present contribution is to shed light on the judgment’s legal consequences on the post-award phase. As a starting point, an analysis of the judgment finds that the ECJ’s reasoning in Achmea is applicable to investor–State dispute resolution (ISDS) clauses contained in all intra-EU investment treaties, including the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) when applied in an intra-EU context (Section 2). Based on these findings, we evaluate how the incompatibility of intra-EU investment treaty arbitration with the law of the European Union (EU law) affects setting aside proceedings (Section 3) and applications for recognition and enforcement of awards (Section 4) within and outside of the EU. We show that possible solutions may range from fully enforcing intra-EU investment awards to completely disregarding any legal effect. Evaluating the complex legal landscape applicable to both types of proceedings clearly illustrates that there is no simple ‘yes-or-no’ rule. Instead, factors such as the applicability of the ICSID Convention, the seat of the arbitral tribunal or the jurisdiction in which enforcement is sought are relevant but should not be considered in isolation. Instead, it is concluded that these factors must be considered as inter-related aspects of an analytical framework which may lead to a coherent understanding of the relationship between the European legal order and the settlement of intra-EU investment disputes (Section 5).

Environmental Claims by States in Investment Treaty Arbitration

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 412-425
Author(s):  
Gaurav Sharma
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Paradigm Shift ◽  
Public Discourse ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Case Law ◽  
New Era ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Local Resources ◽  
Investment Treaty Arbitration

Recent years have witnessed a number of counterclaims by State parties in investment treaty arbitrations based on environmental concerns and the need to protect local resources and safeguard the associated human rights of local communities. This article charts the development of the case law in this context, starting with the Urbaser v. Argentina award of December 2016, before examining its impact on the cases that followed in its wake, notably including the respective 2017 and 2018 awards in Burlington v. Ecuador and Aven v. Costa Rica. It concludes by considering whether these recent cases mark the beginning of a new era of international law claims which finds a parallel in the broader paradigm shift in public discourse on the critical role of all stakeholders in the conservation of the environment, and which may one day result in investors facing standalone claims as the respondent in future investment treaty claims brought by States.

Benkharbouche v. Embassy of the Republic of Sudan (Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Others intervening)

2019 ◽  
Vol 180 ◽  
pp. 575-677
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Right Of Access

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Embassy employment disputes — Domestic staff — Claims for infringement of employment rights — Whether claims barred by State immunity — State Immunity Act 1978 (“SIA”), Section 1 — Exceptions to immunity — Limitations to exceptions — Section 16(1)(a) of SIA — Section 4(2)(b) of SIA — Scope of immunity — Absolute immunity — Restrictive immunity — Whether starting point absolute or restrictive immunity — Distinction between jure gestionis and jure imperii — Customary international law — Whether rule of customary international law justifying Sections 4(2)(b) and 16(1)(a) of SIA — Whether United Kingdom having jurisdiction over respondent States — Whether Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 and Article 47 of Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union engagedDiplomatic relations — Immunity from jurisdiction — Embassy employment disputes — Domestic staff employed locally — Whether members of mission — Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961, Article 1 — Whether Section 16(1)(a) of SIA applicable to claimants — Whether employment of domestic staff of diplomatic mission an act jure gestionis — Whether State entitled to State immunity in proceedings against employer embassiesRelationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Articles 6 and 14 — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 47 — Incorporation into English law — Sections 4(2)(b) and 16(1)(a) of SIA — Whether compatible — Whether Article 6 of European Convention engaged by claim to State immunity — Jurisprudence of European Court of Human Rights — Customary international law — Scope of State immunity — Whether starting point absolute or restrictive immunity — International Law Commission’s Draft Article 11 — United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property, 2004, Article 11 — Relevance — Whether Sections 4(2)(b) and 16(1)(a) of SIA having any basis in customary international law — Whether employer States entitled to immunity as regards claimants’ claims — Whether Sections 4(2)(b) and 16(1)(a) of SIA compatible with Article 6 of European Convention and Article 47 of EU CharterHuman rights — Right of access to court — State immunity — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — State Immunity 576Act 1978 — Claimants bringing proceedings against foreign States in relation to employment at embassy — Whether defendant States immune — Whether provisions of SIA barring claimants’ access to court — Whether recognition of immunity involving violation of right of access to courts — Whether infringement of Article 6 of European Convention and Article 47 of EU CharterHuman rights — Prohibition of discrimination — State immunity — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether Section 4(2)(b) of State Immunity Act 1978 discriminating on grounds of nationality — Whether infringing Article 14 taken together with Article 6 of European Convention — The law of England

scholarly journals Kwalifikacja w prawie prywatnym międzynarodowym Unii Europejskiej. Od kwalifikacji autonomicznej ku… kwalifikacji według kolizyjnej legis fori?

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 107-122
Author(s):  
Krzysztof Pacuła
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Functional Characterization ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
The Eu

The terms ‘characterization’ (‘classification’) and ‘exercise of characterization’ refer in particular to the efforts made to determine which conflict of law rule — and in the sense presented in this paper, also rule on jurisdiction — which is part of the law of the forum State, should be applied to the circumstances of a particular case. In relation to the norms of private international law of the European Union, the triumph of an autonomous characterization at first sight seems undeniable. The term autonomous characterization (in principle — ‘autonomous interpretation’, the case law usually does not distinguish between exercise of characterization and exercise of interpretation) has been referred to over the last fifty years in order to describe the vast majority of operations of interpretation undertaken in relation to the norms of EU private international law. The contemporary concept of characterization in private law of the European Union, although consistently referred to as ‘autonomous’, does not fully meet the criteria thereof. The papers argues that while the starting point was the autonomous characterization in its pure form (stage one), over time it partially gave way to the place of characterization according to the EU law-oriented legis fori (stage two), and finally it was enriched with new elements which gave it the form of a specific functional characterization (stage three). It is not so much about the consistency of the results of the exercises of characterization with the universal understanding of certain concepts. Exercises of characterization are carried out through the prism of their effects, so as to ensure the effectiveness of the norms of EU law (effet utile) other than rules on conflict of laws and on jurisdiction.

Part V Treaty Interpretation, 22 Specialized Rules of Treaty Interpretation: International Organizations

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brölmann Catherine
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Personality ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Treaty Law ◽  
Treaty Interpretation

International law has generally treated questions of the legal personality and legal powers of international organizations (IOs) as a distinct subject — notably one of international institutional law. However, IOs also regularly trigger questions of treaty law and practice. Most IOs are created by treaty, and that ‘constituent instrument’ provides the necessary starting point for delimiting their functions and competences. This chapter addresses treaty interpretation in the IO context, with particular attention to the interpretation of founding or constitutive treaties of international organizations. Part I examines the interpretation of constitutive treaties and IO secondary rules. Part II looks at the role of organizations as treaty interpreters. Examples are drawn predominantly from the UN context and, to a lesser degree, the European Union.

INTERPRETATION OF SINO-RUSSIAN CULTURE AND HUMANITIES COOPERATION IN THE NEW ERA

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 186-193
Author(s):  
REN YANYAN ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Current Status ◽  
Human Relations ◽  
New Era ◽  
Russian Culture ◽  
The People ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Cooperative Partnership ◽  
Belt And Road ◽  
The Belt And Road

The friendship between nations lies in the mutual affinity of the people, and the people’s affinity lies in the communion of hearts. The cultural and humanities cooperation between China and Russia has a long history. In recent years, under the role of the“Belt and Road” initiative, the SCO, and the Sino-Russian Humanities Cooperation Committee, Sino-Russian culture and humanities cooperation has continued to deepen. Entering a new era, taking the opportunity to promote Sino-Russian relations into a “new era China-Russia comprehensive strategic cooperative partnership”, the development of human relations between the two countries has entered a new historical starting point, while also facing a series of problems and challenges. This article is based on the current status of Sino-Russian human relations in the new era, interprets the characteristics of Sino-Russian human relations in the new era, analyzes the problems and challenges of Sino-Russian human relations in the new era, and tries to propose solutions and solutions with a view to further developing Sino-Russian cultural and humanities relations in the new era. It is a useful reference, and provides a reference for future related research, and ultimately helps the Sino-Russian cultural and humanities relations in the new era to be stable and far-reaching.

La conexión entre política de cohesión y gobernanza económica en la UE: Eficiencia del nuevo marco para abordar las consecuencias de la crisis

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 44-62
Author(s):  
Laura Gómez Urquijo
Keyword(s):  
Social Protection ◽  
Economic Governance ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Investment Funds ◽  
Current Economic Crisis ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
New Economic Governance ◽  
Social Protection Systems ◽  
New Instruments

The objective of this article is to contribute to the discussion on the validity of new instruments to enhance cohesion in the European Union (EU). First, we question to which extent cohesion policy is submitted to the new economic governance. Second, we discuss this subordination affects the fulfillment of cohesion aims. This question is especially relevant due to the increase of inequalities in the current economic crisis and the great diversity among State Members (including social protection systems and expenses). Thus, our starting point is the new economic governance framework and its impact on the fulfillment of cohesion objectives. Statistical data are considered with this aim. Next, we will assess the role of European Structural and Investment Funds to eventually compensate public expense cuts, as well as its subordination to the macroeconomic government. This aspect will be contrasted through the study of Country Specific Recommendations given by the European Semester. Spanish El objetivo de este artículo es contribuir a la discusión sobre la validez de los nuevos instrumentos para fomentar la cohesión en la Unión Europea. Nos preguntamos en qué modo queda sometida la política de cohesión a la nueva gobernanza económica y cómo afecta a la efectividad para cubrir susfines. Esta cuestión es particularmente relevante ante el incremento de las desigualdades suscitado en la crisis económica actual. Por ello, nuestro punto de partida es el nuevo marco de gobernanza económica y su impacto en el cumplimiento de los objetivos de cohesión, considerando para ello datos estadísticos. A continuación, valoraremos, el papel de los Fondos Estructurales y de Inversión Europeos como posibles compensadores de la reducción del gasto público así como su subordinación al gobierno macroeconómico. Esta cuestión será contrastada también a través del examen de las Recomendaciones Específicas por país dadas por el Semestre Europeo. French Le but de cet article est de contribuer à la discussion sur la validité de nouveaux instruments pour promouvoir la cohésion dans l'UE. Nous avons considéré, d'une part, en quoi la politique de cohésion est soumise à la nouvelle gouvernance économique et, d'autre part, la façon dont elle utilise l'efficacité pour répondre à ses fins.Cette question est particulièrement pertinente étant donnée l'augmentation de l'inégalité soulevée par la crise économique actuelle, dans un contexte de grande diversité d'États membres, notamment en ce qui concerne les systèmes de protection sociale et les dépenses publiques. Par conséquent, notre point de départ s'inscrit dans le nouveau cadre de gouvernance économique et son impact sur la mise en œuvre des objectifs de cohésion, à partir de la prise en compte de données statistiques. Pour ce faire, nous évaluons le rôle des Fonds Structurels Européens, leur capacité de compenser la réduction des dépenses publiques et leur subordination au gouvernement macroéconomique. Ce e question sera également abordée par l'examen des recommandations spécifiques par pays fournies par le Semestre Européen.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document