EU Law and International Investment Arbitration

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael De Boeck
Keyword(s):  
International Investment ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Investment Arbitration

scholarly journals The Autonomy of eu Law and International Investment Arbitration

2019 ◽  
Vol 88 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-64
Author(s):  
Panos Koutrakos
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Open Approach ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Policy Context ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Agreements

This article argues that, in the context of international investment law, the principle of autonomy need not be construed as broadly as the recent judgment in Achmea suggested. The Court’s approach in this case is formalist, inward looking and hostile to the harmonious co-existence between eu and international law. The article argues, however, that this conception of autonomy should be confined to the specific legal and policy context of investment agreements between Member States of the Union. A careful reading of Achmea supports this view. There are also sound conceptual, legal, and policy reasons that militate for a more open approach to autonomy when it comes to the Union’s trade agreements with third countries.

A Sceptical Analysis of the Enforcement of ISDS Awards in the EU Following the Decision of the CJEU on CETA

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 92-145
Author(s):  
Brady Gordon
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Court System ◽  
European Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Formal Procedures ◽  
The Eu

This paper provides a sceptical analysis of the enforcement of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) awards against the European Union or its Member States in a conflict with EU norms following Opinion 1/17 of the CJEU on the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). It argues that the CETA decision has obscured, but has failed to alleviate, three fundamental incompatibilities between sui generis doctrines of EU law and essential tenets of international investment arbitration. It is not at all clear whether the CJEU accepts the jurisdiction of the ISDS tribunal in Chapter 8-F of CETA to rule on a breach of CETA contrary to the CJEU’S interpretation of the validity of EU acts under the EU’s own rules, and the CETA decision does nothing to modify the formal procedures and doctrines by which the autonomy and supremacy of EU law have supplanted conflict of law norms permitting the application of arbitral awards over conflicting European law. The article cautions that Canadians may prove little better able to enforce arbitral awards against deprivations of CETA rights by EU norms than if the cjeu had simply ruled that the CETA Tribunal must be subsumed within the EU court system itself.

Requirements for Amicus Curiae Participation in International Investment ArbitrationA Deconstruction of the Procedural Wall Erected in Joint ICSID Cases ARB/10/25 and ARB/10/15

2013 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 365-390 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Schliemann
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Recent Attempt ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
Amicus Curiae ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Legal Standard ◽  
Investment Law

Abstract The legal standard on amicus curiae participation in international investment arbitration has been forged by the judicial development of legal rules and, in parallel, the modification of normative sources, such as the ICSID Arbitration Rules. Current and future decisions by arbitral tribunals on the participation of amicus curiae in a given dispute must abide by this consolidated standard. In June 2012, the arbitral tribunal in Joint ICSID Cases No. ARB/10/15 and No. ARB/10/25 released a procedural order, rejecting an amicus petition. This Order contains various deviations from the applicable legal standard and severely restricts the options for amicus participation. The recent attempt to strengthen the legitimacy of international investment arbitration by allowing for greater amicus participation and the acknowledgement of the interdependence of investment law and other areas of international law is thereby put in peril.

Social movements, reframing investment relations, and enhancing the application of human rights norms in international investment law

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-28
Author(s):  
Moshe Hirsch
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Social Movements ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Public Pressure ◽  
Local Actors ◽  
Investment Law

Abstract The recent moderate trend to increasingly apply human rights law in investment awards is accompanied by certain new investment treaties which include expressed human rights provisions. An analysis of recent investment awards indicates that though there are some ‘winds of change’ in this field, it is equally noticeable that human rights law is far from being mainstreamed in international investment law. Investment arbitration procedural law is also undergoing a process of change, and the new procedural rules tend to enhance public elements in the investment arbitral system. This study is aimed at explaining these recent legal changes, highlighting the role of social movements in reframing investment relations as well as increasing public pressure to apply human rights law. These framing changes concern broadening the frame of investment arbitration (beyond the foreign investor–host state dyad), reversing the perceived balance of power between investors and host states, and zooming-in on local individuals and communities residing in host states. The discussion on factors impeding legal change in this field emphasizes the role of the private legal culture prevalent in the investment arbitration system, which is reflected and reinforced by certain resilient socio-legal frames. Informed by this analysis, the study suggests some legal mechanisms which can mitigate the inter-partes frame, and increase the application of human rights law in investment arbitration; inter alia, rigorous transparency rules that are likely to facilitate increased public pressure on tribunals and increase the participation of social movements representing local actors in arbitral processes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document