Review of bilateral investment treaties signed by Parties to the Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA) 2006

2011 ◽  
Vol 2010 (2) ◽  
pp. 33-42
Author(s):  
Milan Konopek
2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 858-889
Author(s):  
Mahdev Mohan

Abstract Querying Poulsen’s view that some States negotiate investment treaties in ‘bounded’ rational ways, this article focuses on how the recently concluded European Union-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (EUSFTA) illustrates the evolution of Singapore’s treaty practice. Singapore has abandoned the ‘old’, and has joined the bandwagon of next-generation FTAs; yet, shrewdly, it is not fully convinced about the ‘new’ either. For example, the EUSFTA does not include a most-favoured nation clause, and does not commit to an appeals mechanism, unlike its Canadian and Vietnamese counterparts. Singapore’s caution appears to be motivated by a pragmatic desire to avoid the pitfalls that these provisions could bring with them, as Investor-State arbitration (ISA) jurisprudence demonstrates, and to study the implications of a recent decision by the EU’s highest court regarding the FTA. Indeed, that shows that the EU itself is now equally wary of the ISA regime removing disputes from the jurisdiction of national courts.


Author(s):  
Jamal Seifi

Due to insufficient concretization of international norms, it is of vital importance to have broadly representative international courts and tribunals. Since the end of the Cold War, the most significant divisions among States are those between developing and developed countries, whose economic and other interests differ greatly. In this context, any normative or social legitimacy debate inevitably has a development focus. For example, investment arbitration awards have been found to be correlated with arbitrators’ policy preferences whereby the development bias was most prominent. Moreover, the predominantly commercial background and outlook of investment arbitrators has resulted in expansionist trends in interpreting the jurisdictional and substantive protection provisions of the Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs), undermining the legitimacy of the investment arbitration system. The recent North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) reform reinforces the old perception that the institution of investment arbitration is predominantly designed to address north-south disputes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document