Dialogue through jurisprudence: engagement between the WTO dispute settlement and the Court of Justice of the European Union

2020 ◽  
pp. 26-50
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement

The Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence 2018

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Original Research ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Global Community ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
Global Law

The 2018 edition of The Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence both updates readers on the important work of long-standing international tribunals and introduces readers to more novel topics in international law. The Yearbook continues to provide expert coverage of the Court of Justice of the European Union and diverse tribunals from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to criminal tribunals such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, to economically based tribunals such as ICSID and the WTO Dispute settlement procedures. The contents of this part have been enriched with the inclusion of a new section devoted to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), the oldest global institution for the settlement of international disputes. This edition contains original research articles on the development and analysis of the concept of global law and the views of the global law theorists such as: whether the Paris Declaration of 2017 and the Oslo Recommendation of 2018 deals with enhancing their institutions’ legitimacy; how to reconcile human rights, trade law, intellectual property, investment and health law with the WTO dispute settlement panel upholding Australia’s tobacco plain packaging measure; Israel’s acceptance of Palestinian statehood contingent upon prior Palestinian “demilitarization” is potentially contrary to pertinent international law; and a proposal to strengthen cooperation between the ECJ and National Courts in light of the failure of the dialogue between the ECJ and the Italian Constitutional Court on the interpretation of Article 325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European union. The Yearbook provides students, scholars, and practitioners alike a valuable combination of expert discussion and direct quotes from the court opinions to which that discussion relates, as well as an annual overview of the process of cross-fertilization between international courts and tribunals.

From Washington with Love—Investor–State Arbitration and the Jurisdictional Monopoly of the Court of Justice of the European Union

2010 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 425-453
Author(s):  
Philip Strik
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Forum Shopping ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
The Eu

AbstractWhile investor–State arbitration is to a large extent detached from the EU legal order, EU law has recently started to be invoked in investor-State arbitration proceedings. In the context of intra-EU bilateral investment treaties, the Commission has expressed the view that investor-State arbitration gives rise to a number of ‘arbitration risks’ for the EU legal order. Not only can it solicit investors to engage in forum-shopping, but it can also result in questions of EU law not being litigated in Member State or Union courts. This chapter explores the extent to which the compatibility of investor–State arbitration with the EU legal order is in issue. It examines the main features of investor-State arbitration as concerns its interplay with the EU legal order, as well as the Court of Justice’s case law on issues of compatibility between systems of international dispute settlement and the EU legal order. The chapter highlights that the way in which investor–State arbitral tribunals handle issues of EU law, as well as the involvement of interested parties, may foster the synergy between investor–State arbitration and the EU legal order.

Dispute Settlement Mechanisms: Gulf Cooperation Council Practice v. European Union Practice

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Fathi Hussain ◽  
Mahdi Zahraa
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Gulf Cooperation Council ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Organisations ◽  
Political Will ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanisms

Abstract Dispute settlement mechanisms (DSM) are the heart of international organisations without which organisations would be ineffective. The European Union (EU) is probably the most effective regional body whose efficacy is largely due to its powerful judicial organ, the Court of Justice (CJEU). This article also examines the DSM available in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), in order to assess its effectiveness. It briefly discusses aspects of the EU and CJEU to help provide suggestions to improve the GCC DSM. This article concludes that the GCC DSM lacks effectiveness due to an inherent defect in its DMS organs. This defect is twofold: first, the GCC has yet to establish an effective judicial organ to deal with its disputes; and, second, there is a lack of political will to establish an organ that is vested with a supranational power that can override the individual will of the Member States.

From Washington with Love—Investor–State Arbitration and the Jurisdictional Monopoly of the Court of Justice of the European Union

2010 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 425-453
Author(s):  
Philip Strik
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Forum Shopping ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
The Eu

Abstract While investor–State arbitration is to a large extent detached from the EU legal order, EU law has recently started to be invoked in investor-State arbitration proceedings. In the context of intra-EU bilateral investment treaties, the Commission has expressed the view that investor-State arbitration gives rise to a number of ‘arbitration risks’ for the EU legal order. Not only can it solicit investors to engage in forum-shopping, but it can also result in questions of EU law not being litigated in Member State or Union courts. This chapter explores the extent to which the compatibility of investor–State arbitration with the EU legal order is in issue. It examines the main features of investor-State arbitration as concerns its interplay with the EU legal order, as well as the Court of Justice’s case law on issues of compatibility between systems of international dispute settlement and the EU legal order. The chapter highlights that the way in which investor–State arbitral tribunals handle issues of EU law, as well as the involvement of interested parties, may foster the synergy between investor–State arbitration and the EU legal order.

Intra-European Union investor–State arbitration post-Achmea: RIP? An assessment in the aftermath of the Court of Justice of the European Union, Case C-284/16, Achmea, Judgment of 6 March 2018, EU:C:2018:158

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 316-340 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Fanou
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Effect ◽  
European Union ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaties ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Future ◽  
Principle Of Discrimination

In its judgment in Case C-284/16 Achmea, the Court of Justice of the European Union declared the investor–State dispute settlement provisions included in intra-European Union Bilateral Investment Treaties incompatible with European Union law. The court based its finding on the adverse effect on the autonomy of European Union law, while avoiding a discussion of other grounds of potential incompatibilities (such as compatibility with the principle of discrimination or substantive incompatibilities). This article presents the judgment of the court and provides an account of its implications for the future of intra-European Union investment arbitration.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document