A Paradigm Change: The CETA Investment Chapter

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 437-484
Author(s):  
Marc Bungenberg ◽  
August Reinisch
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Court System ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Agreements ◽  
The Eu

The Investment Chapter of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) can be seen as an unofficial blueprint of future EU Investment Agreements and Chapters. It was developed under immense public pressure and had to fulfil multiple conditions resulting from the EU constitutional framework. This contribution highlights the political and juridical background of EU investment policy, and then analyses the most significant new approaches in international investment law - both with regard to substantive standards and investor-State dispute settlement - as exemplified in the CETA. With regard to the substance, it can be witnessed that states are more proactive in defining investment protection standards, leaving less discretion for adjudicators. With regard to dispute settlement, the EU managed to introduce a completely new Investment Court System (ICS) with preselected adjudicators and an appellate mechanism. In light of all these developments, this article argues that we are currently facing a complete change of paradigms in EU investment law, heading towards the EU’s long-term goal of establishing a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC).

scholarly journals Regulatory autonomy and regulatory chill in Opinion 1/17

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurens Ankersmit
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Public Interests ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Negative Effect ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Agreements ◽  
The Eu

This article analyses the aspect of the Court’s reasoning in Opinion 1/17 that focuses on the regulatory autonomy of the Parties to the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) to decide on levels of protection of public interests. The European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) introduction of regulatory autonomy under EU law coincides with the wider debate around ‘regulatory chill’ under international investment law. This article finds the ECJ’s concept of regulatory autonomy to be narrower than that of the regulatory chill hypothesis put forward by critics of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). It further analyses the ECJ’s reasoning that the CETA’s investment tribunals do not have jurisdiction to call into question the levels of protection sought by the EU. In so doing, it will critically evaluate the certainty of the ECJ’s promise that there will be no negative effect on public interest decision-making through CETA’s investment chapter. Finally, it will explore the legal consequences of Opinion 1/17 for future awards and investment agreements.

scholarly journals THE FOREIGN INVESTORS AND NATIONALITY CONCEPT UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriela Belova ◽  
◽  
Gergana Georgieva ◽  
Anna Hristova ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Foreign Investors ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Investment Agreements ◽  
Mixed Agreements ◽  
The Eu

Although in the last years the international community has adopted a broad approach, the definition of foreign investors and foreign investments is still very important for the development of international investment law. The nationality of the foreign investor, whether a natural person or legal entity, sometimes is decisive, especially in front of the international jurisdictions. The paper tries to follow the examples from bilateral investment agreements as well as from multilateral instrument such as the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Convention. An important case concerning Bulgaria in past decades is also briefly discussed. The authors pay attention to some new moments re-developing the area of investment dispute settlement within the context of EU Mixed Agreements, especially after the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement.

CJEU Opinion 1/17: Keeping International Investment Law and EU Law Strictly Apart

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 240-259
Author(s):  
Nikos Lavranos
Keyword(s):  
Financial Burden ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Court System ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
The Eu

With Opinion 1/17, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) approved the Investment Court System (ICS) contained in the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) between the EU and Canada. This means that the EU can proceed with the ratification process of the investment protection part of CETA and the other free trade agreements it has concluded, and which contain a similar ICS. However, as the author illustrates, the approval of the ICS is conditioned by a complete isolation of EU law from international investment law. More specifically, the CJEU made clear that the ceta tribunals operate outside the EU legal order and have no power to interpret or apply EU law. At the same time, the CJEU highlighted the importance that the ceta Parties adopt supplemental rules for reducing the financial burden for access to the ICS for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMES). Additionally, the CJEU rejected the currently existing possibility that binding joint interpretations of the ceta Parties could have retroactive effect. In sum, the approval of the ICS by the CJEU enables the European Commission to continue to develop the multilateral investment court (MIC) within the uncitral Working Group iii as long as it follows the blueprint of the CETA ICS.

The Scope of Application of EU (Model) Investment Agreements

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 402-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Bungenberg
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Sovereign Wealth Funds ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Agreements ◽  
The Eu

The contribution examines the personal and material scope of application of future eu International Investment Agreements. Therefore the notions of 'investor' and 'investment' are discussed. The scope of application of iias is one of the most important issues in investment law, as it determines the application of material standards as well as the possibility of investor state dispute settlement. On a comparative basis, the chapter examines the eu approach to this issue. Also the coverage of State owned Enterprises as well as Sovereign Wealth Funds is paid specific attention to. Especially the draft investment chapter of the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (ceta) is taken as a first orientation for possible wording and structure as well as intention of the scope of application of future eu iias.

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.

International Investment Law and Practice in the Kingdom of Cambodia: An Evolving ‘Rule Taker’?

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 942-973
Author(s):  
Romesh Weeramantry
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Direct Investment ◽  
Direct Investment ◽  
Free Trade Agreements ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Court System ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Agreements

Abstract Cambodia has undertaken several initiatives to attract foreign direct investment (FDI), which has been growing rapidly in recent years, particularly through participating in Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) investment agreements and free trade agreements (FTAs). This article first outlines Cambodia’s arbitration law and practice, its Law on Investment, the court system, problems relating to corruption, and foreign direct investment (FDI) patterns. It then surveys trends in Cambodia’s comparatively belated signing of investment treaties, and their main contents (including recent treaties with India and Hungary, adopting very different models). The article then discusses the only investment arbitration instituted against Cambodia, which was successfully defended, followed by a comment on the future prospects for Cambodia’s investment treaty program.

An Overview of Sri Lanka’s Bilateral Investment Treaties: Status Quo and Some Insights into Future Modifications

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-318
Author(s):  
Dilini PATHIRANA
Keyword(s):  
Sri Lanka ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Global Context ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Agreements

AbstractSri Lanka is the first country against which a foreign investor has had recourse to international arbitration based on the dispute settlement clause in a bilateral investment treaty (BIT). This was the case of AAPL v. Sri Lanka. Since then, the country has been challenged twice before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), while its latest encounter was in the case of Deutsche Bank AG v. Sri Lanka. In the intervening years between these two cases, Sri Lanka maintained silence and failed to alter its BITs in a global context where the conventional attitude on international investment agreements (IIAs) is being increasingly reconsidered. This paper provides an overview of Sri Lanka’s BITs, which highlights the urgency of reconsidering the country’s investment treaty-making practice. It suggests some modifications to align the country’s investment treaty-making practice with international investment law (IIL) developments.

Africa and the Rethinking of International Investment Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Makane Moïse Mbengue ◽  
Stefanie Schacherer
Keyword(s):  
Sustainable Development ◽  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Reform Process ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Pan African ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Agreements

This chapter seeks to present and to contextualize the Pan-African Investment Code (PAIC) by taking a comparative international law approach. Such approach allows us to assess whether the PAIC is an Africa-specific instrument and whether it is unique today in how it incorporates sustainable development concerns. This is particularly interesting for the ongoing global reform process of international investment law. The chapter is divided into five main sections. Section II provides an overview of international investment agreements concluded by African States. Section III presents the origins of the PAIC. Section IV addresses the important question as to what extent the PAIC incorporates traditional investment standards or breaks with them. Section V explores the most innovative aspects of the PAIC. Section VI examines the PAIC and dispute settlement.

Evolution, Evaluation and Future Developments in International Investment Law

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Practical Importance ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Political Issues ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Future Developments ◽  
Current Reform ◽  
Investment Law

The law on the protection of foreign investments is situated at the crossroads of international law and diplomacy in the context of a globalized economy. It is therefore not surprising that investment law has undergone fundamental changes in the last decade. The exponential growth of arbitration cases has illustrated a number of complex legal and political issues that have called into question the efficiency and legitimacy of investor State dispute settlement (ISDS). Thus, even for experts in the field it is challenging to keep track with the rapid and fundamental changes of what is often described as one of the most dynamic fields of international law. Against this background, the present volume provides an ‘Evolution, Evaluation, and Future Developments in International Investment Law’. World leading academics and practitioners shed light on the most important developments such as the evolution of investment law and its relationship to general international law, the practical importance of State contracts, the role of investment protection in the age of climate change, and current reform projects under the auspices of ICSID and UNCITRAL. The volume is based on six keynote speeches held at the 10 Year Anniversary Conference of the International Investment Law Centre Cologne.

Korea’s Experience with International Investment Agreements and Investor-State Dispute Settlement

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 952-980 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hi-Taek Shin ◽  
Liz (Kyo-Hwa) Chung
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Developing Economies ◽  
International Investment ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
International Investment Agreements ◽  
The Face ◽  
Public Scrutiny ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Investment Agreements ◽  
Korus Fta

Korea’s network of international investment agreements (IIAs), comprising 94 BITs and nine FTAs with investment chapters, demonstrates that attracting foreign investment to Korea and protecting Korean investors overseas has been an important policy aspect. However, little attention was paid to these agreements until 2006 when negotiations for the Korea-United States (KORUS) FTA began. These negotiations sparked public criticism and heated debates of investor-State dispute settlement. Whereas Korea had routinely accepted the IIA provisions presented by developed counter-parties and used them as a template when negotiating with developing economies in the past, Korean IIA practice changed substantially following the KORUS FTA. In the face of heightened public scrutiny, Korea began to critically review key features of its IIAs and developed its own position on some important issues. This article examines these developments, considering that Korea will play a key role in shaping international investment law in the future, particularly in Asia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document