Investor-State Dispute Settlement (isds) in Future eu Investment-Related Agreements: Is the Autonomy of the eu Legal Order an Obstacle?

in The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Through the study of the Court’s case law on dispute settlement, this article examines whether investor-State dispute resolution is compatible with eu law at all and, if so, under which conditions. It analyses the relevant Opinions delivered by the Court of Justice regarding external dispute settlement mechanisms and the autonomy of the eu legal order. The author then assesses the compatibility of investor-State dispute resolution within the system of legal protection guaranteed by the cjeu. It finally presents ways forward aiming at preserving the autonomy of the eu legal order. The author concludes that no realistic or viable propositions can be detected on the horizon. Therefore, as long as no veritable mechanism is found to render investor-State dispute resolution in line with the cjeu’s jurisprudence, the insertion of an isds mechanism in those international agreements seems to be an ill-considered decision on the part of the European Commission.

Investor-State Dispute Settlement (isds) in Future eu Investment-Related Agreements: Is the Autonomy of the eu Legal Order an Obstacle?

in The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals

Sections

References

11

Ibid. pp. 146–147; F. Hoffmeister and G. Ünüvar op. cit. p. 66 and T. Eilmansberger “Bilateral Investment Treaties and eu Law” Common Market Law Review No. 46 2009 pp. 393–396.

13

A. Reinischop. cit. p. 148 and F. Hoffmeister and G. Ünüvar op. cit. p. 66.

14

A. Reinischop. cit. p. 148.

15

C.J. Tams“Procedural Aspects of Investor-State Dispute Settlement: The Emergence of a European Approach?”Journal of World Investment & TradeNo. 15 2014 p. 587.

17

Ibid. pp. 9–10.

19

C.J. Tamsop. cit. p. 589.

21

A. Reinischop. cit. p. 152 and see R. Quick “Why ttip should have an investment chapter including isds?” Journal of World Trade No. 49 2015 (to be published) available at http://www.investmentpolicycentral.com/sites/g/files/g798796/f/201502/150115%20%20JWT%20pro%20ISDS%20final%20final.pdf [consulted on 13 June 2015].

23

Report on public consultation pp. 7–10.

24

Ibid. p. 14.

27

Report on public consultation pp. 14–15 and ep’s Policy document p. 106 and see O.E. Garcia-Boliva “Permanent Investment Tribunals: The Momentum is Building Up” in J.E. Kalicki and A. Joubin-Bret (eds.) Reshaping the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System. Journeys for the 21st Century Leiden-Boston Brill/Martinus Nijhoff 2015 pp. 394–402.

36

S.W. Schillop. cit. pp. 41–42.

37

Ibid. pp. 39–40.

38

Ibid. p. 42.

41

S.W. Schillop. cit. p. 42.

44

C. Herrmannop. cit. p. 575.

49

S.W. Schillop. cit. p. 40.

51

N. Lavranos“Designing an International Investor-to-State Arbitration System After Opinion 1/09”Special issue: Common Commercial Policy after Lisbonop. cit. 2014 pp. 210–211; A. Dimopoulos “The Validity and Applicability of International Investment Agreements Between eu Member States and International Law” Common Market Law Review No. 48 2011 p. 85 and O. Dörr “The European Court of Justice Getting in the Way: The Abortive mox Plant Arbitration” in T. Giegerich (ed.) A Wiser Century? Judicial Dispute Settlement Disarmament and the Laws of War 100 Years after the Second Hague Peace Conference Duncker & Humblot Berlin 2009 p. 505.

58

A. Reinischop. cit. p. 177 and B. Brandtner “The ‘Drama’ of the eea Comments on Opinions 1/91 and 1/92” eijil 1992 p. 300.

60

B. Brandtnerop. cit. p. 305 and N. Lavranos op. cit. 2014 pp. 207–208.

69

S.W. Schillop. cit. p. 47.

75

S.W. Schillop. cit. p. 48.

109

P. Eeckhoutop. cit.992.

112

Ibid. p. 114.

113

Ibid. p. 107.

114

A. Lazowsju and R.A. Wesselop. cit. p. 189.

115

P. Eeckhoutop. cit. p. 992.

116

T. Eilmansbergerop. cit. p. 404; A. Dimopoulos op. cit. p. 404; A. Reinisch op. cit. p. 177; S.W. Schill op. cit. p. 42; M. Burgstaller op. cit. p. 592 and K. von Papp “Clash of ‘Autonomous Legal Orders’: Can eu Member State Courts Bridge the Jurisdictional Divide Between Investment Tribunals and the ecj? A Plea for Direct Referral from Investment Tribunal to the ecjCommon Market Law Review 2013 p. 1054.

119

M. Burgstallerop. cit. p. 562 and T. Eilmansberger op. cit. p. 404.

123

K. von Pappop. cit. p. 1054.

126

C. Herrmannop. cit. p. 582.

127

S.W. Schillop. cit. p. 50.

128

Concept Paperop. cit. p. 10.

133

S.W. Schillop. cit. p. 46.

139

A. Reinischop. cit. p. 179.

140

A. Reinischop. cit. p. 179.

142

M. Burgstallerop. cit. p. 564.

143

Concept Paperop. cit. p. 10.

145

C. Herrmannop. cit. p. 582 and S.W. Schill op. cit. p. 50.

150

C. Herrmannop. cit. p. 583.

151

Legal opinionop. cit. p. 13 and cjeu Opinion 1/94 Competence of the Community to conclude international agreements concerning services and the protection of intellectual property 15 November 1994.

154

D. Rovettaop. cit. p. 230.

155

C. Herrmannop. cit. p. 583.

156

S.W. Schillop. cit. p. 46.

158

S.W. Schillop. cit. p. 39.

165

K. von Pappop. cit. p. 1043.

171

S.W. Schillop. cit. p. 50.

173

K. von Pappop. cit. p. 1045.

177

K. von Pappop. cit. pp. 1046–1047.

178

Ibid. p. 1051.

180

S.W. Schillop. cit. p. 53.

182

S.W. Schillop. cit. p. 53 and K. von Papp op. cit. pp. 1057–1058.

183

K. von Pappop. cit. p. 1057.

184

Ibid. pp. 1059–1061.

185

Ibid. pp. 1059–1061.

186

S.W. Schillop. cit. p. 53.

189

K. von Pappop. cit. p. 1063.

190

K. von Pappop. cit. pp. 1063–1064 and seecje Case C-224/01 Köbler 30 September 2003.

191

K. von Pappop. cit. p. 1064.

192

T. Eilmansbergerop. cit. p. 426.

195

M. Olik and D. Fyrbach“The Competence of Investment Arbitration Tribunals to Seek Preliminary Rulings from European Courts”Czech Yearbook of International Law2011 p. 202.

196

M. Olik and D. Fyrbachop. cit. p. 203; S.W. Schill op. cit. p. 53 and K. von Papp op. cit. p. 1066.

197

D. Rovettaop. cit. p. 226.

199

M. Burgstallerop. cit. p. 569.

200

M. Watheletop. cit. pp. 307–321.

201

K. von Pappop. cit. p. 1066.

204

K. von Pappop. cit. pp. 1067–1068.

205

Ibid. p. 1069.

207

K. von Pappop. cit. p. 1072.

208

M. Burgstallerop. cit. pp. 562–563.

209

K. von Pappop. cit. pp. 1067–1072.

210

M. Burgstallerop. cit. p. 562 and N. Lavranos op. cit. 2014 p. 216.

212

D. Rovettaop. cit. p. 231 and K. von Papp op. cit. p. 1074.

213

K. von Pappop. cit. pp. 1069–1070.

214

Ibid. pp. 1074 and 1076.

215

T. Eilmansbergerop. cit. p. 426.

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 22 22 15
Full Text Views 33 33 33
PDF Downloads 12 12 12
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0