Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 66 items for :

  • All: "Investment Court System" x
  • Chapters/Articles x
  • Primary Language: English x
Clear All Modify Search

1 The Investment Court System Since 2015, the European Commission (EC) has been advocating the creation of an Investment Court System ( ICS ). 1 The establishment of this new dispute resolution mechanism is foreseen in the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement ( CETA ) 2 and in the EU

In: The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals

Court System (ICS) 1 under the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) had to please more than just the ‘cabbage’ and the ‘goat’. Besides the clear split between civil society’s opposition to investor State dispute settlement (ISDS) and the corporate world’s support for it, 2 there is

In: The Journal of World Investment & Trade

prominent of which is its trade deal with the United States: the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership ( ttip ). 9 In light of the considerable controversy surrounding isds , the Commission has proposed a new and more institutionalized form of isds : the Investment Court System ( ics ). 10

In: Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law

in terms of the methodology and the impact, of the investment chapter the European Union (EU) recently proposed for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the United States, focussing on the exceptions and the Investment Court System (ICS). Namely, it questions why the EU is

In: The Journal of World Investment & Trade

concludes. These courts will eventually merge and lead to the establishment of a multilateral investment court system. 203 The eu initiative was officially presented to the us as part of their ongoing negotiations of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (“ ttip ”). Had the us adopted the

In: Brill Research Perspectives in International Investment Law and Arbitration

concludes. These courts will eventually merge and lead to the establishment of a multilateral investment court system. 203 The eu initiative was officially presented to the us as part of their ongoing negotiations of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (“ ttip ”). Had the us adopted the

In: International Investment Law and Arbitration

This brief comment focuses on a point that Colin Brown does not expressly mention in his keynote, at least in the direct context of the proposed mic. That is, the MIC’S compatibility with EU law. In this context the Opinion of Advocate General Bot regarding Opinion 1/17 on the compatibility of the investment court system (ICS) as contained in CETA is discussed.

In: European Investment Law and Arbitration Review Online

This article compares the recently published 2018 Dutch model bilateral investment treaty text (2018 Model bit) and the former 2004 version. The changes to the 2018 Model BIT reflect the reaction by European Union (EU) Member States to the increasing number of investor-state disputes against them, the general backlash against free trade agreements (FTA), and the CJEU’S decision in Achmea. Furthermore, the drafters of the new Dutch Model bit carefully took into consideration the framework of the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and the European Commission’s proposal for the establishment of an Investment Court System (ICS) as a substitute for the current investor-state dispute settlement system (ISDS). As a result, the 2018 text incorporates significantly stricter provisions than the ones of the former version.

In: European Investment Law and Arbitration Review Online

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.

In: European Investment Law and Arbitration Review Online