Search Results

prospect. In the meantime, however, the EU has included a permanent bilateral investment court system in its most recent investment and free trade agreements, including the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the EU and Canada ( CETA ), 80 the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement ( FTA ) 81

In: The Selection and Removal of Arbitrators in Investor-State Dispute Settlement

labor cases: a new international labor rights regime takes shape , 3 United States – Mexico Law Journal (1995) 159. 30 On procedural enforcement of the rights of foreign investors in eu fta s, see F Baetens, The European Union’s proposed investment court system: addressing criticisms of

In: The Korean Journal of International and Comparative Law

the alleged legitimacy concerns facing ISDS . 5 The EU first referred to the ITS as an “investment court system” ( ICS ) in its TTIP Proposal, supra note 1. The recently concluded EU-Singapore FTA also refers to the ITS as the ICS . 6 CETA , Art. 8.29; EU-Vietnam FTA , Art. 15. On

In: The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals

withdrawal of eu Member States. Another consequence is that contracting parties may prefer to conclude agreements based on exclusive competence only, to avoid complications. The forthcoming Opinion 1/17 on the compatibility of the Investment Court System provided for in ceta will provide a clearer

In: International Organizations Law Review

). 98 Waldron (n 86) 15. 99 European Commission Press Release, ‘Commission Proposes New Investment Court System for TTIP and Their EU Trade and Investment Negotiations’ (Brussels, 16 September 2015) < http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5651_en.htm > accessed 1 March 2016.

In: The Journal of World Investment & Trade

-methodology-en.pdf . 73 Bernasconi-Osterwalder, “Expansion of the Energy Charter to Africa and Asia.” 74 Dreyer, “Brussels Moves Against Intra- EU Investor-state Arbitration Raise Energy Charter Dilemmas.” 75 European Commission, press release, “Commission Proposes New Investment Court System for TTIP and

In: Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations

Programme Policy Brief No 2011/1 (European University Institute 2011) 1 < http://globalgovernanceprogramme.eui.eu/wp-content/themes/NewEuitemplate/Documents/Publications/PolicyBriefs/PolicyBrief20111final.pdf > accessed 17 February 2017. 68 For an overview, see Laurens Ankersmit, ‘Investment Court System

In: The Journal of World Investment & Trade

-state arbitration by a new investment court system based on a Tribunal of First Instance (composed of 15 public law judges: 5 judges from EU member states, five judges from the United States, and five judges from third countries) and a permanent Appeal Tribunal composed of 6 public law judges (two from EU member

In: The Journal of World Investment & Trade

application are some substantive investment protections (notably, fet and protection against expropriation), as well as the controversial Investment Court System. 89 Article 8.10 of the 2016 Canada-EU ceta , supra note 64. 90 Ibid ., Article 8.12 and Annex 8-A. 91 Ibid ., Article 28.3(2). 92 Ibid

In: Permutations of Responsibility in International Law

whether the provisions of the eu -Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (‘ ceta ’) regarding the Investment Court System (‘ ics ’) are compatible with eu law. 21 Based on this previous case-law on the principle, it is possible that the cjeu would find that the fra or wa

In: International Organizations Law Review