Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 11 items for :

  • All: "Investment Court System" x
  • Public International Law x
Clear All

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

publicly appointed, independent professional judges in public hearings” 5 and introduced the new “Investment Court System” in recent trade pacts such as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). 6 As promising as these new developments are, however, much of the discourse on the legitimacy

In: Chinese (Taiwan) Yearbook of International Law and Affairs, Volume 36, (2018)

( ceta ), which includes the creation of a Permanent International Investment Tribunal or Investment Court System ( ics ) to replace the traditional isds mechanisms. It remains to be seen whether the proposed ics will be finally welcomed in ttip negotiations and become a reality. 5 Also, the

In: Nordic Journal of International Law

an Investment Court System for CETA and TTIP Lead to Enforceable Awards?—The Limits of Modifying the ICSID Convention and the Nature of Investment Arbitration, (2016)19–4 Journal of International Economic Law , 761–786; Freya Baetens, The European Union’s Proposed Investment Court System: Addressing

In: The Chinese Journal of Global Governance

-death-of-isds ; Louise Woods, “Fit for purpose? The EU’s Investment Court System,” Kluwer Arbitration Blog, (blog), March 23 2016, 2018, http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2016/03/23/to-be-decided/ . See further Bonnitcha, Poulsen, and Waibel, The Political Economy of the Investment Treaty Regime , 30. 74

In: The Chinese Journal of Global Governance

future eu investment negotiations by the Investment Court System. 5 Until now, the eu has failed to adequately factor in that, as things stand today, the European organization is not in a condition to set up any proper investment arbitration for its foreign direct investment competence. Even if the

In: The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals

the Belgian government in a request for a European Court of Justice opinion on whether the investment court system ( ICS ) established in CETA is compatible with EU law. More specifically, an opinion is pending on whether appointing CETA members to the tribunal and the appeals body is consistent

In: The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals

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

-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