04 February 2019
Debate: A Common European Law on Investment Screening?
Volvo Personvagnar AB, Kuka, Aixtron, OSRAM Licht, Daimler, Saxo Bank, […] Continue reading >>
0 
09 March 2018
The Limited Immediate Effects of CJEU’s Achmea Judgement
It seemed that Court of Justice of the European Union wanted to make it short and sweet: It took the Grand Chamber in its Achmea Decision less than fifteen pages to conclude that Investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS), as we know it, shall belong to the past, at least in an intra-EU context. Finito della musica? Not quite! Continue reading >>24 June 2017
The Brexit Divorce Bill – Großbritanniens Welt der alternativen Fakten
Der Brexit könnte für das Vereinigte Königreich teuer werden. Schätzungen gehen von bis zu 100 Mrd. Euro aus. Darüber wird in den seit dem 19. Juni 2017 offiziell laufenden Austrittsverhandlungen zu sprechen sein. Bisher wollten die Britten allerdings von alledem nichts wissen. Sie glauben gar, demnächst einen Scheck aus Brüssel zu erhalten. Der nachfolgende Beitrag möchte der rechtlichen Fundierung der britischen Gedankenwelt nachgehen. Schließlich macht es verhandlungstaktisch keinen kleinen Unterschied, ob Großbritannien lediglich moralisch oder auch rechtlich zur Zahlung einer Brexit divorce bill verpflichtet ist. Continue reading >>08 March 2015
Re-Organizing Europe’s Judicial Power through the Backdoor?
Dropping CETA’s current investment chapter and trilateralising its (re-)negotiation would provide the space for making a conscious, open, and unbiased decision in favour of an investor-state dispute-settlement mechanism in European trade and investment agreements. Continue reading >>
0
17 April 2014
Investor-state dispute settlement – Pulling the chain tighter
Since the 1970s, almost any bilateral and regional investment treaty has provided for investor-state dispute settlement (“ISDS”). Based on these agreements, foreign investors can commence international arbitration against their host states, claiming administrative, regulatory, or judicial measures are in violation of substantive investment protection standards. At a global level rising numbers of investor-state disputes and newly signed investment agreements suggest the continuous importance and attractiveness of this dispute settlement mechanism. Yet, we also see contestations. A few countries did not renew or even terminated existing investment instruments. Others have withdrawn from the ICSID-Convention. What does this mean for the European Union? Simply carrying on appears no sustainable option anymore. Since the 1970s, almost any bilateral and regional investment treaty has provided for investor-state dispute settlement (“ISDS”). Based on these agreements, foreign investors can commence international arbitration against their host states, claiming administrative, regulatory, or judicial measures are in violation of substantive investment protection standards. At a global level rising numbers of investor-state disputes and newly signed investment agreements suggest the continuous importance and attractiveness of this dispute settlement mechanism. Yet, we also see contestations. A few countries did not renew or even terminated existing investment instruments. Others have withdrawn from the ICSID-Convention. What does this mean for the European Union? Simply carrying on appears no sustainable option anymore. Continue reading >>
0