23 July 2020
The Africanization of International Investment Disputes – from Past to Present
The depiction of Third World resistance to investor-state dispute settlement as a homogeneous one is an oversimplification. While the plurality of Third World Approaches to International Law scholarship is emphasized by its name (“Approaches”), descriptions such as ‘Third World’ and ‘Global South’ tend to leave room for generalization and simplification. Such a simplification may easily discourage flows of much needed capital into African states. I will show that African states have been rather instrumental in shaping today’s ISDS regime and outline an African approach to international investment law. Continue reading >>
0 
17 June 2020
Investment Law in Corona Times: How Myths Fuel Injustice
One of the leitmotivs of the discourse around the pandemic is that ‘there cannot be going back to business as usual’ (see here and here). Yet, it is business as usual that is alarmingly looming in Corona times. In this context, at least two developments are worthy of note: the first is the much discussed risk of a wave of Covid-related investment claims. The second, possibly less noticed, is that countries are silently expanding the scope of a system that does not adequately strengthen sustainability in economic relations, despite laconic initiatives to this purpose. Continue reading >>03 May 2019
Das CETA-Gutachten des EuGH – Neue Maßstäbe allerorten…
Das lang erwartete EuGH-Gutachten zu CETA hat eine große Menge offener Rechtsfragen adressiert (oder erst aufgeworfen). Zwei Punkte verdienen besondere Beachtung: Zum einen unterwirft der EuGH das auswärtige Handeln der EU einer vollumfassenden materiell-rechtlichen Anforderungs- und Überprüfungsdichte. Zum anderen macht der EuGH rechtlich nur schwer nachvollziehbare Ausführungen, die, konsequent zu Ende gedacht, die Handlungsmöglichkeiten der EU im modernen Völkerrecht erheblich einschränken dürften. Continue reading >>30 April 2019
Ist CETA der „Golden Standard“? EuGH hält CETA-Gericht für unionsrechtskonform
Das heute verkündete Urteil des EuGH im Gutachtenverfahren 1/17 war mit Spannung erwartet worden: Würde der Gerichtshof seine gegenüber internationalen Gerichten skeptische Haltung fortsetzen und auch ein CETA-Gericht neben sich nicht dulden? Der EuGH hat überrascht und erweist sich als großer Freund und Helfer der Bemühungen der Europäischen Kommission um eine Neugestaltung der Streitbeilegung in Investitionsschutzverfahren. Continue reading >>
0
11 February 2019
National Security and Investment Screening: the UK proposal and its problems
In its white paper published in July 2018, the government has acknowledged the key role of foreign investment for the UK’s growth and development, whilst also noting that ‘a small number of investment activities, mergers and transactions in the UK economy pose a risk to our national security.’ The aim of the proposed reforms is to ensure that in these cases the UK government is able to intervene in order to prevent or mitigate such risks. Continue reading >>
0
04 July 2018
CETA’s Investment Court System and the Autonomy of EU Law: Insights from the Hearing in Opinion 1/17
On 26 June 2018, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) held its hearing in Opinion 1/17, which concerns the compatibility of CETA’s Investment Court System (ICS) with EU law. Due to the depth of the substantive issues covered and the length of hearing, this post only addresses the first of four questions posed to the ECJ by Belgium, which relates to the principle of autonomy. It is fair to say though that autonomy-related questions and arguments featured the hearing most prominently and may therefore be particularly contentious. Continue reading >>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 >>08 March 2018
Todesstoß für autonome Investitionsschutzgerichte
Öffentliche Diskussionen sind kurzlebig: So schaute ganz Europa im Oktober 2016 gebannt auf das wallonische Regionalparlament, als dieses das CETA-Freihandelsabkommen mit Kanada zu blockieren drohte. Gegenwärtig besitzt der Freihandel auf unserem Kontinent mehr Freunde, was auch daran liegt, dass Donald Trump mit Schutzzöllen droht und wenig Europäer gerne dieselbe Politik verfolgen wie der US-Präsident. Mindestens ebenso wichtig wie Strafzölle auf europäischen Stahl oder amerikanischen Whisky bleibt freilich die Strukturfrage der Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit, die im Zentrum vieler Debatten um CETA und TTIP steht. Hier dürfte das jüngste EuGH-Urteil im Achmea-Verfahren sehr viel weitreichendere Folgen haben, als dies die deutsche Öffentlichkeit bislang realisierte. Continue reading >>31 May 2017
Mixity after Opinion 2/15: Judicial Confusion over Shared Competences
In its momentous opinion about the Singapore free trade agreement, the ECJ seemed to have eliminated the option of ‘facultative’ EU-only agreements which do not embrace ISDS. It seems to me that this overlooks an important novelty of Opinion 2/15, which gave explicit judicial blessing to the option of ‘facultative’ EU-only agreements, although the Court hides the innovation behind an inconsistent use of the notion of ‘shared’ powers. Continue reading >>09 May 2017