A Resolution of the Conflict Between EU Law Rights and the Rights in Investment Treaties When Determining Investment Treaty Arbitration Jurisdiction

Abstract

This article considers a range of procedural defences argued by state parties in investment treaty arbitration proceedings. These defences are based upon the co-existence of obligations that bind Contracting Parties to the Treaty on the European Union (‘TEU’) signed at Maastricht in 1992 and enforce in November 1993, as successively modified; and those derived from an investment treaty that bind the same Contracting Parties. It shall illustrate how investment treaty arbitration panels have dealt with jurisdictional objections related to this co-existence of obligations, and whether jurisdiction to investment arbitration has been avoided by states using defences based upon this fact.