Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal最新文献_第8页

Herzig v Turkmenistan 1 Requests for Security for Costs in ICSID Arbitrations Involving Third-Party Funded Insolvent Claimants Herzig诉土库曼斯坦1请求担保涉及第三方资助的破产索赔人的ICSID仲裁费用

IF 1.1 3区社会学

Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal Pub Date : 2021-07-13 DOI: 10.1093/ICSIDREVIEW/SIAA059

C. L. Beharry

引用次数: 0

OI European Group BV v Venezuela

IF 1.1 3区社会学

Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal Pub Date : 2021-07-09 DOI: 10.1093/ICSIDREVIEW/SIAA041

Ndanga Kamau

引用次数: 0

Good-Faith Rule against Abusing Process by Multiplying Action 反倍增诉讼滥用程序的诚信原则

IF 1.1 3区社会学

Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal Pub Date : 2021-06-18 DOI: 10.1093/icsidreview/siaa040

Menalco J Solis

引用次数: 0

State Immunity as a Defense to Resist the Enforcement of ICSID Awards 国家豁免作为抵制执行ICSID裁决的辩护

IF 1.1 3区社会学

Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal Pub Date : 2021-06-18 DOI: 10.1093/icsidreview/siaa055

A. Bjorklund, Lukas Vanhonnaeker, J. Marcoux

引用次数: 0

Jurisdiction of Tribunals to Settle Intra-EU Investment Treaty Disputes 解决欧盟内部投资条约争端的法庭管辖权

IF 1.1 3区社会学

Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal Pub Date : 2021-06-15 DOI: 10.1093/ICSIDREVIEW/SIAA048

Julian Scheu, Petyo Nikolov

{"title":"Jurisdiction of Tribunals to Settle Intra-EU Investment Treaty Disputes","authors":"Julian Scheu, Petyo Nikolov","doi":"10.1093/ICSIDREVIEW/SIAA048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ICSIDREVIEW/SIAA048","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The European Court of Justice (ECJ) made a ground-breaking shift away from the current system of investor–State dispute settlement (ISDS) by rendering its judgment in the matter of Achmea v Slovak Republic. However, since March 2018, a large and ever-growing number of investment tribunals have found that the Achmea judgment does not deprive them of arbitral jurisdiction. Against this background, the aim of the present article is to analyse the effects of the Achmea judgment on the jurisdiction of tribunals to settle intra-European Union (EU) investment treaty disputes. By taking due account of the reasoning conducted by the ECJ, the scope of the Achmea jurisprudence will be clarified. It is concluded that the incompatibility of intra-EU ISDS with EU law concerns all intra-EU investment treaties, including article 26 of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). On this basis, we ask whether, and to what extent, the applicability of the Achmea judgment is relevant to arbitral jurisdiction. Considering the law applicable to the arbitration agreement, we conclude that International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) tribunals and those seated outside the EU remain competent to settle intra-EU investment disputes. In contrast, the Achmea judgment renders ISDS clauses contained in intra-EU investment treaties inoperable if the tribunal is seated within the EU. The article closes with an outlook that puts these conclusions into perspective by considering recent developments such as the EU Member States’ ratification of a multilateral termination treaty.","PeriodicalId":44986,"journal":{"name":"Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41918425","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Counterclaims: a Critical Analysis of Article 6 of the 2019 The Hague Resolution of the Institut de Droit International on the ‘Equality of Parties before International Investment Tribunals’ 反诉:对国际法学会2019年海牙决议第6条“各方在国际投资法庭面前平等”的批判性分析

IF 1.1 3区社会学

Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal Pub Date : 2021-06-13 DOI: 10.1093/ICSIDREVIEW/SIAA038

A. M. Steingruber

引用次数: 0

The Scope of Investors’ Legitimate Expectations under the FET Standard in the European Renewable Energy Cases 欧洲可再生能源案例中FET标准下投资者合理预期的范围

IF 1.1 3区社会学

Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal Pub Date : 2021-06-07 DOI: 10.1093/ICSIDREVIEW/SIAA047

Jacklyn Biggs

引用次数: 0

Economic Analysis of the Arbitrator’s Function 仲裁员职能的经济学分析

IF 1.1 3区社会学

Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal Pub Date : 2021-05-11 DOI: 10.1093/ICSIDREVIEW/SIAB003

L. Pereira

引用次数: 0

Attribution in International Law and Arbitration 国际法与仲裁中的归属

IF 1.1 3区社会学

Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal Pub Date : 2021-05-11 DOI: 10.1093/ICSIDREVIEW/SIAA051

Ivan Cavdarevic

引用次数: 0

Taking Investors’ Rights Seriously: The Achmea and CETA Rulings of the European Court of Justice do not Bar Intra-EU Investment Arbitration 认真对待投资者权利：欧洲法院的Achmea和CETA裁决不禁止欧盟内部投资仲裁

IF 1.1 3区社会学

Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal Pub Date : 2021-05-11 DOI: 10.1093/ICSIDREVIEW/SIAA044

A. Reuter

{"title":"Taking Investors’ Rights Seriously: The Achmea and CETA Rulings of the European Court of Justice do not Bar Intra-EU Investment Arbitration","authors":"A. Reuter","doi":"10.1093/ICSIDREVIEW/SIAA044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ICSIDREVIEW/SIAA044","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In its 2018 Achmea ruling, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) found intra-European Union (EU) investment arbitration incompatible with EU law, and in its 2019 opinion on the proposed Canada–EU Trade Agreement (CETA), the ECJ has set out requirements for the recognition by the EU of investor–State arbitration at large. On the other hand, in the last few years a great many tribunals (under both International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and non-ICSID regimes) have dealt with intra-EU investment arbitrations, most of them under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). None of these tribunals found the proceedings to be incompatible with EU law.\u0000 The reason for this discrepancy is that the tribunals deal with investors’ rights, while the ECJ, in contrast, is concerned with intra-EU governance issues. However, individual rights are not alien to EU law. Against that background, this note is based on the established finding that investment treaties bestow private investors with individual rights under public international law. These rights need to be taken seriously: as third parties, investors can, under both public international law and EU law, draw upon these rights, irrespective of the internal EU governance rules with which the ECJ was concerned. Hence, this note2 is not meant to be a further contribution to the voluminous debate on the internal EU governance rules drawn upon by the ECJ. In contrast, it is based on the binding effect on the EU of the investors’ individual rights. Furthermore, it shows that the ECJ’s rulings do not have an adverse precedent effect on the pursuit of investors’ rights and that, in addition, the ECT meets the criteria under which the ECJ has assessed EU compatibility of investment arbitration. Last but not least, the denial by EU institutions of investors' rights under the ECT may, in itself, constitute an infringement of the ECT.","PeriodicalId":44986,"journal":{"name":"Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/ICSIDREVIEW/SIAA044","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45709627","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0