常设投资法院与欧盟法律秩序

Eleftheria Neframi
{"title":"常设投资法院与欧盟法律秩序","authors":"Eleftheria Neframi","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3628233","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the external action of the Union, the establishment of permanent investment courts is not only part of the common commercial policy, but also an expression of the objective to promote the rule of law and to act as an influential actor in international procedural law. Through its participation in agreements establishing a bilateral investment court system (ICS) and in the negotiation of the convention establishing a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC), the Union aims to promote its own standards of judicial protection while preserving the constitutional framework at the basis of the principle of autonomy. The present paper deals with the question of division of competences, especially in the context of the establishment of a MIC and in the allocation of international responsibility in Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms. Moreover, it discusses the scope of fundamental principles of the EU legal order through the position of the Court of Justice in Opinion 1/17 and the analysis of the compatibility of the ICS with primary EU law. While the principles of conferral and of the autonomy of the EU legal order impose constraints to the external action of the Union, their scope is at the same time interpreted in a way to accommodate their guarantee with the EU’s objective to contribute to the major reform of the ISDS. In that way, the guarantee of the EU legal order’s constitutional requirements is not necessarily a limit to the efficiency of the Union’s external action.","PeriodicalId":131966,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Dispute Resolution (Topic)","volume":"118 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Permanent Investment Courts and the EU Legal Order\",\"authors\":\"Eleftheria Neframi\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3628233\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the external action of the Union, the establishment of permanent investment courts is not only part of the common commercial policy, but also an expression of the objective to promote the rule of law and to act as an influential actor in international procedural law. Through its participation in agreements establishing a bilateral investment court system (ICS) and in the negotiation of the convention establishing a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC), the Union aims to promote its own standards of judicial protection while preserving the constitutional framework at the basis of the principle of autonomy. The present paper deals with the question of division of competences, especially in the context of the establishment of a MIC and in the allocation of international responsibility in Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms. Moreover, it discusses the scope of fundamental principles of the EU legal order through the position of the Court of Justice in Opinion 1/17 and the analysis of the compatibility of the ICS with primary EU law. While the principles of conferral and of the autonomy of the EU legal order impose constraints to the external action of the Union, their scope is at the same time interpreted in a way to accommodate their guarantee with the EU’s objective to contribute to the major reform of the ISDS. In that way, the guarantee of the EU legal order’s constitutional requirements is not necessarily a limit to the efficiency of the Union’s external action.\",\"PeriodicalId\":131966,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Dispute Resolution (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"118 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Dispute Resolution (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3628233\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Dispute Resolution (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3628233","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在欧盟的对外行动中,设立常设投资法院不仅是共同商事政策的一部分,而且体现了促进法治和在国际程序法中发挥重要作用的目标。欧洲联盟通过参与建立双边投资法院系统的协定和参与建立多边投资法院公约的谈判,旨在促进其自己的司法保护标准,同时在自治原则的基础上保持宪法框架。本文件讨论权限的划分问题,特别是在设立中等收入国家机制和在投资者-国家争端解决机制中分配国际责任方面。此外,通过法院在第1/17号意见中的立场以及对ICS与欧盟主要法律的兼容性的分析,讨论了欧盟法律秩序基本原则的范围。虽然欧盟法律秩序的授予原则和自治原则对欧盟的对外行动施加了限制,但同时对其范围的解释是为了使其保证符合欧盟为国际贸易争端解决机制的重大改革作出贡献的目标。如此看来,对欧盟法律秩序宪法要求的保障并不一定是对欧盟对外行动效率的限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Permanent Investment Courts and the EU Legal Order
In the external action of the Union, the establishment of permanent investment courts is not only part of the common commercial policy, but also an expression of the objective to promote the rule of law and to act as an influential actor in international procedural law. Through its participation in agreements establishing a bilateral investment court system (ICS) and in the negotiation of the convention establishing a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC), the Union aims to promote its own standards of judicial protection while preserving the constitutional framework at the basis of the principle of autonomy. The present paper deals with the question of division of competences, especially in the context of the establishment of a MIC and in the allocation of international responsibility in Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms. Moreover, it discusses the scope of fundamental principles of the EU legal order through the position of the Court of Justice in Opinion 1/17 and the analysis of the compatibility of the ICS with primary EU law. While the principles of conferral and of the autonomy of the EU legal order impose constraints to the external action of the Union, their scope is at the same time interpreted in a way to accommodate their guarantee with the EU’s objective to contribute to the major reform of the ISDS. In that way, the guarantee of the EU legal order’s constitutional requirements is not necessarily a limit to the efficiency of the Union’s external action.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信