排斥力量:欧洲法院与投资者-国家争端解决

S. Hindelang
{"title":"排斥力量:欧洲法院与投资者-国家争端解决","authors":"S. Hindelang","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2631430","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The European Union (EU) aspires to conclude and ratify comprehensive trade agreements with Canada, Singapore, the USA and other States containing investment chapters which also provide for investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS). Surprisingly, the conditions and limits stipulated by the Treaties upon which the European Union is founded, i.e. the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), have received only selective attention. When it comes to the establishment of dispute resolution bodies in international agreements concluded by the EU the concept of autonomy of EU law has proven to be the crucial touchstone. The role of this concept, mainly developed in a series of opinions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in limiting the Union’s leeway to subject itself to the current model of investor-State arbitration has so far not sufficiently been explored. This paper suggests that, in the light of recent decisions, it is not a purely theoretical possibility that the CJEU might take issue with the scope of ISDS currently contained in the CETA Text and similar draft treaties. The means available to sufficiently address the conditions stipulated by EU law might not just bring some modification to the current model of investor-State arbitration, but could completely alter its DNA.","PeriodicalId":103245,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Trade Law (Topic)","volume":"66 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Repellent Forces: The CJEU and Investor-State Dispute Settlement\",\"authors\":\"S. Hindelang\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2631430\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The European Union (EU) aspires to conclude and ratify comprehensive trade agreements with Canada, Singapore, the USA and other States containing investment chapters which also provide for investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS). Surprisingly, the conditions and limits stipulated by the Treaties upon which the European Union is founded, i.e. the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), have received only selective attention. When it comes to the establishment of dispute resolution bodies in international agreements concluded by the EU the concept of autonomy of EU law has proven to be the crucial touchstone. The role of this concept, mainly developed in a series of opinions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in limiting the Union’s leeway to subject itself to the current model of investor-State arbitration has so far not sufficiently been explored. This paper suggests that, in the light of recent decisions, it is not a purely theoretical possibility that the CJEU might take issue with the scope of ISDS currently contained in the CETA Text and similar draft treaties. The means available to sufficiently address the conditions stipulated by EU law might not just bring some modification to the current model of investor-State arbitration, but could completely alter its DNA.\",\"PeriodicalId\":103245,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Trade Law (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"66 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-07-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Trade Law (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2631430\",\"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: Trade Law (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2631430","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

摘要

欧洲联盟(欧盟)希望同加拿大、新加坡、美国和其他国家缔结和批准载有投资章节的全面贸易协定,这些章节也规定了投资者-国家争端解决办法。令人惊讶的是,欧洲联盟赖以建立的条约,即《欧洲联盟条约》和《欧洲联盟运作条约》所规定的条件和限制只得到选择性的注意。当涉及到在欧盟缔结的国际协定中建立争端解决机构时,欧盟法律自治的概念已被证明是至关重要的试金石。这一概念主要是在欧洲联盟法院(欧洲法院)的一系列意见中发展起来的,迄今尚未充分探讨它在限制欧洲联盟将自己置于目前投资者-国家仲裁模式之下的回旋余地方面的作用。本文认为,鉴于最近的决定,欧洲法院可能对CETA案文和类似条约草案中目前所载的ISDS范围提出异议,这不是一种纯粹的理论可能性。充分解决欧盟法律规定的条件的现有手段可能不仅会对目前的投资者-国家仲裁模式进行一些修改,而且可能完全改变其DNA。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Repellent Forces: The CJEU and Investor-State Dispute Settlement
The European Union (EU) aspires to conclude and ratify comprehensive trade agreements with Canada, Singapore, the USA and other States containing investment chapters which also provide for investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS). Surprisingly, the conditions and limits stipulated by the Treaties upon which the European Union is founded, i.e. the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), have received only selective attention. When it comes to the establishment of dispute resolution bodies in international agreements concluded by the EU the concept of autonomy of EU law has proven to be the crucial touchstone. The role of this concept, mainly developed in a series of opinions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in limiting the Union’s leeway to subject itself to the current model of investor-State arbitration has so far not sufficiently been explored. This paper suggests that, in the light of recent decisions, it is not a purely theoretical possibility that the CJEU might take issue with the scope of ISDS currently contained in the CETA Text and similar draft treaties. The means available to sufficiently address the conditions stipulated by EU law might not just bring some modification to the current model of investor-State arbitration, but could completely alter its DNA.
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