Achmea决定后欧盟环境与投资法的命运

IF 1.2 Q1 LAW
M. Fermeglia, Alessandra Mistura
{"title":"Achmea决定后欧盟环境与投资法的命运","authors":"M. Fermeglia, Alessandra Mistura","doi":"10.1163/18760104-01701004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the landmark Slowakische Republik v. Achmea\nBV judgment, the ecj arguably took a resolute stance against the compatibility of International Investment Agreements between EU Member States and the inherent functioning of EU’s legal order. However, the issue as to whether the foreign investment protection regime is at odds with the sound application of EU law is far from being settled. Furthermore, the international investment protection regime as interpreted by investment tribunals may hamper EU Member States’ regulatory space, especially in the implementation of ambitious environmental and climate policies. The recent surge of litigation before international investment tribunals triggered by retrospective changes to supporting schemes for renewable energy sources and the phase-out of nuclear power plants in some European Member States is a telling example. The purpose of this article thus is to analyse the avenues currently available to ensure consistency between EU’s environmental and climate policies as implemented by EU Member States and the investment protection regime as applied by investment tribunals in the wake of the Achmea decision, with a view to devising a benchmark to prevent and avoid, rather than foster, policy conflicts.","PeriodicalId":43633,"journal":{"name":"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18760104-01701004","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Fate of EU Environmental and Investment Law after the Achmea Decision\",\"authors\":\"M. Fermeglia, Alessandra Mistura\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/18760104-01701004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the landmark Slowakische Republik v. Achmea\\nBV judgment, the ecj arguably took a resolute stance against the compatibility of International Investment Agreements between EU Member States and the inherent functioning of EU’s legal order. However, the issue as to whether the foreign investment protection regime is at odds with the sound application of EU law is far from being settled. Furthermore, the international investment protection regime as interpreted by investment tribunals may hamper EU Member States’ regulatory space, especially in the implementation of ambitious environmental and climate policies. The recent surge of litigation before international investment tribunals triggered by retrospective changes to supporting schemes for renewable energy sources and the phase-out of nuclear power plants in some European Member States is a telling example. The purpose of this article thus is to analyse the avenues currently available to ensure consistency between EU’s environmental and climate policies as implemented by EU Member States and the investment protection regime as applied by investment tribunals in the wake of the Achmea decision, with a view to devising a benchmark to prevent and avoid, rather than foster, policy conflicts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43633,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18760104-01701004\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01701004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01701004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在具有里程碑意义的Slowakische Republik v. AchmeaBV判决中,欧洲法院可以说采取了坚决的立场,反对欧盟成员国之间的国际投资协定与欧盟法律秩序的内在功能的兼容性。然而,关于外国投资保护制度是否与欧盟法律的合理适用相抵触的问题,远未得到解决。此外,由投资法庭解释的国际投资保护制度可能会阻碍欧盟成员国的监管空间,特别是在实施雄心勃勃的环境和气候政策方面。最近一些欧洲成员国对可再生能源支助计划的追溯性改变和逐步淘汰核电站所引发的国际投资法庭诉讼激增就是一个很好的例子。因此,本文的目的是分析目前可用的途径,以确保欧盟成员国实施的欧盟环境和气候政策与Achmea裁决后投资法庭适用的投资保护制度之间的一致性,以期制定一个基准来预防和避免(而不是助长)政策冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Fate of EU Environmental and Investment Law after the Achmea Decision
In the landmark Slowakische Republik v. Achmea BV judgment, the ecj arguably took a resolute stance against the compatibility of International Investment Agreements between EU Member States and the inherent functioning of EU’s legal order. However, the issue as to whether the foreign investment protection regime is at odds with the sound application of EU law is far from being settled. Furthermore, the international investment protection regime as interpreted by investment tribunals may hamper EU Member States’ regulatory space, especially in the implementation of ambitious environmental and climate policies. The recent surge of litigation before international investment tribunals triggered by retrospective changes to supporting schemes for renewable energy sources and the phase-out of nuclear power plants in some European Member States is a telling example. The purpose of this article thus is to analyse the avenues currently available to ensure consistency between EU’s environmental and climate policies as implemented by EU Member States and the investment protection regime as applied by investment tribunals in the wake of the Achmea decision, with a view to devising a benchmark to prevent and avoid, rather than foster, policy conflicts.
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
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
16.70%
发文量
19
×
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