When setting out her priorities for the Brexit negotiations in a speech at Lancaster House in January, Theresa May promised to 'bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in Britain.' This forcefully formulated 'red line' turned into a headache for the British negotiators as it was both somewhat misconceived – the ECJ's preliminary reference procedure hardly results in jurisdiction 'in Britain' – and overly categorical ignoring both the likely content of the UK-EU withdrawal agreement and the shape of the future UK-EU relationship envisaged by her own government as a 'new, deep and special partnership.' Today's paper on 'enforcement and dispute resolution' should therefore be welcomed as injecting a portion of realism and pragmatism in the debate over the ECJ.
In the last two decades, Indonesia has seen a dramatic proliferation of environmental disputes in a variety of sectors, triggered by intensified deforestation and large scale mining operations in the resource rich outer islands, together with rapid industrialisation in the densely populated inner island of Java. Whilst the emergence of environmental disputes has sometimes attracted political repression, attempts have also been made in recent times to explore more functional approaches to their resolution. The Environmental Management Act of 1997 created a legal framework for the resolution of environmental disputes through both litigation and mediation. This book is the first attempt to analyse the implementation of this framework in detail and to assess the effectiveness of litigation and mediation in resolving environmental disputes in Indonesia. It includes a detailed overview of the environmental legal framework and its interpretation by Indonesian courts in landmark court cases. The book features a number of detailed case studies of both environmental litigation and mediation and considers the legal and non-legal factors that have influenced the success of these approaches to resolving environmental disputes.
Investment-state dispute resolution has been a hot topic recently, as we can observe a shift in the international trade agreements – both on the side of politics and economics. The European Union has started to negotiate several new trade agreements – some succeeded, some failed, and among the latter we find the TTIP with the USA. This article focuses on the neuralgic point of ISDS in the trade policy of the EU and the USA and summarizes the arguments for and against the ISDS mechanism reflecting also on the latest scientific literature and statistics. ; gjudit@sze.hu ; Judit Glavanits – PhD, associate professor, head of Department of Public and European Law, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, Széchenyi István University, Hungary. ; Széchenyi István University, Hungary ; Bottini G., Reform of the Investor-State Arbitration Regime: The Appeal Proposal, (in:) J.E. Kalicki, A. Joubin-Bret (eds.), Reshaping the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System, BRILL, 2015, pp. 455–473, doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004291102_021. ; Bown Ch.P., On the Economic Success of GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement, "The Review of Economics and Statistics", 2004, Vol. 86, No. 3, pp. 811–823. ; Bussière M., Pérez-Barreiro E., Straub R., Taglioni D., Protectionist responses to the crisis – global trends and implications, ECB Occasional Paper, No. 110 (2010), European Central Bank (ECB), Frankfurt a. M. ; Caporal, Jack: What Is Former Vice President Biden's Policy on Trade? Center for Strategic s Policy on Trade? Center for Strategic & International Studies, 12 February, 2020. ; Caytas J.,: From Shield to Sword: TTIP's Lessons on Democratic Legitimacy for International Investment Arbitration,"Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems: Common Law" (Apr. 23, 2015),https://ssrn.com/abstract=2685501. ; De Ville F., Siles-Brügge G., Why TTIP is a game-changer and its critics have a point, "Journal of European Public Policy", 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2016.1254273. ; Garcia-Duran P., Eliasson L.J., The Public Debate over Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and Its Underlying Assumptions,"Journal of World Trade", 2017, Vol 51 No. 1, pp. 23–42. ; Gaukrodger D., Adjudicator Compensation Systems and Investor-State Dispute Settlement, OECD Working Papers on International Investment, 2017/05, OECD Publishing, Paris,http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/c2890bd5-en. ; Hallak I., Multilateral Investment Court – Overview of the reform proposals and prospects, European Parliament Research Service, PE 646.147, January 2020, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/646147/EPRS_BRI(2020)646147_EN.pdf. ; Hodgson M., Campbell A., Damages and costs in investment treaty arbitration revisited, "Global Arbitration Review", 14 December 2017,http://www.itd.or.th/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Annex-2-Allen-and-Overy-Damages-and-costs-in-investment-treaty-arbitration-revisited-December-2017.pdf. ; Horváthy B., Potential Impacts of Transatlantic Trade Negotiations on the EU Environmental Policy, "Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies", 2016, Vol. 57. No. 4, pp. 401–415, doi: https://doi.org/10.1556%2F2052.2016.57.4.1. ; ICC, Dispute Resolution 2019 Statistics, Paris, 2020. ; Johnson L., Sachs L., Sach J., Investor-State Dispute Settlement, Public Interest and U.S. Domestic Law, Columbia Center of Sustainable Developement, CCSI Policy Paper, May 2015,https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D82N52TP. ; Jugmittag, Andre, Welfens, Paul J.J.: EU-US trade post-trump perspectives: TTIP aspects related to foreign direct investment and innovation. International Economics and Economic Policy, 2020/17. pp. 259–294. ; Kohler W., Stähler F., The economics of investor protection: ISDS versus national treatment, "Journal of International Economics", 2019, Volume 121, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2019.103254. ; Wallach L., The US Drops ISDS, "The Globalist", 24 January, 2020, https://www.theglobalist.com/united-states-european-union-trade-isds-usmca-uncitral-mic/. ; McRae D., What is the future of WTO Dispute Settlement, "Journal of International Economic Law", 2004, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 3–21. ; Merrils J.G., International Dispute Settlement, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2005. ; Mitchell A.D., Legal Principles in WTO Disputes, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008. ; Moses M.L., The Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration, Cambridge University Press, 2017. ; Rivkin, D.W., Enforceability of Arbitral Awards Based on Lex Mercatoria, "Arbitration International", 1993, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 67–84. ; Schreuer Ch.H. et al, The ISCID Convention: A Commentary, Cambridge University Press, 2009. ; Van Grasstek C., The Trade Policy of the United States under the Trump Administration, EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2019/11, https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/60889/RSCAS_2019_11.pdf. ; Yang H., The EU's Investment Court System and Prospects for a New Multilateral Investment Dispute Settlement System (October 12, 2017), "KIEP Research Paper", No. Policy References 17–06, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3063843. ; 25 ; 3 ; 43 ; 53
In: 2018/SOM1/EC/WKSP2/017, Paper presented at the APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) Workshop on the Use of ModernTechnology for Dispute Resolution and Electronic Agreement Management Particularly Online Dispute Resolution (Port Mo
Defence date: 16 December 2014 ; Examining Board: PhD Dennis Patterson, European University Institute (EUI); PhD David Ramos Muñoz, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (External supervisor); PhD Marco Lamandini, Università Di Bologna; PhD Hans-W. Micklitz, European University Institute. ; This PhD thesis explores how the legal infrastructure for dispute resolution in transnational securities transactions can be improved, considering the regulatory and legal limits of the financial sector in each jurisdiction under study (US, Europe and Brazil). The two main objectives of the work are to a) identify the problems that currently exist for a dispute resolution mechanism in the securities area that can be used transnationally and b) propose solutions that can create a safe legal environment that can be used by the investor in case regulatory rules or the terms of the transaction are breached. The work is justified by the fact that financial markets are legal constructions, making legal certainty and the mechanisms available to enforce the terms of a transaction and apply regulatory rules, especially to the investor that is part of the transaction, essential for the own existence of financial markets. Therefore, the existence of transnational financial markets also depends on the existence of a transnational legal infrastructure, at least broad enough to protect the interest of investors. The argument developed through the work is that the creation of a transnational legal infrastructure depends on the type of dispute that is considered, since not only each type of dispute has its own peculiarities, but the national dispute resolution systems are also built based on the type of dispute that will be submitted to it. To create transnational dispute resolution systems for securities transactions, I propose the use of collective mechanisms of dispute resolution based on the initiative of private parties, the use of arbitration and the establishment of cooperation networks among national alternative dispute resolution mechanisms used to solve financial disputes.
