Suchergebnisse
Filter
39 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
SSRN
State Compliance with Intra-EU Investment Awards or the EU 'Elephant' in the Investment 'Porcelain Shop'
In: State Compliance with Intra-EU Investment Awards or the EU 'Elephant' in the Investment 'Porcelain Shop', Forthcoming
SSRN
The 'palm oil wars' or how the EU's 'inflated' common commercial policy might need to prioritize its non-trade values
In: European foreign affairs review, Band 27, Heft 1, S. 29-56
ISSN: 1875-8223
World Affairs Online
The 'Palm Oil Wars' or How the EU's 'Inflated' Common Commercial Policy Might Need to Prioritise Its Non-Trade Values
In: European Foreign Affairs Review 27, no. 1 (2022): 29–56
SSRN
Between Fiction and Reality. The External Autonomy of EU Law as a 'Shapeshifter' after Opinion 1/17
In: European Papers, Forthcoming 2020
SSRN
Working paper
Why Do or Should Foreign Investors Resort to the Courts of the Host Country Prior to Investment Treaty Arbitration? A Study of Two Transitional and Two Well-Established Judiciaries
In: Ole Kristian Fauchald, Daniel Behn, Malcolm Langford (eds), The Legitimacy of Investment Arbitration. Empirical Perspectives (Forthcoming, Cambridge University Press 2020)
SSRN
Working paper
Country Report on Hungary and Romania
In: Forthcoming, Hindelang and Moberg (eds), A Common European Law on Investment Screening (Springer, 2020)
SSRN
Working paper
The EU's Cumbersome Investment Law and Policy, and Its Effects on the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights
In: Forthcoming, Christophe Geiger (ed), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Investment Law (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020), Chapter 21
SSRN
Working paper
Let us Not Forget about the Role of Domestic Courts in Settling Investor-State Disputes
In: The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, Band 18, S. 386-412
SSRN
Working paper
Quo Vadis EU Investment Law and Policy? The Shaky Path Towards the International Promotion of EU Rules
In: European foreign affairs review, Band 23, Heft 2, S. 167-186
ISSN: 1875-8223
Following the Lisbon changes to the EU's Common Commercial Policy (CCP), the path was set for the EU to conclude international agreements that cover the protection of foreign direct investment and to participate in international investment law (IIL) as a creator and promoter of norms. Nonetheless, recent political and legal events might jeopardize the workability and coherence of the emerging EU investment law and policy. In light of this, this article first aims to contribute to the existing discussion on the ways in which the EU can export its norms externally and provides a conceptual understanding of the often-used term of 'convergence' and how the EU might induce some level of convergence of IIL norms. Secondly, the article has a sceptical undertone as to whether the EU can become an IIL rule-promoter and whether it can induce some level of convergence of IIL norms. Whilst the possibility is there, the multilateral and diffused nature of investment law, the presence of strong international actors with their own agendas, the domestic contestation of investor-state dispute settlement, and the important role of the Court of Justice might hamper the EU's attempt to become a major influencer of IIL norms
Quo vadis EU investment law and policy?: The shaky path towards the international promotion of EU rules
In: European foreign affairs review, Band 23, Heft 2, S. 167-186
ISSN: 1384-6299
World Affairs Online
It is Not Just About Investor-State Arbitration. A Look at Case C 284/16, Achmea BV'
In the much-awaited Achmea judgment (of 6 March 2018, case C-284/16 [GC]), the Court of Justice held that investor-state tribunals (ISTs), "such as" the one under the Netherlands-Slovakia intra-EU bilateral investment treaty (BIT) are incompatible with EU law. In this arguably short judgment, the Court of Justice consolidated its attitude towards the relationship between other international courts and the EU legal order; it set new limits to Art. 344 TFEU; and, it expanded its list of tribunals that do not qualify as Member State courts or tribunals under Art. 267 TFEU. Nonetheless, whilst the Commission can rejoice that it can now clearly oblige Member States to terminate their intra-EU BITs, Achmea sends some worrying signals. The future of ISTs under Member State BITs with third countries is uncertain; so is the viability of the Investment Court System under the agreements with Canada and Vietnam, the future of the Multilateral Investment Court, and the overall coherence of the EU's international investment law and policy.
BASE
Quo Vadis EU Investment Law and Policy? The Shaky Path Towards the International Promotion of EU Rules
In: (2018), 23(2) European Foreign Affairs Review pp 167-186
SSRN
Working paper
It Is not Just about Investor-State Arbitration. A Look at Case-284/16, Slovak Republic v Achmea BV
In: (2018) 3(1) European Papers pp 357-373
SSRN
Working paper
Binding Committee Interpretations in the EU's New Free Trade and Investment Agreements
In: (2017), 2 European Investment Law and Arbitration Review pp 90-134
SSRN
Working paper