Robbing Peter to Pay Paul? isds and ics from an eu Law Perspective

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul? isds and ics from an eu Law Perspective In 2009 the Treaty of Lisbon conferred upon the European Union the exclusive competence on foreign direct investments (Article 207 tfeu). Following from this new competence the eu has carried out a comprehensive regulation of trade and investment issues and reforms which include the creation of an International Investment Court, as proposed by the European Commission in both ceta and ttip negotiations. This article analyses some of the core legal issues of the proposed Court from a European perspective and comes to the conclusion that the same eu constitutional obstacles allegedly posed by isds are present in the ics. As a result, the Commission’s proposal weakens the perception of isds as a fair and legitimate mechanism to deal with investment-state disputes, whereas it perpetuates the existence of an external and parallel mechanism of dispute resolution outside the European court system. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Nordic Journal of International Law Brill

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul? isds and ics from an eu Law Perspective

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/robbing-peter-to-pay-paul-isds-and-ics-from-an-eu-law-perspective-zDEaMVXhR5
Publisher
Brill
Copyright
Copyright © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
0902-7351
eISSN
1571-8107
D.O.I.
10.1163/15718107-08604005
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

In 2009 the Treaty of Lisbon conferred upon the European Union the exclusive competence on foreign direct investments (Article 207 tfeu). Following from this new competence the eu has carried out a comprehensive regulation of trade and investment issues and reforms which include the creation of an International Investment Court, as proposed by the European Commission in both ceta and ttip negotiations. This article analyses some of the core legal issues of the proposed Court from a European perspective and comes to the conclusion that the same eu constitutional obstacles allegedly posed by isds are present in the ics. As a result, the Commission’s proposal weakens the perception of isds as a fair and legitimate mechanism to deal with investment-state disputes, whereas it perpetuates the existence of an external and parallel mechanism of dispute resolution outside the European court system.

Journal

Nordic Journal of International LawBrill

Published: Nov 8, 2017

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off