从欧盟法的视角解决与国际投资条约法的冲突:对《投资条约》第351条的重新审视

Konstanze von Papp
{"title":"从欧盟法的视角解决与国际投资条约法的冲突:对《投资条约》第351条的重新审视","authors":"Konstanze von Papp","doi":"10.54648/leie2015021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article is meant to contribute to the discussion of the relationship between European Union (EU) and international law. It focuses on bilateral investment agreements between EU Member States (intra-EU BITs), the majority of which will continue to have practical relevance. So how should one deal with a scenario in which the compliance with EU law (e.g., state aid law) means that a Member State must breach its obligation under an intra-EU BIT (e.g., by cutting returns on income from an investment protected thereunder)? The article answers this question by critically analysing the protection granted to pre-existing international obligations of the EU Member States under so-called anterior treaties. It criticizes established case law under Article 351 TFEU as having emphasized the wrong issues, and suggests to turn the discussion back to the real questions: precisely when is there a conflict, and how far do a Member State’s duties under Article 351(2)TFEU reach? It is argued that reconsidering Article 351 TFEU will foster doctrinal clarity and flexibility in dealing with the ‘obligations’, and also the ‘rights’ of the EU Member States under anterior treaties. Doctrinal clarity and flexibility will then benefit the relationship between EU and international law more generally.  ","PeriodicalId":320446,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Regional Arrangements (Topic)","volume":"8 11","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Solving Conflicts with International Investment Treaty Law from an EU Law Perspective: Article 351 TFEU Revisited\",\"authors\":\"Konstanze von Papp\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/leie2015021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article is meant to contribute to the discussion of the relationship between European Union (EU) and international law. It focuses on bilateral investment agreements between EU Member States (intra-EU BITs), the majority of which will continue to have practical relevance. So how should one deal with a scenario in which the compliance with EU law (e.g., state aid law) means that a Member State must breach its obligation under an intra-EU BIT (e.g., by cutting returns on income from an investment protected thereunder)? The article answers this question by critically analysing the protection granted to pre-existing international obligations of the EU Member States under so-called anterior treaties. It criticizes established case law under Article 351 TFEU as having emphasized the wrong issues, and suggests to turn the discussion back to the real questions: precisely when is there a conflict, and how far do a Member State’s duties under Article 351(2)TFEU reach? It is argued that reconsidering Article 351 TFEU will foster doctrinal clarity and flexibility in dealing with the ‘obligations’, and also the ‘rights’ of the EU Member States under anterior treaties. Doctrinal clarity and flexibility will then benefit the relationship between EU and international law more generally.  \",\"PeriodicalId\":320446,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Regional Arrangements (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"8 11\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-07-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Regional Arrangements (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2015021\",\"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: Regional Arrangements (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2015021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文旨在为讨论欧盟与国际法之间的关系作出贡献。它侧重于欧盟成员国之间的双边投资协定(欧盟内部投资协定),其中大多数将继续具有实际意义。那么,如果遵守欧盟法律(例如,国家援助法)意味着成员国必须违反其在欧盟内部投资协定下的义务(例如,削减受该协定保护的投资的收入回报),人们应该如何处理这种情况?本文通过批判性地分析欧盟成员国在所谓的前条约下给予已有国际义务的保护来回答这个问题。它批评根据第351条TFEU建立的判例法强调了错误的问题,并建议将讨论转回到真正的问题上:到底什么时候存在冲突,以及根据第351(2)条TFEU,成员国的义务达到了什么程度?有人认为,重新考虑第351条TFEU将促进在处理欧盟成员国在以前条约下的“义务”和“权利”方面的理论清晰度和灵活性。理论上的明确性和灵活性将有利于欧盟与国际法之间的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Solving Conflicts with International Investment Treaty Law from an EU Law Perspective: Article 351 TFEU Revisited
This article is meant to contribute to the discussion of the relationship between European Union (EU) and international law. It focuses on bilateral investment agreements between EU Member States (intra-EU BITs), the majority of which will continue to have practical relevance. So how should one deal with a scenario in which the compliance with EU law (e.g., state aid law) means that a Member State must breach its obligation under an intra-EU BIT (e.g., by cutting returns on income from an investment protected thereunder)? The article answers this question by critically analysing the protection granted to pre-existing international obligations of the EU Member States under so-called anterior treaties. It criticizes established case law under Article 351 TFEU as having emphasized the wrong issues, and suggests to turn the discussion back to the real questions: precisely when is there a conflict, and how far do a Member State’s duties under Article 351(2)TFEU reach? It is argued that reconsidering Article 351 TFEU will foster doctrinal clarity and flexibility in dealing with the ‘obligations’, and also the ‘rights’ of the EU Member States under anterior treaties. Doctrinal clarity and flexibility will then benefit the relationship between EU and international law more generally.  
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
期刊最新文献
The Mandate of the ECB: Legal Considerations in the Ecb's Monetary Policy Strategy Review Modeling the Impact of Non-Tariff Barriers in Services on Intra-African Trade: Global Trade Analysis Project Model Towards an Analyses of the Mega-Politics Jurisprudence of the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice Front-of-Pack Labelling and International Trade Law: Revisiting the Health Star Rating System Shared Obligations and the Responsibility of an International Organization and its Member States: The Case of EU Mixed Agreements
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1