认真对待投资者权利:欧洲法院的Achmea和CETA裁决不禁止欧盟内部投资仲裁

IF 1.1 3区 社会学 Q2 LAW Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal Pub Date : 2021-05-11 DOI:10.1093/ICSIDREVIEW/SIAA044
A. Reuter
{"title":"认真对待投资者权利:欧洲法院的Achmea和CETA裁决不禁止欧盟内部投资仲裁","authors":"A. Reuter","doi":"10.1093/ICSIDREVIEW/SIAA044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In its 2018 Achmea ruling, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) found intra-European Union (EU) investment arbitration incompatible with EU law, and in its 2019 opinion on the proposed Canada–EU Trade Agreement (CETA), the ECJ has set out requirements for the recognition by the EU of investor–State arbitration at large. On the other hand, in the last few years a great many tribunals (under both International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and non-ICSID regimes) have dealt with intra-EU investment arbitrations, most of them under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). None of these tribunals found the proceedings to be incompatible with EU law.\n The reason for this discrepancy is that the tribunals deal with investors’ rights, while the ECJ, in contrast, is concerned with intra-EU governance issues. However, individual rights are not alien to EU law. Against that background, this note is based on the established finding that investment treaties bestow private investors with individual rights under public international law. These rights need to be taken seriously: as third parties, investors can, under both public international law and EU law, draw upon these rights, irrespective of the internal EU governance rules with which the ECJ was concerned. Hence, this note2 is not meant to be a further contribution to the voluminous debate on the internal EU governance rules drawn upon by the ECJ. In contrast, it is based on the binding effect on the EU of the investors’ individual rights. Furthermore, it shows that the ECJ’s rulings do not have an adverse precedent effect on the pursuit of investors’ rights and that, in addition, the ECT meets the criteria under which the ECJ has assessed EU compatibility of investment arbitration. Last but not least, the denial by EU institutions of investors' rights under the ECT may, in itself, constitute an infringement of the ECT.","PeriodicalId":44986,"journal":{"name":"Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/ICSIDREVIEW/SIAA044","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Taking Investors’ Rights Seriously: The Achmea and CETA Rulings of the European Court of Justice do not Bar Intra-EU Investment Arbitration\",\"authors\":\"A. Reuter\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ICSIDREVIEW/SIAA044\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n In its 2018 Achmea ruling, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) found intra-European Union (EU) investment arbitration incompatible with EU law, and in its 2019 opinion on the proposed Canada–EU Trade Agreement (CETA), the ECJ has set out requirements for the recognition by the EU of investor–State arbitration at large. On the other hand, in the last few years a great many tribunals (under both International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and non-ICSID regimes) have dealt with intra-EU investment arbitrations, most of them under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). None of these tribunals found the proceedings to be incompatible with EU law.\\n The reason for this discrepancy is that the tribunals deal with investors’ rights, while the ECJ, in contrast, is concerned with intra-EU governance issues. However, individual rights are not alien to EU law. Against that background, this note is based on the established finding that investment treaties bestow private investors with individual rights under public international law. These rights need to be taken seriously: as third parties, investors can, under both public international law and EU law, draw upon these rights, irrespective of the internal EU governance rules with which the ECJ was concerned. Hence, this note2 is not meant to be a further contribution to the voluminous debate on the internal EU governance rules drawn upon by the ECJ. In contrast, it is based on the binding effect on the EU of the investors’ individual rights. Furthermore, it shows that the ECJ’s rulings do not have an adverse precedent effect on the pursuit of investors’ rights and that, in addition, the ECT meets the criteria under which the ECJ has assessed EU compatibility of investment arbitration. Last but not least, the denial by EU institutions of investors' rights under the ECT may, in itself, constitute an infringement of the ECT.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44986,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/ICSIDREVIEW/SIAA044\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ICSIDREVIEW/SIAA044\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Icsid Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ICSIDREVIEW/SIAA044","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

欧洲法院(ECJ)在其2018年的阿赫梅亚裁决中发现,欧盟内部(EU)投资仲裁与欧盟法律不相容,在其2019年关于拟议的加拿大-欧盟贸易协定(CETA)的意见中,欧洲法院规定了欧盟承认投资者-国家仲裁的要求。另一方面,在过去几年中,许多法庭(在国际投资争端解决中心(ICSID)和非ICSID制度下)处理了欧盟内部的投资仲裁,其中大多数是根据《能源宪章条约》(ECT)。这些法庭都没有发现诉讼程序与欧盟法律不相容。出现这种差异的原因在于,这两个法庭处理的是投资者的权利,而欧洲法院则相反,关注的是欧盟内部的治理问题。然而,个人权利与欧盟法律并不陌生。在此背景下,本说明所依据的既定结论是,投资条约赋予私人投资者国际公法规定的个人权利。这些权利需要认真对待:根据国际公法和欧盟法,作为第三方,投资者可以利用这些权利,而不管欧洲法院所关注的欧盟内部治理规则是什么。因此,本注2并不打算对欧洲法院所起草的关于欧盟内部治理规则的大量辩论作进一步的贡献。相反,它是基于投资者个人权利对欧盟的约束力。此外,它表明欧洲法院的裁决不会对投资者权利的追求产生不利的先例效应,此外,ECT符合欧洲法院评估欧盟投资仲裁兼容性的标准。最后但并非最不重要的一点是,欧盟机构否认投资者在ECT下的权利,其本身可能构成对ECT的侵犯。
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
Taking Investors’ Rights Seriously: The Achmea and CETA Rulings of the European Court of Justice do not Bar Intra-EU Investment Arbitration
In its 2018 Achmea ruling, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) found intra-European Union (EU) investment arbitration incompatible with EU law, and in its 2019 opinion on the proposed Canada–EU Trade Agreement (CETA), the ECJ has set out requirements for the recognition by the EU of investor–State arbitration at large. On the other hand, in the last few years a great many tribunals (under both International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and non-ICSID regimes) have dealt with intra-EU investment arbitrations, most of them under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). None of these tribunals found the proceedings to be incompatible with EU law. The reason for this discrepancy is that the tribunals deal with investors’ rights, while the ECJ, in contrast, is concerned with intra-EU governance issues. However, individual rights are not alien to EU law. Against that background, this note is based on the established finding that investment treaties bestow private investors with individual rights under public international law. These rights need to be taken seriously: as third parties, investors can, under both public international law and EU law, draw upon these rights, irrespective of the internal EU governance rules with which the ECJ was concerned. Hence, this note2 is not meant to be a further contribution to the voluminous debate on the internal EU governance rules drawn upon by the ECJ. In contrast, it is based on the binding effect on the EU of the investors’ individual rights. Furthermore, it shows that the ECJ’s rulings do not have an adverse precedent effect on the pursuit of investors’ rights and that, in addition, the ECT meets the criteria under which the ECJ has assessed EU compatibility of investment arbitration. Last but not least, the denial by EU institutions of investors' rights under the ECT may, in itself, constitute an infringement of the ECT.
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
1.10
自引率
27.30%
发文量
46
期刊最新文献
Australia’s Ambivalence Again Around Investor-State Arbitration: Comparisons with Europe and Implications for Asia The Duty of Arbitrators to Raise Suspected Corruption or to Investigate Poorly Particularized Allegations of Corruption Contextual Impartiality: A New Approach to Assessing Impartiality in Investor-State Dispute Settlement Does an Annulled Award Constitute Legal Authority in Investment Arbitration? Impartiality and the Construction of Trust in Investor-State Dispute Settlement
×
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