欧盟投资法院体系的压力测试:《全面投资协定》将如何保护投资?

J. Chaisse, Xueliang Ji
{"title":"欧盟投资法院体系的压力测试:《全面投资协定》将如何保护投资?","authors":"J. Chaisse, Xueliang Ji","doi":"10.54648/leie2022005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"On 30 December 2020, the European Union (EU) and China agreed in principle to a revamped investment treaty: The Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI). Notably, the EU and China have not decided which investment dispute resolution system will be included under the new agreement. Instead, the EU and China are continuing negotiations on this contentious topic. This article discusses the key features of the proposed investment court system in the context of the CAI negotiations to assess whether China could agree on such a paradigmatic change that would have systemic consequences. The article explains the objective reasons behind China’s partial support for the proposed reforms to the existing investor-state arbitration system. For example, China has supported adding an appellate body without accepting the EU’s full-fledged investment court proposal. Finally, the article identifies the points of convergence and divergence which will shape the CAI negotiations and pave the way to global investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) reform.\ncomprehensive agreement on investment (CAI), investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), investment court system (ICS), United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL Working Group III), Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), EUVietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA), State-to-state dispute resolution, Achmea case, financial responsibility regulation, European Commission","PeriodicalId":42718,"journal":{"name":"Legal Issues of Economic Integration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stress Test for EU’s Investment Court System: How Will Investments Be Protected in the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment?\",\"authors\":\"J. Chaisse, Xueliang Ji\",\"doi\":\"10.54648/leie2022005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"On 30 December 2020, the European Union (EU) and China agreed in principle to a revamped investment treaty: The Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI). Notably, the EU and China have not decided which investment dispute resolution system will be included under the new agreement. Instead, the EU and China are continuing negotiations on this contentious topic. This article discusses the key features of the proposed investment court system in the context of the CAI negotiations to assess whether China could agree on such a paradigmatic change that would have systemic consequences. The article explains the objective reasons behind China’s partial support for the proposed reforms to the existing investor-state arbitration system. For example, China has supported adding an appellate body without accepting the EU’s full-fledged investment court proposal. Finally, the article identifies the points of convergence and divergence which will shape the CAI negotiations and pave the way to global investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) reform.\\ncomprehensive agreement on investment (CAI), investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), investment court system (ICS), United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL Working Group III), Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), EUVietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA), State-to-state dispute resolution, Achmea case, financial responsibility regulation, European Commission\",\"PeriodicalId\":42718,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Legal Issues of Economic Integration\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Legal Issues of Economic Integration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2022005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legal Issues of Economic Integration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/leie2022005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2020年12月30日,欧盟和中国原则同意修订投资协定:《全面投资协定》。值得注意的是,欧盟和中国尚未决定新协议将包括哪种投资争端解决机制。相反,欧盟和中国正在继续就这个有争议的话题进行谈判。本文在CAI谈判的背景下讨论了拟议的投资法院制度的主要特征,以评估中国是否可以同意这种将产生系统性后果的范例变革。本文解释了中国部分支持现有投资者-国家仲裁制度改革的客观原因。例如,中国支持在不接受欧盟全面投资法庭提议的情况下增设上诉机构。最后,本文指出了影响投资协定谈判的趋同点和分歧点,并为全球投资者-国家争端解决机制(ISDS)改革铺平了道路:全面投资协定(CAI)、投资者-国家争端解决机制(ISDS)、投资法院系统(ICS)、联合国国际贸易法委员会(UNCITRAL第三工作组)、全面经济贸易协定(CETA)、欧盟-越南自由贸易协定(EVFTA)、国家间争端解决,阿赫迈亚案,金融责任监管,欧盟委员会
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
Stress Test for EU’s Investment Court System: How Will Investments Be Protected in the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment?
On 30 December 2020, the European Union (EU) and China agreed in principle to a revamped investment treaty: The Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI). Notably, the EU and China have not decided which investment dispute resolution system will be included under the new agreement. Instead, the EU and China are continuing negotiations on this contentious topic. This article discusses the key features of the proposed investment court system in the context of the CAI negotiations to assess whether China could agree on such a paradigmatic change that would have systemic consequences. The article explains the objective reasons behind China’s partial support for the proposed reforms to the existing investor-state arbitration system. For example, China has supported adding an appellate body without accepting the EU’s full-fledged investment court proposal. Finally, the article identifies the points of convergence and divergence which will shape the CAI negotiations and pave the way to global investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) reform. comprehensive agreement on investment (CAI), investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), investment court system (ICS), United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL Working Group III), Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), EUVietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA), State-to-state dispute resolution, Achmea case, financial responsibility regulation, European Commission
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
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
期刊最新文献
The EU’s Anti-coercion Instrument: A Return of Unlawful Unilateral Trade Countermeasures in Disguise? Editorial: Investment Protection in an Integrated Europe – The Non-Enforcement of Intra-EU Investment Arbitration Awards as the Ultimate Test Case for Strasbourg’s Deference Doctrines Why Do (High-Income) Countries Wish to Green Their Trade Agreements? The Application of Regulation 452/2019 in Response to Chinese Foreign Direct Investment The ESM Reform and Its Missing Legitimacy in Non-Euro Area Member States
×
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