Die Autonomie des Unionsrechts und die Zukunft der Investor-Staat-Streitbeilegung in Europa nach Achmea (The Autonomy of EU Law and the Future of Investor-State Dispute Settlement in Europe after Achmea)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrej Lang
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The Future

The UK courts and EU law post-Brexit

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. Christopher-Vajda
Author(s):  
Christopher Vajda
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Transition Period ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Following the expiry on 31 December 2020 of the ‘transition period’ under the UK/EU Withdrawal Agreement, the relationship between UK and EU law had changed. Whilst much EU legislation at that date will continue to apply in UK law as ‘retained EU law’ and judgments of the EU courts handed down before that date will remain binding on UK courts as ‘retained EU case law’, the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court can depart from that case law. Whilst EU court judgments handed down after that date are not binding on UK courts, they may be taken into account. This article considers both the status of EU retained case law and when the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal may depart from it, and the future of EU law that is not ‘retained EU case law’ and how judgments of the European Courts and national courts of its Member States may influence UK judges in the future.

The CETA Opinion of the European Court of Justice and its Implications—Not that Selfish After All

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 503-521 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Riffel
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court System ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Eu

Abstract In Opinion 1/17, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) found the investment court system compatible with European Union (EU) law. The ruling concerned the mechanism in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) but the Court’s reasoning is equally applicable to other investment courts as established, for example, in the EU’s investment protection agreements with Singapore and Vietnam. This outcome was far from clear, given that in the past the accession to international dispute settlement bodies regularly foundered on the autonomy of the EU legal order. The present article parses the CETA Opinion and explores its implications. It particularly focuses on autonomy as a constitutional principle and its advancement in Opinion 1/17. Importantly, the ECJ accepted the superiority of a court created by international agreement in relation to the said agreement. Furthermore, it clarified that it is not prerequisite for the Court to rule first on the meaning to be given to an act of EU law before that act can be the subject matter of an investment dispute. Finally, the pdrerogative of the EU to autonomously set the level of protection of a public welfare goal must be secured in a treaty for the EU to join it.

scholarly journals The Future of Amicus Participation at the WTO: Implications of the Sardines Decision and Suggestions for Further Developments

2005 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 449-470 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Keller
Keyword(s):  
World Trade Organization ◽  
World Trade ◽  
International Institutions ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Public Access ◽  
Democratic Participation ◽  
Global Society ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
The World ◽  
The Future

In today's increasingly interdependent global society, international institutions formerly committed to operating as insular systems recognizing only states as legitimate participants have come under pressure to open their processes to public view and participation. The World Trade Organization (WTO) in particular has been widely criticized for its lack of transparency and democratic participation. Nowhere has this criticism been more prevalent than in the arena of dispute settlement. The controversy over the acceptance of amicus briefs at the WTO reflects the tensions among WTO members and non-members concerning greater public access to dispute settlement proceedings. This battle has been fought primarily through the Appellate Body and its important series of decisions on amicus briefs.

From Washington with Love—Investor–State Arbitration and the Jurisdictional Monopoly of the Court of Justice of the European Union

2010 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 425-453
Author(s):  
Philip Strik
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Forum Shopping ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
The Eu

AbstractWhile investor–State arbitration is to a large extent detached from the EU legal order, EU law has recently started to be invoked in investor-State arbitration proceedings. In the context of intra-EU bilateral investment treaties, the Commission has expressed the view that investor-State arbitration gives rise to a number of ‘arbitration risks’ for the EU legal order. Not only can it solicit investors to engage in forum-shopping, but it can also result in questions of EU law not being litigated in Member State or Union courts. This chapter explores the extent to which the compatibility of investor–State arbitration with the EU legal order is in issue. It examines the main features of investor-State arbitration as concerns its interplay with the EU legal order, as well as the Court of Justice’s case law on issues of compatibility between systems of international dispute settlement and the EU legal order. The chapter highlights that the way in which investor–State arbitral tribunals handle issues of EU law, as well as the involvement of interested parties, may foster the synergy between investor–State arbitration and the EU legal order.

scholarly journals Dispute settlement under the United Nations Convention On the Law of the Sea and Its Role in Oceans Governance

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Anshuman Chakraborty
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Traditional Role ◽  
Actual Role ◽  
The Future ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanisms

<p>This thesis is about the dispute settlement provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC or Convention), and the potential and actual role that they play in oceans governance. The study focuses not only on the traditional role of dispute settlement mechanisms in peacefully settling disputes, but also on their potential for contribution to good oceans governance in many ways. The jurisprudence generated so far under the dispute settlement provisions of the LOSC can be called neither a complete success nor a total failure. Part XV of the Convention, dealing with dispute settlement procedures, has made a promising start with the inaugural jurisprudence under the prompt release and provisional measures proceedings. However, besides the general beneficial influence of the jurisprudence on oceans governance, a few detrimental developments have also been identified from the perspective of oceans governance. The present thesis demonstrates that a lot of hope had been pinned on the dispute settlement provisions at the time when the LOSC was drafted. However, most of these hopes have not yet found expression, and if the limited use of dispute settlement procedures continues, it is unlikely that Part XV will fulfil those hopes in the future. Nevertheless, this thesis argues along more optimistic lines, and expresses a realistic hope that the actual role of dispute settlement in oceans governance will improve in the future. The thesis concludes that the success or failure of the dispute settlement mechanisms mostly depends upon their actual use made by states. Further, the dispute settlement mechanisms once invoked must be able to settle disputes objectively on the basis of law, equity and justice and uphold the principles and provisions of the LOSC. It is hoped that states will have recourse to Part XV more often for the purpose of settling their disputes peacefully, and that the dispute settlement provisions will in turn fulfil their mandate. Only then will the world witness the dispute settlement mechanisms playing a real and beneficial role in oceans governance, concurrently with other oceans governance institutions and arrangements.</p>

scholarly journals The Paradoxical Success of UNCLOS Part XV: A Half-hearted Reply to Rosemary Rayfuse

2005 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 713 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Serdy
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
The Future ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Law

In his reply to Rosemary Rayfuse's article, "The Future of Compulsory Dispute Settlement under the Law of the Sea Convention", Andrew Serdy addresses some of the criticisms that have been levelled at the Part XV dispute resolution provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). He concludes that despite being little used, the Part XV provisions remain pivotal to UNCLOS and its related treaties, and if anything are becoming more so

Introduction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irina Buga
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Final Section ◽  
Systematic Approach ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The Future ◽  
Practical Level

This chapter introduces the discussion of the key role of subsequent practice in the process of treaty adaptation and the formation of international law more generally. The chapter explains the need to explore the treaty modifying potential of subsequent practice—a topic that has, in recent years, generated an increasing amount of attention—and its potentially far-reaching effects for States and dispute settlement bodies alike. The chapter also defines treaty ‘modification’ in this context. The final section sets out the book's systematic approach to exploring the relevance and dynamism of the process of treaty modification by subsequent practice and showing—on a theoretical and practical level—how it can be identified and dealt with more consistently in the future.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document