Recently, the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs published a new draft model bilateral investment treaty (BIT) text for public consultation. The aim of this draft text is to replace the 2004 model BIT text and align it with the EU’s model treaty text, as exemplified by the Canada-EU FTA (CETA). The draft text is also … Continue reading The CETArisation of future Dutch BITs
In his Opinion, Advocate General Wathelet in Achmea v Slovak Republic some six months ago argued that intra-EU bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and investment treaty arbitration based on those BITs are compatible with EU law. More specifically, he opined that arbitral tribunals established on the basis of intra-EU BITs should be considered similar to the domestic courts of EU … Continue reading Black Tuesday: the end of intra-EU BITs
On 5 February 2018, about 100 participants attended the 3rd EFILA Annual Conference, entitled Parallel States’ Obligations in Investor-State Arbitration, which took place at Senate House in London.
In November 2017, the European Commission (EC) issued its decision on the Spanish support measures for renewable energy sources.
The recent events regarding the annexation of Crimea by Russia has given rise to the issue of a breach of territorial integrity and thus the sovereignty of states, and how such a breach affects the application of investment treaties and dispute settlement options.
The long-awaited Opinion of Advocate General (AG) Wathelet in the Achmea case has resulted in an unexpected and rather surprising Opinion. Many observers (including the present writer) had expected that the AG would hammer the final nail on the coffin of intra-EU BITs and arbitral tribunals based on these treaties. After all, the pressure by … Continue reading The poison pill for maintaining intra-EU BITs arbitration
The long-awaited opinion of the Court of Justice of the EU (ECJ) on the question of whether or not the EU has exclusive competence over all aspects of the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (FTA) left the most disputed issue unanswered, namely, whether or not investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) is compatible with EU law.
UK Prime Minister May was the first foreign leader to visit US President Trump, thereby underlining the “special relationship” between the UK and the USA. One of the aims of the visit was to kick-start negotiations for a trade deal between the UK and the USA.
Trade and investment agreements featured extensively during the US presidential election campaign.
In September 2015, it was reported that the Romanian President submitted draft legislation to the Parliament approving the termination of Romania’s 22 intra-EU bilateral investment treaties (BITs). The main reason given for this move is the pressure the European Commission (Commission) has imposed on EU member states for several years now.
The two Philip Morris cases, involving restrictions on the presentation and sale of cigarettes through plain packaging measures, have been used by anti-investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) groups as the prime examples for creating the myth that treaty arbitration causes states not to adopt certain measures for the protection of public goods. They argue that it has resulted in … Continue reading After Philip Morris II: states maintain their regulatory powers to control the plain packaging of cigarettes
After the initial shock of the outcome of the referendum in the UK, in which a slight majority voted for leaving the EU, the UK government has started considering the options of shaping the UK’s trade relationships post-Brexit.
One of the main catalysts for firing up the campaign against investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) as contained in investment treaties has been the effective use of social media tools by non-governmental organisations (NGOs), local communities and other civil society stakeholders.
On 2 May 2016, it was reported that Denmark has proposed to the other EU member states to mutually terminate the existing bilateral investment treaties (intra-EU BITs) between them.
When Argentina defaulted for more than $80 billion in debt in 2001, it became embroiled in numerous court proceedings and investment arbitration disputes involving all types of investors from around the world. For more than a decade Argentina managed to avoid paying its debts or at least offer some level of compensation. This in turn resulted … Continue reading Argentina: back to business?
Ever since the European Commission and the European Parliament started to get involved with investment protection and investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), investment treaty arbitration has increasingly come under pressure.
At the 2nd Annual Conference of the European Federation for Investment Law and Arbitration (EFILA) which was held in Paris on 5 February 2016, investment arbitration experts discussed current issues of investment arbitration and the way forward. More than 100 investment arbitration experts, ranging from policy makers and academics, to counsel and arbitrators, discussed a … Continue reading Key points from EFILA’s 2nd Annual Conference