Towards a Post-Arbitration Age: The European Commission’s Fast-Track Reform of Investment Dispute Settlement

Unión Europea2017 | Diciembre 15
The European Commission (“EC”) has recently taken another step in its efforts to replace the traditional investor-state-dispute-settlement (“ISDS”) mechanism which underlies the approximately 1,400 bilateral investment agreements in force between EU Member States and third countries. On 13 September 2017, the EC issued, based on Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”), a Recommendation for a Council Decision authorising the EC to open negotiations on behalf of the European Union for an international convention establishing a multilateral court for the settlement of investment disputes (the “Recommendation”).

Yet, given the public outrage that erupted in the context of the EU’s trade negotiations with the US and, more generally, the global controversy over the legitimacy, consistency and transparency of ISDS following high-profile investment cases (e.g. Vattenfall AB and others v Federal Republic of Germany, ICSID Case No ARB/12/12), the EC’s views on ISDS seem to have changed considerably. The EC’s strategy has shifted from promoting reforms within the framework of the existing ISDS system to pushing for a replacement of the ISDS system by a formal court system

Origen:
Towards a Post-Arbitration Age: The European Commission’s Fast-Track Reform of Investment Dispute Settlement: Schoenherr Attorneys at Law

Anuncios

Un pensamiento en “Towards a Post-Arbitration Age: The European Commission’s Fast-Track Reform of Investment Dispute Settlement

  1. The European Union cannot help being so European, capable of arbitrating without “guarantees”. This is what is all about: guarantees on its terms, which is to say, mistrust. Replacing the Washington Convention with another named after another city may not be the answer to a decade-old Convention that, yes, needs debate to address decade-old criticism. The “baby and bath water” approach towards the Washington Convention does not seem sensible requiring a level of international consensus probably difficult to achieve if we think of the WC as a can of worms and the new one as another can of worms, worms being in both cans.

Adelante! Comparte tu conocimiento y experiencia