Abstract
In March 2018 the Council of the European Union gave the Commission a mandate to negotiate a Multilateral Investment Court. Furthermore, since 2017 the UNCITRAL Working Group III is discussing different options of a reform of Investor State Dispute Settlement. This report assesses both the option of a two-tiered Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) and of a Multilateral Investment Appellate Mechanism (MIAM). Both models provide for a permanent, pre-appointed judiciary according to rule of law standards. The structure of the new dispute settlement mechanism should pursue the following objectives:
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Cf. for instance, Kastler (2017), p. 265.
- 2.
Malmström (2015): “However, I believe that we should aim for a court that goes beyond TTIP. A multilateral court would be a more efficient use of resources and have more legitimacy. That makes it a medium-term objective to be achieved in parallel to our negotiations with the United States. I hope for Parliament’s support and advice as we try to achieve it.” Cf. in connection also European Commission (2015), pp. 3 and 13; cf. previously already the proposals of Krajewski (2015) and the French proposal, Vers un nouveau moyen de régler les différends entre États et investisseurs, May 2015; thereto Fouchard Papaefstratiou (2015).
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
European Commission (2015).
- 6.
- 7.
Pauwelyn (2015).
- 8.
Article 8.29 CETA, Establishment of a multilateral investment tribunal and appellate mechanism; Article 15 Section 3 Trade in Services, Investment and E-Commerce EU-Vietnam FTA.
- 9.
European Parliament resolution (2016), para. 68.
- 10.
European Parliament resolution (2015), para. 2.d)xv).
- 11.
The significance and compulsory consideration of Article 21 TEU was last emphasised again by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in its Singapore opinion. Cf. CJEU, Opinion 2/15, Singapore FTA, ECLI:EU:C:2017:376, para. 142 et seq.: “One of the features of this development is the rule laid down in the second sentence of Article 207(1) TFEU that ‘the common commercial policy shall be conducted in the context of the principles and objectives of the Union’s external action’. Those principles and objectives are specified in Article 21(1) and (2) TEU […]. The obligation of the European Union to integrate those objectives and principles into the conduct of its common commercial policy in apparent from the second sentence of Article 207(1) TFEU read in conjunction with Article 21(3) TEU and Article 205 TFEU.”
- 12.
- 13.
On the aspect of “equality of arms” as an aspect of the rule of law, cf. Fleiner and Basta Fleiner (2004), p. 250; hereto also for example the jurisprudence on Article 6 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), cf. European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), No. 2689/65, Del-court v. Belgium; ECtHR, No. 8562/79, Feldbrugge v. the Netherlands; ECtHR, No. 14448/88, Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands; ECtHR, No. 17358/90, Bulut v. Austria; ECtHR, No. 13645/05, Ko-kelvisserij e.a. v. the Netherlands; thereto in the literature Safferling (2004), p. 181 et seqq.; Grabenwarter and Struth (2015), Article 6, para. 46 et seqq.
- 14.
G20 Guiding Principles for Global Investment Policymaking, July 2016, para. III: “Dispute settlement procedures should be fair, open and transparent, with appropriate safeguards to prevent abuse.”
- 15.
- 16.
Schill (2015), p. 8.
References
Ambrose H, Naish V (2017) An investment court system or an appeals mechanism? The EU’s 2017 consultation on multilateral reform of ISDS. Arbitration Blog of 15.2.2017
Blair C (2017) A global investment court for a changing era of trade. Financial Times of 24.1.2017
Brown CM (2017) A multilateral mechanism for the settlement of investment disputes. ICSID Rev – FILJ 32:673–690
Bungenberg M, Hazarika A (2018) Rule of law in the EU legal order, forthcoming
Calamita NJ (2017) The challenge of establishing a Multilateral Investment Tribunal at ICSID. ICSID Rev – FILJ 32:611–624
Council of Europe (2014) Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE), the evaluation of judges’ work, the quality of justice and respect for judicial independence. Opinion No. 17 (2014) of 24.10.2014
Council of Europe (2016) Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE), the role of court presidents. Opinion No. 19 (2016) of 10.11.2016
European Commission (2015) Concept paper – investment in TTIP and beyond – the path for reform, May 2015
European Commission (2016a) A future multilateral investment court. Factsheet of 13.12.2016
European Commission (2016b) The multilateral investment court project. News of 21.12.2016. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1608
European Parliament (2015) Resolution of 8.7.2015 containing the European Parliament’s recommendations to the European Commission on the negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), 2014/2228(INI)), P8_TA(2015)0252
European Parliament (2016) A new forward-looking and innovative future strategy for trade and investment, resolution of 5.7.2016, P8_TA-PROV(2016)0299
Fleiner T, Basta Fleiner L (2004) Allgemeine Staatslehre, Über die konstitutionelle Demokratie in einer multikulturellen globalisierten Welt. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg
Fouchard Papaefstratiou A (2015) TTIP: the French proposal for a permanent European Court for investment arbitration. Kluwer Arbitration Blog of 22.7.2015
Ghahremani S, Prandzhev I (2017) Multilateral investment court: a realistic approach to achieve coherence and consistency in international investment law? EFILA Blog of 14.3.2017
Grabenwarter C, Struth K (2015) § 6 Justiz- und Verfahrensgrundrechte. In: Ehlers D (ed) Europäische Grundrechte und Grundfreiheiten, 4th edn. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 198–238
Happ R, Wuschka S (2017) From the Jay treaty Commissions towards a multilateral Investment Court: addressing the enforcement dilemma. Indian J Abbr Law 6:113–132
Hoffmeister F (2017) The EU contribution to the progressive development of institutional aspects in international investment law. Revue Belge de Droit International 2:566–590
Howse R (2017) International investment law and arbitration: a conceptual framework. IILJ Working Paper 2017/1
Kastler HA (2017) Föderaler Rechtsschutz: Personenbezogene Daten in einem Raum der Freiheit. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg
Kaufmann-Kohler G, Potestà M (2016) Can the Mauritius Convention serve as a model for the reform of investor-State arbitration in connection with the introduction of a permanent investment tribunal or an appeal mechanism?
Kaufmann-Kohler G, Potestà M (2017) The composition of a Multilateral Investment Court and of an appeal mechanism for investment awards
Krajewski M (2015) Modell-Investitionsschutzvertrag mit Investor-Staat-Schiedsverfahren für Industriestaaten unter Berücksichtigung der USA. Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie
Malmström C (2015) Speech: remarks at the European Parliament on Investment in TTIP of 18.3.2015. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/march/tradoc_153258.pdf
Pauwelyn J (2015) Why the US should support the EU Proposal for an “Investment Court System”. Georgetown Journal of International Law Online of 24.11.2015
Safferling C (2004) Audiatur et altera pars – die prozessuale Waffengleichheit als Prozessprinzip? Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 24(4):181–188
Schill S (2015) Reforming Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS): conceptual framework and options for the way forward, E15 Initiative. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva
Schröder W (ed) (2016) About strengthening the rule of law in Europe, from a common concept to mechanisms of implementation. Hart Publishing, Oxford
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bungenberg, M., Reinisch, A. (2018). Introduction. In: From Bilateral Arbitral Tribunals and Investment Courts to a Multilateral Investment Court. European Yearbook of International Economic Law(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01189-5_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01189-5_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-01188-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-01189-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)