Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Trade Policy between Law, Diplomacy and Scholarship pp 15–37Cite as

Towards a More Balanced International Investment Law 2.0?

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((Spec. Issue))

Abstract

With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Union (EU) has gained new competences in the area of international investment law and politics. With a global economic weight equal to one quarter of global GDP and nearly half of global foreign direct investment (FDI) outflows, the EU’s potential in investment negotiations since the transfer of competence is readily evident. Together with the other two economic heavyweights, China and the US, it should be possible for the EU to give international investment law the necessary new face in reacting to partly reasoned critique; at the same time it is necessary to discuss the topic in a more objective way.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community, signed 13 December 2007, [2007] OJ C 306/1.

  2. 2.

    See on this, for example, Bungenberg (2009), p. 195; Bungenberg (2010), p. 123.

  3. 3.

    UNCTAD (2012), p. 85.

  4. 4.

    Article 207(1) Consolidated version of The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, [2008] OJ C 115/47:

    The common commercial policy shall be based on uniform principles, particularly with regard to changes in tariff rates, the conclusion of tariff and trade agreements relating to trade in goods and services, and the commercial aspects of intellectual property, foreign direct investment, the achievement of uniformity in measures of liberalisation, export policy and measures to protect trade such as those to be taken in the event of dumping or subsidies. The common commercial policy shall be conducted in the context of the principles and objectives of the Union’s external action.

    See also Bungenberg (2010), p. 123; Chaisse (2012), p. 51; Dimopoulos (2011); Hoffmeister and Ünüvar (2013), p. 57; Bungenberg (2009), p. 195; Bungenberg (2011), p. 116; Bungenberg (2011), p. 133; Bungenberg et al. (2011); Bungenberg and Herrmann (2013); Bungenberg and Reinisch (2014); Burgstaller (2009), p. 181; Calamita (2012), p. 301.

  5. 5.

    The Overview of FTA and other Trade Negotiations of the Commission shows the current state of negotiations of international agreements currently negotiated by the EU, available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2006/december/tradoc_118238.pdf.

  6. 6.

    European Commission, Press Release, MEMO/13/913 of 18 October 2013, EU Investment Negotiations with China and ASEAN, available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-913_en.htm; European Commission, Press Release, IP/14/33 of 20 January 2014, EU and China Begin Investment Talks, available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-33_en.htm.

  7. 7.

    European Commission, Press Release, IP/14/285 of 20 March 2014, EU and Myanmar/Burma to Negotiate an Investment Protection Agreement, available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-285_en.htm.

  8. 8.

    European Commission, Memo, The EU’s Bilateral Investment Agreements—Where Are We?, MEMO/13/915 of 18 October 2013, p. 3, available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-915_en.htm; see also http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/india/.

  9. 9.

    European Commission, Memo, A Free Trade Agreement between the EU and Japan, MEMO/13/283 of 25 March 2013, available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-283_en.htm; European Commission, Memo, First Round of EU–Japan Trade Talks A Success, MEMO/13/348 of 19 April 2013, available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-348_en.htm.

  10. 10.

    European Commission, Press Release, IP/13/224 of 12 March 2013, European Commission Fires Starting Gun for EU–US Trade Talks, available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-224_en.htm; European Commission, Memo, European Union and United States to Launch Negotiations for a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, MEMO/13/95 of 13 February 2013, available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-95_en.htm; see also the Directives for the TTIP-Negotiation http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-11103-2013-DCL-1/en/pdf.

  11. 11.

    See http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/libya/.

  12. 12.

    See European Commission, Press Release, IP/11/1545 of 14 December 2011, EU Agrees to Start Trade Negotiations with Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia, available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1545_en.htm; see also for Morocco European Commission, Press Release, Joint Press Statement on the EU–Morocco Negotiations of 9 July 2014, available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1120&title=Joint-press-statement-on-the-EU-Morocco-negotiations.

  13. 13.

    European Commission, Press Release, EU and Malaysia Launch Negotiations for Free Trade Agreement of 5 October 2010, available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/october/tradoc_146696.pdf.

  14. 14.

    European Commission, Press Release, IP/12/689 of June 2012, EU and Vietnam Negotiations for a Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement, available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-689_en.htm.

  15. 15.

    European Commission, Press Release, EU and Thailand Conclude Second Round of Negotiations for a Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement of 20 September 2013, available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/september/tradoc_151780.pdf; Consolidated CETA Text, published on 26 September 2014, available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/september/tradoc_152806.pdf.

  16. 16.

    European Commission, Press Release, IP/13/972 of 18 October 2013, EU and Canada Conclude Negotiations on Trade Deal, available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-972_en.htm.

  17. 17.

    European Commission, Press Release, IP/12/1380 of 16 December 2012, EU and Singapore Agree on Landmark Trade Deal, available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1380_en.htm; European Commission, Press Release, IP/13/849 of 20 September 2013, EU and Singapore Present Text of the Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement, available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-849_en.htm.

  18. 18.

    UNCTAD (2014), p. 114.

  19. 19.

    See, for example, Hallward-Driemeier (2003), p. 21, available at http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/1813-9450-3121; Tobin and Rose-Ackermann (2005), p. 22, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=557121; Neumayer and Spess (2005), pp. 1567 (1568), available at http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/627/1/World_Dev_%28BITs%29.pdf.

  20. 20.

    See Article 3 TFEU.

  21. 21.

    The CCP is extended explicitly to:

    . . . the conclusion of . . . trade agreements relating to trade in . . . services, and the commercial aspects of intellectual property, foreign direct investment, the achievement of uniformity in measures of liberalization, export policy and measures to protect trade such as those to be taken in the event of dumping or subsidies.

  22. 22.

    See Krajewski (2013), p. 67; Bungenberg (2015).

  23. 23.

    See on this, for example, Vedder (2013), p. 115.

  24. 24.

    On the absence of Parliament in the formal process of concluding trade agreements before the Lisbon Treaty, see Quintin (1975), p. 211; Maresceau (1993), pp. 3 (9); Flaesch-Mougin (1993), p. 383; Bosse-Platière (2002), p. 527.

  25. 25.

    Devuyst (2013), pp. 259 (303); Passos and Marquardt (2007), pp. 875 (904).

  26. 26.

    European Parliament, Legislative Resolution of 11 February 2010 on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of Financial Messaging Data from the European Union to the United States for purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (05305/1/2010 REV 1 C7-0004/2010 2009/0190(NLE)), [2010] OJ C 341/100; Passos (2010), pp. 269 (285–286); Passos (2011/2013), pp. 49 (52–53), available at http://www.asser.nl/upload/documents/772011_51358CLEER%20WP%202011-3%20-%20KOUTRAKOS.pdf.

  27. 27.

    European Parliament, Resolution of 9 October 2013 on the EU–China negotiations for a bilateral investment agreement (2013/2674(RSP)), available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2013-0411+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.

  28. 28.

    Article 205 TFEU explicitly states that the CCP “shall be guided by the principles, pursue the objectives and be conducted in accordance with the general provisions” laid down in Article 21 TEU.

  29. 29.

    See on this, for example, Devuyst (2013), pp. 259 (299).

  30. 30.

    European Parliament, Resolution of 6 April 2011 on the future European international investment policy (2010/2203(INI)), para. 1, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2011-0141+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.

  31. 31.

    European Parliament, Resolution of 6 April 2011 on the future European international investment policy (2010/2203(INI)), paras. 23-26, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2011-0141+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.

  32. 32.

    European Parliament, Resolution of 6 April 2011 on the future European international investment policy (2010/2203(INI)), paras. 27-30, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2011-0141+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.

  33. 33.

    European Parliament, Resolution of 6 April 2011 on the future European international investment policy (2010/2203(INI)), para. 27, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2011-0141+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.

  34. 34.

    European Parliament, Resolution of 6 April 2011 on the future European international investment policy (2010/2203(INI)), para. 28, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2011-0141+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.

  35. 35.

    See, for example, Bund für Umwelt- und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V. (BUND), Wem nützt das transatlantische Freihandelsabkommen (TTIP)?, available at http://www.bund.net/themen_und_projekte/landwirtschaft/zukunft/freihandelsabkommen/; see also attac, http://www.attac.de/ttip.

  36. 36.

    See Deutscher Bundesrat, Entschließung des Bundesrates anlässlich des öffentlichen Konsultationsverfahrens der Europäischen Kommission über die Modalitäten eines Investitionsschutzabkommens mit Investor-Staat-Schiedsgerichtsverfahren im Rahmen der Verhandlungen über eine Transatlantische Handels- und Investitionspartnerschaft zwischen der EU und den USA, BR-Drs. 295/14, 2 July 2014.

  37. 37.

    See on this especially Schwichtenberg (2013).

  38. 38.

    See, for example, the Canada-mandate, available at http://www.s2bnetwork.org/themes/eu-investment-policy/eu-documents/text-of-the-mandates.html.

  39. 39.

    See more at: http://www.disputeresolutiongermany.com/2014/07/upper-chamber-of-german-parliament-against-investment-arbitration-in-useu-ttip/#sthash.yh65pHOO.dpuf.

  40. 40.

    European Commission, Online Public Consultation on Investment Protection and Investor-to-state Dispute Settlement (ISDS) in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (TTIP), http://trade.ec.europa.eu/consultations/index.cfm?consul_id=179.

  41. 41.

    See in this regard Braun (2011), p. 95; Lavranos (2013), p. 2, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2226979.

  42. 42.

    See on the German Model BIT, for example, Dolzer and Kim (2013), p. 289, and on the more “European Approach” Gaffney (2015), § 11.

  43. 43.

    See, for example, the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part, signed on 6 October 2010, provisionally applied since 1 July 2011, [2011] OJ L 127/6; the Agreement establishing an association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part, signed on 18 November 2002 (entry into force 1 February 2003), [2002] OJ L 352/1; the Economic Partnership Agreement between the CARIFORUM States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed 15 October 2008 (10 December 2009 by Haiti; entry into force: applied provisionally from 29 December 2008), [2008] OJ L 289I/1.

  44. 44.

    The leaked document of a preliminary document on which the minimum platform on investment was based is available at http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2006/itn_ecom.pdf; see on the minimum platform for example Maydell (2007), p. 73; Klamert and Maydell (2008), pp. 493 (511 et seq.); for the revisited version of the Minimum Platform on Investment, see Council Document 7242/09, Limited, of 6 March 2009.

  45. 45.

    See on this, for example, Newcombe (2015), § 12.

  46. 46.

    European Commission, Communication, Towards a Comprehensive European International Investment Policy, COM(2010)343 final of 7 July 2010, p. 4, available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/may/tradoc_147884.pdf.

  47. 47.

    Council of the European Union, Conclusions on a Comprehensive European International Investment Policy, 3041st Foreign Affairs Council Meeting, Luxembourg, 25 October 2010, available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/117328.pdf.

  48. 48.

    European Parliament, Resolution of 6 April 2011 on the future European international investment policy (2010/2203(INI)), available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2011-0141+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.

  49. 49.

    European Commission, Press Release, IP/12/356 of 10 April 2012, EU and US Adopt Blueprint for Open and Stable Investment Climates, available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-356_en.htm?locale=en.

  50. 50.

    On the negotiations with Canada see Lévesque (2013), p. 121; see also Council Negotiating Directives (Canada, India and Singapore), 12 September 2011, available at http://www.bilaterals.org/?eu-negotiating-mandates-on&lang=en as well as at http://www.s2bnetwork.org/%20themes/eu-investment-policy/eu-documents/text-of-the-mandates.html.

  51. 51.

    See on this Bungenberg (2014), p. 402; Shan and Zhang (2014), p. 422.

  52. 52.

    Vadi (2013), p. 709.

  53. 53.

    Statement of the European Union and the United States on Shared Principles for International Investment, 10 April 2012, available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/april/tradoc_149338.pdf.

  54. 54.

    See e.g., Article 3(1) Canadian Model FIPA 2004 (“Each Party shall accord to investors of the other Party treatment no less favourable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation and sale or other disposition of investments in its territory.”), available at http://italaw.com/documents/Canadian2004-FIPA-model-en.pdf.

  55. 55.

    See on the different options Shan and Zhang (2014), p. 422.

  56. 56.

    See e.g., the provisions on “commercial presence” of Article 65 et seq. of the Economic Partnership Agreement between the CARIFORUM States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed 15 October 2008 (10 December 2009 by Haiti; entry into force: applied provisionally from 29 December 2008), [2008] OJ L 289I/1, as well as Section C of Chapter 7 of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part, signed on 6 October 2010, provisionally applied since 1 July 2011, [2011] OJ L 127/6, which provides for MFN treatment and specific market access commitments and national treatment in separate schedules; see also Dimopoulos (2011), pp. 52–53; also Shan and Zhang (2014), p. 422.

  57. 57.

    CETA Investment Text, published on 26 September 2014, Article X.7 National Treatment, available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/september/tradoc_152806.pdf.

  58. 58.

    CETA Investment Text, published on 26 September 2014, Article X.4: Market Access, available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/september/tradoc_152806.pdf.

  59. 59.

    CETA Investment Text, published on 26 September 2014, Article X.5: Performance Requirements, available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/september/tradoc_152806.pdf.

  60. 60.

    See European Parliament, Resolution of 9 October 2013 on the EU–China negotiations for a bilateral investment agreement (2013/2674(RSP)), available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2013-0411+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.

  61. 61.

    See on this GATS approach, for example, Ohler (2007), pp. 373 (399); see on the positive list approach also Low and Mattoo (2000), p. 449.

  62. 62.

    Available at http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-11103-2013-DCL-1/en/pdf.

  63. 63.

    Available at http://www.s2bnetwork.org/fileadmin/dateien/downloads/EU-TTIP-Mandate-from-bfmtv-June17-2013.pdf.

  64. 64.

    Reinisch (2014), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2236192.

  65. 65.

    European Parliament, Resolution of 6 April 2011 on the future European international investment policy (2010/2203(INI)), paras. 23-26, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2011-0141+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.

  66. 66.

    Titi (2013), available at http://ccsi.columbia.edu/files/2014/01/FDI_86.pdf; see also Juillard (2004), p. 669.

  67. 67.

    Titi (2013), available at http://ccsi.columbia.edu/files/2014/01/FDI_86.pdf.

  68. 68.

    European Commission, Fact Sheet, Investment Protection and Investor-to-State Dispute Settlement in EU Agreements, November 2013, p. 2, available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/november/tradoc_151916.pdf.

  69. 69.

    See also Hoffmeister and Alexandru (2014), p. 379.

  70. 70.

    Draft CETA Investment Text, 21 November 2013, Annex: Expropriation:

    For greater certainty, except in the rare circumstance where the impact of the measure or series of measures is so severe in light of its purpose that it appears manifestly excessive, non-discriminatory measures by a Party that are designed and applied to protect legitimate public welfare objectives, such as health, safety and the environment, do not constitute indirect expropriations.

    Available at http://www.tradejustice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/CETA-Draft-Investment-Text-Nov21-2013-203b-13.pdf.

  71. 71.

    European Parliament, Resolution of 6 April 2011 on the future European international investment policy (2010/2203(INI)), para. 19 (calling for “protection against direct and indirect expropriation, giving a definition that establishes a clear and fair balance between public welfare objectives and private interests.”), available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2011-0141+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.

  72. 72.

    Reinisch (2014), p. 679.

  73. 73.

    See also Hoffmeister and Alexandru (2014), p. 379.

  74. 74.

    Consolidated CETA Text, published on 26 September 2014, available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/september/tradoc_152806.pdf. Article X.9(2):

    [E]ach Party shall accord in its territory to investors and to covered investments of the other Party fair and equitable treatment” is accompanied by a paragraph defining a breach of the FET obligation as a measure or series of measures constitut[ing]:

    1. a.

      Denial of justice in criminal, civil or administrative proceedings;

    2. b.

      Fundamental breach of due process, including a fundamental breach of transparency, in judicial and administrative proceedings.

    3. c.

      Manifest arbitrariness;

    4. d.

      Targeted discrimination on manifestly wrongful grounds, such as gender, race or religious belief;

    5. e.

      Abusive treatment of investors, such as coercion, duress and harassment; or

    a breach of any further elements of the fair and equitable treatment obligation adopted by the Parties in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Article.

  75. 75.

    European Commission, Fact Sheet, Investment Protection and Investor-to-State Dispute Settlement in EU agreements, November 2013, pp. 2, 7 et seq., available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/november/tradoc_151916.pdf.

  76. 76.

    Consolidated CETA Text, published on 26 September 2014, available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/september/tradoc_152806.pdf. Article X.8: Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment (“4. For greater certainty, the ‘treatment’ referred to in Paragraph 1 and 2 does not include investor-to-state dispute settlement procedures provided for in other international investment treaties and other trade agreements.”).

  77. 77.

    Emilio Agustín Maffezini v Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/7, Decision on Jurisdiction, 25 January 2000, available at http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0479.pdf.

  78. 78.

    Reinisch (2014), p. 679.

  79. 79.

    See also Hoffmeister and Alexandru (2014), p. 379.

  80. 80.

    See article 5 par. 2 of the Agreement among the Government of Japan, the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the People’s Republic of China for the Promotion, Facilitation and Protection of Investment, signed 13 May 2012 (not yet in force), available at http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/press/release/24/5/pdfs/0513_01_02.pdf.

  81. 81.

    European Commission, Communication, Towards a Comprehensive European International Investment Policy, COM(2010)343 final of 7 July 2010, available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/may/tradoc_147884.pdf; European Parliament, Resolution of 6 April 2011 on the future European international investment policy (2010/2203(INI)), available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2011-0141+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.

  82. 82.

    European Commission, Communication, Towards a Comprehensive European International Investment Policy, COM(2010)343 final of 7 July 2010, pp. 9–10, available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/may/tradoc_147884.pdf, Council of the EU, Conclusions on a comprehensive European international investment policy, 3041st Foreign Affairs Council Meeting, Luxembourg, 25 October 2010, para. 18, available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/117328.pdf, European Parliament, Resolution of 6 April 2011 on the future European international investment policy (2010/2203(INI)), paras. 31-35, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2011-0141+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.

  83. 83.

    European Commission, Communication, Towards a Comprehensive European International Investment Policy, COM(2010)343 final of 7 July 2010, p. 10, available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/may/tradoc_147884.pdf.

  84. 84.

    Council of the EU, Conclusions on a comprehensive European international investment policy, 3041st Foreign Affairs Council Meeting, Luxembourg, 25 October 2010, Recital 6, available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/117328.pdf.

  85. 85.

    Council of the EU, Conclusions on a comprehensive European international investment policy, 3041st Foreign Affairs Council Meeting, Luxembourg, 25 October 2010, Recital 8, available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/117328.pdf.

  86. 86.

    Council of the EU, Conclusions on a comprehensive European international investment policy, 3041st Foreign Affairs Council Meeting, Luxembourg, 25 October 2010, Recital 18, 14, available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/117328.pdf.

  87. 87.

    European Parliament, Resolution of 6 April 2011 on the future European international investment policy (2010/2203(INI)), paras. 31-35, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2011-0141+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.

  88. 88.

    See Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Gillard Government Trade Policy Statement: Trading our Way to More Jobs and Prosperity, April 2011, p. 14, available at http://www.acci.asn.au/getattachment/b9d3cfae-fc0c-4c2a-a3df-3f58228daf6d/Gillard-Government-Trade-Policy-Statement.aspx; Kurtz (2012), p. 33; Nottage (2011), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1860505.

  89. 89.

    Article 67 ICSID Convention; see on this, for example, Burgstaller (2014), p. 551.

  90. 90.

    Burgstaller (2014), p. 551.

  91. 91.

    E.g. see UNCITRAL and Private Disputes/Litigation on UNCITRAL’s site: http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration_faq.html.

  92. 92.

    Hoffmeister and Ünüvar (2013), pp. 57 (78).

  93. 93.

    European Commission, Communication, Towards a Comprehensive European International Investment Policy, COM(2010)343 final of 7 July 2010, p. 10, available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/may/tradoc_147884.pdf.

  94. 94.

    See, for example, Doha Work Programme—Decision Adopted by the General Council on 1 August 2004, WTO-Doc. WT/L/579; Ismail (2004), p. 377; Zoellner (2009); Titi (2015), § 78, including bibliography.

  95. 95.

    See UNCITRAL, Report of Working Group II (Arbitration and Conciliation) on the work of its 58th session (New York, 4-8 February 2013), A/CN.9/765; see further United Nations General Assembly, Settlement of commercial disputes: preparation of a legal standard on transparency in treaty-based investor-State arbitration, A/CN.9/WG.II/WP.176; United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Working Group II (Arbitration and Conciliation), 58th session, New York, 4–8 February 2013; See also Bungenberg and Titi (2013), p. 425.

  96. 96.

    European Commission, Communication, Towards a Comprehensive European International Investment Policy, COM(2010)343 final of 7 July 2010, p. 10, available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/may/tradoc_147884.pdf.

  97. 97.

    European Parliament, Resolution of 6 April 2011 on the future European international investment policy (2010/2203(INI)), para. 31, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2011-0141+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.

  98. 98.

    See above ‘The EU’s first negotiating directives for investment chapters in comprehensive free trade agreements’. See also below.

  99. 99.

    See Titi (2015), § 78.

  100. 100.

    Knahr and Reinisch (2007), pp. 97 (110); see further Titi (2015), § 78, including bibliography.

  101. 101.

    Knahr and Reinisch (2007), pp. 97 (111); Berger (1992), pp. 5 (19).

  102. 102.

    See in this regard the CME and Lauder v Czech Republic awards that are among the most cited examples of the problems discussed here; in two simultaneous arbitrations dealing with the same facts—one conducted under the Netherlands-Czech BIT and the other one under the US-Czech BIT—one tribunal dismissed the claim and another tribunal awarded USD 353 million to the investor; see CME v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL (1976), 13 September 2001, Partial Award, pp. 109 et seq., available at http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0178.pdf; Lauder v Czech Republic, UNCITRAL (1976), 3 September 2001, Final Award, pp. 35 et seq., available at http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0451.pdf.

  103. 103.

    European Commission, Communication, Towards a Comprehensive European International Investment Policy, COM(2010)343 final of 7 July 2010, p. 10, available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/may/tradoc_147884.pdf; see on this also Tams (2014), p. 585; Calamita (2014), p. 645.

  104. 104.

    Council of the European Union, Directives for the negotiation on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the European Union and the United States of America, of 17 June 2013, para. 23, available at http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-11103-2013-DCL-1/en/pdf.

  105. 105.

    See, for example, Sauvant (2008); Tams (2006).

  106. 106.

    Article 28(10) US Model BIT 2012, available athttp://www.state.gov/documents/organization/188371.pdf; see also the investment chapters of the United States—Chile Free Trade Agreement, signed 6 June 2003 (entry into force: 1 January 2004), available at http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/agreements/fta/chile/asset_upload_file535_3989.pdf; United States—Singapore Free Trade Agreement, signed 6 May 2003 (entry into force: 1 January 2004), available at http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/agreements/fta/singapore/asset_upload_file708_4036.pdf; United States—Morocco Free Trade Agreement, signed 15 June 2004 (entry into force: 1 January 2006), available at http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/agreements/fta/morocco/asset_upload_file118_3819.pdf.

  107. 107.

    European Parliament, Resolution of 6 April 2011 on the future European international investment policy (2010/2203(INI)), paras. 27-30, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2011-0141+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.

  108. 108.

    European Parliament, Resolution of 6 April 2011 on the future European international investment policy (2010/2203(INI)), para. 27, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2011-0141+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.

  109. 109.

    European Parliament, Resolution of 6 April 2011 on the future European international investment policy (2010/2203(INI)), para. 27, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2011-0141+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.

  110. 110.

    European Parliament, Resolution of 6 April 2011 on the future European international investment policy (2010/2203(INI)), para. 28, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2011-0141+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.

  111. 111.

    European Parliament, Resolution of 6 April 2011 on the future European international investment policy (2010/2203(INI)), para. 30, available at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2011-0141+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.

  112. 112.

    Council of the European Union, Directives for the negotiation on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the European Union and the United States of America of 17 June 2013, para. 8, available at http://www.s2bnetwork.org/fileadmin/dateien/downloads/EU-TTIP-Mandate-from-bfmtv-June17-2013.pdf.

References

  • Berger KP (1992) The International Arbitrators’ Application of Precedents. J Int Arbitr 9:4

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosse-Platière (2002) Le Parlement européen et les relations extérieures de la Communauté européenne après le Traité de Nice. Revue Trimestrielle De Droit Européen 38:527

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun TR (2011) For a complementary European investment protection. In: Bungenberg M, Hindelang S, Griebel J (eds) European yearbook of international economic law, special issue: international investment law and EU law, p 95

    Google Scholar 

  • Bungenberg M (2009) Außenbeziehungen und Außenhandelspolitik. EuR Beiheft 1:195

    Google Scholar 

  • Bungenberg M (2010) Going global? The EU common commercial policy after Lisbon. In: Herrmann C, Terhechte JP (eds) European yearbook of international economic law, p 123

    Google Scholar 

  • Bungenberg M (2011) Internationaler Investitionsschutz im Wettbewerb der Systeme. KSzW, p 116

    Google Scholar 

  • Bungenberg M (2011) The politics of the European Union’s investment treaty making. In: Broude T, Busch ML, Porges A (eds) The politics of international economic law, p 133

    Google Scholar 

  • Bungenberg M (2014) The scope of application of EU (model) investment agreements. In: Bungenberg M, Reinisch A (eds) The anatomy of the (invisible) EU model BIT. JWIT Special Issue, p 402

    Google Scholar 

  • Bungenberg (2015) Article 218. In: von der Groeben H, Schwarze J, Hatje A (eds) Europäisches Unionsrecht, 7th edn

    Google Scholar 

  • Bungenberg M, Herrmann C (eds) (2013) Common commercial policy after Lisbon

    Google Scholar 

  • Bungenberg M, Reinisch A (eds) (2014) The anatomy of the (invisible) EU model BIT. JWIT Special Issue

    Google Scholar 

  • Bungenberg M, Titi C (2013) Developments in international investment law. In: Herrmann C, Krajewski M, Terhechte JP (eds) European yearbook of international economic law 2014, p 425

    Google Scholar 

  • Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hindelang S (eds) (2011) European yearbook of international economic law. Special issue: international investment law and EU law

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgstaller M (2009) European law and investment treaties. J Int Arbitr 26:181

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgstaller M (2014) Dispute settlement in EU international investment agreements with third states: three salient problems. In: Bungenberg M, Reinisch A (eds) The anatomy of the (invisible) EU model BIT. JWIT Special Issue, p 551

    Google Scholar 

  • Calamita NJ (2012) The making of Europe’s international investment policy: uncertain first steps. Leg Issues Econ Integrat 39:301

    Google Scholar 

  • Calamita NJ (2014) Dispute settlement transparency in Europe’s evolving investment treaty policy. In: Bungenberg M, Reinisch A (eds) The anatomy of the (invisible) EU model BIT. JWIT Special Issue, p 645

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaisse J (2012) Promises and pitfalls of the European Union policy on foreign investment – how will the new EU competence on FDI affect the emerging global regime? J Int Econ Law 15:51

    Google Scholar 

  • Devuyst Y (2013) European Union law and practice in the negotiation and conclusion of international trade agreements. J Int Business Law 12

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimopoulos A (2011) EU foreign investment law

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolzer R, Kim Y-I (2013) Germany. In: Brown C (ed) Commentaries on selected model investment treaties, p 289

    Google Scholar 

  • Flaesch-Mougin C (1993) Le Traité de Maastricht et les compétences externes de la Communauté européenne. Cahiers De Droit Européen 29:383

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaffney J (2015) European bilateral approaches. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallward-Driemeier M (2003) Do bilateral investment treaties attract FDI? Only a bit…and they could bite. World Bank Research Paper No. 3121, p 21

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeister F, Alexandru G (2014) A first glimpse of light on the emerging invisible EU model BIT. In: Bungenberg M, Reinisch A (eds) The anatomy of the (invisible) EU model BIT. JWIT Special Issue, p 379

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeister F, Ünüvar G (2013) From BITS and pieces towards European investment agreements. In: Bungenberg M, Reinisch A, Tietje C (eds) EU and investment agreements: open questions and remaining challenges

    Google Scholar 

  • Ismail F (2004) A development perspective on the WTO July 2004 general council decision. J Int Econ Law 8:377

    Google Scholar 

  • Juillard P (2004) Le nouveau modèle américain de traité bilatéral sur l’encouragement et la protection réciproques des investissements. Annuaire français de droit international 50:669

    Google Scholar 

  • Klamert M, Maydell N (2008) Lost in exclusivity: implied non-exclusive external competences in community law. Eur Foreign Aff Rev 13:493

    Google Scholar 

  • Knahr C, Reinisch A (2007) Transparency versus confidentiality in international investment arbitration – the Biwater Gauff compromise. Law Pract Int Courts Tribunals 6:97

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajewski M (2013) New functions and new powers for the European Parliament: assessing the changes of the common commercial policy from the perspective of democratic legitimacy. In: Bungenberg M, Herrmann C (eds) Common commercial policy after Lisbon, p 67

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurtz J (2012) Australia’s rejection of investor-state arbitration: causation, omission and implication. ICSID Rev 27(1):33

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavranos N (2013) In defence of member states’ BITs gold standard: the regulation 1219/2012 establishing a transitional regime for existing extra-EU BITs – a member state’s perspective. In: EU, investment treaties, and investment treaty arbitration – current developments and challenges. TDM 10:2

    Google Scholar 

  • Lévesque C (2013) The challenges of ‘marrying’ investment liberalisation and protection in the Canada-EU CETA. In: Bungenberg M, Reinisch A, Tietje C (eds) EU and investment agreements: open questions and remaining challenges, p 121

    Google Scholar 

  • Low P, Mattoo A (2000) Is there a better way? Alternative approaches to liberalization under the GATS. In: Sauvé P, Stern RM (eds) GATS 2000: new directions in service trade liberalization, p 449

    Google Scholar 

  • Maresceau M (1993) The concept “common commercial policy” and the difficult road to Maastricht. In: Maresceau M (ed) The European community’s commercial policy after 1992: the legal dimension, p 3 (9)

    Google Scholar 

  • Maydell N (2007) The European community’s minimum platform on investment or the Trojan horse of investment competence. In: Reinisch A, Knahr C (eds) International investment law in context, p 73

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumayer E, Spess L (2005) Do bilateral investment treaties increase foreign direct investment to developing countries? World Dev 33:1567 (1568)

    Google Scholar 

  • Newcombe A (2015) IIAs in the Americas. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law

    Google Scholar 

  • Nottage L (2011) The rise and possible fall of investor-state-arbitration in Asia: a skeptic’s view of Australia’s “Gillard government trade policy statement”. Sydney Law School Research Paper 11/32

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohler C (2007) Handel mit Dienstleistungen. In: Herrmann C, Weiß W, Ohler C (eds) Welthandelsrecht, p 373 (399)

    Google Scholar 

  • Passos R (2010) Mixed agreements from the perspective of the European Parliament. In: Hillion C, Koutrakos P (eds) Mixed agreements revisited: the EU and its member states in the world, p 269 (285–286)

    Google Scholar 

  • Passos R (2011) The European Union’s external relations a year after Lisbon: a first evaluation from the European Parliament. In: Koutrakos P (ed) The European Union’s external relations a year after Lisbon. CLEER Working Papers 2011/3, p 49 (52–53)

    Google Scholar 

  • Passos R, Marquardt S (2007) International agreements – competences, procedures and judicial control. In: Amato G, Bribosia H, de Witte B (eds) Genesis and destiny of the European Constitution, p 875 (904)

    Google Scholar 

  • Quintin M (1975) Participation de l’Assemblée parlementaire européenne au déroulement de la procédure de négociation des accords commerciaux. Revue Trimestrielle De Droit Européen 11:211

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinisch A (2014) Putting the pieces together: an EU model BIT? In: Bungenberg M, Reinisch A (eds) The anatomy of the (invisible) EU model BIT. JWIT Special Issue, p 679

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinisch A (2014) The EU on the investment path – Quo Vadis Europe? The future of EU BITs and other investment agreements

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauvant KP (2008) Appeals mechanism in international investment disputes

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwichtenberg K (2013) Die Kooperationsverpflichtung der Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union bei Abschluss und Anwendung gemischter Verträge

    Google Scholar 

  • Shan W, Zhang S (2014) Market access provisions in the potential EU model BIT: towards a “Global BIT 2.0”? In: Bungenberg M, Reinisch A (eds) The anatomy of the (invisible) EU model BIT. JWIT Special Issue, p 422

    Google Scholar 

  • Tams C (2006) An appealing option? The debate about an ICSID appellate structure. Essays Transnational Econ Law 57

    Google Scholar 

  • Tams C (2014) Procedural aspects of investor-state dispute settlement: the emergence of an European approach. In: Bungenberg M, Reinisch A (eds) The anatomy of the (invisible) EU model BIT. JWIT Special Issue, p 585

    Google Scholar 

  • Titi C (2013) EU investment agreements and the search for a new balance: a paradigm shift from Laissez-faire liberalism toward embedded liberalism? Columbia FDI Perspectives 86

    Google Scholar 

  • Titi C (2015) International investment law and good governance. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobin J, Rose-Ackermann S (2005) Foreign direct investment and the business environment in developing countries: the impact of bilateral investment treaties. Yale Law & Economics Research Paper No. 293, p 22

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2012, p 85

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2014, p 114

    Google Scholar 

  • Vadi V (2013) Converging divergences: the rise of Chinese outward foreign investment and its implications for international (investment) law. In: Sauvant KP (ed) Yearbook on international investment law & policy 2011–2012, p 709

    Google Scholar 

  • Vedder C (2013) Linkage of the common commercial policy to the general objectives for the Union’s external action. In: Bungenberg M, Herrmann C (eds) Common commercial policy after Lisbon, p 115

    Google Scholar 

  • Zoellner CS (2009) Das Transparenzprinzip im Internationalen Wirtschaftsrecht

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Europa-Institut, Saarland University, 66041, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Marc Bungenberg

Authors
  1. Marc Bungenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marc Bungenberg .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Passau, Passau, Germany

    Christoph Herrmann

  2. Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Bruno Simma

  3. Ludwig Maximilians University Munich, Munich, Germany

    Rudolf Streinz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bungenberg, M. (2015). Towards a More Balanced International Investment Law 2.0?. In: Herrmann, C., Simma, B., Streinz, R. (eds) Trade Policy between Law, Diplomacy and Scholarship. European Yearbook of International Economic Law(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15690-3_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation