Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The CETA Investment Chapter and Sustainable Development: Interpretative Issues

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Foreign Investment Under the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA)

Part of the book series: Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation ((SEELR,volume 15))

Abstract

The United Nations Agenda 2030 and its sustainable developments goals (SDGs) uphold the status of sustainable development as being the global objective and guiding principle for various fields of international governance. The concept is relevant for international norm-creation but also for the interpretation of international norms. Its interpretative function is relevant with respect to international investment law. In this context, the idea is to integrate environmental and social concerns into the interpreting process of investment provisions in order to reach more balanced outcomes. The present chapter specifically looks at the interpretative function of sustainable development under CETA. It namely seeks to answer the question of the implications of sustainable development on the interpretation of the CETA Investment Chapter. It, therefore presents the explicit references to sustainable development in either the CETA text itself or, in instruments connected to it. The purpose is to comment on their respective values for the interpretation of the CETA Investment Chapter.

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

Access this chapter

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 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    UN General Assembly, Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, 21 October 2015, A/RES/70/1, http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E.

  2. 2.

    UNCTAD, Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development 2015 (IPFSD), December 2015, http://unctad.org/fr/PublicationsLibrary/diaepcb2012d5_en.pdf.

  3. 3.

    OECD, Better Policies for 2030—An OECD Action Plan on the Sustainable Development Goals, available at http://www.oecd.org/dac/Better%20Policies%20for%202030.pdf; G20, Guiding Principles for Global Investment Policymaking, principle V, http://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/investment-policy/G20-Guiding-Principles-for-Global-Investment-Policymaking.pdf.

  4. 4.

    Schill S, Reforming Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS): Conceptual Framework and Options for the Way Forward, E15 Task Force On Investment Policy, July 2015, p. 6, http://e15initiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/E15-Investment-Schill-FINAL.pdf.

  5. 5.

    For a thorough analysis see Barral (2016), pp. 169–173 and 263–264; Barral also considers that SD as an objective already constitutes a principle of customary international law, for more details see Barral (2012), p. 388. In contrast hereto Lowe (1999), pp. 19–37.

  6. 6.

    International Law Association (ILA), ‘Toronto Conference 2006 – International Law on Sustainable Development’.

  7. 7.

    See CETA, Art. 22.1(1) in fine.

  8. 8.

    UN Division on SD, ‘A guidebook to the Green Economy’, August 2012, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/GE%20Guidebook.pdf.

  9. 9.

    See chapter on ‘The Right to Regulate’ of Catherine Titi in the present book.

  10. 10.

    See for instance the just mentioned documents of UNCTAD (n. 2), OECD (n. 3) and the G20 (n. 3).

  11. 11.

    The “partnership” of SD concerns the judiciary as such they also have a task to promote SD; see principle 27 of the Rio Declaration and in particular the ‘2002 Johannesburg Principles on the Role of Law and Sustainable Development’, Global Judges Symposium held in Johannesburg, South Africa,18–20 August 2002.

  12. 12.

    European Commission, ‘Handbook for Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment’, 2nd ed., p. 8. Available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/april/tradoc_154464.PDF.

  13. 13.

    A list of all accomplished SIAs can be found at http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/policy-making/analysis/policy-evaluation/sustainability-impact-assessments/index_en.htm.

  14. 14.

    Gehring et al. (2017), p. 169.

  15. 15.

    For more details see Gehring et al. (2017), p. 168 et seq.

  16. 16.

    Handbook for Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment (n. 12), p. 3.

  17. 17.

    The human rights impact assessment forms part of SIAs since 2015, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/july/tradoc_153591.pdf.

  18. 18.

    The final report is available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/september/tradoc_148201.pdf.

  19. 19.

    Handbook for Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment (n. 12), pp. 9–13.

  20. 20.

    Final SIA report (n. 18), p. 14. The human rights assessment was not yet part of the SIA on CETA as it was officially introduced in 2015.

  21. 21.

    Final SIA report (n. 18), pp. 26–27.

  22. 22.

    Ibid., p. 338.

  23. 23.

    Ibid., p. 339.

  24. 24.

    Ibid., p. 338.

  25. 25.

    European Commission, ‘European Commission services’ position paper on the trade sustainability impact assessment of a Comprehensive Economic & Trade Agreement between the EU and Canada’, 4 April 2017, available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/html/155471.htm.

  26. 26.

    Ibid., p. 2.

  27. 27.

    Ibid., p. 12.

  28. 28.

    Ibid.

  29. 29.

    Ibid., p. 13.

  30. 30.

    This is however notwithstanding the fact that SD concerns have indirectly been implemented into the CETA Investment Chapter. More generally on the EU reform approaches see Hoffmeister (2015), pp. 365–371.

  31. 31.

    The Joint Interpretative Instrument has been adopted at the moment of the signature of CETA and is thus considered to form an integral part of CETA.

  32. 32.

    Barral (2016), pp. 125–126.

  33. 33.

    Marrakesh Agreement establishing the WTO, preamble, recital 1: “Recognizing that their relations in the field of trade and economic endeavour should be conducted with a view to raising standards of living, ensuring full employment and a large and steadily growing volume of real income and effective demand, and expanding the production of and trade in goods and services, while allowing for the optimal use of the world’s resources in accordance with the objective of sustainable development, seeking both to protect and preserve the environment and to enhance the means for doing so in a manner consistent with their respective needs and concerns at different levels of economic development” (emphasis added).

  34. 34.

    CETA, preamble, recital 9 (emphasis added).

  35. 35.

    Oxford Online Dictionary, http://www.oed.com/; see also Barral (2016), p. 227.

  36. 36.

    For the converging factors between trade and investment see Kurtz (2016), pp. 10–20.

  37. 37.

    Rare exceptions are three BITs concluded by the Netherlands with Bangladesh (1994), Costa Rica (1999) and Latvia (1994), see UNCTAD Database, http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/IIA.

  38. 38.

    Ibid.

  39. 39.

    For the calculation, the number of mapped treaties (2’575) has been used. The current number of IIAs is 3’324, see UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2017: Investment and the Digital Economy, p. 111.

  40. 40.

    TPP, preamble recital 12: “Promote high levels of environmental protection, including through effective enforcement of environmental laws, and further the aims of sustainable development, including through mutually supportive trade and environmental policies and practices; […]”.

  41. 41.

    World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg Declaration Development, A/CONF.199/20, 4 September 2002 July.

  42. 42.

    EU-South Korea FTA, OJ L 127, 14 June 2011. It should however be said that similar provisions than those of the EU-South Korea SD chapter could already be found in the EU-CARIFORUM Economic Partnership Agreement, OJ L 289/I/3, 30 October 2008.

  43. 43.

    North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), and North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC), both entered into force on 1 January 1994. A provision on “Environmental Measures” is however contained in NAFTA, see Art. 1114.

  44. 44.

    CETA, Art. 22.1 (emphasis added).

  45. 45.

    CETA, Art. 26.2(1)(g) (on specialised committees) and Art. 22.4.

  46. 46.

    CETA, Art. 22.4(3).

  47. 47.

    See also Bartels (2013), pp. 306–307.

  48. 48.

    CETA, Art. 23.3, see also ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up of 1998 adopted by the ILC at its 86th session, Geneva, 1998, http://blue.lim.ilo.org/cariblex/pdfs/ILO_Declaration_Work.pdf.

  49. 49.

    CETA, Art. 24.4.

  50. 50.

    CETA, Arts. 23.5 and 24.6.

  51. 51.

    See CETA, Art. 23.5(1)(b).

  52. 52.

    CETA, Art. 22.3.

  53. 53.

    OECD, ‘Guidelines for multinational enterprises’, last version of 2011, http://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/mne/48004323.pdf.

  54. 54.

    UN Global Compact, https://www.unglobalcompact.org/.

  55. 55.

    ILO, Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, last version of March 2017, http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/%2D%2D-ed_emp/%2D%2D-emp_ent/%2D%2D-multi/documents/publication/wcms_094386.pdf.

  56. 56.

    CETA, Arts. 23.2 (labour) and 24.3 (environment): “The Parties recognise the right of each Party to set its [environmental or labour] priorities, to establish its levels of [environmental or labour] protection and to adopt or modify its laws and policies accordingly”.

  57. 57.

    CETA, Arts. 23.2 and 24.3.

  58. 58.

    CETA, Arts. 23.4(2) and 24.5(2).

  59. 59.

    CETA, Art. 23.3(3), last sentence, and Art. 24.8(2).

  60. 60.

    CETA, Art. 24.8(2).

  61. 61.

    CETA, Art. 23.3(3), last sentence.

  62. 62.

    CETA, Art. 22.3(1).

  63. 63.

    CETA, Arts. 23.7 and 24.12.

  64. 64.

    CETA, Art. 22.5.

  65. 65.

    CETA, Arts. 23.8(4) and 24.13(5).

  66. 66.

    For the Labour Chapter 23: employers, union, labour and business organisations; for the Environment Chapter 24: environmental groups and business organisations.

  67. 67.

    CETA, Arts. 23.8(4) and 24.13(5).

  68. 68.

    European Parliament, ‘Trade and sustainable development chapters in CETA – Briefing, January 2017, www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/595894/EPRS_BRI(2017)595894_EN.pdf. p. 8.

  69. 69.

    CETA, Arts. 23.11(1) and 24.16(1).

  70. 70.

    CETA, Art. 24.14.

  71. 71.

    CETA, Arts. 23.11(2) and 24.16(2).

  72. 72.

    For an overview of the events around the CETA signature see Van der Loo G, ‘CETA’s signature: 38 statements, a joint interpretive instrument and an uncertain future’, CEPS Commentary, 31 October 2016, www.ceps.eu/publications/ceta’s-signature-38-statements-joint-interpretative-instrument-and-uncertain-future.

  73. 73.

    Council of the European Union, ‘Joint Interpretative Instrument on the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the European Union and its Member States’, 28 October 2016, http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-13541-2016-INIT/en/pdf.

  74. 74.

    JII, 7(a).

  75. 75.

    JII, 7(b).

  76. 76.

    Canada ratified 7 of the 8 fundamental ILO Conventions and now launched the ratification of the Convention on Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention of 1949.

  77. 77.

    JII, 2 (emphasis added).

  78. 78.

    JII, 1(d).

  79. 79.

    Ibid.

  80. 80.

    Ibid., 10(a).

  81. 81.

    Ibid., 10(b).

  82. 82.

    Aguas del Tunari v. Bolivia, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/3, Decision on Respondent’s Objections to Jurisdiction, 21 October 2005, para. 91.

  83. 83.

    Reinisch (2015), p. 373.

  84. 84.

    JII, 1(e).

  85. 85.

    See chapter on “The Notion of Investment” of the present book, Bischoff and Wühler argue that there is remaining discretion as regards the notion of investment.

  86. 86.

    See Henckels (2016). She argues that with respect to the provisions on expropriation and FET of CETA, tribunal members still have to interpret certain notions.

  87. 87.

    Yasseen (1976), p. 33.

  88. 88.

    Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), Case on the Diversion of Water from the Meuse, 38 June 1937, Series A/B, Fasicule n° 70, p. 21.

  89. 89.

    CETA, Art. 22.2 in fine.

  90. 90.

    UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2017: Investment and the Digital Economy, Figure III.1.1 Trends in IIAs signed, 1980–2016, p. 111.

  91. 91.

    Adel A. Hamadi Al Tamimi v. Sultanate of Oman, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/33, Award, 3 November 2015.

  92. 92.

    Oman–United States FTA (2009), https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/oman-fta/final-text.

  93. 93.

    Adel A. Hamadi Al Tamimi v. Sultanate of Oman (n. 91), para. 388 (emphasis added).

  94. 94.

    Ibid., para. 389 (emphasis added).

  95. 95.

    Ibid., para. 390.

  96. 96.

    S.D. Myers v. Canada, UNCITRAL, Partial Award, 13 November 2000.

  97. 97.

    Ibid., paras. 220–221.

  98. 98.

    Ibid., para. 250.

  99. 99.

    Aaron C. Berkowitz, Brett E. Berkowitz, Trevor B. Berkowitz and others v. Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. UNCT/13/2, Interim Award, 25 October 2016, pending.

  100. 100.

    Ibid., para. 108.

  101. 101.

    David R. Aven, Samuel D. Aven, Carolyn J. Park, Eric A. Park, Jeffrey S. Shioleno, Giacomo A. Buscemi, David A. Janney and Roger Raguso v. The Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. UNCT/15/3, pending.

  102. 102.

    Ibid., Rejoinder Memorial of Costa Rica, 28 October 2016, para. 42: “[…] Chapter 10 is not a stand-alone chapter, but rather is part of a broader trade agreement, which provides an express and deliberately agreed policy space in relation to the environment in Chapter 17. […]”.

  103. 103.

    See for instance, under the Colombia-US FTA: Cosigo Resources and others v. Colombia, UNCITRAL, pending (initiated 2016); under the Canada-Colombia FTA: Eco Oro Minerals Corp. v. Republic of Colombia, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/41, pending (initiated 2016); under the Central America-Panama FTA: Álvarez y Marín Corporación and others v. Panama, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/14, pending (initiated 2015).

  104. 104.

    Hoffmeister (2015), p. 361.

  105. 105.

    El Paso Energy International Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/15, Award, 31 October 2011.

  106. 106.

    Methanex Corporation v. USA, UNCITRAL, Final Award, 3 August 2005, see para. 9, Part IV, Chapter D.

  107. 107.

    El Paso v. Argentina (n. 105), para. 361.

  108. 108.

    CJEU, Opinion 2/15, 16 May 2017, para. 162: “Indeed, [the sustainable development] Chapter plays an essential role in the envisaged agreement”.

  109. 109.

    Yasseen (1976), p. 55.

  110. 110.

    Sinclair (1973), p. 70.

  111. 111.

    Siemens A.G. v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/8, Decision on Jurisdiction, 3 August 2004, para. 81: “The Tribunal shall be guided by the purpose of the Treaty as expressed in its title and preamble. […]”; Aguas del Tunari v Bolivia, Decision on Jurisdiction, para. 216; Société Générale v. Dominican Republic, Decision on Jurisdiction, para. 32; See also Gazzini (2016), p. 157 et seq.

  112. 112.

    Mbengue (2006), p. 397.

  113. 113.

    For more details see Reinisch (2015), p. 398.

  114. 114.

    Ibid., pp. 398 et seq.

  115. 115.

    MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7, Award, 25 May 2004, para. 104; Consider in particular, SGS v. Philippines, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/6, Decision on Objections to Jurisdiction, 29 January 2004, para. 116.

  116. 116.

    Reinisch (2015), p. 397, and list of cases in footnote 131. For a balanced approach see Saluka Investments B.V. v. The Czech Republic, Partial Award, 17 March 2006, para 300; and Sanum Investments Limited v. Lao People’s Democratic Republic, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2013-13, Award on Jurisdiction, 13 December 2013, para. 339.

  117. 117.

    Mbengue (2006), p. 397.

  118. 118.

    Marion Unglaube and Reinhard Unglaube v. Republic of Costa Rica, Award, 16 May 2012, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/1 and ICSID Case No. ARB/09/20, para 241: “[…] The language of the Preamble in this Treaty is also brief. It refers, simply, to the intent of the Contracting Parties “to create favorable conditions for investment [...].”

  119. 119.

    Nowrot (2014), p. 630.

  120. 120.

    Reinisch (2015), p. 401.

  121. 121.

    CETA, preamble, recitals 1-12.

  122. 122.

    William Ralph Clayton, William Richard Clayton, Douglas Clayton, Daniel Clayton and Bilcon of Delaware Inc. v. Government of Canada (Bilcon v. Canada), UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2009-04, Award on Jurisdiction and Liability, 17 March 2015.

  123. 123.

    Ibid., para. 596 (emphasis added).

  124. 124.

    Ibid., para. 597.

  125. 125.

    Ibid., para. 598. Ultimately, the Tribunal found however that Canada violated the NAFTA minimum standard of treatment because Canada did not treat the investor in a manner consistent with its own environmental law. On SD and deference see Henckels (2014).

  126. 126.

    Adel A. Hamadi Al Tamimi v. Sultanate of Oman (n. 91), see footnote 777 to para. 389. In this respect, there is a certain conflation of contextual and teleological interpretation.

  127. 127.

    Yasseen (1976), p. 57.

  128. 128.

    JII, 1(b).

  129. 129.

    JII, 1(d) referring to inter alia to public health, social services, environment and cultural diversity.

  130. 130.

    Mbengue (2016), p. 405 (on situation 1) and 408 (on situation 2).

  131. 131.

    Mbengue (2016), p. 408.

  132. 132.

    Yasseen (1976), p. 83.

  133. 133.

    Mbengue (2016), p. 390.

  134. 134.

    Yasseen (1976), p. 83.

  135. 135.

    Case Concerning the Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad), ICJ Judgment of 3 February 1994, paras. 55–56; see also Gehring et al. (2017), p. 195.

  136. 136.

    Award in the Arbitration regarding the Iron Rhine (“Ijzeren Rijn”) Railway between the Kingdom of Belgium and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Decision of 24 May 2005, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Volume XXVII, pp. 35–125, para. 48.

  137. 137.

    Arsanjani and Reisman (2010), claiming the limited value of travaux préparatoires, Part II, pp. 602–603.

  138. 138.

    See Sect. 2 above.

  139. 139.

    Gehring et al. (2017), p. 195.

  140. 140.

    Le Bouthillier (2011), pp. 859–860; Yasseen (1976), p. 92; Gehring et al. (2017), pp. 196–197.

  141. 141.

    Kiliç Ĭnşaat Ĭthalat Ĭhracat Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/1, Award, 2 July 2013, para. 9.13.

  142. 142.

    WTO, Appellate Body, European Communities (EC) – Customs Classification of Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts, Report of the AB (2005), WT/DS286/AB/R, para. 289.

  143. 143.

    WTO Appellate Body, European Communities (EC) – Chicken Cuts, para. 289.

  144. 144.

    ICJ, Case Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran/United States of America), Preliminary Objections, 1996, ICJ Reports 803, paras. 93, 106-7. The ICJ admitted a US Department memorandum.

  145. 145.

    WTO Appellate Body, European Commission (EC) – Chicken Cuts, para. 291.

  146. 146.

    See in the same line, Gehring et al. (2017), p. 197.

  147. 147.

    Dupuy (2011), p. 127.

  148. 148.

    Ibid.

  149. 149.

    Pauwelyn and Elsig (2012), p. 453.

  150. 150.

    For more details see Pauwelyn and Elsig (2012), pp. 452–454.

  151. 151.

    Glamis Gold, Ltd. v. The United States of America, UNCITRAL, Award, 8 June 2009, para. 612 et seq.

  152. 152.

    Pauwelyn and Elsig (2012), p. 454.

  153. 153.

    ICJ, Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica/Nicaragua) Judgment of the ICJ, Rep. 2009, p. 213. The term ‘commerce’ contained in a treaty of 1858 was interpreted in the light of the understanding of commerce in 2009. See also Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia, notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276(1970), Advisory Opinion, 21 June 1971, ICJ Reports (1971) at 31, para. 53.

  154. 154.

    Barral (2012), pp. 394–395.

  155. 155.

    United States - Import Prohibition Of Certain Shrimp And Shrimp Products, Report of the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization, 12 October 1998, paras. 129, and 153.

  156. 156.

    Ibid., para. 130.

  157. 157.

    Case Concerning the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment of the ICJ, 25 September 1997, para. 140.

  158. 158.

    Ibid., See also Barral (2012), pp. 394–395.

  159. 159.

    Art. 23.3(3) last sentence, CETA and Art. 24.8(2) CETA; JII 1 (d); Sects. 3.2.3 and 3.3 of the present contribution.

  160. 160.

    Principle 4 of the Rio Declarations: “In order to achieve SD, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it.”

  161. 161.

    International Law Association (ILA), ‘Toronto Conference 2006 – International Law on Sustainable Development’, pts 4.1 and 4.2.

  162. 162.

    Separate Opinion of Vice-President Weeramantry in Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros (n. 157), p. 87; Barral (2012), pp. 395–396.

  163. 163.

    Pavoni (2010), p. 661.

  164. 164.

    Boisson de Chazournes and Mbengue (2011), p. 1619.

  165. 165.

    Ibid.

  166. 166.

    CETA, Art. 22.1.

  167. 167.

    ICJ, Case Concerning the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment of the International Court of Justice, 25 September 1997, para. 140.

  168. 168.

    Ibid., “The need to reconcile economic development with protection of the environment is aptly expressed in the concept of sustainable development.”

  169. 169.

    Award in the Arbitration regarding the Iron Rhine (“Ijzeren Rijn”) Railway between the Kingdom of Belgium and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Decision, 24 May 2005, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Volume XXVII, pp. 35–125, para. 59: “[…] these emerging principles now integrate environmental protection into the development process. Environmental law and the law on development stand not as alternatives but as mutually reinforcing, integral concepts, […]”.

  170. 170.

    Ibid., para. 221.

  171. 171.

    Ibid., para. 220.

  172. 172.

    See Boisson de Chazournes and Mbengue (2011), p. 1621: On S.D. Myers (n. 96), the authors considered it not to be a mutual reinforcing approach as priority was ultimately only given to trade concerns. In Adel A. Hamadi Al Tamimi (n. 91), the Tribunal decided solely in favour of environmental concerns. In Bilcon (n. 122), the Tribunal avoided to see an actual conflict of the economic interest and the environmental policy of Canada, it stated that there was no conflict but that the issue was that Canadian environmental norms were not properly applied.

  173. 173.

    For more details see McLachlan (2005).

  174. 174.

    Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission (ILC) finalized by M. Koskeniemi, ‘Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law’, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682, para. 415.

  175. 175.

    McLachlan (2005), p. 310 et seq.

  176. 176.

    Rosentreter (2015), p. 457. Such omission by tribunals is however immaterial, see Report of the Study Group of the ILC (n. 174), para. 468.

  177. 177.

    Reinisch (2015), pp. 388–393.

  178. 178.

    Rosentreter (2015), pp. 333–348. See for instance Parkerings-Compagniet AS v. Republic of Lithuania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/8, Award, 11 September 2007.

  179. 179.

    Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. and Vivendi Universal, S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, Decision on Liability, 30 July 2010.

  180. 180.

    Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. and Vivendi Universal, S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, Amicus Curiae Submission, 4 April 2007.

  181. 181.

    Ibid., para. 15, quoted in Viñuales (2012), p. 155. See WTO Appellate Body in the Shrimps case (n. 155).

  182. 182.

    Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. and Vivendi Universal, S.A. v. Argentine Republic (n. 180), para. 262.

  183. 183.

    Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26, Award, 8 December 2016, para. 1200.

  184. 184.

    Ibid.

  185. 185.

    ICJ, Case Concerning Pulp Mills On The River Uruguay (Argentina/Uruguay), Judgment of the ICJ, 20 April 2010, paras. 204–205.

  186. 186.

    Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros, (n. 157), para. 53 (referring to Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear weapons, ICJ Reports 1996, para. 29).

  187. 187.

    S.D. Myers v. Canada (n. 96), paras. 255–256.

  188. 188.

    For instance, in Allard v. Barbados, where the tribunal decided that in the given case the BIT standards is not affected by other international obligations of Barbados, see Peter A. Allard v. The Government of Barbados, PCA Case No. 2012-06, para. 244: “[…] The fact that Barbados is party to the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Ramsar Convention does not change the [full protection and security] standard under the BIT, although considerations of a host State’s international obligations may well be relevant in the application of the standard to particular circumstances.”

  189. 189.

    Gehne (2010), pp. 278–279.

  190. 190.

    Henckels (2014), p. 326.

References

  • Arsanjani MH, Reisman MW (2010) Interpreting treaties for the benefit of third parties: the “Salvors’ Doctrine” and the use of legislative history in investment treaties. Am J Int Law 104:597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barral V (2012) Sustainable development in international law: nature and operation of an evolutive legal norm. Eur J Int Law 23:377–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barral V (2016) Le développement durable en droit international: essai sur les incidences juridiques d’une norme évolutive. Bruylant, Bruxelles

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartels L (2013) Human rights and sustainable development obligations in EU free trade agreements. Legal Issues Econ Integr 40:297–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Boisson de Chazournes L, Mbengue MM (2011) A “Footnote as a Principle”. Mutual supportiveness in an era of fragmentation In: Hestermeyer HP et al (eds) Coexistence, cooperation and solidarity - Liber Amicorum Rüdiger Wolfrum - vol II. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 1615–1638

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupuy PM (2011) Evolutionary interpretation. In: Cannizzaro E (ed) The law of treaties beyond the Vienna Convention. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 123–137

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gazzini T (2016) Interpretation of international investment treaties. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehne K (2010) Das Nachhaltigkeitskonzept als rechtliche Kategorie im Spannungsfeld zwischen staatlichen Regulierungsinteressen und Investorschutz. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hindelang S (eds) Internationaler Investitionsschutz und Europarecht. Nomos, Wiesebaden, pp 271–292

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gehring M, Stephenson S, Cordonier Segger MC (2017) Sustainability impact assessments as inputs and as interpretative aids in international investment law. J World Invest Trade 18:163–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henckels C (2014) Balancing investment protection and sustainable development in investor-state arbitration: the role of deference. In: Bjorklund AK (ed) Yearbook on international investment law & policy 2012–2013. Oxford University Press, pp 305–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Henckels C (2016) Protecting regulatory autonomy through greater precision in investment treaties: the TPP, CETA, and TTIP. J Int Econ Law 19:27–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeister F (2015) The contribution of EU trade agreements to the development of international investment law. In: Krajewski M, Hindenlang S (eds) Shifting paradigms in international investment law – more balanced, less isolated, increasingly diversified. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 357–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurtz J (2016) The WTO and international investment law: converging systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Le Bouthillier Y (2011) 1969 Vienna Convention: Article 32, supplementary means of interpretation. In: Klein P (ed) The Vienna Convention on the law of treaties – a commentary, vol 1. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 841–863

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe V (1999) Sustainable development and unsustainable arguments. In: Boyle A, Freestone D (eds) International law and sustainable development – past achievements and future challenges. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 19–37

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mbengue MM (2006) Preamble. In: Max Planck Encyclopedia of public international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 397–400

    Google Scholar 

  • Mbengue MM (2016) Rules of interpretation - Article 32 of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties. ICSID Rev 31:388–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mclachlan C (2005) The principle of systemic integration and article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention. Int Comp Law Q 54(02):279–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowrot K (2014) How to include environmental protection, human rights and sustainability in international investment law? J World Invest Trade 15:612–644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauwelyn J, Elsig M (2012) The politics of treaty interpretation. In: Dunoff JL, Pollack MA (eds) Interdisciplinary perspectives on international law and international relations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 445–474

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pavoni R (2010) Mutual supportiveness as a principle of interpretation and law-making: a watershed for the “WTO-and-Competing-Regimes” Debate? Eur J Int Law 21:649–679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinisch A (2015) The interpretation of international investment agreements. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law. A handbook. C.H. BECK/Hart/Nomos, pp 372–410

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosentreter D (2015) Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties and the principle of systemic integration in international investment law and arbitration, 1st edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair IM (1973) The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Manchester University Press [u.a.], Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Viñuales JE (2012) Foreign investment and the environment in international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Yasseen MK (1976) Interprétation des traités d’après la Convention de Vienne. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Geneva, Faculty of Law, Geneva, Switzerland

    Stefanie Schacherer

Authors
  1. Stefanie Schacherer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefanie Schacherer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

    Makane Moïse Mbengue  & Stefanie Schacherer  & 

  2. Science Po Paris, School of Law, Paris, France

    Makane Moïse Mbengue

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Schacherer, S. (2019). The CETA Investment Chapter and Sustainable Development: Interpretative Issues. In: Mbengue, M.M., Schacherer, S. (eds) Foreign Investment Under the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, vol 15. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98361-5_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98361-5_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98360-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-98361-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation