19 November 2023
Undermining the Energy Transition
Australia is confronted with three multi-billion dollar investment treaty claims from a mining company. The basis for two of the claims is a judgment from the Queensland Land Court, in which the court recommended that no mining lease and environmental authority should be granted to a subsidiary of the claimant for its coal mine. The investment treaty arbitration serves as another illustration of how the international investment protection system poses a threat to an urgent and just energy transition. In this blog post, I explain the background of the investment treaty claim, the decision of the Queensland Land Court, and argue that the Court’s decision is an important precedent for the connection between coal, climate change, and human rights. Continue reading >>
0 
15 July 2020
The Chinese threat we forgot about: Huawei and ISDS
During the era of coronavirus emergency, the words China and threat tend to suggest the origin of our common affliction. The world to emerge from coronavirus however will face both new challenges and the echo of old ones. An old problem is what to do about Chinese involvement in 5G infrastructure development. In light of the recent ban for Huawei equipment by the UK this post addresses the question of whether the Chinese multinational Huawei would have an investment claim against the German government were they to prohibit its participation in 5G deployment. Continue reading >>
0
05 March 2020
We Need to Talk About Valuation in ISDS
There is a remarkably solid consensus in ISDS about how damages should be calculated. But why indeed should we care about the technicalities of valuation? Toni Marzal argues that this is a key question of major legal and political significance, that ought to attract as much attention as the issues of arbitral jurisdiction or investor rights. Beyond the sheer figures awarded against States, there are several major reasons to get interested in quantum-related matters. Continue reading >>13 October 2018
Some Thoughts on Facultative and Obligatory Mixity after Singapore and COTIF, and before CETA
The conclusion of agreements as ‘mixed’, that is jointly by the European Union and its Member States, is a legal phenomenon peculiar to the EU legal order. Notwithstanding the almost complete silence of the Treaties on the point, mixity quickly became common practice for the Union and was, in most instances, readily accepted by its contractual partners. That does not mean, however, that mixity has not given rise, to date, to lengthy and often heated debates within, between and before the EU institutions. Continue reading >>
0
27 June 2018
In Praise of Limiting Democracy: a Defense of ISDS
With the UK Parliament debating CETA and the CJEU hearing arguments on the compatibility of EU law with the dispute resolution provisions, investor-state dispute resolution (ISDS) is very much in the news again. Many seem to be concerned about the integrity of the nation state, the ability of the people (within national boundaries)Â to order and determine their fates. Why should we not view ISDS as a threat to national wellbeing? The reason is that sometimes we need constraints on sovereign discretion. Continue reading >>09 May 2017
Brexit Lawsuits, But Not As You Know ThemÂ
Calling in the lawyers is becoming a frequent response to the challenges of Brexit. While court actions on matters of constitutional law are well known, there is another, less publicised, avenue of legal resistance. The consequence: the Brexit bill is about to become a lot bigger. Continue reading >>03 December 2015
„Reformierter“ Investitionsschutz in TTIP: Zwei Schritte voran – und gegen die Wand
Die Europäische Kommission verspielt gerade ihre Chance, das umstrittene internationale Investitionsschutzrecht ernsthaft zu reformieren und am Gemeinwohl auszurichten. In ihrem nun vorgelegtem Vorschlag an die USA für ein Investitionsschutzkapitel in TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) lässt sie die wesentlichen Probleme des Investitionsschutzrechts weitgehend unberührt. Nur auf den ersten Blick bietet sie Lösungen etwa für die strukturelle Einseitigkeit des Schiedsgerichtssystems. Continue reading >>29 September 2015
The Proposed TTIP Tribunal and the Court of Justice: What Limits to Investor-State Dispute Settlement under EU Constitutional Law?
In its controversial Opinion 2/13, the European Court of Justice has rejected the accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights. The constitutional hurdles the CJEU has erected in this opinion are not only relevant in the area of human rights, but also require us to think hard about the EU constitutionality of the suggested TTIP Tribunal, or any other mechanism of investor-state dispute settlement under future EU international investment agreements. To reduce this uncertainty it may be advisable to request the CJEU through an advisory opinion. Continue reading >>
0