From Bilateral Arbitral Tribunals And Investment Courts To A Multilateral Investment Court

This open access book considers the potential setup for a future Multilateral Investment Court (MIC). The option of an MIC was first discussed by the EU Commission in 2016 and has since been made an official element of the EU Common Commercial Policy. In 2017, UNCITRAL also decided to discuss the possibility of an MIC, and on 20 March 2018, the Council of the EU gave the EU Commission the mandate to negotiate the creation of an MIC. The “feasibility study” presented here is intended to contribute to a broader discussion on the options for a new international court specialized in investment protection. The cornerstones of such a new permanent court are a strict orientation on the rule of law, reduced costs of investment protection, transparency considerations, aspects of consistency in case law, and the effective enforceability of MIC decisions.

This book considers the potential setup for a future Multilateral Investment Court (MIC). The option of an MIC was first discussed by the EU Commission in 2016 and has since been made an official element of the EU Common Commercial Policy. In 2017, UNCITRAL also decided to discuss the possibility of an MIC, and on 20 March 2018, the Council of the EU gave the EU Commission the mandate to negotiate the creation of an MIC. The “feasibility study” presented here is intended to contribute to a broader discussion on the options for a new international court specialized in investment protection. The cornerstones of such a new permanent court are a strict orientation on the rule of law, reduced costs of investment protection, transparency considerations, aspects of consistency in case law, and the effective enforceability of MIC decisions.

This special issue focuses on the opportunities and challenges connected with investment courts. The creation of permanent investment courts was first proposed several decades ago, but it has only recently become likely that these proposals will be implemented. In particular, the European Commission has pushed for a court-like mechanism to resolve investment disputes in various recent trade and investment negotiations. Such a framework was included in some free trade agreements (FTAs) and investment protection agreements (IPAs) the European Union (EU) signed or negotiated with Vietnam, Singapore, Mexico and Canada. While it was shelved long before the publication of this Special Issue, the European Commission had also formally proposed a court system during the negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement with the United States. The issue of a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) has also been prevalent at the Working Group III proceedings of the UNCITRAL on investor-State dispute settlement reform, attracting scholarly and public attention.Will these developments lead to the creation of permanent investment courts? How will such courts change the future of international investment law? Will they bring about a real institutional change in adjudicatory mechanisms? Will they introduce a 'hybrid' system, which borrows important characteristics from both arbitration and institutional methods of international adjudication? How will the enforcement mechanisms work, and under which rules of ethics will its adjudicators function and exercise their duties? This special issue brings together leading scholars sharing a common interest in investment courts to address these questions.

This open access book examines the multiple intersections between national and international courts in the field of investment protection, and suggests possible modes for regulating future jurisdictional interactions between domestic courts and international tribunals. The current system of foreign investment protection consists of more than 3,000 international investment agreements (IIAs), most of which provide for investment arbitration as the forum for the resolution of disputes between foreign investors and host States. However, national courts also have jurisdiction over certain matters involving cross-border investments. International investment tribunals and national courts thus interact in a number of ways, which range from harmonious co-existence to reinforcing complementation, reciprocal supervision and, occasionally, competition and discord. The book maps this complex relationship between dispute settlement bodies in the current investment treaty context and assesses the potential role of domestic courts in future treaty frameworks that could emerge from the States current efforts to reform the system. The book concludes that, in certain areas of interaction between domestic courts and international investment tribunals, the "division of labor" between the two bodies is not always optimal, producing inefficiencies that burden the system as a whole. In these areas, there is a need for improvement by introducing a more fruitful allocation of tasks between domestic and international courts and tribunals - whatever form(s) the international mechanism for the settlement of investment disputes may take. Given its scope, the book contributes not only to legal analysis, but also to the policy reflections that are needed for ongoing efforts to reform investor-State dispute settlement.

The EU is aiming for a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) to replace the existing investment arbitration system. Based on the current debates in UNCITRAL and other fora this Draft Statute of an MIC demonstrates that it is possible to have a new system of dispute settlement. For the first time, a complete draft agreement is presented for the design of such an MIC as a new international organization, implementing strict rule of law-requirements for dispute settlement. Besides rule of law-considerations, cornerstones are reduced costs, a permanent bench of judges with an appellate system, transparency, more consistency in case law as well as the effective enforceability of MIC decisions.

This book addresses the interactions between the domestic courts and the international investment arbitral tribunals, one of the most pressing issues confronting both domestic legal systems and the international legal system. It deals with the core issues inherent in the above interactions, especially with regard to countries outside the ICSID system. It contrasts this narrative with the position under classical international investment law, where national courts are assigned a very specific and minimalistic role in the process of investment disputes settlement. For this purpose, the book chooses India, which follows the non-ICSID model, as the major point of focus and considers both domestic judicial decisions and investment arbitral decisions for critical analysis. The ICSID Convention grants limited powers to domestic courts to issue provisional measures and to enforce ICSID awards. As the central theme of the book lies at the intersection of domestic law and international law, the work is indispensable for any scholar working in the areas of general international law, international investment law, international economic law, law and economics, international dispute settlement, or international law in domestic courts, as well as domestic judges and international arbitrators. Further, as the subject matter has great implications for both domestic and global governance, it will benefit civil servants, opinion leaders, policy planners and subject experts in economics, the political economy and regional studies, to name a few. Excerpt from the Foreword: “One of the great merits of this book is that... It looks at bilateral investment treaties themselves to probe more deeply into the role of national courts in investment arbitration... This masterful book fills a major void as a resource in Indian international arbitration law. But is also the prototype of what any serious inquiry into the judicial role in investor-State arbitration in any jurisdiction should look like...” - George A. Bermann, Walter Gellhorn Professor of Law and Jean Monnet Professor of European Union Law, Columbia Law School, USA

This book offers a systematic analysis of the interaction between international investment law, investment arbitration and human rights, including the role of national and international courts, investor-state arbitral tribunals and alternative jurisdictions, the risks of legal and jurisdictional fragmentation, the human rights dimensions of investment law and arbitration, and the relationships of substantive and procedural principles of justice to international investment law. Part I summarizes the main conclusions of the 24 book chapters and places them into the broader context of the principles of justice, global administrative law and multilevel constitutionalism that may be relevant for the administration of justice in international economic law and investor-state arbitration. Part II includes contributions clarifying the constitutional dimensions of transnational investment disputes and investor-state arbitration, as reflected in the increasing number of arbitral awards and amicus curiae submissions addressing human rights concerns. Part III addresses the need for principle-oriented ordering and the normative congruence of diverse national, regional and worldwide legal regimes, focusing on the pertinent dispute settlement practices and legal interpretation methods of regional economic courts and human rights courts, which increasingly interpret international economic law with due regard to human rights obligations of the governments concerned. Part IV includes twelve case studies on the potential human rights dimensions of specific protection standards (e.g. fair and equitable treatment, non-discrimination), applicable law (e.g. national and international human rights law, rules on corporate social accountability), procedural law issues (e.g. amicus curiae submissions) and specific fundamental rights (e.g. the protection of human health, access to water, and protection of the environment). These case studies discuss not only the still limited examples of human rights discourse in investor-state arbitral awards; they also probe the potential legal relevance of investor-state arbitration for the judicial recognition, interpretation and balancing of primary rules, such as of investment law and human rights law, in the light of the principles of justice as defined by national and international law.

In March 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU) ruled in Achmea that investor-state dispute resolution provisions in intra-EU bilateral investment treaties (BITs) are incompatible with EU law and ipso facto invalid. In January 2019, EU Member States issued Declarations on the Legal Consequences of the Judgment in Achmea undertaking to take steps formally to terminate intra-EU BITs. However, at present, there is no consensus among them on the implications of Achmea on the Energy Charter Treaty, the multilateral energy treaty to which the EU and its Member States are all parties. Many EU law scholars consider the Achmea judgment as the death knell to intra-EU investment treaty arbitrations. Some have even predicted the end of Investor-State Dispute Settlement itself. Investment treaty and public international law scholars and legal practitioners, however, have a different view of the schism now growing between EU and international law. The Future of Investment Treaty Arbitration in the EU examines the current and the proposed new framework for investment protection in the EU and internationally, with a particular focus on investment treaty arbitration and energy-related investments. With contributions from leading academics and practitioners, the book addresses the following themes: Intra-EU investment protection and the rule of law, including the proposed Multilateral Investment Court. The original purpose and features of investment protection, with particular focus on the EU. The Achmea judgment and its impact on the Energy Charter Treaty and energy investments. The ongoing discussion to modernize the Energy Charter Treaty post-Achmea. EU state aid and investment arbitral awards. Recognition and enforcement of investment arbitral awards post-Achmea in EU Member States, including in the light of Brexit. Recognition and enforcement of investment arbitral awards post-Achmea in China, Singapore, Switzerland and the United States. This eminently informative book is very timely given the ongoing debate taking place in the EU and internationally regarding the interrelationship between investment treaty arbitration, public international law and EU law. The contributions from leading academics, scholars and European Commission officials provide a balanced, contextualized, detailed and critical analysis that will aid interested stakeholders to navigate their way with confidence through this difficult and changing area of the law. Testimonial: ”...is a welcome addition to the already vast literature focusing on EU investment arbitration. Perhaps the main merit of the book is that it brings together different perspectives on the debates ensuing in this field, offering the reader both the EU perspective and that of public international/investment lawyers. As such, it harmoniously integrates those - sometimes conflicting - views and is a great starting point for anyone unfamiliar with the subject (while also being of relevance to practitioners and academics with a knowledge of intra-EU investment arbitration), allowing the reader to gain an in-depth and fully comprehensive understanding of the legal problems raised in this area.” Alexandros-Catalin Bakos (LL.M) Editor, Revista Româna de Arbitraj / Volume 54, Issue 3/2020, p183-194