Euroscepticism: A Driver of the EU’s Clash with ISDS and Public International Law?

By Emma A. Iannini[1] It was not so long ago that many attorneys, academics, and European intellectuals might have described the EU and the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) as one of the crowning achievements of public international law. Despite its self-described sui generis nature, there is no doubt that the EU, … Continue reading Euroscepticism: A Driver of the EU’s Clash with ISDS and Public International Law?

Quarterly Review: October – December 2022

The Editorial Board of the EFILA Blog is excited to share the first EFILA Blog Quarterly Review! Our editors have gathered and reviewed developments, events and publications from the last quarter of 2022 to highlight some of the most relevant news in the field of international investment law, arbitration and the intersection of ISDS with … Continue reading Quarterly Review: October – December 2022

Why Komstroy Cannot be the Last Word: more investment into greening the economy requires to bury Achmea, Komstroy, Micula and others (Part II)

By Herbert Woopen[1] In Part I, this post explored and analysed domestic regulations in Italy concerning investment and ECJ’s decisions stemming from those. Now, Part II will look at international law solutions and will analyse how the European Union could and should amend past erroneous decisions. III. The role of International Law where EU Law … Continue reading Why Komstroy Cannot be the Last Word: more investment into greening the economy requires to bury Achmea, Komstroy, Micula and others (Part II)

Young ISDS Club – Corona pandemic investment disputes

I was invited by Alexander Leventhal (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan) to participate in a webinar conducted by Young ISDS Club on 26 May 2020. Knowing Alexander’s undefined love for discussions on all things in investment arbitration, I was certain that the webinar would be intellectually stimulating. However, to my immediate surprise, it was not like the typical webinar where one could simply sit back and absorb the information. To the contrary, the webinar was interactive and made me think on my feet.

Stakeholder meeting on a possible future Multilateral Investment Court: Establishment of a Multilateral Investment Court (Brussels, 15 January 2020)

José Rafael Mata Dona1 As in the previous session of the stakeholder meeting organized by the European Commission (see here), this roundup started with a brief recap of the whole process of the UNICTRAL Working Group III (for a more detailed review of the EU’s proposal for a MIC and ISDS reform under the auspices of UNCITRAL … Continue reading Stakeholder meeting on a possible future Multilateral Investment Court: Establishment of a Multilateral Investment Court (Brussels, 15 January 2020)

Stakeholder meeting on a possible future Multilateral Investment Court: Establishment of a Multilateral Investment Court (Brussels, 9 October 2019)

José Rafael Mata Dona[1]  A week before the autumn session in Vienna of the UNCITRAL Working Group III, the EC held a Stakeholder meeting in Brussels on the subject of the establishment of a Multilateral Investment Court. The initiative took place as part of the EC Commitment to Transparency. During the introductory speech, Collin Brown (Dispute … Continue reading Stakeholder meeting on a possible future Multilateral Investment Court: Establishment of a Multilateral Investment Court (Brussels, 9 October 2019)

Ensuring Equitable Access to All Stakeholders: Critical Suggestions for the MIC (EFILA Submission to the UNCITRAL WG no. 3 on ISDS Reforms)

EFILA has recently submitted its suggestions to the UNCITRAL Working Group no. 3 on ISDS Reform. The entire document can be found here. An extract can be read below. The European Federation for Investment Law and Arbitration (EFILA) believes that no discussion about the reform of the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) system should occur without … Continue reading Ensuring Equitable Access to All Stakeholders: Critical Suggestions for the MIC (EFILA Submission to the UNCITRAL WG no. 3 on ISDS Reforms)

Schrödinger’s Investment: the EU’s General Court Considers that the Compensation Ordered by the Micula Tribunal is Not a Form of State Aid (Although it Might as Well Have Been)

Alexandros Catalin Bakos, LL.M. Candidate, Utrecht University In a somewhat fortunate turn of events for the stability (or what is left of it in any case) of the intra-European Union (intra-EU) investment treaty system, the General Court of the European Union (GCEU) has annulled the EU Commission’s decision rendered against Romania for illegal state aid … Continue reading Schrödinger’s Investment: the EU’s General Court Considers that the Compensation Ordered by the Micula Tribunal is Not a Form of State Aid (Although it Might as Well Have Been)

DAA Investment Arbitration Committee Meeting 2019

The new 2018 Dutch Model BIT text: An evolution or revolution? An event organised by the DAA Investment Arbitration Committee   Date: Tuesday 21 May 2019 Location: DLA Piper, Amstelveenseweg 638, Amsterdam In October 2018, the Dutch Government approved a new Dutch Model BIT text, which replaces the 2004 text. The 2018 text has been developed on the basis of … Continue reading DAA Investment Arbitration Committee Meeting 2019

New from Oxford University Press: China’s International Investment Strategy Bilateral, Regional, and Global Law and Policy

China’s International Investment Strategy Bilateral, Regional, and Global Law and Policy International Economic Law Series Edited by Julien Chaisse This collection, compiled by award-winning scholar Professor Julien Chaisse, explores the three distinct tracks of China’s investment policy and strategy: bilateral agreements including those with the US and the EU; regional agreements including the Free Trade … Continue reading New from Oxford University Press: China’s International Investment Strategy Bilateral, Regional, and Global Law and Policy