Browsing by Subject "public international law"

The Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) is one of the most frequently invoked international investment treaties. Characteristically to modern international investment law, it provides for investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). The ECT is a multilateral treaty to which the EU, EU member states (with the exception of Italy) and several non-EU states are parties. Therefore, it entails the possibility of settling intra-EU disputes, that is disputes between EU based investors and EU member states, by international arbitration. Before the Treaty of Lisbon and the inclusion of foreign direct investment in the common commercial policy of the EU, international investment law was the main tool of investment policy in Europe. For decades, international law and EU law were able to coexist and to harmonically interact. However, since the enlargement of the EU to the East, issues between EU law and international investment law and arbitration have preoccupied investors, EU member states and the European Commission. EU member states have argued since 2007 that intra-EU bilateral investment treaties have been superseded by EU law. In 2018, the claim was partially successful when the CJEU concluded in its Achmea judgement that ISDS arbitration clauses in intra-EU bilateral investment treaties are precluded by EU law. Under the ECT, the intra-EU jurisdictional objections have also been made since 2007, but ECT tribunals have consistently rejected them. The study examines the ECT panels’ jurisdiction in investor-state arbitration in an intra-EU context. As the Achmea judgement has been the most important recent development relating to the issue of jurisdiction of investment tribunals in intra-EU cases, the thesis examines especially how arbitral tribunals under the ECT have assessed the intra-EU jurisdictional objection before and after Achmea. Because the aim of the thesis is to identify relevant legal norms and to clarify their content in the light of recent case law, a doctrinal method is assumed. The study is conducted from a public international law perspective with limited elements of EU law. Hence, the doctrine of legal sources is crucial. The most relevant sources for the study are: 1) the ECT, Article 26(1) of the treaty in particular, as the jurisdictional basis of an arbitral tribunal and 2) ECT case law relating intra-EU disputes as it is what translates treaty language into operative law. Since the power to determine the extent of jurisdiction lies with the arbitral tribunal itself, jurisdictional issues in particular should be examined in the light of case law. In addition, customary international law regarding treaty conflict and treaty interpretation are included in the study as treaty-based rules have to be understood in the context of general rules of international law. In order for an arbitral tribunal to have jurisdiction under Article 26(1) ECT, five conditions must be met: 1) there must be a dispute concerning an alleged breach of an obligation under Part III of the ECT by a contracting party; 2) the dispute must relate to an investment as defined by the ECT; 3) the investment must be in the area of a contracting party; 4) the claimant must be an investor of another contracting party; and 5) the events with which the claim is concerned must have occurred at a date such as to give the tribunal jurisdiction. In summary, EU actors have argued that as the investor in intra-EU disputes is not from another contracting party (but from the area of the EU) the investment relations are subject to the EU’s regulatory framework and that the ECT and EU law have conflicting rules warranting EU law to prevail in intra-EU relations. Based on the research, it is established that ECT panels have jurisdiction in intra-EU disputes. In terms of argumentation, the case law rejecting the intra-EU jurisdictional objection is consistent enough to form the following general level conclusions: 1) interpretation of Article 26(1) ECT in accordance with the interpretation rules of customary international law is clear in including intra-EU disputes; and 2) there is no conflict between ISDS under the ECT and EU law. What remains undecided is the potential status of EU law from the perspective of the ECT. Application of EU law could only be possible based on international law that requires it and while the tribunals have assessed applying EU law based on e.g. the lex specialis and lex posterior principles or an inter se agreement, they have not formed a single approach. In fact, by stating that the interpretation of Article 26(1) ECT is clear and that there is no conflict with EU law, the tribunals leave little chance for applying EU law and therefore, little chance for the Achmea judgement or potential future developments of EU law to have an impact on the tribunals’ jurisdiction. Consequently, for the time being, the intra-EU claims under the ECT remain arbitrable.

This thesis presents an analysis of the arguments in favor of setting up a special tribunal for the crime of aggression by Russia in Ukraine. The thesis utilizes discourse analysis to study why a special tribunal for the crime of aggression has been suggested as the solution to this particular case, bearing in mind the fact that the crime of aggression has received little support in the decades and conflicts since World War II. The thesis studies accounts according to which the special tribunal should be set up because of the nature of the invasion, because of the universal support received by the special measures, and because of the ability of the special court in promoting ending impunity for leadership-level offences in international criminal law. The thesis argues that rather than the arguments proposed, the special tribunal would succeed only in providing an extraordinary solution that would not affect the status quo of the law regarding the crime of aggression, while providing a sense of retribution towards the Russian leadership. The thesis concludes that while it is fundamental that the Russian perpetrators be investigated and prosecuted for their crimes against Ukraine and the Ukrainian people, doing so in a special court, rather than the permanent International Criminal Court would only provide an exceptional solution with no avenue for ending impunity for the crime of aggression in future conflicts to come.