Metrics

  • citations in SCIndeks: [2]
  • citations in CrossRef:0
  • citations in Google Scholar:[]
  • visits in previous 30 days:10
  • full-text downloads in 30 days:5

Contents

article: 10 from 19  
Back back to result list
2018, vol. 52, iss. 2, pp. 491-509
The Achmea cases: Story on treaty interpretation, forum competition and international law fragmentation
University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Law

emailS.Djajic@pf.uns.ac.rs
Abstract
In this article the author examines decisions rendered by the UNCITRAL arbitral tribunal in an investment case Achmea v. Slovakia and judgment of the European Court of Justice regarding the compatibility of the investor-State dispute settlement provision in an intra-EUBIT with EU law relating the Achmea arbitral award on the merits. Given that the ECJ found incompatibility between the two such decision might have wide-ranging consequences. Here the author assesses arguments in different decisions from the perspective of fragmentation of international law, more precisely from the perspective of concepts and arguments developed within the International Law Commission Report on Fragmentation of International Law. While the fragmentation issue was discussed at the early stages of arbitral proceedings it was later abandoned and remained unmentioned by the ECJ. The cause of different takes on the relationship between dispute settlement provisions in intra-EUBIT and EU law could well be described not as a normative but rather as a conflict between different forums. Jurisdictional conflict thus gave rise to the problem of fragmentation in its strict sense - inability of a state to perform two treaty obligations simultaneously.
References
*** (2015) Official Journal of the EU, L 351/40, recital 1.10 Commission asks Member States to terminate their intra-EU bilateral investment treaties, European Commission - Press Release, 18 June 2015, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_
August, R. (2012) Articles 30 and 59 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in Action: The Decisions on Jurisdiction in the Eastern Sugar and Eureko Investment Arbitrations. Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 1, 157-177, at 168
Đajić, S. (2012) Načelo dobre vere u međunarodnoj investicionoj arbitraži - njegov supstancijalni i procesni značaj. Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta, Novi Sad, vol. 46, br. 3, str. 207-233
Etinski, R.M. (2017) Means of interpretation of international treaties and determinants of their significance. Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta, Novi Sad, vol. 51, br. 4, str. 1177-1206
Jenks, W. (1953) Conflict of law-making treaties. British Yearbook of International Law, 401-453, 425-427
Lavranos, N. (2006) Protecting Its Exclusive Jurisdiction: The Mox Plant-judgment of the ECJ. Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 5(3): 479-493
Lock, T. (2015) The European Court of Justice and international courts. Oxford, 40
Micula, I., Micula, V. (2013) S.C. European Food S.A, S.C. Starmill S.R.L. and S.C. Multipack S.R.L. v. Romania. ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, Award, 11 December
Stanivuković, M. (2017) Legitimate expectations: A commentary of Micula v. Romania. Transnational Dispute Management, 14, 1
Vranes, E. (2006) The Definition of 'Norm Conflict' in International Law and Legal Theory. European Journal of International Law, 17(2): 395-418
Wehland, H. (2016) The Enforcement of Intra-EU BIT Awards: Micula v Romania and Beyond. Journal of World Investment & Trade, 942-963
 

About

article language: English
document type: Original Scientific Paper
DOI: 10.5937/zrpfns52-19021
published in SCIndeks: 20/05/2019
peer review method: double-blind
Creative Commons License 4.0

Related records