Justification and Excuse in International Law

Paddeu, Federica

doi:10.1017/9781316226841

Cited by 46 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 324 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite this, countermeasures in the form of EU sanctions 'may (and often do) have collateral effects on third parties, be they states or other entities with (some measure of) international legal personality', such as Russian investors. 53 An argument has been made that if the injured state adopts a countermeasure that infringes upon the rights of third parties, the countermeasure involves a violation of the obligations to these third parties to which the justifying effect of the countermeasure does not apply. In other words, if a right of the third party is violated, then there will be no breach of international law in need of justification.…”

Section: Eu Sanctions and International Investment Agreementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Legality of EU Sanctions Under International Investment Agreements

Olmedo¹

2023

EERR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ‘unilateral turn’ in EU trade and investment policy is also reflected in the EU’s adoption of restrictive measures or sanctions following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. EU sanctions do not only target the Russian government but also Russian individuals and companies with investments in the EU. They can also indirectly affect the economic activities of other foreign investors running businesses in the territory of Member States. This raises unexplored questions about the interaction between EU sanctions and certain disciplines of international economic law, such as international investment protection law. Member States have undertaken obligations under international investment agreements (IIAs) signed with Russia and other states in respect of investments made in their territory by Russian and non-Russian investors. This article examines whether, and if so to what extent, the EU’s unilateral turn in the form of sanctions can fall within the scope of international investment law. It shows that this policy can trigger claims against Member States under a different set of IIAs. This article also examines potential defences that Member States can invoke against investment treaty claims resulting from the implementation of sanctions. Sanctions, Russia-Ukraine conflict, international law, international investment agreements, ISDS, nationality, third-party countermeasures, essential security interests

show abstract

Section: Eu Sanctions and International Investment Agreementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Legality of EU Sanctions Under International Investment Agreements

Olmedo¹

2023

EERR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…metaprávnym charakterom, keďže základom všetkých žalôb, uplatňujúcich vyššiu moc, je "v ľudskom myslení hlboko zakorenená idea zodpovednosti a morálky". 13 Z hľadiska medzinárodného investičného práva patrí spolu s krajnou núdzou za najčastejšie namietané okolnosti vylučujúce protiprávnosť v investičných sporoch 14 medzi hosťovskými štátmi a zahraničnými investormi. 15 Zrejme nikoho neprekvapí, že v rámci historického vývoja bola vyššia moc nesprávne zamieňaná s krajnou núdzou, pretože oba koncepty sú si navzájom podobné.…”

Section: úVodunclassified

Force Majeure ako okolnosť vylučujúca protiprávnosť v medzinárodnom investičnom práve

Chovancová¹

2022

pravnyobzor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Force Majeure as a Circumstance Excluding Wrongfulness in International InvestmentLaw. Force majeure is today accepted as a fairly classical topic and the circumstance, excluding wrongfulness of the state doing in majority of the world legal systems. Within the realm of international investment law, it belongs to the most frequently applied circumstances excluding wrongfulness with the level of its use, increased considerably in the last decade. The coronavirus pandemic has enlivened the concept of force majeure in many areas of law, including international investment law. It also proved to be a good source of an ongoing debate on importance of force majeure for international investment and commercial community. This article is an attempt to inform this debate. Except for introducing force majeure in international law and its purpose, this study presents a brief account of international disputes, in which the force majeure clause is applied very often. It examines the historical development of force majeure in international law and introduces its codified version. as the story develops, it makes three intertwined observations. The universal, one size fits all force majeure is an illusion. Today we may distinguish three its variations already in international law. First, when applied as a circumstance, excluding the wrongfulness under the ILC articles, it excuses an internationally illegal and involuntary act of the state. Second, it may be applied as a circumstance, claimed in connection with reviewing due diligence, and finally as the force majeure clause in international agreements, tailored according to its common law perception. Without hesitation, it is exactly the second permutation of force majeure, which has a strong potential to be the most reliable for the host states, defending themselves against foreign investors, especially when force majeure is applied in the event of armed conflict.

show abstract

Investment Treaty Security Exceptions, Necessity and Self-Defence in the Context of Armed Conflict

Henckels

2019

European Yearbook of International Economic Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Justification and Excuse in International Law

Cited by 46 publications

References 324 publications

The Legality of EU Sanctions Under International Investment Agreements

The Legality of EU Sanctions Under International Investment Agreements

Force Majeure ako okolnosť vylučujúca protiprávnosť v medzinárodnom investičnom práve

Investment Treaty Security Exceptions, Necessity and Self-Defence in the Context of Armed Conflict

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About