The Challenges of ‘Marrying’ Investment Liberalisation and Protection in the Canada-EU CETA

Lévesque, Céline

doi:10.5771/9783845246130-121

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, in Saluka, when determining whether the host State has breached the legitimate expectations of investors, it is necessary to take into account situations where the host State exercises its legitimate regulatory powers to protect domestic public interests [18]. In the practice of investment treaty negotiations like The EU and Canada CETA, host States have also begun to incorporate public interests as an exception clause to legitimate expectations and explicitly state them in investment agreements [19].…”

Section: Public Interests As An Exception Clause To Legitimate Expect...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Restrictive Interpretation of Investors’ Legitimate Expectations in the Fair and Equitable Treatment Clause in International Investment Arbitration

Zhang

2024

Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Economic Management and Model Engineering, ICEMME 2023, November 17–19, 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article draws on the latest enumerative treaty reform practices of the European Union regarding clauses on fair and equitable treatment, providing a restrictive interpretation of investors' reasonable expectations. It analyzes the constituent elements and exceptional circumstances, aiming to curtail the expansive interpretation by arbitration tribunals. This is done to balance investor rights and host state regulatory sovereignty. Lastly, in response to the latest developments concerning investors' reasonable expectations, the author puts forth effective risk prevention suggestions, considering the distinct perspectives of China as a host country attracting foreign investment and domestic investors engaging in overseas investments.

show abstract

Section: Public Interests As An Exception Clause To Legitimate Expect...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Restrictive Interpretation of Investors’ Legitimate Expectations in the Fair and Equitable Treatment Clause in International Investment Arbitration

Zhang

2024

Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Economic Management and Model Engineering, ICEMME 2023, November 17–19, 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This second category therefore includes Investment Protection Agreements (IPA). So far this is the case for EU-Singapore IPA 12 , EU-Japan IPA (still under negotiation) and EU-Vietnam IPA 13 . Those IPAs once in force will replace the bilateral investment treaties (BITs) concluded in the past between each of these third countries and each of EU Member States.…”

Section: 2mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Others which also have comprehensive scope, contain a chapter on both investment liberalization and investment protection. This is the case for EU-Canada CETA 10 (it provisionally entered into force on 21 September 2017, so most of the CETA now applies) (Levesque, C. 2013) and new EU-Mexico agreement 11 .…”

Section: 1mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It was signed on 19 October 2018. Proposal for a Council Decision on the conclusion of the Investment Protection Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Singapore of the other part, COM/2018/194 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:55d54e18-42e0-11e8-b5fe-01aa75ed71a1.0002.02/DOC_2&format=PDF#page=213 The text of the IPA is available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52018PC0693…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Regime of International Investment in the Light of New EU Economic Agreements

Spiliopoulos¹,

Petropoulos²

2022

Business &Amp; Entrepreneurship Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

By the term "regime" of international investment, we mean the fundamental principles and rules that constitute the regulatory framework for the investment of nationals or companies of one State in the territory of another. This regime comprises two components, the first of which relates to the establishment of foreign investment / investors in the host State and the second, and most important, covers their subsequent treatment by its public authorities. Such principles and rules are laid down in the new EU economic agreements, some of which constitute comprehensive Free Trade Agreements containing a chapter on foreign investment establishment liberalization (EU-Japan, EU-South Korea, EU-Australia, EU-New Zealand), others which also have comprehensive scope, contain a chapter on both investment liberalization and investment protection (EU-Canada CETA, EU-Mexico) while others are stand-alone investment agreements as they exclusively rule the protection of the investments of one party's nationals or companies in the territory of the other (EU-Singapore IPA, EU-Vietnam IPA, EU-Japan IPA). These EU agreements contain reformed investment protection rules that are not present in the existing Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs). A key common feature of the above agreements, especially in the field of protection/treatment of foreign investment/investors, is the establishment of rules seeking to clarify some critical concepts in order to reduce the margins of discretion of both parties and their investors in the interpretation and application of rules adopted. In this context, the texts clarify, first of all, the notion of investment and investor to make clear who are entitled to invoke the provisions of the agreements to claim protection against the practices of the authorities of the host Party. It is clear that the so-called ‘shell’ or ’mailbox’ companies are not protected. The agreements also define more clearly and precisely on the one hand the concept of fundamental standards of treatment (non-discrimination, fair and equitable treatment, physical security, protection against expropriation, possibility to transfer and repatriate funds relating to an investment) and on the other hand the cases in which the authorities of the Contracting Parties are in breach of these standards. The aim is to avoid unfounded complaints against measures which do not, however, constitute a breach by the authorities of the obligations arising from the provisions of the agreements. The pursuit of creating a secure legal environment for foreign investors and their investments ultimately involves the creation of a permanent, objective, independent and impartial dispute resolution system. JEL classification numbers: K33, F02, F21. Keywords: European Union, International Agreements, Investment liberalization, Investment Protection.

show abstract

Towards a More Balanced International Investment Law 2.0?

Bungenberg

2015

Trade Policy Between Law, Diplomacy and Scholarship

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Challenges of ‘Marrying’ Investment Liberalisation and Protection in the Canada-EU CETA

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

Restrictive Interpretation of Investors’ Legitimate Expectations in the Fair and Equitable Treatment Clause in International Investment Arbitration

Restrictive Interpretation of Investors’ Legitimate Expectations in the Fair and Equitable Treatment Clause in International Investment Arbitration

The Regime of International Investment in the Light of New EU Economic Agreements

Towards a More Balanced International Investment Law 2.0?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About