magnify
Home Archive for category "International Economic Law"

CETA’s New Domestic Law Clause

Published on March 17, 2016        Author: 

The recent, widely-reported ‘legal scrub’ of the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) has drawn attention for its endorsement of a radical shift away from the model of investor-state dispute settlement that has prevailed in investment agreements to date. The new text indicates that Canada has agreed to the EU’s proposals on an investment court system, with a permanent roster of arbitrators appointed by Canada and the EU, rather than ad hoc tribunals whose members are appointed by the disputing parties themselves. In another innovation, CETA will also include an appeals mechanism, which will have power to review the merits of first-instance rulings, going beyond the limited grounds for annulment of awards in the existing ICSID system.

Alongside these revolutions, the new CETA text also contains another change from the earlier text. Under the heading of ‘Applicable law and interpretation’, Article 8.31(2) of the new text provides:

The Tribunal shall not have jurisdiction to determine the legality of a measure, alleged to constitute a breach of this Agreement, under the domestic law of the disputing Party. For greater certainty, in determining the consistency of a measure with this Agreement, the Tribunal may consider, as appropriate, the domestic law of the disputing Party as a matter of fact. In doing so, the Tribunal shall follow the prevailing interpretation given to the domestic law by the courts or authorities of that Party and any meaning given to domestic law by the Tribunal shall not be binding upon the courts or the authorities of that Party.

Although the provision is new in CETA, it has also recently appeared in the EU-Vietnam FTA and in similar language in the EU’s November 2015 TTIP proposals. While this might suggest that the provision is a recent invention of the EU, its inspiration in CETA could equally have come from Canada, which included a similar provision in its 2008 FTA with Colombia. In fact, Colombia itself appears to have first spearheaded the provision, including language on domestic law broadly similar to the provision’s first sentence in its 2007 Model BIT and in agreements signed as far back as 2006 with Japan, the UK, India, Belgium, China, Peru and Switzerland. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
 

Trade Agreements, EU Law, and Occupied Territories (2): The General Court Judgment in Frente Polisario v Council and the Protection of Fundamental Rights Abroad

Published on December 11, 2015        Author: 

This is a follow-up to my July post on Action for Annulment Frente Polisario v Council (Case T-512/12), a case before the General Court of the European Union (GC) in which Frente Polisario – the National Liberation Movement for Western Sahara – seeks the Annulment of the EU Council decision adopting the 2010 EU-Morocco Agreement on agricultural, processed agricultural and fisheries products. The GC delivered its judgment yesterday, both recognizing the standing of Frente Polisario and granting the (partial) annulment of the decision, with implications for EU-Morocco relations and for EU external relations law more broadly.

(1) Standing of Frente Polisario under Article 263 TFEU

As regards standing, the most striking aspect of the judgment is that the Court accepted the Frente’s entitlement to plead as a ‘moral person’, with the ‘necessary autonomy’ to challenge a decision of the EU legislator (paras. 50-53), without reference to the sui generis character of Frente Polisario or to the unique situation of Western Sahara. This would seem to open the door for other ‘autonomous entities’, even those with no claim to international legal personality, to challenge EU decisions under Article 263 TFEU.

By the same token, the Court fell short of recognizing the Frente’s legal personality under international law. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
 

Claims by Dual Nationals under Investment Treaties: A New Form of Treaty Abuse?

Published on December 9, 2015        Author: 

The issue of treaty abuse (or ‘treaty shopping’) has received heightened attention recently in the context of the on-going negotiations for the conclusion of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). In a public consultation on the potential inclusion of an investor-State arbitration clause in TTIP, the European Commission (EC) has raised concerns regarding the investors’ manipulation of corporate nationality through the so-called “shell” or “mailbox” companies in order to take advantage of the protection afforded by investment treaties (See Public consultation on modalities for investment protection and ISDS in TTIP, Question 1, p. 18). In line with the contributions made by many of the participants involved in the consultation process, the EC has stated that these companies should be excluded from the scope of TTIP. Accordingly, the EC has proposed to narrow the definition of the term ‘investor’ by requiring that a juridical person must have ‘substantial business activities’ in the territory of a signatory State (See Public consultation on modalities for investment protection and ISDS in TTIP, Question 1, pg. 18).

The foregoing requirement certainly responds to the criticisms of inappropriate treaty shopping, and it may be considered as a useful tool to prevent corporate investors from obtaining treaty protection by illegitimate means. Yet, the EC overlooks the fact that, in addition to corporations, investment treaties might also be subject to abuse by individual investors. In this context, a new type of BIT claim is now emerging in the field of investor-State arbitration, whereby investors who hold the nationality of both contracting parties to the treaty (i.e. dual nationals) make their own State a respondent before an international tribunal. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Comments Off on Claims by Dual Nationals under Investment Treaties: A New Form of Treaty Abuse?

Beneficial Ownership and International Claims for Economic Damage: Occidental Petroleum v. Ecuador and Restoring Limits to Investor-State Arbitral Tribunals’ Jurisdiction Ratione Personae

Published on November 16, 2015        Author: 

On 2 November 2015, the ICSID ad hoc Committee composed of Prof. Juan Fernandez-Armesto (Committee President), Justice Florentino Feliciano, and Mr. Rodrigo Oreamuno in Occidental Petroleum Corporation v. The Republic of Ecuador (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/11) partially annulled the massive US $1.769 Billion award of damages issued on 5 October 2012 by the majority of the arbitral tribunal (Mr. Yves Fortier, President, and Mr. David A.R. Williams) over the strong dissent of arbitrator Prof. Brigitte Stern. Agreeing with arbitrator Stern’s position that Occidental Petroleum had split its ownership to give a 40% ownership interest to a Chinese company Andes/AEC (Committee decision, para. 204), the ICSID ad hoc Committee whittled down the damages awarded to only reflect the actual 60% ownership of claimant Occidental Petroleum in the assets that Ecuador expropriated. The Committee’s decision significantly brought down the compensation value for the expropriation to the 60% as owned by Occidental Petroleum to US$1.061 Billion (Committee decision, paras. 586 and 590). The Committee treated the Chinese company Andes/AEC’s beneficial ownership of 40% of the expropriated assets as outside the scope of its jurisdiction over covered investors protected under the US-Ecuador BIT.

In issuing its landmark decision, the Committee stressed proscribed limits under the law of investor-State claims; the distinct confined mandate and authority of arbitral tribunals as derived from the creation and consent of States; and the ensuing narrow availability of the investor-State treaty arbitral system only to treaty-covered investors: Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
 

China’s View of International Litigation: Is the WTO Special?

Published on November 13, 2015        Author: 

Yesterday, Geraldo Vidigal put up a really interesting post looking at recent patterns of use of the World Trade Organization’s dispute settlement system. One thing that was particularly striking to me was the extent to which China has participated in the WTO dispute settlement system given its previous position on resolution of disputes by international tribunals. Geraldo’s chart of the latest 100 disputes at the WTO shows that only the United States, the EU and Japan have initiated more cases at the WTO in recent years than China (with Japan initiating just one more case than China in this period). Given that the WTO system is the most widely used inter-state dispute settlement system, it might not even be an exaggeration to say that: in terms of numbers of cases brought before international tribunals by states, China is one of the most enthusiastic state users of international tribunals! Of course, that enthusiasm is only before one particular system.

In October 2010 I posted here on EJIL:Talk a piece titled “Is China Changing its View of International Tribunals?“in which I noted that China’s view on international tribunals more broadly seemed to be changing. At the time, I noted China’s participation in the Kosovo Advisory Opinion at the ICJ, which was the first time that the People’s Republic appeared in oral hearings before the ICJ. I also pointed out China’s participation, around the same time, in the written and oral phases of International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea’s (ITLOS) first advisory proceedings –  the Responsibilities and obligations of States sponsoring persons and entities with respect to activities in the Area (Request for Advisory Opinion submitted to the Seabed Disputes Chamber). In 2014, China submitted a substantial written statement in the Request for an advisory opinion submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC) though it did not take part in the oral hearings.

Of course, we have non-participation by China with respect to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Annex VII arbitration initiated by the Philippines (in respect of which the tribunal issued an award on jurisdiction a couple of weeks ago). Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
 
Tags:

WTO: The First 500 Disputes and the Last 100 Disputes

Published on November 11, 2015        Author: 

Yesterday, the WTO dispute settlement system received its 500th formal request for consultations. Because members may only request a WTO panel after unsuccessful consultations, filing such a request is the first step in the initiation of WTO disputes. For this reason, the request for consultations, without being per se a contentious act, signals the willingness of the member requesting consultations to take a dispute to adjudication. Between 1995 and 2015, therefore, the WTO received almost 24 disputes a year – an impressive amount for a purely inter-state dispute settlement system. Confirming the tendency of increased participation of developing countries, the 500th request was filed by Pakistan and targeted a measure imposed by South Africa.

I took this opportunity to undertake a small and very simple (some might say crude) quantitative exercise: who are currently the main WTO litigators? If we go back to 1995, the US and the EU will clearly dominate (the WTO helpfully provides a map of disputes). However, China only joined the WTO in 2001, and Russia in 2012. Thus, a more helpful exercise is to look at the last few disputes. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
 

Nein!

Published on November 4, 2015        Author: 

I invited our Book Review Editor, Professor Isabel Feichtner, to write a Guest Editorial, which was published on the blog in July. As the reader will immediately note it would have been foolish, given the circumstances addressed in that Editorial, to wait for the next issue of EJIL and so I proposed that it be posted immediately on EJIL: Talk! where it was widely read and justly applauded. Given its importance, going well beyond the so-called Greek Crisis, we republish it in the current issue of the Journal as an official EJIL Editorial – which of course, as is the case with all Editorials in this Journal, represents the views of the author, not of EJIL as such.

It is our hope that this Editorial will stimulate a broader discussion on our role as international lawyers in today’s world of politics. To this end, let me make an open call for contributions, to the Journal and to EJIL: Talk!, on the role of international law scholarship in making sense of questions of how the refugee crisis, austerity politics, megaregionals, security politics, and so on interrelate, and how we as international lawyers can usefully intervene.

Print Friendly
Filed under: Editorials, EJIL, Financial Crisis
 
Tags:
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Comments Off on Nein!

A Bacon Dispute at the WTO? International Trade Regulation and the WHO Decision on Red Meat and Processed Meat

Published on October 28, 2015        Author: 

To the chagrin of meat-eaters worldwide, the International Agency for Research of Cancer (IARC) – the cancer agency of the World Health Organization – has just published a summary of over 800 studies, some of which decades-long, on the link between consumption of red meat and processed meat and cancer. The summary concludes that consumption of red meat is probably linked to cancer, and that consumption of processed meat is demonstrably linked to bowel cancer. Specifically, every 50 gram portion of processed meat consumed daily increases the risk of bowel cancer by a significant 18%. An average sausage weighs about 70-80 grams.

On the basis of this research, IARC experts decided to add red meat and processed meat to the list of potential cancer-inducing agents. Red meat, i.e. ‘all mammalian muscle meat, including, beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse, and goat’, was classified under Group 2A, as ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’. More worryingly, processed meat, including all red meat ‘that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance flavour or improve preservation’, was classified as ‘carcinogenic to humans’ (Group 1).

With this decision, processed meat now ranks together cancer-wise not only with the usual suspects against which healthcare professionals advise us – alcoholic beverages, tobacco smoking, and solar radiation – but also with less pleasant substances such as mustard gas, arsenic, and plutonium. To leave no room for doubt, the Q&A clarifies that among the new known carcinogens are ‘hot dogs (frankfurters), ham, sausages, corned beef, and biltong or beef jerky as well as canned meat and meat-based preparations and sauces’. (Surprisingly, bacon was left out of this particular clarification.)

Few people, of course, were under the illusion that these products were good for your health. However, their classification as known carcinogens has significant public health implications, which may lead governments worldwide to consider adopting measures to prevent consumption, or at least excessive consumption, of processed red meat. As with regulatory measures aimed at lowering consumption of tobacco and alcohol, we can expect the new anti-bacon measures to become the subject of international litigation under trade and investment dispute settlement.

The question of how to give weight to health and other public interest concerns under investment law is still a tricky one. Under the law of the World Trade Organization (WTO), on the other hand, I believe the issue is essentially settled: once a decision of an internationally recognized scientific body such as the IARC exists to ground policies, WTO law will in principle pose no obstacle to even-handed measures aimed at reducing consumption or even removing the product from the market entirely. Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
 

Authors’ Concluding Response: Assessing the Case for More Plurilateral Agreements

Published on October 2, 2015        Author: 

Editor’s Note:  This is the authors’ concluding response in a series of posts discussing the article in the current issue of EJIL Vol. 26 (2015) No 2, by Bernard Hoekman and Petros Mavroidis. The original post is here. See also the  posts  discussing the article by Junji Nakagawa, Diane Desierto, and Geraldo Vidigal.

We have profited a lot reading the responses to our article by our three colleagues. Undoubtedly, this discussion will help us streamline our thinking going forward, since we believe the discussion regarding the institutional design of the WTO is about to start. Indeed, the passage from the Tokyo round ‘GATT clubs’ approach to the ‘WTO single undertaking’ was not discussed in depth among the institutional stakeholders. It is high time it takes place now, and this is what we hope our contribution will help happen.

We would like at the outset to set the record straight regarding property rights on this issue. We claim no originality in making a case for more plurilateral agreements (PAs). The main contribution on this front is a paper by Robert Z. Lawrence (2006), to which we refer a number of times in our article, and which, surprisingly had been left unanswered. Lawrence brought together discussion that preceded him, and provided a clear framework to think in concrete policy terms about clubs within the multilateral system. Academic literature on ‘clubs’ or ‘codes’ (the term used during the Uruguay round, in the GATT, and more generally, “minilateral” liberalization and cooperation goes back to the 1980s). A notable contribution on this score is B. Yarborough and R. Yarborough (1992), Cooperation and Governance in International Trade: The Strategic Organizational Approach.

Our basic point, simply put is that there are three factors that all bolster the case for PAs, and the ensuing ‘club of clubs’ approach originally advocated by Lawrence almost ten years ago. These factors are:

  • the proliferation of PTAs (preferential trade agreements) following the advent of the WTO, that is, at a time when tariffs are at an all-time low. Modern PTAs deal to a significant extent with regulatory matters;
  • the geo-political dynamics associated with the rise of China and other emerging economies; and
  • the fact that the trade agenda increasingly centers on regulatory differences, an area where the ‘single undertaking’ approach has not proved to be much of a success.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Comments Off on Authors’ Concluding Response: Assessing the Case for More Plurilateral Agreements

Whose Club Is It Anyway? PTAs 2.0 and the Creeping Non-Trade Rules

Published on October 1, 2015        Author: 

Editor’s Note: This post responds to Bernard Hoekman and Petros Mavroidis’ article in the current issue of EJIL Vol. 26 (2015), No. 2, titled “WTO ‘à la carte’ or ‘menu du jour’? Assessing the case for more Plurilateral Agreements”. For a post by the authors of the article, introducing their piece, see here. For other comments see here and here. For the authors’ concluding response, see here.

Bernard Hoekman and Petros Mavroidis’s article comes at an important time for the WTO. Alternatives to the multilateral trade talks have always existed, both outside the WTO (PTAs) and within it (PAs). However, the repeated failure of Doha talks to deliver meaningful results is leading PTAs to take an ever more important role. Their capacity to displace WTO rules has so far been limited, in no small part because they do not cover trade between the largest WTO Members. This is about to change, however, if TTIP and TPP really get off the ground – one could add to the list the China-led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). We may call these agreements PTAs 2.0. Both the US and the EU have been signing similar deals with third parties over the past two decades. A PTA 2.0 between the two would amount to a fait accompli to everyone else regarding a number of issues. To avoid a fragmentation of global rules, Hoekman and Mavroidis propose to expand the scope of intra-WTO plurilateral agreements, and incorporate the rules conveyed in PTAs 2.0 into WTO law, as PAs if necessary.

I should begin by saying that I am generally suspicious of the argument that the WTO has somehow become too big for consensus decision-making. It is not the world’s Cubas, Venezuelas and Nicaraguas that are halting trade talks (even if they can delay results for a few hours). If we are to go beyond consensus, it seems reasonable to state whose veto it is we expect to overcome. In this case, it seems that it is mainly large developing countries – in particular India, who has repeatedly been playing spoilsport in trade talks, but perhaps China and Brazil as well – who will be given an option between accepting the incorporation of PTAs 2.0 into the WTO or being left out of trade rules 2.0.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Comments Off on Whose Club Is It Anyway? PTAs 2.0 and the Creeping Non-Trade Rules