International Economic Law

Page 1 of 39

Filter category

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)’s Chapter 19 Dispute Settlement Procedures

Over this past weekend during the 37th Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Summit hosted by Viet Nam, the ten ASEAN Member States (Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, the Philippines, Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos, Viet Nam) finally signed, together with five other trading partners - Japan, the People's Republic of China, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand - the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which creates the world's largest trading bloc (comprising around 30% of global GDP).  RCEP was finally concluded after eight years of negotiations, which initially saw participation from India until it withdrew in November 2019.   I had written extensively in 2018 about what had been substantive negotiation points on market access, investment, and other features of RCEP, leaving out the provisions on dispute settlement that were still thorny points for negotiation among RCEP negotiators.  In this post, I discuss the features of RCEP's Chapter 19 on Dispute Settlement, and what this new structure bodes for the future of dispute on international trade, investment, intellectual property, e-commerce,…

Read more

The ‘New’ World Bank Accountability Mechanism: Observations from the ND Reparations Design and Compliance Lab

On 8 September 2020, the World Bank’s Board of Executive Directors approved a Resolution establishing the World Bank Accountability Mechanism [hereafter, “Accountability Mechanism Resolution”], composed of the original World Bank Inspection Panel established in 1993, and a new entity called the Dispute Resolution Services.  A counterpart updated Resolution was also passed relating to the World Bank Inspection…

Read more

To CETA or not to CETA: Reflections on ISDS and the special responsibility of national parliaments

In a reaction to an EJIL: Talk! post by Baetens et al., Arcuri et al. claim that the Dutch parliament has the right to reject CETA and also argue in favour of it doing so. The post by Arcuri et al. raises important points that merit further discussion, among legal academics and practitioners, politicians, and citizens.

Read more

Justifying privilege in international investment law – a rejoinder to Jurgen Kurtz

In a recent issue of EJIL (EJIL (2020), Vol. 31 No. 1), I have an article on how international investment law privileges foreign investors, to which Jürgen Kurtz in the same issue has written a reply, and in response to which the editors have invited me to provide a rejoinder. In his reply Kurtz develops one…

Read more

Expropriating democracy: on the right and legitimacy of not ratifying CETA

In May 2020, the unwinding saga in CETA’s ratification landed in a divided Dutch Senate. The date of the decisive vote in the Senate is dependent on the government’s response to questions raised by senators. Academics have suggested that the Netherlands should ratify CETA because not doing so ‘would be a very negative signal’ ‘in today’s crumbling…

Read more
  • Page 1 of 39
  • Last