Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T20:15:05.233Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RECONCILING INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW AND EUROPEAN UNION LAW IN THE WAKE OF ACHMEA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2020

David Restrepo Amariles ,
Amir Ardelan Farhadi  and
Arnaud Van Waeyenberge
David Restrepo Amariles
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Law, HEC Paris, [email protected]
Amir Ardelan Farhadi
Affiliation:
Associate, Dechert LLP, [email protected]
Arnaud Van Waeyenberge
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Law, HEC Paris, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Slovak Republic v Achmea dealt a major blow to the predictability of the legal regime for the protection of foreign investments, whilst failing to offer a realistic, clear and sustainable solution for the protection of investments within the European single market. Commentators have mainly considered its implications from the perspective of the European Union or International Investment Law, and the potential conflict of regimes. This article offers a different approach, arguing that a reading of Achmea based on a moderate version of legal pluralism could adequately respond to the legitimate concerns about the case from both international and European legal perspectives. It is argued that the imprecision of the decision is in fact constructive ambiguity, allowing a sufficient margin of appreciation for all stakeholders and avoiding direct confrontation between the European and international legal orders. Recent developments, such as the innovative EU agreement for the termination of intra-EU BITs, point to new opportunities for ordering pluralism in the Achmea saga.

Keywords

European lawinternational investment lawlegal pluralismAchmeaconflict of regimeslaw of treaties
Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 69 , Issue 4 , October 2020 , pp. 907 - 943
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press for the British Institute of International and Comparative Law

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We are very grateful to Olivier Caprasse, Zachariah Davies, Léonore De Mullewie, Katia Fach Gómez, Zachariah Davies, Léonore De Mullewie, Florence Humblet, Erica Stein and Catharine Titi who provided comments to previous versions of this article. All remaining errors, mistakes and controversial points of view remain our own, and do not represent the views of our institutions or employers.

References

1 Gómez, KF (ed), La política de la Unión Europea en Materia de Inversiones Internacionales: Incertidumbres, Retos y Oportunidades (JM Bosch 2017) 27–49Google Scholar.

2 Farhadi, A et al. , ‘El Arbitraje de Inversiones en Juicio ante la Justicia Europea: Perspectivas Internacionalistas y Europeístas sobre Los Tratados Bilaterales de Inversiones Intra-UE’ in Gómez, KF (ed), La política de la Unión Europea en Materia de Inversiones Internacionales: Incertidumbres, Retos y Oportunidades (JM Bosch 2017) 46Google Scholar. The authors presented on the topic at ‘EU Policy on International Investments: Uncertainties, Challenges and Opportunities’, University of Zaragoza Faculty of Law, 20–21 March 2017.

3 Case C-284/16 Achmea [2018] ECR I-158, para 31. For some critical reflections on the Court's reasoning and on legal implications of its ruling, see Pohl, JH, ‘Intra-EU Investment Arbitration after the Achmea Case: Legal Autonomy Bounded by Mutual Trust?’ (2018) 14(4) EuConst 767Google Scholar; Contartese, C and Andenas, M ‘EU Autonomy and Investor-State Dispute Settlement under inter se Agreements between EU Member States: Achmea’ (2019) 56 CMLRev 157Google Scholar; Gaillard, E ‘L'affaire Achmea ou les conflits de logiques’ (2018) 3 Revue critique de droit international privé 616Google Scholar.

4 Thaler, R and Sunstein, C, Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness (Penguin 2009)Google Scholar; Alemanno, A and Sibony, AL (eds), Nudge and the Law: A European Perspective (Hart Publishing 2015)Google Scholar.

5 For a mapping of the different current trends in legal pluralism, see Michaels, R, ‘Global Legal Pluralism’ (2009) 5 Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences 243CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 See, for example, MacCormick, N, Questioning Sovereignty: Law, State, and Nation in the European Commonwealth (Oxford University Press 1999) 117CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Halberstam, D, ‘Local, Global, and Plural Constitutionalism: Europe Meets the World’ in De Búrca, G and Weiler, JHH (eds), The Worlds of European Constitutionalism (Cambridge University Press 2012) 50Google Scholar.

7 Case C-127/07 Arcelor Atlantic and Lorraine and Others [2008] ECR I-9895, Opinion of AG Maduro.

8 ILC, ‘Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, Report of the Study Group, Finalized by Martti Koskenniemi’ (13 April 2006) UN Doc A/CN.4/L.682 (ILC Fragmentation Report), para 491.

9 Compare, for example, the different approaches in Masdar Solar & Wind Cooperatief U.A. v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No ARB/14/1, Award (26 May 2018) (Masdar v Spain) para 679 and SolEs Badajoz GmbH v Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No ARB/15/38, Award (31 July 2019) (Badajoz v Spain) para 244. For a further analysis see Basedow, J Robert, ‘The Achmea Judgment and the Applicability of the Energy Charter Treaty in Intra-EU Investment Arbitration’ (2020) 23 JIEL 271CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Agreement for the termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties between the Member States of the European Union (5 May 2020) arts 5–9.

11 See Cremades, B and Cairns, D ‘Contract and Treaty Claims and Choice of Forum in Foreign Investment Disputes’ in Horn, Nand Kroll, S (eds), Arbitrating Foreign Investment Disputes (Kluwer 2004) 325Google Scholar.

12 See United Nations Commission on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Bilateral Investment Treaties 1959–1999 (2000).

13 Shan, W and Zhang, S, ‘The Treaty of Lisbon: Halfway Toward a Common Investment Policy?’ (2011) 21 EJIL 1049, 1065Google Scholar.

14 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2012] OJ C326 arts 3(1) and 207. For an analysis of this ‘new’ competence and its impact on BIT, see Eilmansberger, T ‘Bilateral Investment Treaties and EU Law’ (2009) 46 CMLRev 383, 394–8Google Scholar.

15 Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Towards a Comprehensive European International Investment Policy (Communication, COM 343, 2010).

16 For an analysis of this evolution, see Gallo, D and Nicola, F ‘The External Dimension of EU Investment Law: Jurisdictional Clashes and Transformative Adjudication’ (2016) 39 FordhamIntlLJ 1081Google Scholar.

17 See Kleinheisterkamp, J, ‘Investment Protection and EU Law: The Intra- and Extra-EU Dimension of the Energy Charter Treaty’ (2012) 15 JIEL 85, 95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 UNCTAD, World Investment Report 2012: Towards a New Generation of Investment Policies (2012) 86; examples include the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement (ASEAN CIA), and the investment protection agreement of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. For more on the role of ISDS in these agreements, see Farhadi, A and Saffer, LV, ‘Lessons from the Deathbed of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): Are Recent Critiques of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) System Warranted?’ (2017) 11 DRI 1Google Scholar.

19 Alschner, W ‘Regionalism and Overlap in Investment Treaty Law: Towards Consolidation or Contradiction?’ (2015) 17 JIEL 271, 275–6Google Scholar.

20 For a complete analysis of the implications of art 351 TFEU for international investment law, see von Papp, K ‘Solving Conflicts with International Investment Treaty Law from an EU Perspective: Article 351 TFEU Revisited’ (2015) 42 LIEI 325, 343–7Google Scholar.

21 Achmea B.V. v Slovak Republic, PCA Case No 2008-13 (formerly Eureko B.V. v Slovak Republic), Award on Jurisdiction, Arbitrability, and Suspension (26 October 2010) (Achmea Award on Jurisdiction) para 177.

22 See, for example, Eastern Sugar, SCC Case No 088/2004, Partial Award (27 March 2007) (Eastern Sugar) para 119 (detailing an EC Letter of 13 January 2006); see also European Commission, Commission Asks Member States to Terminate Their Intra-EU Bilateral Investment Treaties (Press Release, IP/15/5198, 2005).

23 Eastern Sugar, para 25.

24 Achmea Award on Jurisdiction; European American Investment Bank AG (EURAM) v Slovak Republic, UNCITRAL, Award on Jurisdiction (22 October 2012) (EURAM v Slovakia); J Hepburn and L Peterson ‘Tribunal's Full Reasons – and EC's Amicus Brief – on Intra-EU BIT Compatibility Issue Finally Come to Light in EURAM v Slovakia Case’ (IA Reporter, 2 April 2015). For an analysis of that point, see Simões, FD, ‘A Guardian and a Friend? The European Commission's Participation in Investment Arbitration’ (2017) 25 Michigan State International Law Review 233Google Scholar.

25 Electrabel S.A. v Republic of Hungary, ICSID Case No ARB/07/19, Decision on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law and Liability (30 November 2012) (Electrabel v Hungary); AES Summit Generation Limited and AES-Tisza Erömü Kft v Hungary, ICSID Case No ARB/07/22, Award (23 September 2010).

26 See Eastern Sugar, para 119; Achmea Award on Jurisdiction, para 180.

27 See art 18 TFEU; Eastern Sugar, para 106; Achmea Award on Jurisdiction, paras 183–184; EURAM v Slovakia, para 117.

28 Ioan Micula et al. v Romania, ICSID Case No ARB/05/20, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (24 September 2008); Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1470 of 30 March 2015 on State aid SA.38517 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) implemented by Romania — Arbitral Award Micula v Romania of 11 December 2013 [2015] OJ L 232/43, 69.

29 See 2008 Annual EFC Report to the Commission and the Council on the Movement of Capital and the Freedom of Payments (ECOFIN 629/MDC2, 17363/08, 2008).

30 Higher Regional Court Frankfurt, 10.05.2012 – 26 SchH 11/10.

31 European Commission, Commission Asks Member States to Terminate Their Intra-EU Bilateral Investment Treaties (Press Release, IP/15/5198, 2005).

32 Case C-284/16 Achmea [2017] ECR I-699, Opinion of AG Wathelet, para 177.

33 For example, in October 2018 the Commission filed an application to intervene in the proceedings in GPF GP SARL v Republic of Poland, SCC Arbitration V 2014/168, Final Award (29 April 2020) (GPF v Poland), para 142; in December 2018 it similarly sought leave to intervene in Addiko Bank AG and Addiko Bank D.D. v Republic of Croatia, ICSID Case No ARB.17/37, Decision on Croatia's Jurisdictional Objection Related to the Alleged Incompatibility of the BIT with the EU Acquis (12 June 2020) para 6.

34 Communication of the European Commission to the European Parliament and Council (Communication, COM 547/2, 2018) 3; Sunreserve Luxco Holdings S.A.R.L. et al. v Italian Republic, SCC Arbitration V (2016/32), Final Award (25 March 2020) (Sunreserve v Italy) para 340.

35 Declaration of the Member States of 15 January 2019 on the legal consequences of the Achmea judgment and on investment protection in the European Union.

36 UP and CD Holding Internationale v Hungary, ICSID Case No ARB/13/35, Award (9 October 2018) (UP and CD v Hungary) paras 252–253, finding that the simple choice of an ICSID arbitration meant that ‘the present case differs in determinative aspects from the case in Achmea’; Marfin Investment Group Holdings S.A. et al. v Cyprus, ICSID Case No ARB/13/27, Award (26 July 2018) (Marfin v Germany) para 593, relying on art 25(1) of ICSID.

37 Greentech Energy Systems A/S et al. v Italy, SCC Arbitration V (2015/095), Final Award (23 December 2018) (Greentech v Italy); Vattenfall AB et al. v Germany, ICSID Case No ARB/12/12, Decision on the Achmea Issue (31 August 2018) (Vattenfall v Germany); GPF v Poland, paras 343–348.

38 For example, Marko Mihaljevic v Republic of Croatia, ICSID Case No ARB/19/35; Strabag SE, Erste Nordsee-Offshore Holding GmbH and Zweite Nordsee-Offshore Holding GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany, ICSID Case No ARB/19/29.

39 For example, Case No T 4658-18 currently pending before the Svea Court of Appeal in Sweden (Concerning the Novenergia v Spain arbitration), and the set-aside by the German Federal Court of Justice in Achmea of 31 October 2018.

40 ibid.

41 See Case C-1/17 Petronas Lubricants Italy SpA v Livio Guida [2018] ECR I-163, Opinion of AG Bot. For relevant analysis see Iorio, F, ‘Opinion 1/17: Has the EU Made Peace with Investment Arbitration?’ (2019) 4 IBLJ 407Google Scholar; Riffel, C, ‘The CETA Opinion of the European Court of Justice and its Implications—Not That Selfish After All’ (2019) 3 JIEL 503Google Scholar.

42 Theodoros Adamakopoulos and Others v Republic of Cyprus, ICSID Case No ARB/15/49, Statement of Dissent of Marcelo G. Kohen (3 February 2020).

43 For example, GPF v Poland (Professor Philippe Sands appointed by Poland); Masdar v Spain (Professor Brigitte Stern appointed by Spain).

44 Agreement for the termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties between the Member States of the European Union (5 May 2020). The signatories of the Termination Treaty are Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain.

45 Termination Treaty art 8.

46 N MacCormick understood for instance such pluralism within the European Union as a transition from ‘sovereign states’ to ‘post-sovereign states’. See MacCormick, N, Questioning Sovereignty? Law, State and Nation in the European Commonwealth (Oxford University Press 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Neil Walker also uses the term ‘constitutional pluralism’ to describe the convergence of State sovereignties and that of the EU.

47 Case C-294/83 Les Verts v European Parliament [1986] ECR I- 1339, para 23.

48 Van Waeyenberge, A and Amariles, D Restrepo, ‘James Elliot Construction: A “New(ish) Approach” to Judicial Review of Standardisation’ (2017) 6 European Law Review 882Google Scholar; Van Waeyenberge, A, Nouveaux instruments juridiques de l'Union européenne: Evolution de la méthode communautaire (Larcier 2015)Google Scholar.

49 Weiler, JHH, ‘Prologue: Global and Pluralist Constitutionalism – Some Doubts’ in de Búrca, G and Weiler, J (eds), The Worlds of European Constitutionalism (Cambridge University Press 2012) 14–15Google Scholar.

50 Maduro, MP, ‘Interpreting European Law – Judicial Adjudication in a Context of Constitutional Pluralism’ (2007) 1 European Journal of Legal Studies 137Google Scholar.

51 ibid.

52 European Parliament, EU Accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), (July 2017).

53 For an account on how the judicial system of the EU can embrace legal pluralism, see Maduro (n 50).

54 Jenks, CW, ‘The Conflict of Law-Making Treaties’ (1953) 30 BYBIL 401, 403Google Scholar.

55 ILC Fragmentation Report, para 491.

56 Herdegen, M, Principles of International Economic Law (Oxford University Press 2013) 53–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

57 Dolzer, R and Schreuer, C, Principles of International Investment Law (Oxford University Press 2008) 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58 Accord entre le Gouvernement de la République Française et le Gouvernement de la République Argentine sur l'encouragement et la protection réciproques des investissements (France–Argentina) (adopted 7 July 1991, entered into force 3 March 1993) 1728 UNTS 297 art 8(2).

59 Gaillard, E, Aspects philosophiques du droit de l'arbitrage international (Martinus Nijhoff 2008) 46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 Delmas-Marty, M, Les force imaginantes du droit (II) – Le pluralisme ordonné (Seuil 2006) 39–139Google Scholar.

61 William Twining suggests using the notion ‘multiple perspectives’ to avoid the confusion with ‘legal pluralism’. See Twining, W, Globalisation & Legal Theory (Cambridge University Press 2000) 216Google Scholar.

62 Moore, SF, Law as Process: An Anthropological Approach (James Currey Publishers 1978) 58Google Scholar.

63 Griffiths, J ‘What Is Legal Pluralism?’ (1986) 24 Journal of Legal Pluralism 1, 4Google Scholar.

64 ibid.

65 See Hindelang, S, ‘Conceptualisation and Application of the Principle of Autonomy of EU Law – The CJEU's Judgement in Achmea Put in Perspective’ (2019) 3 European Law Review 383Google Scholar.

66 Opinion 1/91, Creation of the European Economic Area [1991] ECR I-6079, paras 40, 70; Avis 1/09, Accord sur la création d'un système unifié de règlement des litiges en matière de brevets [2011] ECR I-1137, paras 74, 76; Opinion 2/13, Accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [2014] ECR I-2452, paras 182, 183.

67 Case C-284/16 Achmea [2018] ECR I-158, para 39.

68 ibid, para 42.

69 Case C-284/16 Achmea [2017] ECR I-699, Opinion of AG Wathelet para 177.

70 ibid para, 180.

71 ibid, para 173.

72 Eureko B.V. v Slovak Republic, PCA Case No 2008-13, Award on Jurisdiction, Arbitrability, and Suspension (26 October 2010).

73 A point raised by S Gáspár-Szilágyi, ‘The CJEU Strikes Again in Achmea. Is This the End of Investor-State Arbitration under intra-EU BITs?’ (International Economic Law and Policy Blog, 12 March 2018) <https://worldtradelaw.typepad.com/ielpblog/2018/03/guest-post-the-cjeu-strikes-again-in-achmea-is-this-the-end-of-investor-state-arbitration-under-intr.html>.

74 Eureko B.V. v Slovak Republic, PCA Case No 2008-13, Award on Jurisdiction, Arbitrability, and Suspension (26 October 2010) paras 248–249.

75 ibid, para 250.

76 ibid, para 69.

77 Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment [1985] OJ L175/40, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment [1997] OJ L73/5.

78 Emilio Agustín Maffezini v The Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No ARB/97/765, Award (13 November 2000) paras 65–71.

79 Opinion 2/13 (n 66) para 173.

80 Opinion 2/13 (n 66) para 176.

81 Opinion 1/09 Creation of a Unified Patent Litigation System [2011] ECR I-01137, para 83.

82 See Case C-394/11 Belov [2013] ECR I-48, para 38 and the case law cited therein.

83 See in this regard Case C-102/81 Nordsee v Reederei Mond [1982] ECR I-1095.

84 Case C-284/16 Achmea [2018] ECR I-158, para 46.

85 ibid, para 48.

86 ibid, para 45.

87 Opinion 1/09 (n 81).

88 Case C-314/85 Foto-Frost v Hauptzollamt Lübeck-Ost [1987] ECR I-4199.

89 Case C-28/62 Da Costa en Schaake NV and Others v Administratie der Belastingen [1963] ECR I-0061.

90 Subject to certain exceptions set out in Case C-283/81 CILFIT v Ministero della Sanitá [1982] ECR I-3415.

91 Opinion 1/09 (n 81) para 88.

92 Ioan Micula et al. v Romania, ICSID Case No ARB/05/20, Award (11 December 2013) para 340.

93 Case C-284/16 Achmea [2017] ECR I-699, Opinion of AG Wathelet, para 85.

94 Delmas-Marty, MOrdering Pluralism: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding the Transnational Legal World (Hart 2009)Google Scholar.

95 See in this regard Case C-102/81 Nordsee v Reederei Mond [1982] ECR I-1095 and Case C-126/97 Eco Swiss [1999] ECR I-3055.

96 Case C-64/16 Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses [2018] ECR I-117, para 34.

97 ibid, para 32.

98 Case C-126/97 Eco Swiss [1999] ECR I-3055, paras 35–41.

99 Case C-284/16 Achmea [2018] ECR I-158, para 55.

100 Case C-284/16 Achmea [2017] ECR I-699, Opinion of AG Wathelet, para 238.

101 ibid, para 245

102 Case C-284/16 Achmea [2018] ECR I-158, para 34.

103 Opinion 2/13 (n 66) paras 168, 173.

104 Case C-284/16 Achmea [2018] ECR I-158, para 58.

105 Opinion 1/17, EU-Canada CET Agreement ECLI:EU:C:2019:341.

106 See art 8.31(2) of CETA.

107 Opinion 1/17 (n 105) para 140.

108 ibid, para 106.

109 ibid, paras 107 and 109.

110 ibid, para 117.

111 ibid, para 120. See in this regard, art 8.18.1 of CETA Agreement which limits the Tribunal's jurisdiction to damage claims for breaches of non-discrimination and investor protection obligations under Ch 8 and art 8.31.2 which expressly excludes competence to the review the legality of a measure under national law.

112 ibid, para 140.

113 ibid, paras 126ff.

114 Delmas-Marty, M, Towards a Truly Common Law: Europe as a Laboratory for Legal Pluralism (Cambridge University Press 2002)Google Scholar.

115 Vattenfall v Germany paras 150, 152; Electrabel v Hungary para 4.120, citing Hartley, T, ‘International Law and the Law of the European Union – A Reassessment’ (2001) 72 BYBIL 1Google Scholar; Burgstaller, M, ‘European Law and Investment Treaties’ (2009) 26 JIntlArb 181Google Scholar.

116 Case C-26-62, van Gend & Loos v Administratie der Belastingen [1963] ECR I-001, 12.

117 Opinion 2/13 (n 66) para 157; see also Case C-6-64, Costa v E.N.E.L. [1964] ECR I-0585, 593; Avis 1/09, Accord sur la création d'un système unifié de règlement des litiges en matière de brevets [2011] ECR I-01137, para 65.

118 Case C-621/18 Wightman and Others [2018] ECR I-999, paras 70–71.

119 ILC Fragmentation Report, para 488.

120 Opinion 2/13 (n 66); Case C-402/05 P, Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission [2008] ECR I-6351; and Case C-415/05 P, Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission [2008] ECR I-06351.

121 Kaufmann-Kohler, G ‘Arbitral Precedent: Dream, Necessity or Excuse? The 2006 Freshfields Lecture’ (2006) 23 ArbIntl 357Google Scholar.

122 ILC Fragmentation Report, para 492.

123 Vattenfall v Germany para 108.

124 ibid.

125 Vattenfall v Germany para 109; see for example Born, G, ‘The Law Governing International Arbitration Agreements: An International Perspective’ (2014) 26 SAcLJ 814Google Scholar.

126 Glenn, P ‘La conciliation des lois’ (2012) 364 Recueil des cours de l'Académie de droit international de la Haye 239Google Scholar.

127 Mayer, P and Heuzé, V, Droit international privé (11th edn, LGDJ 2014) 76Google Scholar; Mayer, P, La distinction entre règles et décisions et le droit international privé (Dalloz 1973) 69 n 1Google Scholar.

128 Forteau, M, ‘Forum shopping et fragmentation du droit international: le regard de l'internationaliste publiciste’ in Berge, J-S, Forteau, M, Niboyet, M-L and Thouvenin, J-M (eds), La fragmentation du droit applicable aux relations internationales: Regards croisés d'internationalistes privatistes et publicistes (Pedone 2011) 146Google Scholar; Farhadi, AA, ‘Achmea et la privatisation du droit international public’ in Watt, HM and Arroyo, D Fernandez (eds), Droit international privé global: Adjudication sans frontières (Pedone 2020) forthcomingGoogle Scholar.

129 Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989 (Guinea-Bissau v Senegal) (Judgment) [1991] ICJ Rep 53, para 48.

130 RREEF Infrastructure (G.P.) Limited and RREEF Pan-European Infrastructure Two Lux S.à r.l. v Spain, ICSID Case No ARB/13/30, Decision on Jurisdiction (6 June 2016) para 87.

131 GPF v Poland, para 346.

132 Vattenfall v Germany, para 109.

133 See for example, Badajoz v Spain; GPF v Poland; Marfin v Germany; Vattenfall v Germany; UP and CD v Hungary; Greentech v Italy; Greentech Energy Systems A/S et al. v Spain, SCC Arbitration V (2015/150), Final Award, 14 November 2018 (Greentech v Spain).

134 Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) (Advisory Opinion) [1971] ICJ Rep 16, para 53.

135 ILC Fragmentation Report, paras 475–478.

136 ibid, paras 410–423.

137 ibid, para 473. For similar conclusions on the hierarchy of international norms from an EU perspective, see von Papp (n 20) 341. The CJUE reasoned similarly in the cases of Commission v Austria and Commission v Sweden related to BITs concluded with third countries prior to accession. See Case C-205/06, Commission v Austria [2009] ECR I-1301 and C-249/06 Commission v Kingdom of Sweden [2009] ECR I-1335.

138 ibid, para 474.

139 McElhinney v Ireland ECHR 2001-XI 37, para 36; see also, Al-Adsani v the United Kingdom, ECHR 2001-XI 79, para 55; Bankovic v Belgium and others ECHR 2001-XII 333, para 57.

140 ILC Fragmentation Report, para 438.

141 ibid, para 474.

142 Electrabel v Hungary, para 4.144–4.146; Vattenfall v Germany, paras 81, 111; Greentech v Spain, para 204; UP and CD v Hungary, para 238; Sunreserve v Italy, paras 382–383.

143 UP and CD v Hungary, para 238; Vattenfall v Germany, para 81.

144 Sunreserve v Italy, para 386.

145 Sunreserve v Italy, para 391.

146 Vattenfall v Germany, para 152.

147 The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (Judgment No. 2) PCIJ Series A No 2, 31.

148 Electrabel v Hungary paras 4.81, 4.190; EURAM v Slovakia, para 241.

149 Vattenfall v Germany, para 91; Greentech v Italy, paras 267–271; UP and CD v Hungary, para 239; Marfin v Germany, para 583.

150 UP and CD v Hungary, para 265, considering arguments of termination and priority together, that a survival clause contained in the France-Hungary BIT would render.

151 Special Rapporteur Sir H Waldock, ‘Second Report on the Law of Treaties’ (1963) II UNYBILC 38, 53.

152 The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (Judgment No 2) PCIJ Series A No 2, 31.

153 ‘Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with Commentaries’ (1966) II UNYBILC 187, 214, 217.

154 von der Decken, K ‘Commentary to Article 30’ in Dörr, O and Schmalenbach, K (eds), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary (Springer 2018) 544–5Google Scholar.

155 Electrabel v Hungary para 4.191; EURAM v Slovakia para 267; Achmea Award on Jurisdiction, para 273.

156 Electrabel v Hungary, para 4.191.

157 Achmea Award on Jurisdiction, para 273.

158 Vattenfall v Germany, para 215.

159 Vattenfall v Germany, para 217.

160 von der Decken (n 153) 548.

161 ‘Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with Commentaries’ (1966) II UNYBILC 187, 214–6.

162 Greentech v Italy, para 351.

163 Marfin v Germany, para 584; UP and CD v Hungary, para 265; GPF v Poland, para 369.

164 GPF v Poland, para 364.

165 UP and CD v Hungary, para 218; Marfin v Germany, paras 583–591; Theodoros Adamakopoulos and Others v Republic of Cyprus, ICSID Case No ARB/15/49, Decision on Jurisdiction (7 February 2020) para 143.

166 See, for example, Achmea Award on Jurisdiction, paras 231–267; EURAM v Slovakia, v paras 153–238.

167 Theodoros Adamakopoulos and Others v Republic of Cyprus, ICSID Case No ARB/15/49, Statement of Dissent of Marcelo G. Kohen (3 February 2020) para 10.

168 Declaration of the Member States of 15 January 2019 (n 35).

169 Eskosol S.P.A. v Italy, ICSID Case No ARB/15/50, Decision on Italy's request for immediate termination and Italy's jurisdictional objection based on inapplicability of the ECT to intra-EU disputes (7 May 2019) para 39.

170 ibid, para 40.

171 ibid, paras 207–235.

172 Vattenfall v Germany, para 148.

173 GPF v Poland, para 344.

174 Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v Democratic Republic of the Congo) (Merits) (Judgment) [2010] ICJ Rep 639.

175 Achmea Award on Jurisdiction, para 59.

176 Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Germany v Poland) (Merits) PCIJ ser A No 7, 19.

177 See Fanou, M, ‘Intra-European Union Investor–State Arbitration post-Achmea: RIP? An Assessment in the Aftermath of the Court of Justice of the European Union, Case C-284/16, Achmea, Judgment of 6 March 2018’ (2019) 26(2) MJ 316, 332–4Google Scholar.

178 UP and CD v Hungary, para 214.

179 Vattenfall v Germany, para 49.

180 ibid, para 162.

181 Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v United Arab Emirates), Order of 23 July 2018, Joint Declaration of Judges Tomka, Gaja and Gevorgian, para 5: ‘It would be difficult to give weight to this view of the CERD Committee since it gives no reason for its interpretation … .’

182 Such as by virtue of a preliminary ruling referred to it by the court of a Member State by virtue of art 267 TFEU. The Svea Court of Appeal in the case concerning Spain v Novenergia may indeed be the first to do so (Case No T 4658-18).

183 For a critique on the idea of self-contained legal orders from the perspective of legal pluralism see Vanderlinden, J, Les Pluralismes Juridiques (Bruylant 2013) 369Google Scholar.

184 Twining (n 61) 216; Teubner, G, ‘The Two Faces of Janus: Rethinking Legal Pluralism’ (1992) 13 CardozoLRev 1443, 1443–8Google Scholar.

185 Griffiths (n 63) 4.

186 Twining (n 61) 84.

187 Amariles, DR, ‘Le droit comme instrument de progrès? Sur l'idée d'ingénierie juridique’ in Bricteux, C and Frydman, B (eds), Les défis du droit global (Bruylant 2017) 255Google Scholar.

188 Callies, G and Zumbansen, P, Rough Consensus and Running Code: A Theory of Transnational Private Law (Hart 2012) 144–5Google Scholar.

189 Termination Treaty, arts 8–9.

190 Declaration of the Member States of 15 January 2019 (n 35).

191 Electrabel v Hungary, para 4.167.

192 ibid, paras 4.143–144.

193 Unfortunately, this logic has been used to justify the conclusion that art 30 VCLT is inapplicable to the conflict between intra-EU BITs and the EU Treaties; see, for example, GPF v Poland, para 366.

194 See Kleinheisterkamp, J, ‘Investment Treaty Law and the Fear for Sovereignty: Transnational Challenges and Solutions’ (2015) 78 MLR 793CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Herdegen (n 56) 9. On the question of the protection of the Rule of Law, W Sadowski, ‘Protection of the Rule of Law in the European Union through Investment Treaty Arbitration: Is Judicial Monopolism the Right Response to Illiberal Tendencies in Europe?' (2018) 55 CMLRev 1025.

195 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Protection of intra-EU Investment (Communication, COM 547, 2018).

196 See Submission of the EU and Its Member States to UNCITRAL Working Group III, ‘Establishing a Standing Mechanism for the Settlement of International Investment Disputes’ (18 January 2019).

197 Franck, S, ‘The Legitimacy Crisis in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Privatizing Public International Law through Inconsistent Decisions’ (2005) 73 FordhamLRev 1521Google Scholar; G Kaufmann-Kohler and M Potestà, ‘Can the Mauritius Convention Serve as a Model for the Reform of Investor-State Arbitration in Connection with the Introduction of a Permanent Investment Tribunal or an Appeal mechanism? – Analysis and Roadmap’ (2016) CIDS – Geneva Center for International Dispute Settlement.

198 Brower, C, ‘Doomed to Failure: Why the EU Investment Court System Is Destined to Fail Both Foreign Investors and Host States – 3rd Annual EFILA Conference Keynote’ (2018) 3 European Investment Law and Arbitration Review 317CrossRefGoogle Scholar.