Advertisement

The International Investment Competence of the EU

  • Vivian Kube
Chapter
  • 197 Downloads
Part of the Interdisciplinary Studies in Human Rights book series (CHREN, volume 4)

Abstract

The first chapter explained how human rights next to other substantive and organizational principles and objectives should inform the making and implementation of EU foreign policies. This chapter is concerned with the role that the EU can actually play in shaping the international investment regime. It delineates the regulatory reach of the EU with regards to international investment relations in order to subsequently determine which areas should be governed by the EU human rights framework. This chapter first explains the importance of this thorough analysis, that is highlighting the flexibility of current definitions and making the argument that the human rights framework goes beyond the confines of EU exclusive competence (Sect. 3.1). In order to outline the newly gained and existing powers of the EU in view of the powers needed to cover the traditional practice of international investment relations, this chapter elucidates briefly the traditional scope of international investment regulation (Sect. 3.2). As a next step, it analyses to what extent these powers are covered by exclusive competence of CCP, implied external competences and other expressed Treaty competences or remain under the competence of the Member States (Sects. 3.3–3.8). Ever since the inclusion of foreign direct investment (FDI) into CCP, the scope of the EU competence over investment regulation has been highly debated amongst scholars and between the Commission, the EP and the Member States. Each section therefore outlines the answers given by the Court in the landmark decision Opinion 2/15 in comparison to the diverging opinions in the literature. In a last step, it is explored what different policy options remain if one aims for covering the state of the art investment regulation (Sect. 3.8), while discussing what the different policy options mean for the application of the human rights framework (Sect. 3.9).

References

  1. Akkermans B, Ramaekers E (2010) Article 345 TFEU (ex Article 295 EC), its meanings and interpretations. Eur Law J 16:292–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Basedow R (2016) A legal history of the EU’s international investment policy. J World Invest Trade 17:743–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benyon FS (2010) Direct investment, national champions and EU treaty freedoms: from Maastricht to Lisbon. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Bischoff JA (2011) Just a little bit of mixity? The EU’s role in the field of international investment protection law. Common Mark Law Rev 48:1527–1569Google Scholar
  5. Bischoff JA, Happ R (2015) The notion of investment. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 495–544Google Scholar
  6. Bungenberg M (2010) Going global? The EU common commercial policy after Lisbon. In: Herrmann C, Terhechte JP (eds) European yearbook of international economic law 2010. Springer, Berlin, pp 123–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Casolari F (2012) The principle of loyal cooperation: a ‘master key’ for EU external representation? Princ Pract EU Extern Represent CLEER Work Pap 20125, pp 11–36Google Scholar
  8. Ceyssens J (2005) Towards a common foreign investment policy? Foreign investment in the European Commission. Leg Issues Econ Integr 32:259–291Google Scholar
  9. Dashwood A (2010) Mixity in the era of the treaty of Lisbon. In: Hillion C, Koutrakos P (eds) Mixed agreements revisited: the EU and its member states in the world. Hart, Oxford, p 351Google Scholar
  10. Dimopoulos A (2011) EU foreign investment law. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fernández-Pons X, Polanco R, Torrent R (2017) CETA on investment: the definitive surrender of EU law to GATS and NAFTA/BITS. Common Mark Law Rev:1319–1358Google Scholar
  12. Hillion C (2009) Mixity and coherence in EU external relations: the significance of the duty of cooperation. CLEER Working Paper 2009/1Google Scholar
  13. Hindelang S, Maydell N (2011) The EU’s common investment policy – connecting the dots. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hindelang S (eds) International investment law and EU law. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoffmeister F, Ünüvar G (2013) From BITS and pieces towards European investment agreements. In: Bungenberg M, Reinisch A, Tietje C (eds) EU and investment agreements: open questions and remaining challenges. Hart, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Karl J (2004) Competence for foreign direct investment: new powers for the European Union. J World Invest Trade 5:413Google Scholar
  16. Kleimann D (2017) Reading opinion 2/15: standards of analysis, the Court’s discretion, and the legal view of the Advocate General. EUI RSCAS Work Pap 201723Google Scholar
  17. Krajewski M (2012) The reform of the common commercial policy. In: Biondi A, Eeckhout P, Ripley S (eds) EU law after Lisbon. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 292–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Krajewski M (2014) Modalities for investment protection and Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) in TTIP from a trade union perspectiveGoogle Scholar
  19. Kuijper PJ (2010) Foreign direct investment: the first test of the Lisbon improvements in the domain of trade polity. Leg Issues Econ Integr 37:261Google Scholar
  20. Larik J, Casteleiro AD (2011) The duty to remain silent: limitless loyalty in EU external relations? Eur Law Rev 36:524–541Google Scholar
  21. Lavranos N (2009) Commission v. Austria. Case C-205/06. Judgment; Commission v. Sweden. Case C-249/06. Judgment. Am J Int Law 103:716–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leczykiewicz D (2005) Common commercial policy: the expanding competence of the European Union in the area of international trade. Ger Law J 6:1673–1686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leisner G (2007) Die subjektiv-historische Auslegung des Gemeinschaftsrechts. Der “Wille des Gesetzgebers” in der Judikatur des EuGH. EuR 6:689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ortino F, Eeckhout P (2012) Towards and EU policy on foreign direct investment. In: Biondi A, Eeckhout P, Ripley S (eds) EU law after Lisbon. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marwedel M (2016) Investment protection in the EU-canada comprehensive economic and trade agreement (CETA): a critical analysis, 12 May 2016Google Scholar
  26. Reinisch A (2013) The future shape of EU investment agreements. ICSID Rev Foreign Invest Law J 28:179–196.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/sit007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schill S (2013) Luxembourg limits: conditions for investor-state dispute settlement under future EU investment agreements. Transl Dispute Manag 10Google Scholar
  28. Shan W, Zhang S (2011) Treaty of Lisbon: half way toward a common investment policy. Eur J Int Law 21:1049–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sornarajah M (2010) The international law on foreign investment. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tietje C (2009) Die Außenwirtschaftsverfassung der EU nach dem Vertrag von Lissabon. In: Tietje C, Kraft G (eds) Beiträge zum Transnationalen Wirtschaftsrecht, HalleGoogle Scholar
  31. von Papp K (2013) Clash of “autonomous legal orders”: can EU Member State courts bridge the jurisdictional divide between investment tribunals and the ECJ? – A plea for direct referral from investment tribunals to the ECJ. Common Mark Law Rev 50:1039–1081Google Scholar
  32. Wernicke S (2016) AEUV Art. 345 Eigentumsordnung. Recht Eur. UnionGoogle Scholar
  33. Wessels R, Blockmans S (2014) Between autonomy and dependence: the EU legal order under the influence of international organisations. T.M.C. Asser Press, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  34. Witherell WH (1995) The OECD multilateral agreement on investment. Transl Corp 4:1–14Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vivian Kube
    • 1
  1. 1.HamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations