The EU Approach to International Investment Agreements

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


The following section gives an overview of the EU approach to international investment regulation and analyses whether they are adequately responding to the human rights tensions identified in Chap. 4. Many protection standards have evolved over time and have been constructed by arbitration and literature as to some degree independent principles and standards of good governance. In addition, marginal variations within the treaty texts have often been ignored by arbitral practice. Therefore, the treaty makers, if intending to regain legislative control or diverge from previous practices, have to be explicit. The intention to impose a restrictive understanding or a roll-back of a standard has to be expressed clearly, especially in the context of highly debated issues. Bearing this in mind, each section summarizes the tensions between the respective rule and human rights as elaborated in the previous chapter, subsequently analyses the EU approach and concludes whether the EU is solving, mitigating, neutral to or deepening the problem (Sect. 5.2). Further, the EU policy to dispute settlement in investment matters is assessed with a focus on the entry barriers for human rights interests as identified in the previous chapters (Sect. 5.3).


  1. Casteleiro AD (2012) EU declarations of competence to multilateral agreements: a useful reference base? Eur Foreign Aff Rev 17:491–510Google Scholar
  2. De Luca A (2014) Umbrella clauses and transfer provisions in the (invisible) EU Model BIT. J World Invest Trade 15:506–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ghazaryan N (2015) A new generation of human rights clauses? The case of association agreements in the eastern neighbourhood. Eur Law Rev 40:391–410Google Scholar
  4. Hachez N (2015) Essential elements’ clauses in EU Trade Agreements making trade work in a way that helps human rights. Cuad Eur Deusto 53:81–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Howse R (2003) Membership and its privileges: the WTO, Civil Society, and the Amicus Brief Controversy. Eur Law J 9:496–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jacob M, Schill S (2015) Fair and equitable treatment: content, practice, method. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 700–763Google Scholar
  7. Johnson L, Sachs L (2015) International Investment Agreements, 2013: a review of trends and new approaches. In: Bjorklund AK (ed) Yearbook on International Investment Law & Policy, 2013–2014. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Kaufmann-Kohler G (2011) Interpretive powers of the free trade commission and the rule of law. In: Bachand F (ed) Fifteen years of NAFTA chapter 11 arbitration, IAI international arbitration series No. 7. Juris, New York, p 175Google Scholar
  9. Krajewski M (2014) Modalities for investment protection and Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) in TTIP from a trade union perspective. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Brussel. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Krajewski M, Hindelang S, Van Harten G (eds) (2016) The European Commission and UNCTAD reform agendas. In: Shifting paradigms in international investment law: more balanced, less isolated, increasingly diversified. Oxford University Press, pp 128–141Google Scholar
  11. Kube V, Cross C (2018) Is the arbitration clause of the Energy Charter Treaty compatible with EU law in its application between EU Member States? Analysis Umweltinstitut Münch.
  12. Marx A (2016) The protection of labour rights in trade agreements: the case of the EU-Colombia agreement. J World Trade 50:587Google Scholar
  13. Muchlinski P (2016) Negotiating new generation international investment agreements. In: Hindelang S, Krajewski M (eds) Shifting paradigms in international investment law. Oxford University Press, pp 41–64Google Scholar
  14. Schneiderman D (2013) Resisting economic globalization. Palgrave MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  15. Semertzi A (2014) The preclusion of direct effect in the recently concluded EU free trade agreements. Common Mark Law Rev 51:1125–1158Google Scholar
  16. Stifter L, Reinisch A (2016) Expropriation in the light of the UNCTAD Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development. In: Krajewski M, Hindelang S (eds) Shifting paradigms in international investment law: more balanced, less isolated, increasingly diversified. Oxford University Press, pp 81–96Google Scholar
  17. Waincymer J (2009) Balancing property rights and human rights in expropriation. In: Dupuy P-M, Petersmann E-U, Francioni F (eds) Human rights in international investment law and arbitration. Oxford University Press, pp 275–309Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vivian Kube
    • 1
  1. 1.HamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations