Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Procedural Multilateralism and Multilateral Investment Court: Discussion in Light of Increased Institutionalism in Transatlantic Relations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Institutionalisation beyond the Nation State

Part of the book series: Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation ((SEELR,volume 10))

Abstract

Recent decades have witnessed the growing malaise of multilateralism within international economic governance and an inclination for bilateralism and tailor-made solutions. And yet procedural multilateralism does exist in international investment law. The chapter assesses the Mauritius Convention and a similar initiative, the OECD’s Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS), in order to draw inspiration for the EU’s multilateral investment court. The emphasis is on recent developments, in light of the EU’s 2017 public consultation on a multilateral reform of investment dispute resolution. It argues that while the UNCITRAL and OECD examples of ‘retroactively’ reforming thousands of existing treaties offer useful guidance, the establishment of a multilateral investment court would require two instruments —a convention regulating the relationship between IIAs and the court and a stand-alone convention (the statute) on the multilateral investment court —and only the first of these instruments can draw on the UNCITRAL and OECD precedents.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, Book 1.70.

  2. 2.

    E.g. see European Parliament, Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for managing financial responsibility linked to investor-state dispute settlement tribunals established by international agreements to which the European Union is party (COM(2012)0335–C70155/2012–2012/0163(COD)), A7-0124/2013, 26 March 2013, Amendment 2, Justification (‘It should be highlighted that it is not a necessity to include ISDS provisions in future EU investment agreements and that their inclusion should be a conscious and informed policy choice that requires political and economic justification.’).

  3. 3.

    The habitual description of the ECT as a multilateral treaty, is not entirely accurate; the ECT is in reality a regional treaty.

  4. 4.

    The White House Office of the Press Secretary, Message to the Senate – UN Convention on Transparency in Treaty-Based Investor-State Arbitration, 9 December 2016, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/09/message-senate-un-convention-transparency-treaty-based-investor-state.

  5. 5.

    Section II, para. 8 of General Assembly Resolution 2205 (XXI), Establishment of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, 1966.

  6. 6.

    UNCITRAL, A Guide to UNCITRAL: Basic facts about the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, 2013, p. 7.

  7. 7.

    See http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/about/origin_faq.html.

  8. 8.

    See http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/about/methods_faq.html.

  9. 9.

    See http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/about/methods_faq.html.

  10. 10.

    Article 1(1) of the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency.

  11. 11.

    Article 1(2) of the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency.

  12. 12.

    See Article 2 of the Mauritius Convention.

  13. 13.

    Note by the Secretariat: Settlement of commercial disputes: Draft convention on transparency in treaty-based investor-State arbitration, UNCITRAL Working Group II, Sixtieth Session, 3–7 February 2014, paras 1, 3; Note by the Secretariat: Settlement of commercial disputes: Application of the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration to existing investment treaties — Draft convention, UNCITRAL Working Group II, Fifty-ninth Session, 16–20 September 2013, paras 1–3.

  14. 14.

    Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, Forty-Sixth Session (July 8–26, 2013), Gen. Assem., supp. no. 17, para. 117, emphasis added.

  15. 15.

    Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, Forty-Sixth Session (July 8–26, 2013), Gen. Assem., supp. no. 17, para. 117, emphasis added.

  16. 16.

    Report of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, Forty-Sixth Session (July 8–26, 2013), Gen. Assem., supp. no. 17, para. 123.

  17. 17.

    E.g. see Titi (2015a), pp. 1768–1783.

  18. 18.

    See http://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/.

  19. 19.

    http://www.oecd.org/tax/treaties/multilateral-instrument-for-beps-tax-treaty-measures-the-ad-hoc-group.htm.

  20. 20.

    OECD (2015).

  21. 21.

    OECD ( 2015 ), p. 15.

  22. 22.

    http://www.oecd.org/tax/treaties/multilateral-instrument-for-beps-tax-treaty-measures-the-ad-hoc-group.htm.

  23. 23.

    http://www.oecd.org/tax/treaties/multilateral-convention-to-implement-tax-treaty-related-measures-to-prevent-beps.htm.

  24. 24.

    On this, see Gómez and Titi (2016a), pp. 515–535 and Gómez and Titi (2016b).

  25. 25.

    Article 8.27 of CETA, version of February 2016; Article 12 of the Resolution of Investment Disputes section of the EU-Vietnam FTA, version of January 2016; Article 9 of section 3 of the EU TTIP Proposal of 12 November 2015.

  26. 26.

    In CETA and the EU-Vietnam FTA, they are called ‘Members of the Tribunal’, e.g. see Article 8.27 of CETA, version of February 2016 and Article 12 of the Resolution of Investment Disputes section of the EU-Vietnam FTA, version of January 2016.

  27. 27.

    Article 9(2) of section 3 of the EU TTIP Proposal of 12 November 2015; Article 8.27(2) of CETA, version of February 2016.

  28. 28.

    Article 12(2) of the Resolution of Investment Disputes section of the EU-Vietnam FTA, version of January 2016.

  29. 29.

    Article 9(5) of section 3 of the EU TTIP Proposal of 12 November 2015; Article 8.27(5) of CETA, version of February 2016.

  30. 30.

    Article 9(6) of section 3 of the EU TTIP Proposal of 12 November 2015; Article 8.27(6) of CETA, version of February 2016; Article 12(6) of the Resolution of Investment Disputes section of the EU-Vietnam FTA, version of January 2016.

  31. 31.

    Article 9(7) of section 3 of the EU TTIP Proposal of 12 November 2015; Article 8.27(7) of CETA, version of February 2016; Article 12(7) of the Resolution of Investment Disputes section of the EU-Vietnam FTA, version of January 2016.

  32. 32.

    Article 10(2) of section 3 of the EU TTIP Proposal of 12 November 2015; Article 13(2) of the Resolution of Investment Disputes section of the EU-Vietnam FTA, version of January 2016.

  33. 33.

    Article 10(5) of section 3 of the EU TTIP Proposal of 12 November 2015.

  34. 34.

    Article 9(11–12) of section 3 of the EU TTIP Proposal of 12 November 2015. See further Article 8.27(11–12) of CETA, version of February 2016.

  35. 35.

    Article 9(14) of section 3 of the EU TTIP Proposal of 12 November 2015; Article 8.27(14) of CETA, version of February 2016; Article 12(16) of the Resolution of Investment Disputes section of the EU-Vietnam FTA, version of January 2016.

  36. 36.

    Article 10(12) of section 3 of the EU TTIP Proposal of 12 November 2015.

  37. 37.

    European Commission, Concept Paper, Investment in TTIP and beyond – the path for reform, 2015, p. 16.

  38. 38.

    See also the European Commission’s Communication, Trade for all, Towards a more responsible trade and investment policy, 14 October 2015, p. 22 (The Commission will ‘engage with partners to build consensus for a fully-fledged, permanent International Investment Court’).

  39. 39.

    Titi (2015b), p. 12.

  40. 40.

    See further Article 15 of the Resolution of Investment Disputes section of the EU-Vietnam FTA, version of January 2016.

  41. 41.

    Similarly in the EU-Vietnam FTA, see Article 15 of the Resolution of Investment Disputes section of the EU-Vietnam FTA, version of January 2016.

  42. 42.

    European Commission, Press release: European Commission and Canadian Government co-host discussions on a multilateral investment court, Brussels, 13 December 2016, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-4349_en.htm.

  43. 43.

    European Commission, Inception Impact Assessment, Establishment of a Multilateral Investment Court for investment dispute resolution, 1 August 2016, p. 3.

  44. 44.

    On the need to multilateralise the court, see Titi (2016).

  45. 45.

    Ibid., with citations.

  46. 46.

    Schill (2015).

  47. 47.

    European Commission, Public consultation on a multilateral reform of investment dispute resolution, 2017, https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/mutlilateralinvestmentcourt.

  48. 48.

    Ibid.

  49. 49.

    Ibid.

  50. 50.

    Ibid.

  51. 51.

    Cf. Elaine Fahey, Introduction, in this volume; and Hannes Lenk, in this volume.

  52. 52.

    For a brief discussion on why decisions would not be enforceable under the ICSID Convention or the New York Convention, see Titi (2016).

  53. 53.

    European Commission, Public consultation on a multilateral reform of investment dispute resolution, 2017, https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/mutlilateralinvestmentcourt.

  54. 54.

    E.g. see in general Magnaye and Reinisch (2016).

  55. 55.

    ICSID, Possible Improvements of the Framework for ICSID Arbitration, Discussion paper, 22 October 2004.

  56. 56.

    ICSID, Possible Improvements of the Framework for ICSID Arbitration, Discussion paper, 22 October 2004, para. 23; ICSID, Suggested Changes to the ICSID Rules and Regulations, Working paper, para. 4.

  57. 57.

    ICSID, Suggested Changes to the ICSID Rules and Regulations, Working paper, para. 4.

  58. 58.

    European Commission, Inception Impact Assessment, Establishment of a Multilateral Investment Court for investment dispute resolution, 1 August 2016, p. 3.

  59. 59.

    European Commission, Public consultation on a multilateral reform of investment dispute resolution, 2017, https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/mutlilateralinvestmentcourt.

  60. 60.

    UNCITRAL, Report of Working Group II (Arbitration and Conciliation) on the work of its fifty-ninth session, Records of the UNCITRAL, 47th session, UN Doc. A/CN.9/794, 2013, paras 17 et seq.

  61. 61.

    Article 30 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) (1969).

  62. 62.

    See also Chapter IV of the VCLT.

  63. 63.

    UN, Report of UNCITRAL – Forty-seventh session, General Assembly, Official Records of the sixty-ninth session, Supplement No. 17, UN Doc. A/69/17, 2014, para. 25; UNCITRAL, Report of Working Group II (Arbitration and Conciliation) on the work of its fifty-ninth session, Records of the UNCITRAL, 47th session, UN Doc. A/CN.9/794, 2013, para. 22. This view is also supported in Kaufmann-Kohler and Potestà (2016), p. 79.

  64. 64.

    Article 2(5) of the Mauritius Convention.

  65. 65.

    Ibid.

  66. 66.

    E.g. Reinisch (2016), pp. 1–26; Kaufmann-Kohler and Potestà (2016), p. 85.

  67. 67.

    Titi (2016), pp. 24–25.

References

  • Gómez KF, Titi C (2016a) International investment law and ISDS: mapping contemporary Latin America. In: Gómez KF, Titi C (eds) The Latin American challenge to the current system of investor-state dispute settlement. J World Invest Trade, Special Issue 17(4):515–535

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez KF, Titi C (2016b) El centro de solución de controversias en materia de inversiones de Unasur. Invest Treaty News 7(3)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann-Kohler G, Potestà M (2016) 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? CIDS Research Paper, p 79. http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/CIDS_Research_Paper_Mauritius.pdf

  • Magnaye J, Reinisch A (2016) Revisiting Res Judicata and Lis Pendens in Investor-State Arbitration. Law Pract Int Courts Tribunals 15, 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2015) Developing a Multilateral Instrument to Modify Bilateral Tax Treaties, Action 15 - 2015 Final Report

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinisch A (2016) Will the EU’s proposal concerning an investment court system for CETA and TTIP lead to enforceable awards?—The limits of modifying the ICSID Convention and the nature of investment arbitration. J Int Econ Law, pp 1–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Schill S (2015) Das TTIP-Gericht: Keimzelle oder Stolperstein für echte Multilateralisierung des internationalen Investitionsrechts? Verfassungsblog, 25 November 2015

    Google Scholar 

  • Titi C (2015a) International investment law and good governance. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law: a handbook. Beck/Hart/Nomos, pp 1768–1783

    Google Scholar 

  • Titi C (2015b) The European Commission’s approach to the transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP): investment standards and international investment court. Transnl Dispute Manage 6:12

    Google Scholar 

  • Titi C (2016) The European Union’s proposal for an international investment court: significance, innovations and challenges ahead. Transnl Dispute Manage, advance publication on 25 May 2016

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank Marc Bungenberg for his comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS), Paris, France

    Catharine Titi

  2. CREDIMI, University of Burgundy, Dijon, France

    Catharine Titi

Authors
  1. Catharine Titi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for the Study of European Law (ISEL), The City Law School, City University of London, London, United Kingdom

    Elaine Fahey

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Titi, C. (2018). Procedural Multilateralism and Multilateral Investment Court: Discussion in Light of Increased Institutionalism in Transatlantic Relations. In: Fahey, E. (eds) Institutionalisation beyond the Nation State. Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, vol 10. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50221-2_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50221-2_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-50220-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-50221-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation