Something Borrowed, Something New: The TTIP Investment Court: How to Fit Old Procedures into New Institutional Design

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


The key component of the European Union’s ambitious foreign investment policy is the shift away from traditional investor-state arbitration to a permanent investment court system. This bilateral investment court features, amongst other things, an appeals mechanism and thereby responds to widespread criticism over the inconsistency, and consequent lack of legitimacy, of investor-state arbitration. Rather than addressing all aspects of investor-state dispute settlement, however, the investment court system is merely an institutional reform, which depends for all other relevant purposes on established arbitration rules. A TTIP investment court would therefore fall prey to the legal and institutional constraints for which ICSID and UNCITRAL have initially been designed. Taken together with the current US administration’s division on trade and investment policy, the prospects of a TTIP investment court remain all but certain. If successful, on the other hand, it would represent above all an important step towards transatlantic adjudicative institutionalisation.


  1. Amarasinha SD, Kokott J (2008) Multilateral investment rules revisited. In: Muchlinski P, Ortino F, Schreuer C (eds) The Oxford handbook of international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 127Google Scholar
  2. Angelo H (2017) Eric Stein and Peter Hay: law and institutions in the Atlantic Area (Book Review). Calif Law Rev 56:923Google Scholar
  3. Casteleiro AD (2016) The international responsibility of the European Union: from competence to normative control. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dahlquist J (2017) Place of Arbitration in the Proposed “Investment Court” Scenario: An Overlooked Issue? Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 23 March 2017. Accessed at
  5. Dolzer R, Schreuer C (2012) Principles of international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 300–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Donnan S, Sevastopulo D (2017) White house civil war breaks out over trade. Financial Times, 10 March 2017. Accessed at
  7. Donnan S, Webber J (2017) White House notifies Congress of intent to start Nafta renegotiation talks. Financial Times, 18 May 2017, Accessed at
  8. Friedmann W (1964) The changing structure of international law. Stevenson & SonsGoogle Scholar
  9. Geiger R (2002) Regulatory expropriation in international law: lessons from the multilateral agreement on investment. N Y Univ Environ Law J 11(94):106Google Scholar
  10. Gélinas F (2005) Dispute resolution as institutionalization in international trade and information technology. Fordham Int Law J 74:489–504Google Scholar
  11. Holton K, Ireland L (2017) Trump warming to EU trade deal with Britain behind in queue: Times. Reuters, 22 April 2017. Accessed at
  12. 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? - Analysis and roadmap (CIDS Research Paper, 3 June 2016, commissioned by UNCITRAL), pp 22–23Google Scholar
  13. Komninos AP (1999) Case C-126/97, Eco Swiss China Time Ltd. v. Benetton International NV, Judgment of 1 June 1999, Full Court. Common Mark Law Rev 37:459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lenk H (2016) Issues of attribution: responsibility of the EU in investment disputes under CETA. Transnl Dispute Manage 13:1–23Google Scholar
  15. Muchlinski PT (2000) The rise and fall of the multilateral agreement on investment: where now? Int Law 34:1033–1053Google Scholar
  16. Pantaleo L (2016a) Lights and shadows of the TTIP investment court system. In: Pantaleo L, Douma W, Takács T (eds) Tiptoeing to TTIP: What Kind of Agreement for What Kind of Partnership? vol CLEER Papers 2016/1 pp 80–81Google Scholar
  17. Pantaleo L (2016b) Respondent status and allocation of international responsibility under EU investment agreements. Eur Papers 1:847–860Google Scholar
  18. Parra AR (2014) Advancing reform at ICSID. Transnl Dispute Manag 11:1Google Scholar
  19. Posner EA (2009) Erga omnes norms, institutionalization, and constitutionalism in international law. J Inst Theor Econ 165(5):16Google Scholar
  20. Rigod B (2012) “Global Europe”: the EU’s new trade policy in its legal context. Columbia J Eur Law 18:277, 287–288Google Scholar
  21. Schwieder RW (2016) TTIP and the investment court system: a new (and improved?) paradigm for investor-state adjudication. Columbia J Transnl Law 55:178Google Scholar
  22. Stein E (1981) Lawyers, judges, and the making of a transnational constitution. Am J Int Law 75:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Titi C (2017) The European Union’s proposal for an international investment court: significance, innovations and challenges ahead. Transnl Dispute Manag 1:11–12Google Scholar
  24. Toye R (2012) The International Trade Organization. In: Daunton M et al (eds) The Oxford handbook on the World Trade Organization. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 97Google Scholar
  25. Von der Loo G (2016) CETA’s signature: 38 statements, a joint interpretative instrument and an uncertain future. CEPS, 31 October 2016. Accessed at
  26. 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 50:1039Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations