Advertisement

The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union (CETA) and its Impact on Property and Zoning in Germany

Chapter

Abstract

The European Commission hopes that the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Canada (CETA) will result in increasing wealth, more competitiveness, and hundreds of thousands of new jobs. There are also plans to harmonize standards and to introduce or monitor new regulations and norms that go beyond the existing member-state legal framework and are to be safeguarded by means of regulatory collaboration and legal supervision. The debate on CETA has not yet reached planning law, construction law, or procurement law in practice. Land as immovable property is mentioned explicitly as an investment asset, and land policy is the “blind spot” in foreign investment treaties. This chapter analyzes the current dynamics for the comprehensive land policy structure in Germany. In this paper, the purpose and proportionality test of CETA—from the constitutional and national spheres down to the municipal level—will comprise of the criteria of fairness, legitimacy, the balancing of investors’ expectations, and states’ regulatory measures. This chapter explains why the standards and provisions of CETA potentially conflict with the constitutionally guaranteed principle of local self-governance in land policy. The democratic legitimacy of foreign investment treaties regarding real estate remains to be verified, since the controversial relation and distinction between lawful regulation, the fair and equitable treatment standard, and indirect expropriation, lack substantial empirical evidence.

References

  1. Alterman, R. (2010). Comparative analysis: A platform for cross-national learning. In R. Alterman (Ed.),Takings international. A comparative perspective on land use regulations and compensation rights (pp. 21–74). Chicago: ABA Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Brownlie, I. (2003).Principles of public international law (6th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bungenberg, M., Griebel, J., Hobe, S., & Reinisch, A. (Eds.). (2015).International investment law (1st ed.). Baden-Baden and Munich: Nomos, Hart and C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
  4. Burke-White, W., & von Staden, A. (2010). The need for public law standards of review in investor-state arbitrations. In S. W. Schill (Ed.),International investment law and comparative public law (pp. 689–720). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caron, D. D., & Shirlow, E. (2015). Most-favored-nation treatment: Substantive protection. MTD v. Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/07. In M. N. Kinnear, G. R. Fischer, J. M. Almeida, L. F. Torres Arias, & M. U. Bidegain (Eds.),Building international investment law: The first 50 years of ICSID (pp. 399–414). Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  6. Christie, G. C. (1962). What constitutes a taking of property under international law?British Yearbook of International Law, 38, 307–338.Google Scholar
  7. Costamagna, F. (2015). Regulating public services and international investment law. In M. Krajewski (Ed.),Services of general interest beyond the single market. External and international law dimensions (pp. 77–109). Berlin and Heidelberg: Asser Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crawford, J. (2012).Brownlie’s principles of public international law (8th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crema, L. (2013). Investors’ rights and well-being. Remarks on the interpretation of investment treaties in light of other rights. In T. Treves, F. Seatzu, & S. Trevisanut (Eds.),Foreign investment, international law and common concerns (pp. 50–70). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Davy, B. (2012).Land policy. Planning and the spatial consequences of property. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  11. Dieterich, H., Dransfeld, E., & Voß, W. (1993).Urban land & property markets in Germany. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dolzer, R. (2002). Indirect expropriation of alien property.ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal, 1(1), 41–65.Google Scholar
  13. Dolzer, R. (2005). Fair and equitable treatment: A key standard in investment treaties.International Lawyer, 39, 87–106.Google Scholar
  14. Escarcena, S. L. (2014).Indirect expropriation in international law. Leuven Global Governance Series. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. European Commission. (2016). EU-Canada summit: Newly signed trade agreement sets high standards for global trade. Retrieved February 6, 2017, fromhttp://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1569
  16. Flessner, A. (2015). Investitionsschutz durch völkerrechtliche Verträge wie TTIP und CETA – ein Fall für das Verfassungsrecht!Recht und Politik, 3, 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fortier, L. Y., & Drymer, S. L. (2004). Indirect expropriation in the law of international investment: I know it when i see it, orCaveat investor.ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal, 19(2), 293–327.Google Scholar
  18. Fortier, L. Y., & Drymer, S. L. (2015). Indirect expropriation. In M. N. Kinnear, G. R. Fischer, J. M. Almeida, L. F. Torres Arias, & M. U. Bidegain (Eds.),Building international investment law: The first 50 years of ICSID (pp. 349–358). Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  19. Gildeggen, R., & Willburger, A. (2016).What constitutes a compensation free regulation of foreign-owned property in international law? Some thoughts on the protection of foreign investment against expropriations, the states´ right to regulate, arbitrators and TTIP. Pforzheim: University of Pforzheim.Google Scholar
  20. Hoffmann, A. K. (2008). Indirect expropriation. In A. Reinisch (Ed.),Standards of investment protection (pp. 151–170). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kantor, M. (2008).Valuation for arbitration. Compensation standards, valuation methods and expert evidence. Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business Series.Google Scholar
  22. Kelsen, H. (1934).Reine Rechtslehre. Einleitung in die rechtswissenschaftliche Problematik. Leipzig and Wien: Verlag Franz Deuticke.Google Scholar
  23. Krajewski, M. (2014).Modalities for investment protection and investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) in TTIP from a trade union perspective. Brussels: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.Google Scholar
  24. Krajewski, M. (2015a). Verfassungsrechtliche Probleme des Eigentumsschutzes durch internationales Investitionsrecht. In M. Krajewski, M. Reuß, & T. Tabbara (Eds.),Gesellschaftliche Herausforderungen des Rechts: Eigentum – Migration – Frieden und Solidarität. Gedächtnisschrift für Helmut Rittstieg (pp. 80–96). Nomos: Baden-Baden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krajewski, M. (2015b). Introduction. In M. Krajewski (Ed.),Services of general interest beyond the single market. External and international law dimension (pp. 1–12). Berlin and Heidelberg: Asser Press and Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kriebaum, U. (2007). Regulatory takings: Balancing the interests of the investor and the state.The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 8(5), 717–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kriebaum, U. (2008).Eigentumsschutz im Völkerrecht. Eine vergleichende Untersuchung zum internationalen Investitionsschutz sowie zum Menschenrechtsschutz. Berlin: Duncker und Humblot.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lehavi, A. (2013).The construction of property. Norms, institutions, challenges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lehavi, A. (2016). Introduction. In A. Lehavi (Ed.),Private communities and urban governance. Theoretical and comparative perspectives (pp. vii–vix). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Magel, H., Thiel, F., & Espinoza, J. (2016). Bodenpolitik und Landmanagement – Eine internationale Perspektive. In W. Freeden, R. Rummel, & T. Kötter (Eds.),Handbuch Geodäsie, Band “Städtebau, Bodenordnung und Landmanagement”. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Marboe, I. (2006). Compensation and damages in international law: The limits of “fair market value”.Journal of World Investment & Trade, 7, 723–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Muchlinski, P. (2008). Policy issues. In P. Muchlinski, F. Ortino, & C. Schreuer (Eds.),The Oxford handbook of international investment law (pp. 3–48). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reinisch, A. (Ed.). (2008).Standards of investment protection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Reinisch, A. (2015a). Internationales Investitionsschutzrecht. In C. Tietje (Ed.),Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht (2nd ed., pp. 398–433). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  35. Reinisch, A. (2015b). The likely content of future EU investment agreements. In M. Bungenberg, J. Griebel, S. Hobe, & A. Reinisch (Eds.),International investment law (1st ed., pp. 1884–1903). Baden-Baden and Munich: Nomos, Hart, C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
  36. Sabahi, B., & Birch, N. J. (2010). Comparative compensation for expropriation. In S. W. Schill (Ed.),International investment law and comparative public law (pp. 755–785). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schill, S. W. (Ed.). (2010a).International investment law and comparative public law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Schill, S. W. (2010b). Fair and equitable treatment, the rule of law, and comparative public law. In S. W. Schill (Ed.),International investment law and comparative public law (pp. 151–182). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schmidt-Eichstaedt, G. (2010). The federal Republic of Germany. In R. Alterman (Ed.),Takings international. A comparative perspective on land use regulations and compensation rights (pp. 271–292). Chicago: ABA Publishing.Google Scholar
  40. Schreuer, C. (2006). The concept of expropriation under the ECT and other investment protection treaties. In C. Ribeiro (Ed.),Investment arbitration and the energy charter treaty, transnational dispute management (Vol. 2, pp. 108–159). Huntington, NY: JurisNet.Google Scholar
  41. Thiel, F. (2011). “Property entails obligations”: Land and property law in Germany.European-Asian Journal of Law and Governance, 1, 78–94.Google Scholar
  42. Thiel, F. (2015). “Urban land grabbing” – On the debate surrounding the realignment of Berlin’s land policy. In E. Hepperle, R. Dixon-Gough, R. Mansberger, J. Paulsson, F. Reuter, & M. Yilmaz (Eds.),Challenges for governance structures in urban and regional development (pp. 95–108). Zurich: vdf Hochschulverlag.Google Scholar
  43. Thiel, F. (2016). Wirtschaftsvölkerrecht bricht Baurecht? Zu den Auswirkungen des transatlantischen Investitions- und Handelsabkommens TTIP auf die Streitbeilegung und die gebaute Umwelt.ZfBR – Zeitschrift für deutsches und internationales Bau- und Vergaberecht, 6, 556–563.Google Scholar
  44. Vandevelde, K. J. (2010). A unified theory of fair and equitable treatment.N.Y.U. Journal of International Law and Politics, 43(1), 43–106.Google Scholar
  45. Weston, B. H. (1975). Constructive takings under international law: A modest foray into the problem of “creeping expropriation”.Virginia Journal of International Law, 16, 103.Google Scholar
  46. Yannaca-Small, K. (2008). Fair and equitable treatment standard: Recent developments. In A. Reinisch (Ed.),Standards of investment protection (pp. 111–130). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cases

    United States

    1. Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon, 260 US 393. (1922).Google Scholar

    International Arbitration

    1. Duke Energy Electroquil Partners & Electroquil S.A. v. Republic of Ecuador (United States/Ecuador BIT), Award, 18 August 2008, 15 ICSID Reports 146.Google Scholar
    2. Jan de Nul N.V. and Dredging International N.V. v. Arab Republic of Egypt (Belgium-Luxembourg/Egypt BIT), Award, 6 November 2008, 2 ICSID Reports 9.Google Scholar
    3. Hulley Enterprises Limited (Cyprus) v. The Russian Federation, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. AA 226.Google Scholar
    4. Metalclad Corp v. United Mexican States (NAFTA), Award, 30 August 2000, 5 ICSID Reports 212.Google Scholar
    5. Middle East Cement Shipping and Handling Co. S.A. v. Arab Republic of Egypt (Greece/Egypt BIT), Award, 12 April 2002, 7 ICSID Reports 178.Google Scholar
    6. MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Republic of Chile (Chile/Malaysia BIT), Final Award 25 May 2004, 12 ICSID Reports 3.Google Scholar
    7. Occidental Exploration and Production Co v. Republic of Ecuador (US/Ecuador BIT), Award, 1 July 2004, 12 ICSID Reports 59.Google Scholar
    8. Pope & Talbot v. Canada (NAFTA), Interim Award, 26 June 2000, 7 ICSID Reports 69.Google Scholar
    9. Sempra Energy v. Argentine Republic (US/Argentina BIT), Decision on Jurisdiction, 11 May 2005.Google Scholar
    10. Siemens AG v. Argentine Republic (Germany/Argentina BIT), Award, 6 February 2007.Google Scholar
    11. Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, S.A. v. United Mexican States (Spain/Mexico BIT), Award, 29 May 2003, 10 ICSID Reports 134.Google Scholar
    12. Veteran Petroleum Limited (Cyprus) v. The Russian Federation, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. AA 228 (cited as the “Yukos case”).Google Scholar
    13. Waste Management Inc. v. United Mexican States (NAFTA), Award, 30 April 2004, 43 ILM 2004, 967.Google Scholar
    14. Wena Hotels Ltd. v. Arab Republic of Egypt (United Kingdom/Egypt BIT), Award, 8 December 2000, 6 ICSID Reports 89.Google Scholar
    15. Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v. The Russian Federation, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. AA 227.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Architecture, Civil Engineering and GeomaticsFrankfurt University of Applied SciencesFrankfurt on the MainGermany

Personalised recommendations