Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Solnedgång över Energistadgefördraget - Ändamål som helgar medlen eller urholkning av internationell rätt?

Kihlberg, Mikael Nils Fredrik LU (2023) JURM02 20231
Faculty of Law
Department of Law
Abstract
Against the backdrop of global climate ambitions, the international treaty known as the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) has come under increasing scrutiny. In particular, the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism in Article 26 ECT is seen as restricting states' right to legislate and thereby slow-ing down the phasing out of fossil fuels (regulatory chill).
ISDS is a common mechanism within cross-border trade and investment agreements (such as BITs, MITs, and FTAs. The compatibility of this mechanism with EU law has long been subject to legal debate, both globally and within the EU. Opinions differ as to when – under what conditions and between which parties – such a mechanism should be considered incompatible with EU law. In... (More)
Against the backdrop of global climate ambitions, the international treaty known as the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) has come under increasing scrutiny. In particular, the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism in Article 26 ECT is seen as restricting states' right to legislate and thereby slow-ing down the phasing out of fossil fuels (regulatory chill).
ISDS is a common mechanism within cross-border trade and investment agreements (such as BITs, MITs, and FTAs. The compatibility of this mechanism with EU law has long been subject to legal debate, both globally and within the EU. Opinions differ as to when – under what conditions and between which parties – such a mechanism should be considered incompatible with EU law. In recent years, the EU Court of Justice (CJEU) has issued judgments – inter alia Achmea, Opinion 1/17, Komstroy, and PL Holdings – which clarify the delineation from a perspective of EU law. The balancing act of CJEU has divided the legal community, and has not been fully accepted internationally. This thesis has conducted an analysis of the case law pertaining to investment in the CJEU and has arrived at the subsequent two comprehensive conclusions.
Firstly, regarding the interpretation of an ISDS mechanisms there exists a conflict of norms between EU law on the one hand and international law on the other hand. The perspective of EU law holds that an ISDS mechanisms should be interpreted in the light of EU law, and in particular in relation to the principle of the autonomy of EU law. The perspective of international law implies that interpretation should generally be made through an international treaty, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). Whether an ISDS mechanism should be considered valid seems to largely depend on which of these methods is applied.
Secondly, the polarized approach has given rise to an unpredictable legal situation in intra-EU disputes under the ECT. It has become clear that an investor cannot refer an intra-EU dispute or an arbitral award under the ECT within the European Union. However, the same conclusion cannot be drawn if jurisdiction or enforcement is sought outside the EU.
Finally, it is noted that the dichotomy and the antagonistic situation that has emerged between the CJEU and international courts has had adverse consequences. The legal development is problematic, particularly considering the EU as a global actor and the importance of maintaining respect for international law. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Mot bakgrund av de globala klimatambitionerna har den folkrättsliga traktaten Energistadgefördraget (ECT) kommit att ifrågasättas med ökande intensitet. I synnerhet anses Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mekanismen i artikel 26 ECT inskränka staters rätt att lagstifta och därigenom bromsa utfasningen av fossila energislag (regulatory chill).
En ISDS-mekanism är vanligt förekommande i gränsöverskridande handels- och investeringsavtal (BIT:s, MIT:s och FTA:s). Tvistlösningsmekanismens förenlighet med EU-rätt har länge varit föremål för juridisk debatt, såväl globalt som inom EU. I synnerhet går åsikterna isär beträffande när – under vilka förutsättningar och mellan vilka parter – en ISDS-mekanism inte kan ses som förenlig med... (More)
Mot bakgrund av de globala klimatambitionerna har den folkrättsliga traktaten Energistadgefördraget (ECT) kommit att ifrågasättas med ökande intensitet. I synnerhet anses Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mekanismen i artikel 26 ECT inskränka staters rätt att lagstifta och därigenom bromsa utfasningen av fossila energislag (regulatory chill).
En ISDS-mekanism är vanligt förekommande i gränsöverskridande handels- och investeringsavtal (BIT:s, MIT:s och FTA:s). Tvistlösningsmekanismens förenlighet med EU-rätt har länge varit föremål för juridisk debatt, såväl globalt som inom EU. I synnerhet går åsikterna isär beträffande när – under vilka förutsättningar och mellan vilka parter – en ISDS-mekanism inte kan ses som förenlig med unionsrätten. De senaste åren har EU-domstolen avkunnat domar (Achmea, Yttrande 1/17, Komstroy och PL Holdings) som preciserar den unionsrättsliga gränsdragningen. EU-domstolens balansgång i frågan har splittrat det juridiska samfundet och har inte fullt ut kommit att accepteras internationellt. Förevarande avhandling har analyserat EU-domstolens praxis på investeringsområdet och kommit fram till följande två övergripande slutsatser.
En normkonflikt existerar mellan EU-rätten och folkrätten beträffande hur ISDS-mekanismer ska tolkas. Det unionsrättsliga perspektivet ger vid handen att ISDS-mekanismer ska tolkas i ljuset av EU-rätt och i synnerhet mot principen om unionsrättens autonomi. Det folkrättsliga perspektivet innebär att en tolkning som regel ska göras genom den folkrättsliga traktaten Wienkonventionen om traktaträtten (VCLT). Utfallet av huruvida en skiljeklausul till följd av en ISDS-mekanism ska anses giltig tycks i stor utsträckning följa av vilken av metoderna som appliceras.
Det polariserade förhållningssättet har gett upphov till ett oförutsebart rättsläge vid EU-interna tvister under ECT i förhållande till en skiljenämnds jurisdiktion och möjligheten att verkställa sådan skiljedom. Det står klart att en investerare inte kan hänskjuta eller verkställa en EU-intern tvist eller skiljedom under ECT inom unionen. Samma slutsats kan emellertid inte dras för det fall att jurisdiktion eller verkställighet söks utanför EU.
Slutligen påpekas att dikotomin och den antagonistiska situationen som uppstått mellan EU-domstolen och internationella domstolar har fått oönskade konsekvenser. Rättsutvecklingen är problematisk, särskilt i ljuset av EU som global aktör och betydelsen av att upprätthålla respekten för internationell rätt. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Kihlberg, Mikael Nils Fredrik LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Sunset over the Energy Charter Treaty - An end that justifies the means or erosion of international law?
course
JURM02 20231
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Achmea, autonomi, BIT, CETA, ECT, Energistadgefördraget, EU-rätt, folkrätt, internationell investeringsrätt, Investor-State Duspute Settlement, ISDS, Komstroy, MIT, PL Holdings, principen om unionsrättens autonomi, rättsekonomi, skiljedomsrätt, utrikeshandelsrätt, Yttrande 1/17
language
Swedish
id
9116164
date added to LUP
2023-06-13 14:11:30
date last changed
2023-06-13 14:11:30
@misc{9116164,
  abstract     = {{Against the backdrop of global climate ambitions, the international treaty known as the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) has come under increasing scrutiny. In particular, the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism in Article 26 ECT is seen as restricting states' right to legislate and thereby slow-ing down the phasing out of fossil fuels (regulatory chill). 
ISDS is a common mechanism within cross-border trade and investment agreements (such as BITs, MITs, and FTAs. The compatibility of this mechanism with EU law has long been subject to legal debate, both globally and within the EU. Opinions differ as to when – under what conditions and between which parties – such a mechanism should be considered incompatible with EU law. In recent years, the EU Court of Justice (CJEU) has issued judgments – inter alia Achmea, Opinion 1/17, Komstroy, and PL Holdings – which clarify the delineation from a perspective of EU law. The balancing act of CJEU has divided the legal community, and has not been fully accepted internationally. This thesis has conducted an analysis of the case law pertaining to investment in the CJEU and has arrived at the subsequent two comprehensive conclusions.
Firstly, regarding the interpretation of an ISDS mechanisms there exists a conflict of norms between EU law on the one hand and international law on the other hand. The perspective of EU law holds that an ISDS mechanisms should be interpreted in the light of EU law, and in particular in relation to the principle of the autonomy of EU law. The perspective of international law implies that interpretation should generally be made through an international treaty, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). Whether an ISDS mechanism should be considered valid seems to largely depend on which of these methods is applied.
Secondly, the polarized approach has given rise to an unpredictable legal situation in intra-EU disputes under the ECT. It has become clear that an investor cannot refer an intra-EU dispute or an arbitral award under the ECT within the European Union. However, the same conclusion cannot be drawn if jurisdiction or enforcement is sought outside the EU.
Finally, it is noted that the dichotomy and the antagonistic situation that has emerged between the CJEU and international courts has had adverse consequences. The legal development is problematic, particularly considering the EU as a global actor and the importance of maintaining respect for international law.}},
  author       = {{Kihlberg, Mikael Nils Fredrik}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Solnedgång över Energistadgefördraget - Ändamål som helgar medlen eller urholkning av internationell rätt?}},
  year         = {{2023}},
}