Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Conflicting Jurisdiction in Investor State Dispute Settlement: A Pragmatic Analysis of Jurisdictional Challenges in Investor State Arbitration

Vukic, Fabian LU (2024) LAGF03 20242
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Stabiliteten och tillförlitligheten hos en nations institutioner är avgörande för dess välstånd. Det primära syftet med bilaterala investeringsavtal (BITs) är att säkerställa skydd för investeringar. Moderna bilaterala investeringsavtal inne-håller ofta en tvistlösningsmekanism genom skiljeförfarande när en part påstår att ett avtalsbrott har inträffat. Dessa skiljedomar kan uppgå till betydande summor, vilket skapar incitament för den förlorande parten att ansöka om ogiltigförklaring eller upphävande av sådana domar.
Denna uppsats syftar till att presentera den nuvarande ramen för internationell investeringsrätt, med särskilt fokus på tvisters prövbarhet och verkställighet av skiljedomar. Uppsatsen undersöker också... (More)
Stabiliteten och tillförlitligheten hos en nations institutioner är avgörande för dess välstånd. Det primära syftet med bilaterala investeringsavtal (BITs) är att säkerställa skydd för investeringar. Moderna bilaterala investeringsavtal inne-håller ofta en tvistlösningsmekanism genom skiljeförfarande när en part påstår att ett avtalsbrott har inträffat. Dessa skiljedomar kan uppgå till betydande summor, vilket skapar incitament för den förlorande parten att ansöka om ogiltigförklaring eller upphävande av sådana domar.
Denna uppsats syftar till att presentera den nuvarande ramen för internationell investeringsrätt, med särskilt fokus på tvisters prövbarhet och verkställighet av skiljedomar. Uppsatsen undersöker också jurisdiktionsrelaterade utma-ningar inom dessa områden. Den primära metoden som används för att pre-sentera och analysera dessa frågor är den rättsdogmatiska metoden. När det kommer till folkrätt har artikel 38 i stadgan för Internationella domstolen samt artiklarna 31 och 32 i Wienkonventionen om traktaträtten använts som väg-ledning. För EU-rätten följer uppsatsen EU:s rättsliga metodologi, såsom den tolkats av EU-domstolen, med särskild betoning på en teleologisk tolkning.
Avgränsningar har gjorts på grund av ord- och tidsbegränsningar och är enligt följande. Uppsatsen exkluderar rättsliga frågor som rör sakfrågan i tvister och fokuserar enbart på rättsliga instrument som täcker internationell investerings-rätt och Europarätt. Endast tre utvalda BIT analyseras, och bredare ämnen som ekonomiska perspektiv, tillgång till rättvisa, staters ansvar och energistadge-fördraget ligger utanför uppsatsens ramar.
Uppsatsen drar slutsatsen att internationell investeringsrätt involverar konkur-rerande jurisdiktioner med motstridiga intressen som inte alltid är förenliga. Den primära konflikten ligger i EU:s exklusiva befogenheter. EU:s medlems-stater kan ställas inför svåra val mellan att följa internationell folkrätt eller EU-rätt. Dessutom konstaterar uppsatsen att statsimmunitet har en betydande in-verkan på en kärandes möjlighet att kräva medel i enlighet med en skiljedom. (Less)
Abstract
The stability and reliability of a nation’s institutions are essential for its pros-perity. The key purpose of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) is to ensure the protection of investments. Modern BITs often include a dispute resolution mechanism through arbitration, when a breach is alleged to have occurred. These arbitration awards can amount to substantial sums of money, creating motivation for the losing party to seek annulment or set aside such awards.
This essay aims to present the current framework of international investment law, with particular focus on the admissibility of disputes and the enforcement of awards. The essay also explores jurisdictional challenges related to these areas. The primary method used in presenting and... (More)
The stability and reliability of a nation’s institutions are essential for its pros-perity. The key purpose of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) is to ensure the protection of investments. Modern BITs often include a dispute resolution mechanism through arbitration, when a breach is alleged to have occurred. These arbitration awards can amount to substantial sums of money, creating motivation for the losing party to seek annulment or set aside such awards.
This essay aims to present the current framework of international investment law, with particular focus on the admissibility of disputes and the enforcement of awards. The essay also explores jurisdictional challenges related to these areas. The primary method used in presenting and exploring these questions is the legal dogmatic method. In the case of international public law, Article 38 of the ICJ Statute and Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties have provided guidance. For EU law, the essay follows the EU legal methodology as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union, emphasizing a teleological approach.
Delimitations were made due to word and time constraints and are as follows. This study excludes legal questions regarding the merits of a case and focuses only on legal instruments covering international investment law, EU law, and European human rights law. Only three selected BITs are examined, and broader topics such as economic perspectives, access to justice, state respon-sibility and the Energy Charter Treaty are beyond the scope of this study.
The essay concludes that international investment law involves conflicting jurisdictions with competing interests that are not always aligned. The primary conflict lies in the EU’s exclusive competence. EU Member States may face difficult choices between complying with international public law or EU law. Additionally, the essay finds that state immunity significantly impacts a claim-ant’s ability to receive funds in accordance with an arbitration award. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Vukic, Fabian LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20242
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
EU law, public international law, Investor State Dispute Settlement, Arbitration, Bilateral investment treaties
language
English
id
9179925
date added to LUP
2025-03-20 14:24:38
date last changed
2025-03-20 14:24:38
@misc{9179925,
  abstract     = {{The stability and reliability of a nation’s institutions are essential for its pros-perity. The key purpose of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) is to ensure the protection of investments. Modern BITs often include a dispute resolution mechanism through arbitration, when a breach is alleged to have occurred. These arbitration awards can amount to substantial sums of money, creating motivation for the losing party to seek annulment or set aside such awards.
This essay aims to present the current framework of international investment law, with particular focus on the admissibility of disputes and the enforcement of awards. The essay also explores jurisdictional challenges related to these areas. The primary method used in presenting and exploring these questions is the legal dogmatic method. In the case of international public law, Article 38 of the ICJ Statute and Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties have provided guidance. For EU law, the essay follows the EU legal methodology as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union, emphasizing a teleological approach.
Delimitations were made due to word and time constraints and are as follows. This study excludes legal questions regarding the merits of a case and focuses only on legal instruments covering international investment law, EU law, and European human rights law. Only three selected BITs are examined, and broader topics such as economic perspectives, access to justice, state respon-sibility and the Energy Charter Treaty are beyond the scope of this study.
The essay concludes that international investment law involves conflicting jurisdictions with competing interests that are not always aligned. The primary conflict lies in the EU’s exclusive competence. EU Member States may face difficult choices between complying with international public law or EU law. Additionally, the essay finds that state immunity significantly impacts a claim-ant’s ability to receive funds in accordance with an arbitration award.}},
  author       = {{Vukic, Fabian}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Conflicting Jurisdiction in Investor State Dispute Settlement: A Pragmatic Analysis of Jurisdictional Challenges in Investor State Arbitration}},
  year         = {{2024}},
}