Draft Statute of the Multilateral Investment Court

Die EU strebt einen Multilateralen Investitionsgerichtshof (MIC) an, der das bestehende System der Investitionsschiedsgerichtsbarkeit ersetzen soll. Basierend auf den aktuellen Debatten in UNCITRAL und anderen Foren zeigt dieser Entwurf eines Statuts für einen MIC, dass ein neues System der Streitbeilegung möglich ist. Zum ersten Mal wird ein vollständiger Vertragsentwurf für die Ausgestaltung eines solchen MIC als neue internationale Organisation vorgelegt, der strenge rechtsstaatliche Anforderungen an die Streitbeilegung umsetzt. Eckpunkte sind neben Rule of Law-Überlegungen Kostenreduzierung, eine ständige Richterbank mit einem Berufungsgremium, Transparenz, mehr Konsistenz in der Rechtsprechung sowie die effektive Vollstreckbarkeit von MIC-Entscheidungen. Abstract The EU is aiming for a Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) to replace the existing investment arbitration system. Based on the current debates in UNCITRAL and other fora this Draft Statute of an MIC demonstrates that it is possible to have a new system of dispute settlement. For the first time, a complete draft agreement is presented for the design of such an MIC as a new international organization, implementing strict rule of law-requirements for dispute settlement. Besides rule of law-considerations, cornerstones are reduced costs, a permanent bench of judges with an appellate system, transparency, more consistency in case law as well as the effective enforceability of MIC decisions

From Bilateral Arbitral Tribunals and Investment Courts to a Multilateral Investment Court

This open access book considers the potential setup for a future Multilateral Investment Court (MIC). The option of an MIC was first discussed by the EU Commission in 2016 and has since been made an official element of the EU Common Commercial Policy. In 2017, UNCITRAL also decided to discuss the possibility of an MIC, and on 20 March 2018, the Council of the EU gave the EU Commission the mandate to negotiate the creation of an MIC. The “feasibility study” presented here is intended to contribute to a broader discussion on the options for a new international court specialized in investment protection. The cornerstones of such a new permanent court are a strict orientation on the rule of law, reduced costs of investment protection, transparency considerations, aspects of consistency in case law, and the effective enforceability of MIC decisions

The EU on the Investment Path-Quo Vadis Europe?

With the 2009 Treaty of Lisbon, Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) was inserted into the framework of the existing Common Commercial Policy (CCP) as Article 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Article 207(1) TFEU provides: 1. The common commercial policy shall be based on uniform principles, particularly with regard to changes in tariff rates, the conclusion of tariff and trade agreements relating to trade in goods and services, and the commercial aspects of intellectual property, foreign direct investment, the achievement of uniformity in measures of liberalisation, export policy and measures to protect trade such as those to be taken in the event of dumping or subsidies. The common commercial policy shall be conducted in the context of the principles and objectives of the Union\u27s external action. To many (member states) this new competence came as a surprise since it was not substantially debated during the Lisbon Treaty negotiations but seems to have entered the final text in a rather unnoticed fashion. Immediately after the entry-into-force of the Lisbon Treaty the debate focused on the scope of the new investment power and in particular on the limitation to FDI and its implications for the practice of EU treaty-making, whether the “new” EU investment power was limited to questions of market access or extended to the so-called post-investment phase as well, and whether future EU investment treaties would contain investor-State dispute settlement provisions. Meanwhile the EU Commission has strongly asserted its FDI powers under Article 207(1) TFEU and plans to conclude treaties that cover the entire range of issues currently addressed in EU Member State BITs. Also the initial reluctance towards investor-State dispute settlement seems to have given way to a more positive attitude in this regard. In July 2010, the Commission issued some preliminary thoughts in a Communication which were taken up by the Council’s Conclusions of October 2010 and the Parliament’s Resolution of April 2011. While the Union is expected to issue more detailed documents by the end of 2012, this paper will discuss the potential shape of future EU investment treaties as far it can be discerned already. It will also address the underlying power struggle between the member states and the Union regarding the control over investment policy. At the same time, calls by various stakeholders for often conflicting goals, such as more protection against the “regulatory chill” of investment protection, more efficient tools to implement investor obligations and more effective enforcement of investment awards, will be addressed. From 2004 to 2006 he was Dean for International Relations of the Law School of the University of Vienna. He deals with Holocaust related property claims, as president of an UNCITRAL investment arbitration tribunal and as arbitrator and expert in other investment cases

The EU on the Investment Path-Quo Vadis Europe?

With the 2009 Treaty of Lisbon, Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) was inserted into the framework of the existing Common Commercial Policy (CCP) as Article 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Article 207(1) TFEU provides: 1. The common commercial policy shall be based on uniform principles, particularly with regard to changes in tariff rates, the conclusion of tariff and trade agreements relating to trade in goods and services, and the commercial aspects of intellectual property, foreign direct investment, the achievement of uniformity in measures of liberalisation, export policy and measures to protect trade such as those to be taken in the event of dumping or subsidies. The common commercial policy shall be conducted in the context of the principles and objectives of the Union\u27s external action. To many (member states) this new competence came as a surprise since it was not substantially debated during the Lisbon Treaty negotiations but seems to have entered the final text in a rather unnoticed fashion. Immediately after the entry-into-force of the Lisbon Treaty the debate focused on the scope of the new investment power and in particular on the limitation to FDI and its implications for the practice of EU treaty-making, whether the “new” EU investment power was limited to questions of market access or extended to the so-called post-investment phase as well, and whether future EU investment treaties would contain investor-State dispute settlement provisions. Meanwhile the EU Commission has strongly asserted its FDI powers under Article 207(1) TFEU and plans to conclude treaties that cover the entire range of issues currently addressed in EU Member State BITs. Also the initial reluctance towards investor-State dispute settlement seems to have given way to a more positive attitude in this regard. In July 2010, the Commission issued some preliminary thoughts in a Communication which were taken up by the Council’s Conclusions of October 2010 and the Parliament’s Resolution of April 2011. While the Union is expected to issue more detailed documents by the end of 2012, this paper will discuss the potential shape of future EU investment treaties as far it can be discerned already. It will also address the underlying power struggle between the member states and the Union regarding the control over investment policy. At the same time, calls by various stakeholders for often conflicting goals, such as more protection against the “regulatory chill” of investment protection, more efficient tools to implement investor obligations and more effective enforcement of investment awards, will be addressed. From 2004 to 2006 he was Dean for International Relations of the Law School of the University of Vienna. He deals with Holocaust related property claims, as president of an UNCITRAL investment arbitration tribunal and as arbitrator and expert in other investment cases

ESPEN Guideline: Clinical Nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease

Introduction: The ESPEN guideline presents a multidisciplinary focus on clinical nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Methodology: The guideline is based on extensive systematic review of the literature, but relies on expert opinion when objective data were lacking or inconclusive. The conclusions and 64 recommendations have been subject to full peer review and a Delphi process in which uniformly positive responses (agree or strongly agree) were required. Results: IBD is increasingly common and potential dietary factors in its aetiology are briefly reviewed. Malnutrition is highly prevalent in IBD – especially in Crohn's disease. Increased energy and protein requirements are observed in some patients. The management of malnu-trition in IBD is considered within the general context of support for malnourished patients. Treatment of iron deficiency (parenterally if necessary) is strongly recommended. Routine provision of a special diet in IBD is not however supported. Parenteral nutrition is indicated only when enteral nutrition has failed or is impossible. The recommended perioperative man-agement of patients with IBD undergoing surgery accords with general ESPEN guidance for patients having abdominal surgery. Probiotics may be helpful in UC but not Crohn's disease. Primary therapy using nutrition to treat IBD is not supported in ulcerative colitis, but is mod-erately well supported in Crohn's disease, especially in children where the adverse conse-quences of steroid therapy are proportionally greater. However, exclusion diets are generally not recommended and there is little evidence to support any particular formula feed when nutritional regimens are constructed. Conclusions: Available objective data to guide nutritional support and primary nutritional therapy in IBD are presented as 64 recommendations, of which 9 are very strong recom-mendations (grade A), 22 are strong recommendations (grade B) and 12 are based only on sparse evidence (grade 0); 21 recommendations are good practice points (GPP)

International organizations before national courts

This book presents a radical, empirical investigation of how national courts "react" to disputes involving international organizations, analyzing in particular whether such organizations should be immune to national jurisdictions. Under the headings "domestic legal personality" and "immunity" of international organizations, some of the issues covered have already been treated in international legal scholarship, mostly in the form of short articles or case notes. This study, however, provides a thorough comparative analysis and the largest compilation of relevant decisions on the subject, making it indispensable for practitioners as well as academics in the field