THE ACHMEA CASES – STORY ON TREATY INTERPRETATION, FORUM COMPETITION AND INTERNATIONAL LAW FRAGMENTATION
Abstract
In this article the author examines decisions rendered by the UNCITRAL arbitral tribunal in an investment case Achmea v. Slovakia and judgment of the European Court of Justice regarding the compatibility of the investor-State dispute settlement provision in an intra-EU BIT with EU law regarding the Achmea arbitral award on the merits. Given that the ECJ found incompatibility between the two such decision might have wide-ranging consequences. Here the author assesses arguments in different decisions from the perspective of fragmentation of international law, more precisely from the perspective of concepts and arguments developed within the International Law Commission Report on Fragmentation of International Law. While the fragmentation issue was discussed at the early stages of arbitral proceedings it was later abandoned and remained unmentioned by the ECJ. The cause of different takes on the relationship between dispute settlement provisions in intra-EU BIT and EU law could well be described not as a normative but rather as a conflict between different forums. Jurisdictional conflict thus gave rise to the problem of fragmentation in its strict sense – inability of a state to perform two treaty obligations simultaneously.
References
Djajić, Sanja, “Mapping The Good Faith Principle in International Investment Arbitration: Assessment of Its Substantive and Procedural Value“, Collected Papers of the Faculty of Law University of Novi Sad (Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Novom Sadu) 3/2012, 207-233
Etinski, Rodoljub,“Means Of Interpretation of International Treaties and Determinants of Their Significance“, Collected Papers of the Faculty of Law University of Novi Sad (Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Novom Sadu) 4/2017, 603-624
Jenks, Wilfred, “Conflict of Law-Making Treaties”, British Yearbook of International Law, 1953, 401-453
Koutrakos, Panos, “The Relevance of EU Law for Arbitral Tribunals: (Not) Managing the Lingering Tension”, Journal of World Investment & Trade, 6/2016, 873-894
Lavranos, Nikolaos, “Protecting Its Exclusive Juisdiction: The Mox Plant-Judgment of the ECJ”, The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 5/2006, 479-493
Lock, Tobias, The European Court of Justice and International Courts, Oxford 2015
Nagy, Csongor István, “Intra-EU Bilateral Investment Treaties and EU Law After Achmea: ‘Know Well What Leads You Forward and What Holds You Back’“, German Law Journal 4/2018, 981-1016
Reinisch, August, “Articles 30 and 59 o fthe Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in Action: The Decisions on Jurisdiction in the Eastern Sugar and Eureko Investment Arbitrations”, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 1/2012, 157-177
Shany, Yuval, Assessing the Effectiveness of International Courts, Oxford 2016
Shany, Yuval, The Competing Jurisdictions of International Courts and Tribunals, Oxford, New York 2003
Stanivuković, Maja, “Legitimate Expectations: A Commentary of Micula v. Romania”, 14 Transnational Dispute Management, 1/2017
Vranes, Erich, “The Definition of ‘Norm Conflict’ in International Law and Legal Theory”, European Journal of International Law, 2/2006, 395–418
Webb, Philippa, International Judicial Integration and Fragmentation, Oxford 2016
Wehland, Hanno, “The Enforcement of Intra-EU BIT Awards: Micula v Romania and Beyond”, The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 6/2016, 942-963