On 30 April 2019, the Court of Justice held in Opinion 1/17 that the investment chapter of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the EU and Canada (CETA) was compatible with EU law. The Court’s Opinion had been much anticipated, predominantly for two reasons: First, investment arbitration is highly controversial. Many scholars and societal organisations are fundamentally opposed to offering foreign investors special remedies against public policy decisions, while others consider such protection a necessary element of the EU’s trade and investment policy. Second, the autonomy of the EU legal order is at the core of several landmark cases of EU external relations law. After it had proven an obstacle to EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in 2014, Opinion 1/17 was the next high-profile test of what the Court’s autonomy conception could mean for the EU’s ability to participate in setting up international courts and tribunals.
This Special Issue places Opinion 1/17 in a broader context. It offers an analysis of the Court’s legal reasoning, examines the potential consequence of the Opinion, and contributes to the specific debates on the EU’s role in investment arbitration and the meaning of the autonomy of the EU legal order.
Publication date: Articles will be published as and when ready on an on-going basis, see below list for article publication dates.
Ivana Damjanovic and Nicolas de Sadeleer
Published: 03 July 2020
Published: 10 April 2020
Published: 5 February 2020
Articles will be listed here upon publication.
|ScienceOpen disciplines:||Social law, International & Comparative law, General law, Commercial law & legal protection, Law, Public law|
|Keywords:||European Convention on Human Rights, Human rights, Opinion 1/17, Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, European Union, EU, Canada, European Court of Justice|