File #2689: "2019_Book_EUHumanRightsInternationalInve.pdf"
Testo
1|Acknowledgments|6
1|Contents|9
1|Chapter 1: Introduction: The EU Objective to Global Human Rights Protection and Becoming an Actor in International Investment Law|13
2|1.1 A Short Summary of the Findings|13
2|1.2 The Research Question|14
2|1.3 The Structure and the Methods|16
2|References|20
1|Part I: The Legal Equipment: Competence, Constraints and Objectives|21
2|Chapter 2: EU Human Rights as a Framework for Foreign Policies|22
3|2.1 Human Rights as a General Objective and Principle|23
3|2.2 Applicable Human Rights Norms and Their Relation to the Human Rights Objective|26
4|2.2.1 Human Rights as International Law|28
5|2.2.1.1 International Law as a General Objective and Principle|28
5|2.2.1.2 International Human Rights Treaties as EU Law|29
5|2.2.1.3 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)|32
5|2.2.1.4 Relevance of International Human Rights for International Investment Policy Making|33
4|2.2.2 The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: Responsibility Beyond the Territorial Paradigm|40
5|2.2.2.1 Scope of Article 51(1) of the EU Charter|41
5|2.2.2.2 Case Law on Extraterritorial Application of the EU Charter|45
4|2.2.3 Conclusion|49
3|2.3 Other Provisions Governing EU Investment Policy|50
4|2.3.1 Specific Objective of Investment Liberalization|50
4|2.3.2 Principle of Coherence|56
4|2.3.3 Other External Objectives and Principles|58
4|2.3.4 Other Constitutional Principles|60
4|2.3.5 General Horizontal Clauses|61
4|2.3.6 Conclusion|62
3|2.4 Policy Implications|63
4|2.4.1 Competence: The ‘Can’|63
5|2.4.1.1 The Situation Pre-Lisbon: Human Rights Policy Fettered by Fragmentation|64
5|2.4.1.2 What Does the Human Rights Objective Change?|70
5|2.4.1.3 Conclusion|77
4|2.4.2 Obligations and Constraints: The ‘Must’|78
5|2.4.2.1 Obligation to Respect: Continuous Assessment and Adjustment of Policies|80
5|2.4.2.2 Obligation to Promote: No Regression, Coherence and Contribution to Human Rights Realization|82
5|2.4.2.3 Conclusion|86
3|2.5 Judicial Implications|86
4|2.5.1 Expansion of the Legal Protection of Individuals Outside the EU?|88
4|2.5.2 New Benchmarks for Material Legality?|91
4|2.5.3 Conclusion|95
3|2.6 Conclusion|96
3|References|97
2|Chapter 3: The International Investment Competence of the EU|103
3|3.1 Introduction|104
3|3.2 The Traditional Scope of International Investment Regulation|106
3|3.3 The Common Commercial Policy: Exclusive Competence|107
4|3.3.1 Foreign Direct Investment, Portfolio and Other Forms of Investment|108
4|3.3.2 Market Access and Post Admission Protection|111
4|3.3.3 Limitation on Grounds of Art. 345 TFEU|115
3|3.4 Investment Powers Under Other Treaty Competences|117
4|3.4.1 Free Movement of Capital and Payments|117
4|3.4.2 Implied Exclusive Powers|119
4|3.4.3 Implied Shared Powers|122
3|3.5 Derogations|123
3|3.6 Investor-State-Dispute Settlement|124
3|3.7 Termination of Member States’ BITs|128
3|3.8 Summing Up: Mapping the Competences and Discussing the Options|129
3|3.9 The Remaining Role for Member States|131
3|3.10 Conclusion|134
3|References|135
1|Part II: The Context: Entering an Unjust Regime?|138
2|Chapter 4: Tensions Between the International Investment Regime and Human Rights: A Regulatory Tilt?|140
3|4.1 Introduction|141
3|4.2 Overview of the Emergence of International Investment Law|141
3|4.3 Substantive International Investment Law: The Investor Privileges|151
4|4.3.1 Scope of Protection|152
5|4.3.1.1 Tensions with Human Rights|153
5|4.3.1.2 Counter Movements|157
4|4.3.2 Protection Against Direct and Indirect Expropriation|161
5|4.3.2.1 Tensions with Human Rights|163
5|4.3.2.2 Counter Movements|166
4|4.3.3 Fair and Equitable Treatment|170
5|4.3.3.1 Legitimate Expectations|173
5|4.3.3.2 Tensions with Human Rights|174
5|4.3.3.3 Counter Movements|178
4|4.3.4 Full Protection and Security|182
4|4.3.5 National Treatment|184
4|4.3.6 Umbrella Clause and the Stabilization Clause|185
5|4.3.6.1 Human Rights Tensions|188
5|4.3.6.2 Counter-Movements|189
5|4.3.6.3 Conclusion|190
4|4.3.7 Conclusion|191
3|4.4 International Investment Arbitration: Entry Barriers for Other Interests|191
4|4.4.1 Introduction|191
4|4.4.2 Procedural Exclusion of Third Parties|192
4|4.4.3 The Set-Up and Composition of ISDS Tribunals: Bias in the System|196
5|4.4.3.1 Dependencies, Conflict of Interests and Revolving Doors|197
5|4.4.3.2 Knowledge and Awareness Gap|199
5|4.4.3.3 Lack of Transparency and Public Access to Information|199
5|4.4.3.4 No Sufficient Appeal Mechanism|200
5|4.4.3.5 No Exhaustion of Local Remedy|200
3|4.5 Conclusion|201
3|References|202
2|Chapter 5: The EU Approach to International Investment Agreements|208
3|5.1 Introduction|208
3|5.2 Reformed Substantive Provisions|209
4|5.2.1 Definition of Investor, Investment and Jurisdiction|209
4|5.2.2 Protection Against Expropriation|214
4|5.2.3 Fair and Equitable Treatment|217
4|5.2.4 Full Protection and Security|222
4|5.2.5 National Treatment|223
4|5.2.6 The Umbrella Clause|223
4|5.2.7 Non-Derogation and Non-Lowering of Standards|225
4|5.2.8 Most-Favoured-Nation Standard|227
4|5.2.9 Preamble|228
4|5.2.10 Including an Expressed Right to Regulate|228
4|5.2.11 Interpretative Declarations|231
4|5.2.12 Exclusion of Direct Effect|232
4|5.2.13 The Trade and Sustainable Development Chapter|233
4|5.2.14 In Sum: The Place for Human Rights|235
3|5.3 Reforms of the Arbitration System|236
4|5.3.1 Third Party Participation|237
4|5.3.2 The Reformed ISDS or the Investment Court System|238
5|5.3.2.1 Secured Tenure, Random Appointment and Code of Ethics|239
5|5.3.2.2 No Cognitive Expansion|241
5|5.3.2.3 Transparency as Default|241
5|5.3.2.4 Appeal Mechanism|242
5|5.3.2.5 No Exhaustion of Local Remedy|242
3|5.4 Conclusion|243
3|References|245
1|Part III: Resolving the Failures, Utilizing the Possibilities: Two Proposals|246
2|Chapter 6: Assessment and Participation Through Human Rights Impact Assessments|250
3|6.1 Introduction|250
3|6.2 The Legal Framework|252
4|6.2.1 The International Human Rights Approach to HRIA|252
4|6.2.2 Other Relevant Constitutional Principles of EU Law|256
5|6.2.2.1 Legislative or Administrative Principles?|256
5|6.2.2.2 The Duty of Care|257
5|6.2.2.3 The Duty of Diligent Fact Finding|260
5|6.2.2.4 The Duty to Consult|262
5|6.2.2.5 The Duty to State Reasons|265
5|6.2.2.6 Proportionality|266
5|6.2.2.7 Transparency|267
5|6.2.2.8 Linking Principles of Process to the Outcome: Acting Accordingly?|269
5|6.2.2.9 Summary of the Parameters Derived from General EU Law Procedural Principles|270
4|6.2.3 Summarizing the Legal Framework for HRIA|270
3|6.3 The EU Rules on Human Rights Impact Assessments|271
4|6.3.1 The Design According to EU Soft Law|272
4|6.3.2 Procedures|277
4|6.3.3 Legal Consequences: Linking the Results to the Final Decision|281
4|6.3.4 Conclusion on the Implementing Rules|283
3|6.4 The Practice: Examples of Shortcomings and Potential|285
4|6.4.1 Substantive Scope|286
4|6.4.2 Inclusive Participation and Balanced Representation|287
4|6.4.3 Transparency and Independence|289
4|6.4.4 Conceptual Limitations as to the Legal Consequences, the Possibility to Influence and the Substantive Scope|290
3|6.5 Conclusion|294
3|References|295
2|Chapter 7: Consultation and Participation Through Domestic Advisory Groups and Civil Society Meetings|297
3|7.1 Introduction|297
3|7.2 The Legal Framework|299
4|7.2.1 Duty to Assess the EU’s Own Action|299
5|7.2.1.1 Continuous Duty: Follow Up and Substantiation of the SIA|299
5|7.2.1.2 Duties of Continuous Consultation During Implementation|301
5|7.2.1.3 Comprehensive Assessment: Inclusive Consultation and Combatting Domestic Exclusion|302
4|7.2.2 Duty to Promote: Realizing Human Rights Through Participation and Empowerment|306
5|7.2.2.1 Defining Empowerment Through Participation|306
6|Definition in Human Rights Law|306
6|Definition According to the SD Discourse|307
6|Threats for Empowerment|308
5|7.2.2.2 Specific Rights to Participate|310
4|7.2.3 Conclusion on the Parameters|314
3|7.3 Potential and Shortcomings of the Current Concept, Set Up and Practice|315
4|7.3.1 The Institutional Design|316
4|7.3.2 The Practice|319
3|7.4 Summary of the Criticism and Necessary Reforms|324
4|7.4.1 Conceptual Limitations and Substantive Scope|324
4|7.4.2 Independence|326
4|7.4.3 Guaranteeing Inclusiveness|326
4|7.4.4 Room for True Contestation|327
4|7.4.5 Real Influence and the Lack of Any Institutionalized Response Mechanisms|327
3|7.5 Conclusion|328
3|References|329
2|Chapter 8: Concluding Remarks on the EU Obligation to Empower Neglected Interests and on Ways Forward to More Inclusive Global Economic Regulation|331
3|References|337
1|Contents|9
1|Chapter 1: Introduction: The EU Objective to Global Human Rights Protection and Becoming an Actor in International Investment Law|13
2|1.1 A Short Summary of the Findings|13
2|1.2 The Research Question|14
2|1.3 The Structure and the Methods|16
2|References|20
1|Part I: The Legal Equipment: Competence, Constraints and Objectives|21
2|Chapter 2: EU Human Rights as a Framework for Foreign Policies|22
3|2.1 Human Rights as a General Objective and Principle|23
3|2.2 Applicable Human Rights Norms and Their Relation to the Human Rights Objective|26
4|2.2.1 Human Rights as International Law|28
5|2.2.1.1 International Law as a General Objective and Principle|28
5|2.2.1.2 International Human Rights Treaties as EU Law|29
5|2.2.1.3 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)|32
5|2.2.1.4 Relevance of International Human Rights for International Investment Policy Making|33
4|2.2.2 The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: Responsibility Beyond the Territorial Paradigm|40
5|2.2.2.1 Scope of Article 51(1) of the EU Charter|41
5|2.2.2.2 Case Law on Extraterritorial Application of the EU Charter|45
4|2.2.3 Conclusion|49
3|2.3 Other Provisions Governing EU Investment Policy|50
4|2.3.1 Specific Objective of Investment Liberalization|50
4|2.3.2 Principle of Coherence|56
4|2.3.3 Other External Objectives and Principles|58
4|2.3.4 Other Constitutional Principles|60
4|2.3.5 General Horizontal Clauses|61
4|2.3.6 Conclusion|62
3|2.4 Policy Implications|63
4|2.4.1 Competence: The ‘Can’|63
5|2.4.1.1 The Situation Pre-Lisbon: Human Rights Policy Fettered by Fragmentation|64
5|2.4.1.2 What Does the Human Rights Objective Change?|70
5|2.4.1.3 Conclusion|77
4|2.4.2 Obligations and Constraints: The ‘Must’|78
5|2.4.2.1 Obligation to Respect: Continuous Assessment and Adjustment of Policies|80
5|2.4.2.2 Obligation to Promote: No Regression, Coherence and Contribution to Human Rights Realization|82
5|2.4.2.3 Conclusion|86
3|2.5 Judicial Implications|86
4|2.5.1 Expansion of the Legal Protection of Individuals Outside the EU?|88
4|2.5.2 New Benchmarks for Material Legality?|91
4|2.5.3 Conclusion|95
3|2.6 Conclusion|96
3|References|97
2|Chapter 3: The International Investment Competence of the EU|103
3|3.1 Introduction|104
3|3.2 The Traditional Scope of International Investment Regulation|106
3|3.3 The Common Commercial Policy: Exclusive Competence|107
4|3.3.1 Foreign Direct Investment, Portfolio and Other Forms of Investment|108
4|3.3.2 Market Access and Post Admission Protection|111
4|3.3.3 Limitation on Grounds of Art. 345 TFEU|115
3|3.4 Investment Powers Under Other Treaty Competences|117
4|3.4.1 Free Movement of Capital and Payments|117
4|3.4.2 Implied Exclusive Powers|119
4|3.4.3 Implied Shared Powers|122
3|3.5 Derogations|123
3|3.6 Investor-State-Dispute Settlement|124
3|3.7 Termination of Member States’ BITs|128
3|3.8 Summing Up: Mapping the Competences and Discussing the Options|129
3|3.9 The Remaining Role for Member States|131
3|3.10 Conclusion|134
3|References|135
1|Part II: The Context: Entering an Unjust Regime?|138
2|Chapter 4: Tensions Between the International Investment Regime and Human Rights: A Regulatory Tilt?|140
3|4.1 Introduction|141
3|4.2 Overview of the Emergence of International Investment Law|141
3|4.3 Substantive International Investment Law: The Investor Privileges|151
4|4.3.1 Scope of Protection|152
5|4.3.1.1 Tensions with Human Rights|153
5|4.3.1.2 Counter Movements|157
4|4.3.2 Protection Against Direct and Indirect Expropriation|161
5|4.3.2.1 Tensions with Human Rights|163
5|4.3.2.2 Counter Movements|166
4|4.3.3 Fair and Equitable Treatment|170
5|4.3.3.1 Legitimate Expectations|173
5|4.3.3.2 Tensions with Human Rights|174
5|4.3.3.3 Counter Movements|178
4|4.3.4 Full Protection and Security|182
4|4.3.5 National Treatment|184
4|4.3.6 Umbrella Clause and the Stabilization Clause|185
5|4.3.6.1 Human Rights Tensions|188
5|4.3.6.2 Counter-Movements|189
5|4.3.6.3 Conclusion|190
4|4.3.7 Conclusion|191
3|4.4 International Investment Arbitration: Entry Barriers for Other Interests|191
4|4.4.1 Introduction|191
4|4.4.2 Procedural Exclusion of Third Parties|192
4|4.4.3 The Set-Up and Composition of ISDS Tribunals: Bias in the System|196
5|4.4.3.1 Dependencies, Conflict of Interests and Revolving Doors|197
5|4.4.3.2 Knowledge and Awareness Gap|199
5|4.4.3.3 Lack of Transparency and Public Access to Information|199
5|4.4.3.4 No Sufficient Appeal Mechanism|200
5|4.4.3.5 No Exhaustion of Local Remedy|200
3|4.5 Conclusion|201
3|References|202
2|Chapter 5: The EU Approach to International Investment Agreements|208
3|5.1 Introduction|208
3|5.2 Reformed Substantive Provisions|209
4|5.2.1 Definition of Investor, Investment and Jurisdiction|209
4|5.2.2 Protection Against Expropriation|214
4|5.2.3 Fair and Equitable Treatment|217
4|5.2.4 Full Protection and Security|222
4|5.2.5 National Treatment|223
4|5.2.6 The Umbrella Clause|223
4|5.2.7 Non-Derogation and Non-Lowering of Standards|225
4|5.2.8 Most-Favoured-Nation Standard|227
4|5.2.9 Preamble|228
4|5.2.10 Including an Expressed Right to Regulate|228
4|5.2.11 Interpretative Declarations|231
4|5.2.12 Exclusion of Direct Effect|232
4|5.2.13 The Trade and Sustainable Development Chapter|233
4|5.2.14 In Sum: The Place for Human Rights|235
3|5.3 Reforms of the Arbitration System|236
4|5.3.1 Third Party Participation|237
4|5.3.2 The Reformed ISDS or the Investment Court System|238
5|5.3.2.1 Secured Tenure, Random Appointment and Code of Ethics|239
5|5.3.2.2 No Cognitive Expansion|241
5|5.3.2.3 Transparency as Default|241
5|5.3.2.4 Appeal Mechanism|242
5|5.3.2.5 No Exhaustion of Local Remedy|242
3|5.4 Conclusion|243
3|References|245
1|Part III: Resolving the Failures, Utilizing the Possibilities: Two Proposals|246
2|Chapter 6: Assessment and Participation Through Human Rights Impact Assessments|250
3|6.1 Introduction|250
3|6.2 The Legal Framework|252
4|6.2.1 The International Human Rights Approach to HRIA|252
4|6.2.2 Other Relevant Constitutional Principles of EU Law|256
5|6.2.2.1 Legislative or Administrative Principles?|256
5|6.2.2.2 The Duty of Care|257
5|6.2.2.3 The Duty of Diligent Fact Finding|260
5|6.2.2.4 The Duty to Consult|262
5|6.2.2.5 The Duty to State Reasons|265
5|6.2.2.6 Proportionality|266
5|6.2.2.7 Transparency|267
5|6.2.2.8 Linking Principles of Process to the Outcome: Acting Accordingly?|269
5|6.2.2.9 Summary of the Parameters Derived from General EU Law Procedural Principles|270
4|6.2.3 Summarizing the Legal Framework for HRIA|270
3|6.3 The EU Rules on Human Rights Impact Assessments|271
4|6.3.1 The Design According to EU Soft Law|272
4|6.3.2 Procedures|277
4|6.3.3 Legal Consequences: Linking the Results to the Final Decision|281
4|6.3.4 Conclusion on the Implementing Rules|283
3|6.4 The Practice: Examples of Shortcomings and Potential|285
4|6.4.1 Substantive Scope|286
4|6.4.2 Inclusive Participation and Balanced Representation|287
4|6.4.3 Transparency and Independence|289
4|6.4.4 Conceptual Limitations as to the Legal Consequences, the Possibility to Influence and the Substantive Scope|290
3|6.5 Conclusion|294
3|References|295
2|Chapter 7: Consultation and Participation Through Domestic Advisory Groups and Civil Society Meetings|297
3|7.1 Introduction|297
3|7.2 The Legal Framework|299
4|7.2.1 Duty to Assess the EU’s Own Action|299
5|7.2.1.1 Continuous Duty: Follow Up and Substantiation of the SIA|299
5|7.2.1.2 Duties of Continuous Consultation During Implementation|301
5|7.2.1.3 Comprehensive Assessment: Inclusive Consultation and Combatting Domestic Exclusion|302
4|7.2.2 Duty to Promote: Realizing Human Rights Through Participation and Empowerment|306
5|7.2.2.1 Defining Empowerment Through Participation|306
6|Definition in Human Rights Law|306
6|Definition According to the SD Discourse|307
6|Threats for Empowerment|308
5|7.2.2.2 Specific Rights to Participate|310
4|7.2.3 Conclusion on the Parameters|314
3|7.3 Potential and Shortcomings of the Current Concept, Set Up and Practice|315
4|7.3.1 The Institutional Design|316
4|7.3.2 The Practice|319
3|7.4 Summary of the Criticism and Necessary Reforms|324
4|7.4.1 Conceptual Limitations and Substantive Scope|324
4|7.4.2 Independence|326
4|7.4.3 Guaranteeing Inclusiveness|326
4|7.4.4 Room for True Contestation|327
4|7.4.5 Real Influence and the Lack of Any Institutionalized Response Mechanisms|327
3|7.5 Conclusion|328
3|References|329
2|Chapter 8: Concluding Remarks on the EU Obligation to Empower Neglected Interests and on Ways Forward to More Inclusive Global Economic Regulation|331
3|References|337