David Restrepo Amariles, Amir Ardelan Farhadi and Arnaud Van Waeyenberge publish an article on “RECONCILING INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW AND EUROPEAN UNION LAW IN THE WAKE OF ACHMEA”
The decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Slovak Republic v Achmea dealt a major blow to the predictability of the legal regime for the protection of foreign investments, whilst failing to offer a realistic, clear and sustainable solution for the protection of investments within the European single market. Commentators have mainly considered its implications from the perspective of the European Union or International Investment Law, and the potential conflict of regimes. This article offers a different approach, arguing that a reading of Achmea based on a moderate version of legal pluralism could adequately respond to the legitimate concerns about the case from both international and European legal perspectives. It is argued that the imprecision of the decision is in fact constructive ambiguity, allowing a sufficient margin of appreciation for all stakeholders and avoiding direct confrontation between the European and international legal orders. Recent developments, such as the innovative EU agreement for the termination of intra-EU BITs, point to new opportunities for ordering pluralism in the Achmea saga.
International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 69, issue 4, 2020, P. 907-943.
