This chapter investigates the regulation of SWFs' investments in the EU and its Member States. The chapter starts with an overview of the latest multilateral initiatives concerning SWFs and national security-related concerns, namely the Santiago Principles and the OECD Guidelines for Recipient Countries Investment Policies relating to National Security of 2009. The aforementioned multilateral initiatives, also supported by the EU Commission, aim at avoiding national (over)reactions, and a downward spiral into protectionist. Furthermore the chapter emphasizes that the admission and establishment of foreign investments (direct investments of third countries' SWFs included) in the EU is primarily (but not exclusively) governed by the freedom of circulation of capital. This internal market freedom encompasses the fundamental principle of non-discrimination, which is also mentioned in the OECD Guidelines as a sound basis for national investment policies. Nevertheless, the aforementioned freedom is not absolute. Under the Treaty's rules it is subject to reservations and (possibly) Member States' derogations, when genuine public order and security reasons exist. In this respect, the chapter highlights that free circulation of capital and the case-law of the CJEU thereon gives Member States quite limited possibilities to lawfully resort to investment restrictions. That notwithstanding, some Member States (such as Germany and France) have tightened their foreign investment control procedures for public order and security reasons in recent times. The chapter argues that such national schemes are not in line with the principles developed by the CJEU in its case-law on the matter. Moreover, after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty the EU has acquired exclusive competence to legislate on the admission of FDI. The conclusion is drawn that a European harmonization is needed in order to address Member States' genuine public security concerns related to direct investments of third-countries' SWFs.
Anna De Luca
This chapter highlights the relevance of investment law as a potential limit to State measures for securing financial stability, as well as the features of investment disputes brought in response to bank rescue measures. Contrary to what occurs in a typical investment case, in arbitration proceedings brought against rescue measures it is by no means certain whether the claimants actually suffered losses. The chapter begins by asking whether economic loss is a necessary element of a BIT breach (section II). Having concluded in the affirmative, the analysis turns to questions of causation proper, which is first addressed in general terms (section III), and then with a particular focus on intervening causes potential breaking the causal link between State conduct and economic loss (section IV). The final section (section V) concludes and highlights the possible relevance of newly emerging prudential standards on bank resolution and recovery for investment disputes. Keywords: investment arbitration, financial stability, bank rescue measures, economic losses, causation, newly emerging prudential standards
Anna De Luca and Giorgio Sacerdoti
As of the 1960s the international law of foreign investment has been characterized by the emergence of international arbitration as the preferable means of settling investment disputes, and the increasing recognition by treaty law of private investors’ ability to espouse therein their international claims directly against the host States. Investment arbitration has, however, advanced impressively in the mid-twentieth century, thanks also to an ever-growing network of international investment agreements, indicating international arbitration as a means for resolution of investor-State disputes available to national investors of the Contracting Parties. The chapter provides a general overview of investment treaty arbitration and its features as well as ICSID and non-ICSID arbitration more specifically. Furthermore, procedural issues, the award and the post-award procedure are explained. Finally, the chapter also looks at new approaches to investment dispute settlement such as the Investment Court System of the European Union or the proposal for a multilateral investment court.