Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFANOU, Maria
dc.date.accessioned2021-09-09T09:18:37Z
dc.date.available2021-09-09T09:18:37Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.citationCambridge yearbook of European legal studies, 2020, Vol. 22, pp. 106-132en
dc.identifier.issn2049-7636
dc.identifier.issn1528-8870
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1814/72403
dc.description.abstractIn April 2019, the Court of Justice of the EU (‘CJEU’) handed down its Opinion (C-1/17) on the compatibility of the Investment Court System (‘ICS’), that is the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (‘ISDS’) mechanism under the EU-Canada Comprehensive and Economic Trade Agreement (‘CETA’), with EU law. This article puts Opinion 1/17 in its broader (policy and legal) context, focusing on the salient issue of compatibility with the principle of autonomy of the EU legal order. It argues that the Court's openness to this judicial competitor was an acknowledgment of the need to maintain the powers of the Union in international relations. However, Opinion 1/17 should not be perceived as an automatic green light for any future investment court (such as the Multilateral Investment Court) as the autonomy test it introduces is a rather difficult one to pass.en
dc.description.sponsorshipThis article was published Open Access with the support from the EUI Library through the CRUI - CUP Transformative Agreement (2020-2022)en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherCambridge University Pressen
dc.relation.ispartofCambridge yearbook of European legal studiesen
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/*
dc.subject.otherCoFoEen
dc.subject.otherEU in the worlden
dc.titleThe CETA ICS and the autonomy of the EU legal order in opinion 1/17 : a compass for the futureen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.doi10.1017/cel.2020.4
dc.identifier.volume22en
dc.identifier.startpage106en
dc.identifier.endpage132en
eui.subscribe.skiptrue
dc.rights.licenseAttribution 4.0 International*
dc.description.versionThis article is based on a seminar delivered at the Cambridge Centre for European Legal Studies (CELS) in November 2019.en


Files associated with this item

Icon
Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution 4.0 International
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution 4.0 International