Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 5

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  ISDS
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Rozpoznawanie roszczeń inwestorów zagranicznych w arbitrażu a sytuacja inwestorów z państw członkowskich UE oraz Wielkiej Brytanii po Brexicie

100%
Stefaniuk W., Karkowski P.
Horyzonty Polityki
|
2022
|
vol. 13
|
issue 43
119-133
EN
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: The scientific purpose of this publication is to determine the position of investors in connection with Investor-State disputes after Brexit. The authors present the legal basis and the reasons for the solutions adopted in TCA (Agreement on trade and cooperation, OJ EU L444/2) in the context of the global changes in ISDS (Investor-State Dispute Settlement Clauses) dispute resolution methods and the formation of the international investment judiciary system. THE RESEARCH PROBLEM AND METHODS: The issues related to the method of Investor-State dispute resolution in investment arbitration is complex and varied. However, the existing common shortcomings of this method are the cause of the current global situation, in which many countries terminate agreements containing ISDS clauses. When carrying out the analysis, the authors use the dogmatic and historical methods. THE PROCESS OF ARGUMENTATION: After presenting the characteristics of the arbitration method, the authors analyze the legal situation of investors in the EU in the context of, inter alia, the ruling of the CJEU in the Achmea case. Then, they present the regulatory framework of TCA, as well as BITs (bilateral investment treaties) still binding UK and individual EU Member States, to finally highlight the current legal situation for investors after Brexit. RESEARCH RESULTS: The authors answer the question whether, under TCA, investors are entitled to submit proceedings against the country in which they made an investment, and whether BITs concluded by Great Britain with EU Member States still constitute the basis for initiating similar disputes by investors. The answer to the above questions seems to be negative. CONCLUSIONS, INNOVATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Authors point out that investor protection after Brexit shall be regulated in greater detail, considering the experience of past arbitration proceedings and the shortcomings identified on that basis.
PL
CEL NAUKOWY: Celem naukowym tej publikacji jest określenie sytuacji prawnej i położenia inwestorów w związku ze sporami typu Inwestor – Państwo po wyjściu UK (Wielka Brytania) z UE (Unia Europejska). Autorzy przedstawiają podstawy prawne oraz przyczyny przyjętych rozwiązań w TCA (Umowa o handlu i współpracy UE i UK z 30.12.2020 r., Dz.U. UE L 444/2) w kontekście zachodzących globalnie zmian w metodach rozstrzygania sporów ISDS (Investor - State Dispute Settlement Clauses) i powstawania międzynarodowego systemu sądownictwa inwestycyjnego. PROBLEM I METODY BADAWCZE: Problematyka związana z metodą rozstrzygania sporów Inwestor – Państwo w arbitrażu inwestycyjnym jest złożona i zróżnicowana. Jednakże, istniejące wspólne wady tej metody są przyczyną wypowiadania przez coraz więcej państw umów zawierających klauzule ISDS. Dokonując analizy badanego problemu autorzy korzystają z metody dogmatycznej i historycznoprawnej. PROCES WYWODU: Po przedstawieniu charakterystyki arbitrażowej metody rozstrzyganie sporów Inwestor – Państwo, autorzy dokonują analizy sytuacji prawnej inwestorów w UE w kontekście m.in. sentencji wyroku TSUE ws. Achmea. Następnie, przedstawiają ramy regulacyjne TCA, a także wciąż wiążących UK i poszczególne państwa członkowskie UE BITów (bilateral investment treaties), by końcowo wskazać na aktualną sytuację prawną inwestorów po Brexicie. WYNIKI ANALIZY NAUKOWEJ: Autorzy odpowiadają na pytanie, czy na podstawie TCA inwestorzy są uprawnieni do wszczynania postępowań przeciwko państwu, w którym dokonali inwestycji oraz czy w dalszym ciągu BITy zawarte przez UK z państwami członkowskimi UE stanowią podstawę do wszczynania przez inwestorów analogicznych sporów. Odpowiedź na oba ww. pytania wydaje się być negatywna. WNIOSKI, INNOWACJE, REKOMENDACJE: Autorzy wskazują, że ochrona inwestorów po Brexicie powinna zostać uregulowana w sposób bardziej szczegółowy, z uwzględnieniem doświadczenia związanego z dotychczasowymi postępowaniami arbitrażowymi oraz zidentyfikowanymi na tej podstawie ich wadami.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Book review: Andrea Gattini, Attila Tanzi, and Filippo Fontanelli (eds.), General Principles of Law and International Investment Arbitration, Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, Boston: 2018

99%
Menkes M.
Polish Yearbook of International Law
|
2018
|
vol. 38
293-299
EN
Review of a book: Andrea Gattini, Attila Tanzi, and Filippo Fontanelli (eds.), General Principles of Law and International Investment Arbitration, Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, Boston: 2018
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Stanowisko Polski wobec rozmów UE i Stanów Zjednoczonych w sprawie partnerstwa transatlantyckiego

99%
Stankiewicz J.
Krakowskie Studia Międzynarodowe
|
2014
|
issue 4
207-222
EN
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership TTIP as an agreement between the EU and the U.S. in the assumptions will create the most powerful trading at dawn community gathering 40% of current world production, which has 23.2% share in the trade of goods and services 39.4% share, as well as generating approximately 64.1% of Foreign Direct Investment. Poland as an EU member, attending conducted under the aegis of the European Commission’s negotiations with representatives of the U.S. government. A small percentage of the cumulative turnover of Polish trade with the U.S., does not mean that after the conclusion of TTIP, the Polish economy and the consumer market will not feel positive as well as negative consequences of the treaty. Countries, which, according to consulting firms gain the most numerous are the leading economic benefits in Germany, the United Kingdom, as well as having extensive business contacts with the United States, the Netherlands. The thesis that informs the author of the work is the belief that the Polish raison d’etat requires a wider cooperation with Germany having a principal destination for exports of Polish enterprises, and also a significant cooperator for the United States. In this way, the chances are preserved in the larger economic gains through the creation of a free trade area of the EU-USA. The aim of the study is to answer the question of how and in which areas of the negotiations, Poland should lobby for maintaining their own interests?
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Implementing Achmea: The Quest for Fundamental Change in International Investment Law

85%
Kułaga Ł.
Polish Yearbook of International Law
|
2019
|
vol. 39
227-250
EN
The judgment of the Court of Justice in the Achmea case evoked significant repercussions regarding the application and operation of the bilateral investment treaties (BITs) concluded between EU Member States. As a result of this decision, EU Member States have decided to terminate almost 190 intra-EU BITs. Nevertheless, full implementation of the Achmea judgment remains a complex issue, entangled in political and legal controversies concerning intra-EU BITs which have been present for more than a decade. On a more general level, the implementation process is simultaneously entwined in two other significant debates: the specifics of the rights of investors, and the relationship between EU law and international law.
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Book review: Julien Chaisse (ed.), China’s International Investment Strategy: Bilateral, Regional, and Global Law and Policy

85%
Lu Y., Żenkiewicz M.
Polish Yearbook of International Law
|
2019
|
vol. 39
305-315
EN
Review of a book: Julien Chaisse (ed.), China’s International Investment Strategy: Bilateral, Regional, and Global Law and Policy
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.