Jurisdictional Competition: Domestic Courts or Arbitral Tribunals? Lessons from the CJEU Judgments on EU’s Economic Agreements with Non-EU States

Frid de Vries Rachel
Additional contact information
Frid de Vries Rachel: Senior Lecturer, international law, Ono Academic College and Reichman University, Israel; former Senior Official, the Israeli Ministry of Justice; Co-President, the Israeli Association for the Study of European Integration. PhD University of Amsterdam, Post Doc University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.

European Studies - The Review of European Law, Economics and Politics, 2022, vol. 9, issue 2, 15-61

Abstract: Summary A judgement by a domestic court in an international economic dispute, where the parties have agreed on an International Dispute Settlement Mechanism (IDSM), may be legitimate from the perspective of domestic law. However, it might entail concerns from the perspective of third states and Public International Law (PIL). Such concerns might be aggravated by the broadening of delicate foreign relations elements and protections for investors woven into international economic agreements. In the absence of clear PIL rules for conflicts arising from overlapping jurisdictional claims, such jurisdictional issues are subject to the discretion of the domestic court. A tendency to adjudicate such claims is strongly demonstrated in the caselaw of the EU Court of Justice (CJEU). The CJEU’s jurisdictional attitude towards competing IDSMs is examined in the context of the recent CJEU caselaw on disputes under bilateral and multilateral investment treaties involving non-EU states and investors, where the parties have committed to arbitration. The analysis then focuses on CJEU judgments on disputed EU trade agreements with non-EU states controlling Disputed Territories (DTs), in particular, trade with Israeli controlled DTs, where the parties have agreed on an IDSM. These judgements present substantial competing jurisdictional issues, that were scarcely dealt with in the literature. Consequently, the CJEU’s jurisdictional policy provides an excellent basis on which normative conclusions can be drawn regarding the profound effect it may have on third states, foreign investors and on the development of rules for the resolution of international economic conflicts.

Keywords: Competing Jurisdiction; the CJEU; Arbitration; International Economic Agreements; Israel (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.2478/eustu-2022-0013 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:vrs:eurstu:v:9:y:2022:i:2:p:15-61:n:3

DOI: 10.2478/eustu-2022-0013

Access Statistics for this article

European Studies - The Review of European Law, Economics and Politics is currently edited by Nadežda Šišková

More articles in European Studies - The Review of European Law, Economics and Politics from Sciendo
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Peter Golla ().