The CJEU and the Future of the Multilateral Investment Court

The Society's 114th Annual Meeting—and first Virtual Annual Meeting—took place June 25–26, 2020. The 2020 Annual Meeting theme, "The Promise of International Law," was an opportunity to reflect on the successes and failures of international law, while reaffirming our commitment to achieving its promise of a more just and peaceful world.

Sponsored by Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP

The Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) is one of the most ambitious procedural reform efforts to impact international investment law since the negotiation of the ICSID Convention. Much has been said about the alleged benefits and costs of creating a new multilateral institution to replace ad hoc arbitration as the dominant method of dispute resolution. This panel will not rehash that already robust debate. Instead, the panelists will approach the MIC through the lens of the European Union and its laws. In particular, we will focus on the recent Opinion 1/17 of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), issued on April 30, 2019 regarding a standing investment court system in the Canadian-European Trade Agreement (CETA). What aspects of international investment dispute resolution are consistent with the Achmea decision? Is the CJEU approach internally consistent? What does the CJEU’s approach to international investment law mean for the harmonization of intra-EU investment law and what, if anything, should investment agreement partners of the European Union now and in the future (like Canada and the United Kingdom respectively) take away from these two landmark CJEU decisions or the several currently working through the system?

Colin Brown, Legal Affairs and Dispute Settlement, European Commission
Jonas Hallberg, Sonder Consulting
Sylvie Tabet, Trade Law Bureau, Government of Canada
Angeline Welsh, Essex Court (Moderator)
(Speaker organizations are shown as of June 2020)