Проводимо набір статей до публікації у науковому фаховому журналі
"Зовнішня торгівля: економіка, фінанси, право" з економічних та юридичних наук 

  FREE FULL TEXT (PDF) 

UDC 341.24:061.1СОТ]:339.5.012.42 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31617/zt.knute.2020(110)01
   
MAZARAKI Nataliya
 
 
E‐mail: Ця електронна адреса захищена від спам-ботів. вам потрібно увімкнути JavaScript, щоб побачити її.
ORCID ID: 0000‐0002‐1729‐7846
Doctor of Law, Associate Professor, Head of the Department of International Private, Commercial and Civil Law of the Kyiv National
University of Trade and Economics
19, Kyoto str., Kyiv, 02156, Ukraine
   
POHARCHENKO Tetiana
 
 
E-mail: Ця електронна адреса захищена від спам-ботів. вам потрібно увімкнути JavaScript, щоб побачити її.
ORCID ID: 0000-0003-0207-3468

 
Candidate of Juridical Sciences (Ph.D.), senior lecturer at the Department of International Private, Commercial and Civil Law of the Kyiv National University of Trade and Economics
19, Kyoto str., Kyiv, 02156, Ukraine
 
 

DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISMS IN EU FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS

 

Background. For the past five years, the European Union's trade policy has included the signing and implementation of «new generation»free trade agreements. The study of various aspects of regulation and settlement of disputes arising in the course of free trade agreements, the study of the application of dispute settlement mechanisms provided by the «new generation»of EU free trade agreements, aims to create a theoretical and legal basis and better understanding implementation of these legal relations by the specialists.
Analysis of recent research and publications has shown that despite the significant amount of research on this issue, there is still area for further scientific research, in particular on the latest trends in trade and economic and investment disputes settlement.
Theaim of the article is to single out and characterize the main problematic aspects of the application of dispute settlement mechanisms in the EU «new generation»free trade agreements.
Materials and methods. The normative basis of the study is the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the EU, the EU Agreement with the Southern African Customs Union on Economic Partnership, the Japan-EU Economic Partnership Agreement, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the EU and Canada, the Free Trade Agreement with South Korea and other EU free trade agreements. The methodological basis of the study is general scientific and special legal methods of cognition.
Results. Significant attention to resolving investment disputes in the «new generation»of EU free trade agreements is a reflection of the nature of these agreements, which aim to liberalize not only trade but also the movement of investments.
An unconditional trend in recent EU trade and investment agreements is the introduction of permanent arbitration mechanisms. Two-level, quasi-judicial mechanisms of this type are already included in the EU Free Trade Agreement with Vietnam, the EU-Singapore Investment Protection Agreement and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the EU and Canada.
For the most part, tribunals and arbitration groups under the EU's free trade agreements operate on an ad hoc basis. A characteristic feature of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the EU and Canada, the EU Free Trade Agreements with Singapore and Vietnam is the inclusion of certain provisions for the settlement of investment disputes between the investor and the host country.
The provisions of other EU free trade agreements (primarily with Mexico, Vietnam and Singapore) on the Investment Justice system are also in line with EU law. Under such conditions, the creation of the Investment Judicial System is highly probable.
Conclusion. EU free trade agreements contain a fairly detailed and clear settlement of dispute resolution methods that may arise during the implementation of such agreements. The results of the analysis of recent disputes and the procedure for resolving them within the framework of the mechanisms prescribed in the agreements indicate cases of non-compliance with the deadlines stipulated in the agreements, as well as low efficiency of such a mechanism as consultation, which necessitated the use of arbitration proceedings. A characteristic feature of the EU's «new generation»free trade agreements is the inclusion of investment aspects and a separate procedure for resolving investment disputes, which reflects the importance of this aspect of trade and economic relations, which is also reflected in plans to establish an Investment Judicial System and a Multilateral Investment Court.

Keywords: free trade agreement, trade and economic disputes, Japan-EU Economic Partnership Agreement, Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the EU and Canada, dispute resolution. 

REFERENCES 

  1. Dickson-Smith,  Kyle Dylan (2016).Does the European Union Have New Clothes: Understanding the EU's New Investment Treaty Model, 17 J.WORLD INV. &TRADE 773 [in English]https://doi.org/10.1163/22119000-12340012.
  2. Marceddu,Maria Laura (2016). The EU Dispute Settlement: Towards Legal Certainty in an Uneven International Investment System?, 1 EUR.INV.L.&ARB.REV.33[in English] https://doi.org/10.1163/24689017-00101003.
  3. Schacherer,Stefanie. (2016). TPP, CETA and TTIP Between Innovation and Consolidation: Resolving Investor-State Disputes Under Mega-regionals, 7J. INT'L DiSp. SETTLEMENT 628 [in English]https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idw022.
  4. King, Aphiwan Natasha(2018). National Treatment in International Economic Law: The Case for Consistent Interpretation in New Generation EU Free Trade Agreements. 49 Geo. J. Int'l L. 929 [in English].
  5. Mazaraki, N. A. (2018). Mehanizmy vyrishennja sporiv u ramkah Ugody pro asociaciju mizh Ukraïnoju ta Jevropey̆s'kym Sojuzom [DisputesettlementmechanismsundertheAssociationAgreementbetweenUkraineandtheEuropeanUnion]. Pravo i suspil'stvo – Lawandsociety, 5,212-216 [inUkainian].
  6. Ugoda pro asociaciju mizh Ukraïnoju, z odnijeï storony, ta Jevropey̆s'kym Sojuzom, Jevropey̆s'kym spivtovarystvom z atomnoï energiï ta ïhnimy derzhavamy-chlenamy, z inshoï storony, vid 27 chervnja 2014 r. [AssociationAgreementbetweenUkraine, ontheonehand, andtheEuropeanUnion, theEuropeanAtomicEnergyCommunityandtheirMemberStates, ontheotherhand, of27 June2014] Retrievedfromhttp://zakon0.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/ 984_011 [inUkainian].
  7. Decision No 1/2019 of 10 April 2019 of the Joint Committee of the EU-Japan EPA [2019/1035].Retrieved fromhttps://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/ 1c8af098-9648-11e9-9369-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-HTML[in English].
  8. The Comprehensive and Economic Trade Agreement. Retrieved fromhttps://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ceta/ceta-chapter-by-chapter[in English].
  9. Report from the Сommission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European economic and social committee and the Committee of the regions on Implementation of Free Trade Agreements 1 January 2018 - 31 December 2018.Retrieved fromhttps://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2019/october/ tradoc_158387.pdf[in English].
  10. EU-Korea dispute settlement over workers’ rights in Korea enters next stage.Retrieved fromhttps://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=2095[in English].
  11. Arbitration panel established on Ukraine’s wood export ban – deadline for submissions.Retrieved from https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/ index.cfm?id=2109[in English].
  12. Kyung,Kwak, & Gabrielle,Marceau(2003). Overlaps and Conflicts of Jurisdiction between the World Trade Organization and Regional Trade Agreements. The Canadian Yearbook of International Law, (Vol. 41), (pp. 83-153) [in English].
  13. Agreement between the European Union and Japan for an economic partnership.Retrieved fromhttps://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/ ?uri=CELEX:52018PC0192#document2[in English].
  14. Joanna,Lam, & Güneş,Ünüvar (2019). Transparency and participatory aspects of investor-state dispute settlement in the EU ‘new wave’ trade agreements. Leiden Journal of International Law, 32, 781-800.Doi:10.1017/S0922156519000360[in English] https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156519000360.
  15. European Commission. «Commission welcomes adoption of negotiating directives for a multilateral investment court». Retrieved fromtrade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/ press/index.cfm?id=1819[in English].
  16. Opinion 1/17 of the Court (full court), 30 april 2019. Retrieved from http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=213502&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=4976548[in English].
  17. Vidigal, G. (2017). Why Is There So Little Litigation under Free Trade Agreements? Retaliation and Adjudication in International Dispute Settlement. Journal of International Economic Law, 20(4),927-950. Doi:10.1093/jiel/jgx037[in English] https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgx037.