Home > All journals > European Foreign Affairs Review > 27(3) >
$15.00 - Rental (PDF) *
$29.00 - Article (PDF) *
Anissa Bougrea, Jan Orbie, Mattias Vermeiren
European Foreign Affairs Review
Volume 27, Issue 3 (2022) pp. 337 – 360
https://doi.org/10.54648/eerr2022026
Abstract
After years of discussions, the European Union’s (EU’s) new development finance architecture finally came into being under the umbrella of the ‘Status Quo Plus’. This article aims to, firstly, bring much-needed clarification in the nebulous landscape of EU development finance; and secondly, gain a more profound understanding of recent changes by examining to what extent they witness change or continuity. Based on a large variety of empirical data and secondary literature, we find that EU development finance has witnessed significant institutional changes while ideological trends are continued. Institutionally, we elaborate on the simplification of instruments, a shift in their accessibility – in favour of national development agencies and private actors whereby the European Investment Bank (EIB) loses its monopoly on commercial guarantees – and a reshuffling of power play in favour of the European Commission and (larger) EU Member States. In terms of policy content and underlying ideology, however, we observe a deepening of the trend towards financialization within EU (development finance) institutions which ties in with the geopoliticization of aid. We conclude that the ‘Plus’ represents institutional change that nevertheless primarily served (intentionally or not) to support a continuing ideological commitment to selling development finance to the market. The conclusions summarize the main findings and formulate suggestions for further research.
Keywords
European Union (EU), development, financialization, geopoliticization, private finance, European Investment Bank (EIB), blending, public development banks
Extract
In 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU, Court) delivered a judgment in CDC v. Akzo Nobel finding that broadly worded jurisdiction clauses do not extend to competition-related tortious damages claims. Even though the Court did not address arbitration clauses, a spill over into the area may take place. Both prior to and after the CJEU’s judgment Member States’ courts dealt with the issue of scope of broad arbitration clauses arriving at conflicting outcomes. The most recent decision was delivered in September 2017 by the Dortmund Regional Court. This article analyses the judgment in CDC v. Akzo Nobel, relevant national courts’ judgments, and how the resulting uncertainty may be mitigated.
Journal of International Arbitration