Home > All journals > Journal of International Arbitration > 42(1) >
$25.00 - Rental (PDF) *
$49.00 - Article (PDF) *
Manuel Casas
Journal of International Arbitration
Volume 42, Issue 1 (2025) pp. 77 – 94
httpss://doi.org/10.54648/joia2025011
Abstract
This article analyses the enforcement of intra-EU investor-state awards from a policy-oriented perspective. The article considers that an exclusively doctrinal or formalistic approach to the question leads to a methodological blind spot, which ignores the broader context of these enforcement actions and the policy considerations that arise from them. To overcome that, the article focuses on the reactions of relevant states following the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU’s) judgments in Achmea and Komstroy. It explains how, rather than generate backlash, those judgments received widespread support from the EU-Member States, which then took further actions to implement them. Finally, the article considers how, even within the limits of the current enforcement regime, enforcing courts may take into account some policy considerations when determining whether to enforce intra-EU investor-state awards.
Keywords
Arbitration, Enforcement, International, Policy, Court of Justice of the European Union, investor state, Achmea, Komstroy, Backlash, ICSID
Extract
With the wave of Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) renewable energy arbitrations coming to an end, investors are seeking to enforce their awards in three continents. This article examines the first decisions issued by domestic courts in relation to the recognition and enforcement of intra- European Union (EU) ECT awards against Spain. The findings of the courts in the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia in these first enforcement cases will have an impact on the enforcement of the many awards that are pending enforcement and future awards that will be rendered in the pending cases against Spain.
Journal of International Arbitration