지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Although climate change is a global scale question, some concerns have been raised that principles of investment arbitration may not adequately address the domestic implementation of climate change measures. A recent ICSID investment arbitration of Vattenfall v. Germany with regard to the investor’s alleged damages from the phase-out of nuclear plants is a salient climate change case. The 2005 Kyoto Protocol was made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and it provides a number of flexible mechanisms such as Joint Implementation (JI) and Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol allows dispute settlement through investor-state arbitration. Any initiation of stricter emission standards can violate the prohibition on expropriations in investment agreements, regardless of the measures created to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The effect-based expropriation doctrine can charge changes to existing emission standards as interference with the use of property that goes against the legitimate expectation of a foreign investor. In regulatory chill, threat of investor claims against the host state may preclude the strengthening of climate change measures. Stabilization clauses also have a freezing effect on the hosting state's regulation and a new law applicable to the investment. In the fair and equitable standard, basic expectations of investors when entering into earlier carbon-intensive operations can be affected by a regulation seeking to change into a low-carbon approach. As seen in the Methanex tribunal, a non-discriminatory and public purpose of environmental protection measures should be considered as non-expropriation in the arbitral tribunal unless its decision would intentionally impede a foreign investor’s investment.
목차
등록된 정보가 없습니다.
참고문헌 (32)
참고문헌 신청
/ / United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC), 20
/ / Vattenfall AB and others v. Federal Republic of Germany (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12)
/ 1994 / Jun. 1992, 31 ILM 848,(entered into force 24 March 1994)
/ 2000 / Metalclad Corporation v. Mexico, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/97/1 (Award) (30 August 2000)
/ 2004 / Occidental Exploration and Production Co v. Republic of Ecuador / UNCITRAL, Case No. UN3467, Final Award of 1 July 2004
/ / Vattenfall AB and others v. Federal Republic of Germany (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12)
/ 1994 / Jun. 1992, 31 ILM 848,(entered into force 24 March 1994)
/ 2000 / Metalclad Corporation v. Mexico, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/97/1 (Award) (30 August 2000)
/ 2004 / Occidental Exploration and Production Co v. Republic of Ecuador / UNCITRAL, Case No. UN3467, Final Award of 1 July 2004
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0