| Abstract | Opća skupština Ujedinjenih Naroda osnovala je 1966. godine Povjerenstvo UN-a za međunarodno trgovačko pravo (UNICTRAL) kao specijaliziranu organizaciju kojoj je svrha harmonizacija i modernizacija te ujednačenje međunarodnog trgovačkog prava kako bi se lakše i bolje ostvarivala međunarodna trgovina između država.
Jedan od najznačajnijih koraka Komisije UN-a u tom pravcu učinjen je 1965. godine donošenjem Konvencije o rješavanju ulagačkih sporova između država i državljana drugih država (takozvana Washingtonska konvencija ), sukladno odredbama kojima je ustanovljena specijalizirana arbitraža (Međunarodni centar za rješavanje ulagačkih sporova /ICSID/) .
Rad ICSID-a s vremenom se pokazao „rascjepkan“ s obzirom da ne postoji nadležnost koja podliježe određenoj skupini pravila, jedinstven ili obvezan pristup u slučajevima paralelnih postupaka, da se novoformiranu jurisdikciju veže samo za dogovorena pravila koja su odabrale strane, da su dogovorena pravila odvojena od bilo kojeg drugog sustava ili nadležnosti i da na pravila koja bi se mogla automatski primijeniti i obvezivati sud ne djeluje na određeni jednoobrazan način.
Važna je i uloga Suda Europske unije u modernizaciji i ujednačenju međunarodnog trgovačkog prava iz aspekta njegove nadležnosti, prema kojoj nadležnosti odlučuje o prethodnim pitanjima koja se tiču tumačenja Ugovora, valjanosti i tumačenja akata institucija, tijela, ureda ili agencije EU-a i na taj način mijenja standarde, između ostalog i na području investicijskih ulaganja na svom teritoriju.
Posljedično presudama Suda Europske unije (CJEU) vezano za ugovorenu nadležnost bilateralnim ugovorima o investicijskim ulaganjima (BIT) i radnjama poduzetim po državama članicama EU-a, temeljem tih presuda s vremenom će vjerojatno na teritoriju EU-a investicijske arbitraže biti zamijenjene nekom vrstom sudskog postupka, koji će u skladu s pravom EU-a biti transparentan, legitiman, dosljedan, predvidljiv i jednoobrazan.
Cilj rada jest prikazati razliku u tretiranju međunarodnih ugovora po međunarodnom pravu i pravu Europske unije, kojoj je u osnovi činjenica da se u međunarodnom pravu jednako tretiraju međunarodni ugovori (s iznimkom članka 103. Povelje UN-a), a u pravu EU-e u skladu sa načelom autonomije, dosljednosti, jednoobraznosti, te potpune primjene i nadmoći prava EU-e.
Različitost u tretiranju međunarodnih ugovora je u biti i dovela do sukoba horizontalne prirode međunarodnog prava s vertikalnim poretkom EU-e, a posljedično i do aktivnost Radne skupine III UNCITRAL-a vezano za reformu ICSID-a. |
| Abstract (english) | In 1966, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL)2 was founded by the General Assembly of the United Nations to be a specialised organisation. Its purpose is harmonisation and modernisation, as well as uniformity of the international commercial law, all of which in order for international commerce between the states to be realised in an easier and more effective manner.
One of the most significant steps of the UN Commission leading in that direction had been made in 1965 by drafting the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (the so-called Washington Convention3), all of which in compliance with the provisions establishing a specialised arbitration (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, ICSID4).
Eventually, the work of ICSID has turned out to be “fragmented”, regarding the fact that there is no jurisdiction subjected to a certain set of rules, no uniform or mandatory approach to cases of parallel proceedings; that the newly formed jurisdiction applies only to the ground rules and regulations established by the parties; that the established rules and regulations are separated from any and all other systems or jurisdictions; and that the court does not work in a uniform manner when it comes to the rules and regulations that could be automatically applicable and mandatory.
The role of the Court of Justice of the European Union5 bears an important role, as well, in modernisation and harmonisation of the commercial law from the perspective of its jurisdiction, according to which jurisdiction it gives rulings on the previous issues of the Agreement interpretations, and on the validity and interpretation of the Acts of the EUs institutions, bodies, offices or agencies. In this manner, it brings changes to the standards, among other, in the field of financial investments on its own turf, as well.
As a result of the rulings brought by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), (regarding the jurisdiction agreed upon under the Bilateral financial treaties (BIT) ) and actions undertaken by the EU member states, i.e. by the virtue of these rulings, investment arbitrations shall on the territory of the EU, eventually and probably, be replaced by some sort of a court proceedings, which proceedings shall be transparent, legitimate, consequent, predictable and uniform, and as such shall be in compliance with the EU law.
The object of this paper is to demonstrate the difference in treating the international agreements under the international law and under the law of the European Union. The fact is that the international law treats international agreements equally (the exception being Article 103 of the UN Charter), whereas the EU law treats them under the principle of autonomy, consistency, uniformity and complete application of and primacy of the law of the EU. In fact, this is the issue that has generated the conflict between the horizontal nature of the international law and the vertical order of the EU, resulting in the UNCITRAL Task Force III coming to life and reforming the ICSDS. |
