PLANT Seminar: “When International Law Regimes Clash: The European Union and International Arbitration”

Date
Feb 17, 2025, 4:30 pm6:00 pm
Location
Laura Wooten Hall, Room 301 (Kerstetter Room)
Audience
Open to Princeton University ID Holders and Other Academic Affiliates

Details

Event Description

George Bermann, Walter Gellhorn Professor of Law and Jean Monnet Professor of European Union Law at Columbia Law School and UCHV Visiting Scholar, Spring 2025, will speak about “When International Law Regimes Clash: The European Union and International Arbitration.”

    For a long period of time the European Union and the international arbitration regimes enjoyed a peaceful coexistence. The indications were many. They run from (a) the fact that the drafters of the Brussels Regulation on the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments included from the start a full carve-out for judgments in relation to cases related to international arbitration to (b) the very fact that I could over a long period teach courses concurrently in EU Law and International Arbitration without mentioning either of them in courses on the other. They were almost as if ships passing in the night.

    That situation has dramatically changed. It is no exaggeration to say that international arbitration is viewed in EU circles as among its greatest threat, and vice versa. The turn clearly coincided with the advent of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) which implicated the interests of the EU vastly more than the more traditional international commercial arbitration had ever done. But there is now even something of a spillover effect from the former to the latter. Indeed, while there are reasons to suppose that the conflict in the investor-State arena will abate, there is no such prospect in the arena of international commercial arbitration.

    Three factors have contributed substantially to the situation we now face. First, both regimes consider that the other is not only a threat, but a threat to its core purposes and first principles – practically to its raison d’etre. Second, and relatedly, both regimes quite literally assert “autonomy” from other legal orders, including national legal orders, and are not in the least loath to exercise it. Third, and again relatedly, both regimes, unlike many international law regimes, have serious weapons at their disposal, and are accordingly less willing to adapt to the other than they otherwise might be. It should be added that each has both effectively “constitutionalized” their positions and buttressed their position by reference to international treaty law.

    Especially striking is the fact that scarcely any efforts have been made on either side to bridge the gap. For want of a spirit of compromise, the current conflict has no end in sight.

To attend virtually, contact Kim Murray.

UCHV sponsorship of an event does not constitute institutional endorsement of the program, speakers, or views presented.