Page 40 - นิตยสารดุลพาห เล่มที่ ๒-๒๕๖๑-กฎหมาย
P. 40

ดุลพาห




                           members appointed by the EU to one Tribunal to their
                           own Appeal Tribunal.”  92


                        One can imagine that the body of law deriving from EU ICS Tribunals
               may diverge from ICSID and ad hoc ISDS tribunals, leading to divergent trends

               rather than harmonised body of law. The Appeal Tribunal for the TTIP, CETA or

               EU-Vietnam FTA could also interpret certain issues such as the right to regulate
               differently, resulting in opposite outcome of the purpose of the establishment of
               the ICS. The politics surrounding the appointment of the EU Tribunal Members

               and Appellate Tribunal among the three and other treaties could also come

               into play if the EU decides to nominate the same individuals from the EU.


                        (4) Speed and Costs of Proceedings

                        An aspirational aspect, and one of the most contentious issues, of the

               EU’s proposal for the two-tier ICS is the envisaged efficiency of the proceedings.
               Subject to certain exceptions, the overall proceedings under the ICS, including

               appeal, are limited to two years (the Tribunal of First Instance must decide
               within eighteen months and the Appeal Tribunal within six months).  The
                                                                                        93
               European Commission claimed in a memo that the ICS would provide a more
                                                                                   94
               “cost effective and faster investment dispute resolution system”   because
               of the clear procedural deadlines and clearly defined grounds for appeal. By
               way of comparison, the Commission estimates that ISDS arbitrations often last

                                                                95
               five to six years and that many take even longer.   Moreover, the Commission
               92. C. Le่vesque, The European Union Commission Proposal for the Creation of an ‘Investment Court
                 System ’: The Q and A that the Commission Won’t Be Issuing, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 6 April
                 2016. Retrieved from http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2016/04/06/the-european-union-
                 commission-proposal-for-the-creation-of-an-investment-court-system-the-q-and-a-that-the-commission-
                 wont-be-issuing/.
               93. Article 8.39(7) of the CETA; Articles 27(6) and 28(5) of the EU-Vietnam FTA; Articles 28(6) and
                 29(3) of the TTIP.
               94. Supra at 84.
               95. Id.


               พฤษภาคม - สิงหาคม ๒๕๖๑                                                      29
   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45