In 2020, East Asia became the world’s largest trade bloc after negotiations on the RCEP, which lays the foundation for the customs union. In comparison to the EEC system in the 50s, however, East Asia’s integration of legal systems has been recognized as an insufficient legal structure, lacking regional public goods. It is attributed to the discord between the modern and classic sovereignty games within the incomplete sovereign states.
The state’s milieu goals have been regarded as important as possession goals. Therefore, social interrelationships in low-level politics have been considered important factors, likewise the high-level of security. The form of regional governance is transiting toward a ‘community’ of law that went beyond activities of ‘cooperation’.
To create a legal community as an organic whole with East Asian identification, two legal intellectual discussions must take precedence for each state: investment in trust-building, and establishment of common values.
Direct foreign investment is an important source of economic growth for any country either developed or developing. However emerging economies not only lack of foreign private investment, but even a few national investors prefer not to invest in own country. The main reasons are political and regulatory risks, i.e. absence of stable environment for investors and operators. Moreover, outbreak and climate initiatives such as Green Deal, had negative effect on the situation.
The paper will discuss effects of regional economic integrations, particularly EU and EAEU, on direct investments into infrastructure projects through stable investment regimes and protections on supranational level, i.e. existence of dispute resolution mechanisms.
Author will briefly discuss selling points and downsides of investments into infrastructure projects: roads, railways, airports, electricity grid, etc. in EU and EAEU with comparison of regimes in EU and EAEU both for foreign and intra union investors.
Urban areas face constant challenges linked to the global climate crisis, environmental degradation, and natural resource shortages which inhibit the capacity of ecosystems to provide crucial services on which humans depend for health and well-being. The right to a safe and healthy environment is a constitutional imperative protected by environmental legislation. Ecosystem services play an important part in ecological sustainability and human health and well-being, especially in times of crises. These services need adequate protection. Covid-19 and related measures moved environmental issues to the backseat i.t.o. government priority. Environmental law (EL) is an important public law pathway through which environmental protection may be achieved. This paper considers the post-pandemic future of public law (EL, particularly), and changes i.r.o. how it operates during Covid-19 with a focus on local environmental governance instruments and their viability at local government level.
The aim of this paper is to identify and analyze legal issues arising between human rights and investment arbitration. Those two legal regimes seem to remain completely unrelated, however, they sometimes interact with each other, what implies a number of significant legal problems. For example, a foreign investor may interfere human rights of host state’s citizens. Also, a host state man be unable to fulfill its legal obligations regarding human rights due to the necessity to protect foreign investment as agreed in BIT. It remains unclear whether it is justified to invoke arguments regarding human rights in arbitration proceedings. It is also debatable which legal regime should prevail in case of conflict between them. The research hypothesis is that interaction between human rights and investment arbitration do exist. The identification the fields of this interaction would ensure the ultimate scope of human rights protection in different stages of investment arbitration proceedings.
This paper maps the field of Singapore foreign relations law through a comparatist’s eyes, viewing public law as a dialectic between law and political culture. Singapore law on the reception of international law and the act of state/non-justiciability doctrine(s) is split between American and English approaches: while US law prizes sovereignty-protecting functional considerations, English law is defined by formal rule of law principles. However, this tension between American functionalism and English formalism can be reconciled with a popular perception in Singaporean political thought: Singapore sees international relations as primarily political but upholds formal legality to secure its sovereignty as a small state. As Sundaresh Menon CJ put it, “for Singapore, the rule of law is not so much an aspirational ideal as it is an existential necessity”: in Singapore foreign relations law, the rule of law is a core means of preserving its sovereignty, but defeasible to that end as well.