This article explores the legal complexities arising from the European Union's sanctions framework and its intersection with international investment protection law, particularly in response to geopolitical crises - the Russian invasion of Ukraine. EU sanctions, intended to limit the operations of targeted foreign entities, confront protections guaranteed by Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs), which safeguard foreign assets and often provide arbitration avenues for investors. This intersection challenges EU Member States to balance the enforcement of sanctions with treaty obligations, raising pressing questions about the limits of state sovereignty and investor rights under international law. The post critically examines defenses available to EU states, such as countermeasures and security exceptions, though these are often constrained by treaty terms and vary in applicability. As this tension increasingly shapes the legal landscape, the EU’s experience highlights the potential for evolving investment protection norms within contexts of intensified political conflict.
Introduction
The European Union (EU) has evolved into a significant player in international relations, equipped with a robust array of unilateral instruments to pursue its objectives amid escalating global challenges. The aims of the EU’s External Action and Common Foreign and Security Policy, outlined in Title V of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), mandate measures to preserve peace and promote international cooperation and democracy. Central to this diplomatic strategy are unilateral sanctions—also referred to as international sanctions or restrictive measures—deployed against political actors who violate international law.[1]
Following Russia’s acknowledgment of the Donetsk and Luhansk territories on February 21, 2022, and its subsequent invasion of Ukraine on February 24, the EU swiftly imposed comprehensive sanctions in response to these flagrant violations of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and international law. Numerous European leaders, along with several aligned nations endorsing the restrictive measures, affirmed their commitment to ensuring "the efficient enforcement of sanctions" and to prevent sanctioned individuals from "hiding their assets globally.”[2] Despite this determination, the implementation of these restrictive measures has raised critical questions regarding their interaction with international investment protection law.
Given their fundamental characteristics and objectives, economic sanctions frequently spark international disputes concerning the legitimacy of failure to fulfill international trade agreements. These agreements, in stark contrast to restrictive measures, are designed to safeguard the ownership and enjoyment of foreign investments, which the EU aims to sanction [3] Notably, Member States, bound by International Investment Agreements (IIAs) signed with Russia, are obligated to protect investments made within their borders. As such, the EU's unilateral turn through the imposition of sanctions could trigger claims against Member States under a diverse array of IIAs.
This article will delve into the intricate nuances of whether and to what extent international investment protection law may impact the outcomes and objectives of EU economic sanctions? In doing so, we will assess the potential defenses available to EU nations, the principles of investment protection that may be at risk, and the delicate balance required to uphold international obligations while enforcing restrictive measures.
The Role of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs)
Bilateral Investment Treaties are crucial instruments that govern the relationship between host states and foreign investors, establishing a framework for protecting investments and providing legal recourse in case of disputes. Typically, BITs offer a range of protections, including commitments to fair and equitable treatment, protection against unlawful expropriation, and the right to transfer investment-related funds freely.
The definition of “investments” under these treaties is broad, often encompassing movable and immovable property, shares, contractual rights, and intellectual property. Thus, any measures that target these investments—such as asset freezes imposed by EU sanctions—can potentially be construed as violations of the rights guaranteed by these treaties. For Russian investors impacted by EU sanctions, the pathway to arbitration under the relevant BITs may offer a means of recourse against measures that they argue contravene their rights. Many BITs provide mechanisms for resolving disputes through international investment arbitration. This feature is particularly significant in the context of the current geopolitical tensions, as it allows investors to seek an impartial adjudication of their claims.
The intricate interplay between EU sanctions and BITs complicates the legal landscape for investors. While the freezing of assets does not alter ownership, it restricts access to those assets, making them temporarily unavailable. Such measures may be interpreted as expropriation under investment treaties, which typically prohibit not only outright seizures but also measures that have an equivalent effect.
Defending Against Claims: Potential Avenues for EU Member States
As EU member states face claims arising from the imposition of sanctions, they possess several potential defense strategies that warrant examination. The first avenue for defense lies in categorizing the sanctions as legitimate international countermeasures. Under Articles 20-25 of the UN International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility (ARSIWA), states are permitted to take countermeasures in response to breaches of international law, provided that such measures are proportionate and aimed at inducing compliance from the offending state.[4]
The EU sanctions against Russia are anchored in a response to what the Union considers a violation of international law—the annexation of Crimea and subsequent military actions in Ukraine.[5] This legal framing positions the sanctions as a collective response to an internationally wrongful act, thereby lending credence to the argument that they qualify as lawful countermeasures under ARSIWA.
However, the application of countermeasures in the investment law context is fraught with ambiguity. The central legal question is whether EU member states can justify treating foreign investors and their investments in a manner inconsistent with their obligations under international investment treaties, all in the name of fulfilling sanctions aimed at compelling Russia to adhere to international norms.[6] This legal uncertainty underscores the need for careful navigation through the intricacies of both international law and investment protection principles.
In addition to invoking countermeasures, EU member states may also seek refuge under national or Essential Security Interest (ESI) exceptions.[7] Many trade agreements contain provisions that allow states to enact measures necessary for maintaining national security or public order without contravening their treaty commitments. This avenue, however, is contingent upon the specific language of the BITs involved. In many cases, the security exception clauses are either limited in scope or entirely absent, which may hinder the ability of states to effectively invoke this defense.
For example, many BITs with Russia were negotiated during periods of geopolitical stability, resulting in a lack of robust security exceptions. This historical context, coupled with Russia’s dominant negotiating position, has led to treaties that may not adequately address the realities of contemporary conflicts, leaving EU member states with limited recourse to defend their actions against investment claims.[8]
Balancing State Interests with Investor Rights
The intersection of EU sanctions and investment protection law raises fundamental questions about the balance between state sovereignty and the rights of foreign investors. As EU member states navigate the complexities of sanctions, they must grapple with the potential for legal challenges from affected investors who argue that their rights have been violated.
In light of the complexities surrounding these issues, it is instructive to consider recent developments in investment arbitration. Following the annexation of Crimea, Ukraine initiated a series of legal actions urging its citizens to file claims under the Ukraine-Russia BIT. This approach sought to secure compensation for losses incurred by individuals and companies adversely affected by the annexation. Notably, arbitral tribunals displayed a willingness to entertain jurisdiction over these disputes, underscoring the continuing relevance of BITs as mechanisms for addressing grievances arising from geopolitical conflicts.
In a notable example, some tribunals refrained from ruling on the legality of the annexation itself, focusing instead on the impact of the measures on the ownership and enjoyment of investments. This precedent highlights the capacity of BIT remedies to challenge actions taken in the context of territorial annexations, provided such actions directly affect the rights of investors. As the situation continues to evolve, the importance of BITs as instruments for dispute resolution becomes increasingly apparent.
The Future of Investment Protection Amidst Geopolitical Tensions
As the EU grapples with the implications of its sanctions on Russian investments, it is essential to consider the broader ramifications for the investment protection regime. The current geopolitical climate demands a nuanced understanding of the legal principles that govern investment treaties, particularly as they intersect with national security concerns.
Moreover, the emergence of retaliatory actions by the Russian government targeting investors from nations deemed “unfriendly” serves to complicate the legal landscape further.[9] European and Ukrainian enterprises that find themselves unable to access billions of dollars in profits, now immobilized alongside their initial capital investments, may be incentivized to employ existing investment treaties as strategic tools for legal recourse.[10] This dynamic underscores the potential for BITs to serve as mechanisms for compensation in the face of geopolitical aggression.[11] In this context, existing investment agreements may offer a critical interim solution for losses stemming from Russia’s illegal actions - addressing grievances and compensating damages incurred as a direct or indirect result of the conflict.[12]
Conclusion: Striking a Delicate Balance
In conclusion, the dynamic interplay between unilateral sanctions and foreign investment law underscores the delicate balance between asserting sovereign authority and upholding international legal obligations. While sanctions aim to exert pressure and influence behavior, the presence of robust investment protection mechanisms introduces a layer of complexity, compelling stakeholders to navigate a fine line between assertiveness and restraint.
While it is undeniable that resorting to arbitration by those targeted by sanctions may appear to undermine efficacy of restrictive measures by potentially resulting in financial awards against the state, it is important to recognize that concerns over the effectiveness of European economic law and the perception that arbitration effectively circumvents its obligations, as often observed in intra-European contexts, cannot justify treaties concluded with third countries like Russia being annulled. Compliance with such treaties not only ensures the legality of sanctions but also upholds principles of reciprocity. Despite potential inhibitions posed by investment treaties on sanctions, it is essential to acknowledge that these treaties are not inherently illegal, and their consideration should not detract from the broader advantages they bring to international relations.
[1] Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), Title V. 2012.
[2] European Commission Declaration 22/1423 of February 26, 2022, Joint Statement on Further Restrictive Economic Measures.
[3] Kern, A., Economic Sanctions: Law and Public Policy (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009).
[4] Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, adopted (International Law Commission [ILC]) UN Doc A/56/10, 2001.
[5] Paddeu, F., Countermeasures, (Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, 2015), para. 1.
[6] Olmedo, J. G., The Legality of EU Sanctions under International Investment Agreements (European Foreign Affairs Review, 2023) p. 106.
[7] Id.
[8] See, e.g. France-Russia BIT.
[9] Hodgson, M., et al., International Law Considerations for Foreign Investors with Business Interests in Russia (Allen Overy Publications, 21 March 2022).
[10] See e.g. Aeroport Belbek and Igor Valerievich Kolomoisky v Russia, PCA Case No. 2015-07.
[11] United Nations General Assembly Resolution, 94-14-73, A/ES-11/L.6, Furtherance of remedy and reparation for aggression against Ukraine, 14 November 2022.
[12] Kazāks, A., Concerns about Investment Protection in Russia during Its Invasion of Ukraine, Kogemus Sorainen (18 March 2022).
Comments