Future Bioenergy and Sustainable Land Use

This article addresses a currently very controversial issue—the question of environmental regulation of foreign investment and the limits on such national regulation by international law, in particular by recently completed and negotiated multilateral investment Treaties (MITs). It contributes to the emerging discussion on how and where to draw the line between legitimate non-compensable national regulation aimed at protecting the environment, or ‘human, animal or plant life or health’1 on one hand, and regulation which is ‘tantamount’ to expropriation requiring compensation, on the other. It is a question that is largely responsible for the 1998 collapse of the negotiations for a Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) within the OECD.2 This experience is currently the main obstacle for negotiating multilateral investment agreements—and it has already become a problem for the proper implementation of the already existing ones—in particular the novel and far-reaching investor-state arbitration under Chapter XI of NAFTA and Art. 26 of the Energy Charter Treaty.3

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0020589300065593

Environmental Regulation, Investment Protection and ‘Regulatory Taking’ in International Law

There is growing consensus among international trade negotiators and policymakers that a prime area for future multilateral discussion is competition policy. Competition policy includes antitrust policy (including merger regulation and control) but is often extended to include international trade measures and other policies that affect the structure, conduct, and performance of individual industries. This study includes country studies of competition policy in Western Europe, North America, and the Far East (with a focus on Japan) in the light of increasingly globalized activities of business firms. Areas where there are major differences in philosophy, policy, or practice are identified, with emphasis on those differences that could lead to economic costs and international friction. Alternatives for eliminating these costs and frictions are discussed, including unilateral policy changes, bilateral or multilateral harmonization of policies, and creation of new international regimes to supplement or replace national or regional regimes.A succinct monograph Competition Policies for the Global Economy outlining major conclusions and proposals has been released along with this more comprehensive volume.

Global Competition Policy

Pfizer believes that intellectual property (IP) is critical to driving innovation and stimulating economic growth in countries throughout the world. IP rights are a type of property right that give the creators of knowledge the right to benefit from their unique work and contributions. Strong IP systems foster an innovative culture, where local innovators can develop new products and technologies knowing that their inventions and creativity are secure. Strong IP protection afforded by effective patent systems, in particular, provides incentives for increases in technology transfer, foreign direct investment, and local research and development (R&D) capacity. Other mechanisms including data exclusivity and patent linkage help provide legal certainty for innovators to sustain R&D efforts, paving the way for generic medicines.

/pdf/global-intellectual-property-rights-cyygj5ntel.pdf

Global Intellectual Property Rights

Equity emerged as a powerful symbol of aspired redistribution in international relations. Operationally, it has had limited impact in the Westphalian system of nation states - except for maritime boundary delimitations. This book deals with the role of equity in international law, and offers a detailed case study on maritime boundary delimitation in the context of the enclosure movement in the law of the sea. It assesses treaty law and the impact of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. It depicts the process of trial and error in the extensive case law of the International Court of Justice and arbitral tribunals and expounds the underlying principles and factors informing the methodology both in adjudication and negotiations. Unlike other books, the main focus is on equity and its implications for legal methodology, in particular offering further guidance in the field of international economic law.

Equitable Principles of Maritime Boundary Delimitation: The Quest for Distributive Justice in International Law

Bearbeitet von Prof. Dr. Josef Aicher, Wien; Dr. Rüdiger Bandilla, Brüssel; Dr. Jürgen Bast, Heidelberg; Prof. Dr. Martina Benecke, Augsburg; Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Benedek, Graz; Prof. Dr. Hermann-Josef Blanke, Erfurt; Detlev Boeing, Brüssel; Prof. Dr. Armin von Bogdandy, Heidelberg; Dr. Dierk Booß, Brüssel; Dorothe Dalheimer, Brüssel; Dr. Wolfgang Deselaers, Brüssel; Dr. Barbara Dutzler, Wien; Dr. Henning Eikenberg, Königswinter; Dr. Christoph T. Feddersen, Brüssel; PD Dr. Hans-Peter Folz, Augsburg; Dr. Ulrich Forsthoff, Luxemburg; Prof. DDr. Christoph Grabenwarter, Wien; Prof. Dr. Eberhard Grabitz j , Berlin; Prof. Dr. Stefan Griller, Wien; Johann Hahlen, Wiesbaden; Dr. Joachim-Friedrich Heine, Brüssel; Prof. Dr. Meinhard Hilf, Hamburg; PD Dr. Sven Hölscheidt, Berlin; Prof. Dr. Frank Hoffmeister, Brüssel; Dr. Gerhard Hütz, Luxemburg; PD Dr. Liv Jaeckel, Leipzig; Dr. Bernhard Jansen, Kraainem; Dr. Christian Jung, Köln; Prof. Dr. Peter Karpenstein f, Brüssel; Dr. Ulrich Karpenstein, Brüssel; Dr. Werner Kaufmann-Bühler, Bad Honnef; Dr. Ulrich Klinke, Luxemburg; Prof. Dr. Markus Kotzur, Leipzig; Prof. Dr. Markus Krajewski, Potsdam; Dr. Bernd Langeheine, Tervuren; Prof. Dr. Christine Langenfeld, Friedrichsdorf; Dr. Olaf Langner, Berlin; Prof. Dr. Helmut Lecheler, Berlin; Prof. Dr. Stefan Leible, Bayreuth; Dr. Tobias Lochen, Duisburg; Dr. Stefan Lorenzmeier, Augsburg; Prof. Dr. Siegfried Magiera, Speyer; Prof. Dr. Thilo Marauhn, Gießen; Prof. Dr. Franz C. Mayer, Bielefeld; Dr. Nikolaus MeyerLandrut, Brüssel; Dr. Gerald Miersch, Brüssel; Prof. Dr. Martin Nettesheim, Tübingen; Prof. Dr. Eckhard Pache, Würzburg; Dr. Ulrich Palm, Heidelberg; Prof. Dr. Ingolf Pernice, Berlin; Prof. Dr. Thomas Pfeiffer, Heidelberg; Dr. Reinhard Priebe, Brüssel; Prof. Dr. Albrecht Randelzhofer, Berlin; Prof. Dr. Dr. Georg Ress, Saarbrücken; PD Dr. Volker Roben, Heidelberg; Ulrich Rösslein, Brüssel; Dr. Dieter Rogalla, Sprockhövel; PD Dr. Birgit Schmidt am Busch, München; Dr. Henning C. Schneider, Hamburg; Prof. Dr. Frank Schorkopf, Heidelberg; Prof. Dr. Dirk Schroeder, Köln; Dr. Florian Schuhmacher, Wien; Prof. Dr. Michael Schweitzer, Passau; Prof. Dr. Bruno Simma, München; Dr. Christoph Sobotta, Luxemburg; Dr. Wolfgang Stabenowj", Brüssel; Dr. Peter Stockenhuber, Wien; Prof. Dr. Peter-Tobias Stoll, Heidelberg; Dr. Jörg Philipp Terhechte, Hamburg; Prof. Dr. Christian Tietje, Halle; Dr. Jörg Ukrow, Saarbrücken; Prof. Dr. Christoph Vedder, Augsburg; Dr. Silja Vöneky, Heidelberg; Dr. Reimer Voß | , Wohltorf; Prof. Dr. Gabriela von Wallenberg, Regensburg; Dr. Stephan Wernicke, Luxemburg; Dr. Klaus Wiedner, Brüssel; Daniela Winkler, Tübingen

Das Recht der Europäischen Union

Constitutional problems of international economic law the impact of constitutional law principles on the foreign trade law and policy of the USA, the EC and its Member States, and Japan economic analysis of foreign trade laws and policies constitutional problems of regional foreign trade law comparative constitutional perspectives and policy conclusions GATT articles articles of the EEC Treaty.

Meinhard Hilf

Papers

Das Recht der Europäischen Union

National Constitutions and International Economic Law

Das Recht der Europäischen Union : [Kommentar]

WTO-Recht : Rechtsordnung des Welthandels

The European Community and GATT