EU Clean Energy Transition and Challenges for International Investors: Comparative Review of German Practice
https://doi.org/10.24412/2221-3279-2021-10039
Abstract
Clean energy transition in the EU opens up wide investment opportunities for innovative international entrepreneurship. However, the non-linearity of the energy transition, as well as the multi-level and complex nature of the transformation process, implies tackling economic and legal challenges. To examine such challenges in detail, an analysis of three international investment arbitration cases that were brought in for resolution by transnational energy companies against the European Union is carried out using the comparative methodology and taking the example of Germany as the leader of the EU energy transition. Having done the comparative review, the conclusion is drawn that rapid changes in legislation due to the logic of the energy transition process may lead to violation of the legitimate expectations of investors in ensuring a stable and predictable legal regime. Thus, the credibility of the EU states to provide a predictable and stable legal regime for international investors is under scrutiny.
About the Authors
A. V. Zimakov
Primakov Institute of World Economy and International Relations Russian Academy of Sciences (IMEMO) Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Andrei V. Zimakov
Candidate of Economics, research associate
Center for European Studies
Moscow
E. V. Popov
Russian Foreign Ministry
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Evgeny V. Popov
MGIMO University
Candidate of Law
Department of Legal Foundations of Management
Moscow
References
1. Belov, V. B. et al. Germany 2019. Moscow: Institut Evropy RAN, 2020. 144 p.; Neukirch, M. Die Energiewende in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland–Reform, Revolution, oder Restauration? // Sozialpolitik, 2018, ch, 1 (1), pp. 1-3.
2. Bernasconi-Osterwalder, N.; Brauch, M. The State of Play in Vattenfall v. Germany II: Leaving the German Public in the Dark / The International Institute for Sustainable Development Briefi ng Note, 2014, December, pp. 2-15.
3. Bungenberg, M. A History of Investment Arbitration and Investor-State Dispute Settlement in Germany / Investor State Arbitration Between Developed Democracies. ISA Paper No. 12, 2017.
4. Chrischilles, E.; Bardt, H. Fünf Jahre nach Fukusima: eine Zwischenbilanz der Energiewende // IW-Report, 2016, No. . 6, pp. 3-39.
5. Craig, P. EU Administrative Law. Oxford: University Press, 2018. Pp. 612-613; Schwarze, J. European Administrative Law. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2006. Pp. 1154-1159.
6. Dolzer, R.; Scheuer, C. H. Principles of International Investment Law. Oxford: University Press, 2012. Pp. 134-140.
7. Feldmann, U. Arbitrary-peaceful? Consequences of the ‘’Achmea’’ decision of the ECJ also for the ICSID Arbitration of Vattenfall? // Atw. Internationale Zeitschrift fuer Kernenergie, 2018, No. 63(11-12), pp. 585-586.
8. Forzier et al., Resilience of large investments and critical infrastructures in Europe to climate change. Ispra: Joint Research Centre, 2016. 38 p.
9. Kühne, O.; Weber, F. Confl icts and Negotiation Processes in the Course of Power Grid Extension in Germany // Landscape Research, 2018, No. 43 (4), pp. 529-541.
10. Paulus, A.; Nölscher, P. Eigentum und Investitionsschutz nach dem Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts zum Atomausstieg / Investitionsschutz, Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit und Rechtsstaat in der EU. Nomos Verlag, 2018. Pp. 133-168.
11. Popov, Evgeny. Sovereign Immunity Doctrine and Sovereign Funds: Challenges at Global Scale // Sravnitelnaya Politika (Comparative Politics Russia), 2019, No. 3, pp. 133-147.
12. Renn, O.; Marshall, J.P. Coal, Nuclear and Renewable Energy Policies in Germany: From the 1950’s to the “Energiewende” // Energy Policy, 2016, No. 99, pp. 224-232.
13. Romanin, J. The Vattenfall v. Germany Disputes: Finding a Balance Between Energy Investments and Public Concerns. Bridging the Gap between International Investment Law and the Environment. Eleven Legal Publishing, 2016.
14. Schill, S. W. The German Debate on International Investment Law: Mounting Criticism of International Investment Law in Germany // The Journal of World Investment & Trade, 2015, No. 1, pp. 1-9.
15. Trunk-Fedorova, M. P. Novye tendentsii razvitiia v mezhdunarodnom investitsionnom prave na primere dela Micula protiv Rumynii (New Development Tendencies in the International Investment Law Based on the Example of the Case of Micula vs. Romania) // Mezhdunarodnoe ekonomicheskoe pravo, 2017, No. 1, pp. 37-45.
16. Vögele, S.; Kunz, P.; Rübbelke, D.; Stahlke, T. Transformation Pathways of Phasing out Coal-Fired Power Plants in Germany // Energy, Sustainability and Society, 2018, No. 1.
17. Zimakov, A. German Energy Market Transformation: From Nuclear Phase-out to Coal Fired Plants Shutdown // Contemporary Europe-Sovremennaya Evropa, 2017, No. 5 (77), pp. 74-85.
Review
For citations:
Zimakov A.V., Popov E.V. EU Clean Energy Transition and Challenges for International Investors: Comparative Review of German Practice. Comparative Politics Russia. 2021;12(4):47-55. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24412/2221-3279-2021-10039
Views:
547
Email this article 