L'arbitrage d'investissement fondé sur des traités s'est fondamentalement construit autour de la protection de l'investisseur et de son investissement. En effet, les accords de protection de l'investissement n'imposent quasiment aucune obligation à la charge de l 'investisseur. De façon générale, ils contiennent des dispositions substantielles exigeant des États d'accueil d'accorder un certain traitement à l'investissement étranger. Du reste, l'arbitrage fondé sur des traités d'investissement constitue en lui-même une procédure unilatérale à la seule disposition de l'investisseur. La procédure est donc fondamentalement déséquilibrée. L'action des arbitres consistant à prendre en compte le comportement de l'investisseur a cependant contribué au rééquilibrage ce type d'arbitrage. Ils ont, en dépit des difficultés tant théoriques que pratiques suscitées par ce type de procédure, accompli leur mission en ayant recours à différents moyens tant procéduraux que matériels. Ce faisant, l'arbitre s'est rapproché de la figure du juge lié par un formalise certain lors de la conduite de sa procédure juridictionnelle. Par ailleurs, a pu être observée une certaine fonction normative indirecte de l'arbitre. Enfin, s'opère un processus de transition d'un contentieux exclusivement focalisé sur la responsabilité de l'État vers un contentieux de la responsabilisation de l'investisseur. / Investment treaty arbitration is fundamentally built around the protection of the investor and his/its investment. Indeed, investment protection agreements hardly impose any obligation on investors. Such agreements generally contain substantial provisions requiring that host States grant a certain treatment to foreign investments. Moreover, investment treaty arbitration is in itself a unilateral procedure available only to the investor. The procedure is thus fundamentally unbalanced. However, the taking into account by arbitrators of the behavior of investors, has helped to rebalance this investor-state arbitration. Despite theoretical as well as practical difficulties stemming from this type of procedure, arbitrators have been able to accomplish their mission by resorting to different methods, both procedural and material. In doing so, arbitrators have moved closer to the figure of judges, who are bound by some formalism when conducting judicial proceedings. Moreover, arbitral practice has shed the light on a certain indirect normative function of arbitrators. Lastly, a transition process is underway, from disputes exclusively focused on State responsibility towards an investor-accountability approach.

The so called "Denial of Benefits" clause (DOB) gives the respondent state an opportunity to exclude third parties to the investment protection treaties from enjoying the benefits of the treaty without assuming reciprocal obligations. No less than seventy-three investor-state disputes have been brought to arbitration under the ECT since its entry into force back in 1998. The DOB clause in ECT, Art. 17 has never been successfully invoked. States have tried to exercise their right in at least ten cases without success. This paper poses two research questions. First, what are the distinguishing features of Art. 17 of the ECT that make it function differently from other DOB clauses? Second, given the arbitral decisions, can the Art. 17 of the ECT be effectively invoked by respondent states? The paper is divided into five chapters. The first chapter introduces the topic of DOB clauses and the purpose of this paper. The second chapter is theoretical and addresses the topic of DOB clauses in general and further outlines their past, present and future. The third chapter focuses specifically on the Art. 17 of the ECT it examines the ECT arbitral awards and decisions that touched upon the clause. Chapter four aims to show the procedural issues of DOB clauses from the perspective of respondent states, it...

The thesis answers the question "How does the change in effective control affect investment protection mechanisms in the Ukraine - Russia BIT against the temporal scope of when investment was made?". The essence of the Tribunal's jurisdiction, territorial and temporal scope of the Ukraine - Russia BIT were analyzed according to the rules of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Relevant case law, doctrine and available information on the awards in "Crimean cases" were also parts of the analysis. A conclusion was made that changes in effective control activate BIT protection for Ukrainian investors in Crimea against actions of Russian Federation. As a result, investment arbitral tribunals have jurisdiction in cases where investment has not been initially made in the territory of the host state. The date of Russian Federation consent to arbitrate with Ukrainian investors in Crimea is the date of actual change in effective control.

The relationship between international investment agreements and EU law has attracted increased attention in past few years. The aim of this thesis is to bring a detailed analysis of various aspects of this complicated relationship. In attainment of this aim it proceeds in the following steps. After a short introduction (Chapter I.), Chapter II. briefly overviews typical content of bilateral investment treaties, following with a more detailed analysis of relevant EU law rules concerning foreign investment and subsequent comparison of both sets of rules. Chapter III. deals with investment agreements to be concluded by the EU, in particular with questions of external competence for foreign investment, responsibility for breaches of investment agreements concluded by the EU and the future shape of EU investment policy. The status of existing bilateral investment treaties concluded between EU member states and third countries is analyzed in Chapter IV. Chapter V. tackles various issues related to investment treaties concluded between member states (so called intra-EU BITs).

Investment Policy of the European Union - protection of foreign direct investment Abstract One of the changes brought about by the Lisbon Treaty is the explicit inclusion of foreign direct investment and its protection in the common commercial policy of the European Union. This is one of the areas of exclusive competence of the EU. The European Union has subsequently stated negotiating bilateral agreements governing, inter alia, investment issues. However, it has not been spared from controversy and negative publicity that has been accompanying especially the TTIP and the CETA. This work aims to analyse the investment policy of the EU and mutual interaction of its institutions with the Member States and third parties. After general introduction to the topic of international investment law and EU law (chapters II. and III.), it is devoted to the issue of protection of foreign investment in the internal market. Its regime is then compared with the BIT regime (chapter IV.). Attention is then focussed towards the EU's external relations in the field of investment protection. Its competence is subjected to further analysis (chapter V.) and current results of efforts of the Commission and the EU as such are also discussed (chapter VI.). It is so in the light of possible impacts of foreign investment in terms of...