Pharmaceutical drugs are often hailed as the poster child for the proposition that patents foster accelerated rates of innovation. This sentiment stems, in large part, from the significantly high research and development (R&D) costs endemic to the pharmaceutical sector. I argue that if the role of the patent regime is one of fostering higher amounts of investment in the R&D process, it is better served by a direct investment protection regime, where the protection does not depend upon whether or not the underlying idea behind the drug is 'new' and 'inventive', the two central tenets of patent law. Rather, any drug that successfully makes it past the regulatory filter ought to be entitled to protection, since its discovery and development entail significant investment and risk. Owing to the inadequacy of the current patent regime in appropriately protecting intensive pharmaceutical R&D investments from free-riders, I propose a comprehensive investment protection regime that protects all the investment costs incurred during the drug discovery and development process. Though similar to existing data protection regimes in some respects, it differs in others. Firstly, it enables a recovery of all R&D costs, and not only costs associated with clinical trials. Secondly, unlike patents and data exclusivity which offer uniform periods of protection, it rewards investments in a proportionate manner, wherein drug originators are entitled to protection against free-riders only until such time as they recoup their specific investments and earn a rate of return on investment that is dependent on the health value of the drug. Given that a pure market exclusivity based investment protection regime is likely to foster excessive pricing and subject the market to the dictates of a single firm, I advocate a compensatory liability model based on a novel cost sharing methodology, where follow-on entrants are free to manufacture the drug, but must pay a reasonable amount of compensation to the originator.

Dans l’arbitrage relatif aux investissements, on entend par exceptions préliminaires les incidents de procédure par lesquels les Etats contestent la compétence du tribunal arbitral ou la recevabilité de la requête de l’investisseur. Avec le développement du contentieux arbitral, le recours à cette technique contentieuse se fait de plus en plus fréquent, mais la présentation des exceptions préliminaires par les Etats et leur traitement par les tribunaux arbitraux sont souvent sources de confusion. Notre étude propose de préciser les concepts clés du contentieux international de compétence et de recevabilité et de revenir sur leur distinction dans un domaine spécialisé du contentieux international – le contentieux arbitral fondé sur les traités de protection et de promotion des investissements. La réaffirmation de la distinction entre les questions de compétence et de recevabilité permettra d’en proposer une classification en fonction de l’objet de l’exception préliminaire et de mieux saisir la portée de la notion d’exception préliminaire qui constitue un moyen de leur mise en oeuvre dans l’arbitrage transnational. Cette classification commandera le régime qu’il convient de réserver à chaque type de défense, afin d’ordonner la présentation des exceptions préliminaires par les Etats et leur examen par les arbitres, examen qui détermine leur faculté d’exercer la fonction juridictionnelle. / In investment treaty arbitration, preliminary objections can be defined as procedural issues raised by the States in order to contest arbitral tribunal jurisdiction or admissibility of an investor claim. With the rise of investment treaty arbitration, recourse to this litigation technique is getting more and more frequent. However, the submission of preliminary objections by the States, as well as their examination by the arbitral tribunals are frequently confusing. Our research focuses on the core concepts of jurisdiction and admissibility in international litigation in order to reconsider their distinction in a specialised field of international litigation - investment treaty arbitration. On the basis of this distinction, we propose a classification of preliminary issues according to their object. This classification will order the legal regime to be applied to each type of preliminary defence, thus putting some order in the submission of preliminary objections by the States and their examination by the arbitrators, examination which relates to their capacity to exercise their jurisdictional function.

1 The Influence of EU Common Investment Policy on the System of International Investment Law Abstract Extending exclusive European Union (EU) competence to foreign direct investment (FDI) in the Lisbon Treaty has had profound implications. The EU began to develop its own investment policy, including negotiating either international investment agreements or comprehensive trade and investment agreements with third parties. Taking into account the magnitude of the EU economy and the fact that EU Member States have concluded almost 1 400 bilateral investment treaties (BITs) out of roughly 3 300 in force worldwide, the potential of European influence over the system of international investment, based principally on BITs, is enormous. The aim of this dissertation is to assess how and in which way the new EU competence changes the system. The EU investment policy has developed a specific approach towards investment protection and investment dispute mechanism which does not envision content declared at its beginning. According to initial documents such as the European Commission's Communication Towards a comprehensive European international investment policy, the Union should have followed the available best practices of the Member States. Nevertheless, during the first bilateral negotiations with Canada and...

1 Abstract This dissertation deals with investment protection in the European Union from several points of view. The first part deals with the history of investment protection and its main basis and grounds for current legislation and proposals for future regulation, particularly within the EU. In subsequent parts, current legislation and intra-European Union investment protection is analysed in detail, including the question of validity and applicability of Intra-EU BITs, i.e. bilateral treaties concluded between two EU Member States. The analysis is made from the perspective of EU law, as well as from the point of view of public international law. The dissertation further deals with their relationship and demonstrates contradictions between them in two crucial cases, Eureko/Achmea and Micula. Additional themes of this dissertation are the powers of the European Union regarding investment protection and the conclusion of international treaties such as CETA and TTIP. This dissertation further deals with the status, jurisdiction and functioning of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), demonstrating the relatively smooth and widely accepted investment dispute settlement mechanism. In this regard, the proposed EU Multilateral Investment Court project in analysed, including a...