(magistrsko diplomsko delo)
Šejla Gutić (Author), Vasilka Sancin (Mentor)

Abstract

Mednarodno investicijsko pravo v zadnjih letih postaja čedalje bolj prepleteno z ostalimi področji mednarodnega prava, kar kliče po opredelitvi teh odnosov. Z vidika odnosa z mednarodnim humanitarnim pravom, dogodki na Krimu ter rusko-ukrajinska vojna orišejo mnoga pereča vprašanja, predvsem v kontekstu vojaške okupacije. To magistrsko diplomsko delo analizira veljavnost bilateralnih investicijskih sporazumov ter možnosti pravnega varstva tujih investitorjev v času vojaške okupacije. Z vidika mednarodnega humanitarnega prava, ki določa spoštovanje domačega prava okupirane države, se poraja vprašanje veljavnosti bilateralnih investicijskih sporazumov ter izvajanja obveznosti, ki iz njih izhajajo. Mednarodne pogodbe, ki zavezujejo okupirano državo, sicer tvorijo del domačega prava, ki ga okupacijska sila mora upoštevati, vendar njihovo izvajanje ni tako samoumevno. Pravila vojaške okupacije ne določajo kako je okupacijska sila vezana glede izvajanja mednarodnopravnih obveznosti, zaradi česar lahko pride do pravnih praznin. Slednje odseva v izvrševanju bilateralnih investicijskih sporazumov, saj so po svoji naravi specifični, ker omogočajo arbitražno reševanje sporov med tujimi investitorji ter državami gostiteljicami njihovih investicij. Posledično je prav tako nejasno, kdo odgovarja za škodo, ki jo investitorji utrpijo v času vojaške okupacije, ter ali je arbitražno reševanje sporov sploh mogoče. Odgovor na to vprašanje bi lahko podali arbitražni tribunali v unikatnem primeru Krima, saj so sprejeli pristojnost v sporih med ukrajinskimi investitorji ter Rusijo. To je dvignilo veliko prahu, saj bi lahko s tem kršili načelo nepriznavanja pravnih učinkov, ki izhajajo iz protipravne priključitve Krima Ruski federaciji.

Keywords

mednarodno investicijsko pravo;investicijska arbitraža;bilateralni investicijski sporazumi;vojaška okupacija;rusko-ukrajinska vojna;Krim;magistrske diplomske naloge;

Data

Language: Slovenian
Year of publishing:
Typology: 2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization: UL PF - Faculty of Law
Publisher: [Š. Gutić]
UDC: 341.3(470:477)(043.2)
COBISS: 167697411 Link will open in a new window
Views: 141
Downloads: 33
Average score: 0 (0 votes)
Metadata: JSON JSON-RDF JSON-LD TURTLE N-TRIPLES XML RDFA MICRODATA DC-XML DC-RDF RDF

Other data

Secondary language: English
Secondary title: International Investment Law on Occupied Territories
Secondary abstract: In recent years, international investment law has become increasingly intertwined with other areas of international law, which calls for a need to define these relationships. In terms of its relationship with international humanitarian law, the events in Crimea and the Russian-Ukrainian war highlight many pressing issues, particularly in the context of a belligerent occupation. This Master's thesis analyses the validity of bilateral investment agreements and the possibilities of legal protection of foreign investors in times of belligerent occupation. From the perspective of international humanitarian law, which requires respect for the domestic law of the occupied country, the question of the validity of bilateral investment agreements and the implementation of the obligations arising from them arises. While international treaties binding on the occupied state form part of the domestic law that the occupying power must respect, their implementation is not self-evident. The rules of belligerent occupation do not specify how the occupying power is bound to implement its international law obligations, which may cause a legal vacuum. The latter is reflected in the enforcement of bilateral investment treaties, which have a specific nature, since they allow for the arbitration of disputes between foreign investors and the host countries of their investments. As a result, it is also unclear who is liable for the damage suffered by investors during belligerent occupation and whether arbitration is even possible. The answer to this question could be provided by arbitral tribunals in the unique case of Crimea, as they have accepted jurisdiction in disputes between Ukrainian investors and Russia. This has raised a lot of dust, as it could violate the principle of non-recognition of legal effects arising from the illegal annexation of Crimea to the Russian Federation.
Secondary keywords: international investment law;investment arbitration;bilateral investment treaties;belligerent occupation;Russo-Ukrainian war;Crimea;Tuje naložbe (mednarodno pravo);Mednarodna arbitraža;Vojaška okupacija;Mednarodno vojno pravo;Ukrajina;Rusija;Univerzitetna in visokošolska dela;
Type (COBISS): Master's thesis/paper
Study programme: 0
Embargo end date (OpenAIRE): 1970-01-01
Thesis comment: Univ. v Ljubljani, Pravna fak.
Pages: VIII, 48 f.
ID: 19818230