English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The application and implications of the principle of autonomy for international investment agreements concluded by the Member States and the European Union (EU) has become a recurrent theme before the Court of Justice of the European Union. The decisions in  Achmea  and  Opinion 1/17  show that autonomy unfolds differently in intra- and extra-EU investment relations and can only be preserved in the latter context. The present article examines this difference and, in light of  Opinion 1/17 , seeks to explain how and why the autonomy of EU law can be preserved for international investment agreements through careful treaty design. In addition, it sheds some light on the practical consequences for the EU’s and the Member States’ external investment relations.

Autonomy and international investment agreements after Opinion 1/17