PARTY AUTONOMY AND JURISDICTION IN INVESTMENT DISPUTES: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN
Abstract
This article explores the scope and limitations of party autonomy in investment disputes through the lens of private international law (PIL). It offers a comparative analysis of the European Union and the Republic of Uzbekistan, examining how each jurisdiction conceptualizes international jurisdiction in investor–State arbitration. While the EU has increasingly restricted arbitral autonomy through the Achmea and Komstroy rulings, Uzbekistan maintains a more liberal and investor-friendly approach. The article evaluates the legal, institutional, and policy implications of these divergent models, proposing a balanced framework that reconciles investor expectations with national legal sovereignty under PIL principles.
Keywords
Party Autonomy, investment arbitration, private international law, jurisdiction, European Union, Uzbekistan, Achmea, Enforcement of Awards, Forum selection.
References
- Schill, Stephan W. The Multilateralization of International Investment Law. Cambridge University Press, 2009.
- Dolzer, Rudolf and Schreuer, Christoph. Principles of International Investment Law, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, 2012.
- CJEU, Slowakische Republik v. Achmea BV, Case C284/16, Judgment of 6 March 2018, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158.
- CJEU, Republic of Moldova v. Komstroy, Case C741/19, Judgment of 2 September 2021, ECLI:EU:C:2021:655.
- United Nations. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention), 1958. Available at: https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/conventions/foreign_arbitral_awards
- Republic of Uzbekistan. Law on Investments and Investment Activities, No. ZRU-598 of 25 December 2019. Available at: https://lex.uz/docs/4662953
- Berman, George A. “The Globalization of Jurisdiction and the Limits of Territorial Sovereignty” Texas International Law Journal 54 (2019): 1–40.