¿Sigue habiendo espacio en el arbitraje de inversiones para las objeciones jurisdiccionales basadas en la naturaleza intra‐UE de la controversia?comentario sobre la opinión disidente del árbitro M.G. Kohen en el asunto Adamakopoulos y otros c. Chipre

Abstract

The dissenting opinion of the arbitrator M.G. Kohen in Adamakopoulos et al. v. Cyprus shows that the debate on the relevance of jurisdictional objections based on the intra‐EU nature of investment arbitration disputes, contrary to the impression one might draw from arbitral case‐law which sistematically rejects them, is not definitively closed or overcome. The reasoning used to support its dissenting opinion is of great interest and reveals, on the one hand, the need to adapt the arguments of the arbitral tribunals to the specific circumstances of each controversy and, on the other, to improve the motivation of the arbitration decisions given the complexity of the matter. All this, without losing sight of the process of ratification, approval or acceptance of the Agreement for the Termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties between the Member States of the European Union, which will completely redesign the scenario in which this debate takes place.