This bilingual (English and Spanish) collective book comprises a selection of the papers presented at a bilingual conference entitled ‘EU Policy on International Investment: Uncertainties, Challenges and Opportunities’ hosted by the School of Law of Zaragoza University on 20–21 March 2017. Seven chapters are written in English and nine in Spanish. This obviously broadens the book's appeal in the Spanish speaking countries that are particularly active in Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) while maintaining its usefulness for the rest of the world. Prof. Katia Fach Gómez, editor of the work and main organizer of the above-mentioned conference, is to be credited for having managed to co-ordinate this heterogeneous group of international scholars specialized in this very topical subject.

Often an interesting and lively conference ends up as a sad collective book that merely crams together most of the speeches. However, these proceedings are an example of a successful effort: The conference allowed the different speakers to discuss issues with each other, resulting in a well co-ordinated and balanced volume with cross references between the chapters and solidly grounded arguments.

The book is divided into three parts. Part I deals with general aspects of EU investment policy. Part II is more concrete and incorporates several interesting studies on the EU proposal for a Multilateral Investment Court, one of the main innovations that the EU is bringing into the world of international investment law. Finally, Part III is a ‘catch-all’ section imaginatively entitled ‘Other Actors in International Investment Policy’, collecting different visions of EU investment policy from the perspectives of anti-globalization groups, Russia, China and . . . transparency. Probably, this chapter on transparency would have been better placed in Part I.

In Chapter 1, José G. Prieto analyzes the EU's new competences on investment after the Lisbon Treaty to explore how they are affecting the role of the EU as a global actor. He thinks that a permanent investment dispute resolution system such as those agreed in the Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with Vietnam or Canada will generate a triple fragmentation: substantial, institutional, and methodological. Nevertheless, he appears to believe that the different initiatives to overcome this fragmentation (understood as diversification) may help to reconstruct the legitimacy of international investment adjudication. In parallel, these initiatives will place the EU as a key actor in global economic governance and namely, in the generation of a more pluralistic international legal setting. While one may disagree with the scope of fragmentation predicted by this author, it is difficult to contradict his main conclusion on this emerging key role of the EU.

Four authors have participated in the drafting of Chapters 2 and 4 that assess the jurisdictional conflict between the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) and arbitral investment tribunals. In Chapter 2, Farhadi, Restrepo and Van Waeyenberge regret the dialogue of the deaf between the European Commission and the arbitral bodies as regards intra-EU Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs). This clash may generate serious problems for the enforceability of certain arbitral awards. The authors postulate ‘a pluralistic and pragmatic’ methodologyFootnote ¹ focusing on the effective judicial protection of investors to reconcile both perspectives. However, in the reviewer's opinion, it is difficult to understand how this principled approach would solve many of the specific divergence points between these two positions. Zelazna's contribution (Chapter 4) is less optimistic given today's more elaborated ‘constitutional narrative’ of the CJEUFootnote ² and the ‘high compatibility thresholds’Footnote ³ that it has established for any external jurisdictional body.Footnote ⁴ Based on a neo-functionalist approach, she convincingly anticipates that even negligible technical flaws may generate a cascade of incompatibility problems between ISDS and EU law.

Gatti's Chapter 3 tackles a seemingly technical problem; the provisional application of EU trade and investment agreements. However, it is a matter of utter importance as it is one of the main solutions to the potential blocking of the ratification process of the new generation FTAs that may be caused by their mixity (that is, the required ratification by all member states). This author comforts the pro-European reader: The provisional application produces legal effects, covers a large part of the agreements and cannot be terminated by the member states (but only by the EU). He also refutes any worries of democratic accountability because of the ‘de facto veto power’Footnote ⁵ of the European Parliament. The latter is one of the most contentious findings of his work because the European Parliament's power should be reinforced to fully guarantee the democratic legitimacy of the procedure.Footnote ⁶

López Rodríguez warns us, in Chapter 5, of the many unanswered questions for the determination of the EU's financial responsibility in TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), CETA (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement), and the ISDS mechanisms set out in other treaties. She predicts contradictions between the CJEU and any form of international ISDS affecting the interpretation of EU law even with the creation of a Permanent Investment Court. Chapter 6 by González García analyzes the effects of the new FTAs on domestic administrative law, making this chapter most interesting for constitutional and administrative lawyers. It argues that the EU's FTAs impinge on the democratic legitimacy in law-making, regulatory co-operation between administrations of different states, the role of national Parliaments and domestic courts, and in the end, the European social model. This author considers that the EU is opening the door to a certain degree of Anglo-Saxon legal imperialism. While it is easy to share some of this author's criticism of the liberal approach that has permeated ISDS in the past, his arguments are not always adapted to the new developments that the EU is trying to introduce in its investment agreements.

As already mentioned, Part II of the book (Chapters 7–12) is devoted to the EU proposal for the creation of a Multilateral Investment Court. Most likely, this is the most revolutionary element of EU's new investment policy and a substantial European contribution to the transformation of international investment law. Thus, the subject well deserves the detailed analysis given.

Pascual-Vives, in Chapter 8, rightly places the European project to establish a permanent investment court in the context of the growing consensus on the need to reinforce the role of states and public interests in ISDS. The criticism alleging an imbalance of this system in favor of investors’ rights is widespread and comes not only from third world countries. Better than turning to the exclusive competence of national courts, or the elimination of investors’ locus standi before international arbitral tribunals, this author argues effectively that the European proposal to create a Multilateral Investment Court, as designed by the European Commission, will better serve states’ interest and will be more transparent. In Chapter 9 López Barrero examines the appeals mechanism of the Investment Court System and of the future Multilateral Investment Court that would enhance the coherence and predictability of the case law. Gallego Osuna defends the advantages of the Commission's ISDS proposals (Chapter 10). Olmos Giupponi (Chapter 11) explores the characteristics and powers of arbitrators in mega-regional agreements (such as TTIP, CETA and TPP) to conclude that this clearer definition of their role and functions will certainly improve the ISDS system, if this new jurisdictional model can be consolidated in practice. In this author's opinion, the innovations introduced in the above-mentioned treaties are likely to ameliorate the transparency and predictability of the jurisdictional decisions. While I personally think that the implementation of these new rules will take some time, I agree with this author's view that these new jurisdictional models ‘are here to stay’. One particular aspect of the arbitral role deserves a single chapter (12); measures to enhance diversity and gender equality. Far from being a marginal or secondary aspect, I agree with Fach Gómez that progress in the geographical diversity and gender balance is a key element in the legitimization of ISDS and, in particular, of the Multilateral Investment Court. This author strongly regrets the lack of attention by the EU to these issues in the present proposals and underlines that the EU is obliged to apply its gender equality policies also to ISDS. Not only are these the right principles; it would have beneficial systemic and legitimizing effects (through a better economic outcome, a more plural decision-making, a more empathic approach, etc.).

In the heterogeneous context of Part III the contribution of Vicente Blanco (Chapter 13) stands out for its critical tone. He places investment protection in a historical context. Using the criticisms expressed in particular by the UN independent expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order (Alfred Maurice de Zayas)Footnote ⁷ and by the German Magistrates Association,Footnote ⁸ this author discredits ISDS as a rule of law breakdown and a neo-liberal privilege of foreign investors that is, moreover, hard to reconcile with CJEU case law on external jurisdictional bodies. Less critical is Dias Simoes in Chapter 14 when he describes the transparency policy implemented by the EU in its TTIP negotiations. I share his assessment when he maintains that ‘while the EU Commission has adopted an unprecedented standard of transparency in the negotiations, opposition to the TTIP is unlikely to wane in the near future’Footnote ⁹ since a certain degree of privacy is necessary for any fruitful international negotiation.Footnote ¹⁰

Two particularly relevant case analyzes bring the book to an end: A study of the investment relations between the EU and Russia (Trunk-Federova, Chapter 15) and between the EU and China (Zhang, Chapter 16). Both chapters analyze the feasibility of and the legal and political obstacles to a future investment agreement between the EU and each of these two countries. Their content is more speculative despite the fact that an EU-China investment agreement has been under negotiation since 2013.

The foregoing description clearly shows that the book points to the state of the art in EU investment policy. Drafted immediately after Opinion 2/15,Footnote ¹¹ it goes through all the investment policy options the EU will have to articulate in the near future with a particular in-depth analysis of the Multilateral Investment Court proposal. Some authors are closer to the EU Commission in their arguments while others voice sharp criticism of the EU proposals and of ISDS in general. Thus, the reader will find different but equally learned perspectives on EU investment policy, including those of two of the EU partners (Rusia and China). In sum, this book is an excellent work to keep the reader up to date in the quickly evolving landscape of EU investment regulation and it is suitable for any scholar specializing in EU investment law.