20.500.12556/RUL-174131 Zatrjevanje odgovornosti investitorjev za spoštovanje mednarodnega okoljskega prava pred investicijskimi arbitražami Attributing investors’ responsibility for compliance with international environmental law in investment arbitration Magistrsko diplomsko delo analizira, v kolikšni meri sistem investicijske arbitraže državam omogoča obrambo njihovih obveznosti po mednarodnem okoljskem pravu. Izhodišče je, da so primarni naslovniki okoljskih obveznosti države, ki imajo dolžnost regulacije zasebnikov. Mednarodno okoljsko in investicijsko pravo nista v razmerju lex specialis, zato je nujna njuna skladna razlaga. To odpira prostor za krepitev pravice držav do regulacije v javnem interesu, kar se kaže v slojeviti zasnovi možnosti zatrjevanja odgovornosti investitorjev. V prvem, defenzivnem sloju je vse bolj uveljavljena doktrina oblastnih pristojnosti, ki postopoma izpodriva doktrino učinka ter tribunalom omogoča upoštevanje legitimnih ciljev nediskriminatornih okoljskih ukrepov, kar lahko države razbremeni obveznosti plačila odškodnine. V okviru standarda poštene in pravične obravnave se krepi pomen javnega interesa. Brez posebnih državnih zagotovil investitorji ne morejo več legitimno pričakovati nespremenljivosti regulatornega okvira v škodo javnega interesa. V teoriji zato naraščajo pozivi v prid doktrini prevladujočega javnega interesa, ki bi bila sposobna zagotoviti prevlado javnega interesa nad sicer dokazano legitimnimi pričakovanji investitorjev. Okoljske pogodbene izjeme kot zadnji element defenzivnega sloja, pogosto ne dosegajo želenega učinka in terjajo natančnejše oblikovanje investicijskih sporazumov. Drugi, ofenzivni sloj predstavljajo nasprotni zahtevki držav, pri katerih morajo te premagati tri visoke ovire: pristojnostno, dopustnostno in vsebinsko. Doslej sta bila uspešna le dva okoljska nasprotna zahtevka, saj se preskok vseh treh ovir izkaže za težko dosegljivega. Delo sklene, da praksa vse bolj utrjuje pravico držav do okoljske regulacije, pri čemer se kot najučinkovitejše izkažejo defenzivne možnosti, prag za uspeh nasprotnih zahtevkov pa trenutno ostaja (pre)visok. The thesis examines the extent to which the system of investment arbitration enables States to defend their obligations under international environmental law. It proceeds from the premise that States are the primary addressees of environmental obligations and have a duty to regulate private actors. International environmental and investment law are not in a lex specialis relationship, making their harmonious interpretation essential. This opens space for States’ right to regulate in public interest, which is reflected in a layered structure of avenues for attributing responsibility. In the first, defensive layer, the police powers doctrine has gradually displaced the sole-effects doctrine. It allows tribunals to consider the legitimate objectives of non-discriminatory environmental measures, potentially relieving States from paying compensation. Within the assessment of fair and equitable treatment standard, the role of public interest is increasing. Absent specific assurances by States, investors can no longer legitimately expect regulatory stability where this would undermine public interest. In theory, this has prompted growing calls for a doctrine of overriding public interest, capable of ensuring primacy of public interest over otherwise legitimate expectations of investors. Environmental treaty exceptions, as the final element of the defensive layer, often fall short of the desired effect and call for more precise drafting of investment agreements. The second, offensive layer consists of counterclaims, for which States must overcome three hurdles: jurisdictional, admissibility, and the merits hurdle. To date, only two environmental counterclaims have succeeded, as clearing all three hurdles has proven difficult. The thesis concludes that practice is increasingly consolidating States’ right to regulate vis-à-vis environmental protection, with defensive avenues proving the most effective, while the threshold for success of counterclaims currently remains (too) high. investicijska arbitraža mednarodno okoljsko pravo pravica do regulacije doktrina oblastnih pristojnosti doktrina prevladujočega javnega interesa pogodbene izjeme nasprotni zahtevki investment arbitration international environmental law right to regulate police powers doctrine overriding public interest doctrine contractual exceptions counterclaims true false false Slovenski jezik Angleški jezik Magistrsko delo/naloga 2025-09-27 09:00:32 2025-09-27 09:00:35 2025-11-18 03:54:23 0000-00-00 00:00:00 2025 0 0 0000-00-00 Zaloznikova Objavljeno NiDoloceno 0000-00-00 0000-00-00 0000-00-00 131180 254319107 25749.pdf 25749.pdf 1 E2AEA03CEF05071E5F5BC914918EE361 1b18740e9558b8cccd5e17f0614197a721b34f141cf9bcd19e53366fab0b4038 7b761a72-9b6f-11f0-9328-0050569b8976 https://repozitorij.uni-lj.si/Dokument.php?lang=slv&id=218890 Pravna fakulteta 0 0 0