The Review of National Competition Authorities’ Acts in Investment Arbitration: Setting Limits to ‘Economic Lawfare’ in the 21st Century

  • José Gustavo Prieto Muñoz
Part of the European Yearbook of International Economic Law book series (EUROYEAR)


This chapter explores what could be an appropriate standard of review that investment arbitrators could use to evaluate the lawfulness of acts of national competition authorities in the context of “economic lawfare”. The interest in international investment arbitration and competition law adjudicators is justified since both are empowered with effective coercion mechanisms. Also, both fields have developed a highly specialized legal vocabulary to codify economic transactions. Therefore, in the context of current developments especially with the intervention of state-owned enterprises in the markets of other states, it is possible that these two fields could be used (or abused) by the states involved in an international conflict. These dynamics are explored with reference to the arbitration case between Gazprom, the state-owned enterprise of Russia and the Ukrainian competition authority. The chapter argues in general for the need of a three-principles standard of review to examine the acts of national competition authorities in light of the current standards of treatment contained in international investment agreements (IIAs).


Global legal pluralism Economic lawfare International investment arbitration National competition authorities 


  1. Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine [Антимонопольний Комітет України Рішення] (2016) Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine - Gazprom, About the Violation Legislation on Protection Economic Competition and Imposing a PenalizationGoogle Scholar
  2. Dill J (2017) Abuse of law on the twenty-first-century battlefield: a typology of lawfare. In: Gross ML, Meisels T (eds) Soft war: the ethics of unarmed conflict. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Dunlap C (2005) Remarks at the Keystone Leadership Summit. The Reporter Keystone EditionGoogle Scholar
  4. European Comission (2016) State-owned enterprises in the EU: lessons learnt and ways forward in a post-crisis context. European ComissionGoogle Scholar
  5. Førland TE (1993) The history of economic warfare: international law, effectiveness, strategies. J Peace Res 30(2):151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gross ML, Meisels T (2017) Soft war the ethics of unarmed conflict. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  7. Koskenniemi M (2009) Legal fragmentation(s): an essay on fluidity and form. In: Calliess C, Fischer-Lescano A, Wielsch D, Zumbansen P (eds) Soziologische Jurisprudenz: Festschrift Für Gunther Teubner, De Gruyter Recht, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  8. Lowenfeld A (2009) International economic law, 2nd edn. Repr. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  9. Martinez C, Martinez L (2015) Proportionality in investment treaty arbitration and beyond: an “irresistible attraction”? BCDR Int Arbitr Rev 2:261–288Google Scholar
  10. Nazzini R (2011) Parallel proceedings before the tribunal and the courts/competition authorities. In: Blanke G, Landolt P (eds) EU and US antitrust arbitration: a handbook for practitioners. Kluwer Law InternationalGoogle Scholar
  11. OECD (2004a) The financial war on terrorism. OECDGoogle Scholar
  12. OECD (2004b) Working papers on international investment, 2004/04. “Indirect Expropriation” and the “Right to Regulate” in international investment law. OECDGoogle Scholar
  13. Russian Energy Firm Gazprom Reportedly Notifies Ukraine of Bit Claim, IA REPORTER2018Google Scholar
  14. Sweet AS (2010) Investor-state arbitration: proportionality’s new frontier. Law Ethics Human Rights 4(1):48–76Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • José Gustavo Prieto Muñoz
    • 1
  1. 1.Università degli Studi di TorinoTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations