DOCSLIB.ORG

PCA Case No. AA 227 in the MATTER of an ARBITRATION BEFORE a TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED in ACCORDANCE with ARTICLE 26 of the ENERGY CH

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PCA Case No. AA 227 in the MATTER of an ARBITRATION BEFORE a TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED in ACCORDANCE with ARTICLE 26 of the ENERGY CH PCA Case No. AA 227 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BEFORE A TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 26 OF THE ENERGY CHARTER TREATY AND THE 1976 UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES - between - YUKOS UNIVERSAL LIMITED (ISLE OF MAN) - and - THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION FINAL AWARD 18 July 2014 Tribunal The Hon. L. Yves Fortier PC CC OQ QC, Chairman Dr. Charles Poncet Judge Stephen M. Schwebel Mr. Martin J. Valasek, Assistant to the Tribunal Mr. Brooks W. Daly, Secretary to the Tribunal Ms. Judith Levine, Assistant Secretary to the Tribunal Registry Permanent Court of Arbitration Representing Claimant: Representing Respondent: Professor Emmanuel Gaillard Dr. Claudia Annacker Dr. Yas Banifatemi Mr. Lawrence B. Friedman Ms. Jennifer Younan Mr. David G. Sabel SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP Mr. Matthew D. Slater Mr. William B. McGurn Mr. J. Cameron Murphy CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP Mr. Michael S. Goldberg Mr. Jay L. Alexander Dr. Johannes Koepp Mr. Alejandro A. Escobar BAKER BOTTS LLP TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF DEFINED TERMS ..................................................................................................................... xiii INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ................................................................................................................ 2 A. COMMENCEMENT OF THE ARBITRATION ................................................................................... 2 B. CONSTITUTION OF THE TRIBUNAL ............................................................................................. 3 C. PRELIMINARY PHASE ON JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY ................................................... 4 D. BIFURCATION AND OTHER SCHEDULING MATTERS ................................................................... 5 E. DOCUMENT PRODUCTION AND CONFIDENTIALITY ................................................................... 6 F. HEARING ON THE MERITS .......................................................................................................... 8 G. POST-HEARING PROCEDURES .................................................................................................. 11 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................... 12 A. THE PARTIES TO THESE PROCEEDINGS .................................................................................... 13 1. Claimants and Related Entities ...................................................................................... 13 2. Respondent ..................................................................................................................... 13 B. OAO YUKOS OIL COMPANY .................................................................................................... 13 C. THE RUSSIAN LOW-TAX REGION PROGRAM ........................................................................... 14 D. CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS ......................................................................................................... 16 E. ADDITIONAL MEASURES .......................................................................................................... 17 1. Alleged Frustration of Merger Between Yukos and Sibneft .......................................... 18 2. Tax Reassessments for Years 2000–2004 ...................................................................... 18 3. Auction of YNG ............................................................................................................. 19 4. Bankruptcy Proceedings ................................................................................................ 20 5. Withdrawal of PwC’s Audits ......................................................................................... 20 III. PARTIES’ WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ........................................................................................... 20 A. CLAIMANTS’ SKELETON ARGUMENTS ..................................................................................... 21 B. RESPONDENT’S SKELETON ARGUMENTS ................................................................................. 34 IV. PARTIES’ REQUESTS FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................. 48 A. RELIEF REQUESTED BY CLAIMANTS ........................................................................................ 48 B. RELIEF REQUESTED BY RESPONDENT ...................................................................................... 48 - i - V. APPLICABLE LAW ......................................................................................................................... 49 A. PROCEDURAL LAW .................................................................................................................. 49 B. SUBSTANTIVE LAW .................................................................................................................. 49 1. Energy Charter Treaty .................................................................................................... 49 2. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties ................................................................... 53 VI. SUMMARY OF WITNESS TESTIMONY ...................................................................................... 54 A. CLAIMANTS’ WITNESSES ......................................................................................................... 55 1. Mr. Jacques Kosciusko-Morizet .................................................................................... 55 2. Mr. Vladimir Dubov ...................................................................................................... 57 3. Mr. Frank Rieger ............................................................................................................ 59 4. Dr. Andrei Illarionov ..................................................................................................... 61 5. Mr. Leonid Nevzlin ........................................................................................................ 64 6. Mr. Bruce Misamore ...................................................................................................... 67 7. Mr. Steven Theede ......................................................................................................... 69 8. Mr. Brent Kaczmarek ..................................................................................................... 72 9. Mr. Philip Baker QC ...................................................................................................... 73 10. Mr. Yuri Schmidt ........................................................................................................... 74 11. Dr. Sergei Kovalev ......................................................................................................... 75 B. RESPONDENT’S WITNESSES ..................................................................................................... 76 1. Professor James Dow ..................................................................................................... 76 2. Mr. Oleg Y. Konnov ...................................................................................................... 78 3. Professor Reinier Kraakman .......................................................................................... 81 4. Professor H. David Rosenbloom .................................................................................... 83 5. Professor Thomas Z. Lys ............................................................................................... 85 6. Ms. Felicity Cullen QC .................................................................................................. 87 7. Mr. Dale Hart ................................................................................................................. 88 8. Mr. Polyvios Polyviou ................................................................................................... 89 9. Mr. John Ellison ............................................................................................................. 90 10. Mr. Raymond Gross ....................................................................................................... 91 11. Professor Dr. Albert Jan van den Berg........................................................................... 93 - ii - 12. Professor Stef van Weeghel ........................................................................................... 94 C. THE SO-CALLED “EMPTY CHAIRS” ......................................................................................... 95 1. Individuals that Claimants Wished were Available for Examination ............................ 96 2. Individuals that Respondent Wished were Available for Examination ......................... 97 VII. ISSUES FOR ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 98 VIII. ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENTIARY RECORD ......................................................................... 102 A. THE TAX OPTIMIZATION SCHEME ......................................................................................... 102 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 102 2. The Structure of the Tax Optimization Scheme ..........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Human Rights in Russia 2013
    APPROACHING THE 2014 SOCHI OLYMPICS: AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL’S BRIEF HUMAN RIGHTS IN RUSSIA 2013 SUMMARY: As the 2014 Sochi Olympics approach, the space for human rights in the Russian Federation is rapidly shrinking. Since President Vladimir Putin’s return to office in May 2012 Russian authorities have intensified their assault on basic freedoms and undermined rule of law. New legislation restricts the operation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), criminalizes public actions “committed to insult the religious feelings of believers,” outlaws free expression and activism by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) individuals and their supporters, and increases sanctions for peaceful protest. In the North Caucasus insecurity and volatility persist. Security operations launched in response are marred by systematic human rights violations with near-total impunity for the perpetrators. To see a comprehensive Amnesty International timeline of human rights abuses in Russia visit: http://www.amnestyusa.org/russia/ BRIEF: NGOs Under Attack In July 2012 President Putin signed a new law obligating NGOs receiving overseas funding and involved in undefined “political activities” to register as “foreign agents”. As a result of this legislation, leading human rights NGOs, including Memorial, For Human Rights and Amnesty International itself have been subjected to unplanned inspections resulting in prosecutorial “warnings” and court cases. This particular brand of harassment can result in self-censorship, restriction of activities, or even flight. The conflation of NGOs with “foreign agents” or spies has also resulted in stigmatization and, in some cases, offices being vandalized. More than 200 Russian non-governmental organizations in 50 regions have already undergone inspections, often with devastating effects.
    [Show full text]
  • Harvard University
    HARVARD UNIVERSITY ROBERT AND RENÉE BELFER CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 2000-2001 ANNUAL REPORT 2 Robert and Renée Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs 2000-2001 Annual Report Director’s Foreword 5 Overview From the Executive Director 7 Environment and Natural Resources Program TABLE 8 OF Harvard Information Infrastructure Project 52 CONTENTS International Security Program 71 Science, Technology and Public Policy Program 109 Strengthening Democratic Institutions Project 155 WPF Program on Intrastate Conflict, Conflict Prevention, and Conflict Resolution 177 Events 188 Publications 219 Biographies 241 Robert and Renée Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs 3 2000-2001 Annual Report 4 Robert and Renée Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs 2000-2001 Annual Report Director’s Foreword —————————————♦ For the hub of the John F. Kennedy School’s research, teaching, and training in international security affairs, environmental and resource issues, conflict prevention and resolution, and science and technology policy, the first academic year of the new century has been bracing. According to our mission statement, The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs strives to provide leadership in advancing policy-relevant knowledge about the most important challenges of international security and other critical issues where science, technology, and international affairs intersect. BCSIA’s leadership begins with the recognition of science and technology as driving forces transforming threats and opportunities in international affairs. The Center integrates insights of social scientists, technologists, and practitioners with experience in government, diplomacy, the military, and business to address critical issues. BCSIA involvement in both the Republican and Democratic campaigns. BCSIA was privileged to have senior advisors in both camps in one of the most unforgettable American elections in recent memory.
    [Show full text]
  • The Russia You Never Met
    The Russia You Never Met MATT BIVENS AND JONAS BERNSTEIN fter staggering to reelection in summer 1996, President Boris Yeltsin A announced what had long been obvious: that he had a bad heart and needed surgery. Then he disappeared from view, leaving his prime minister, Viktor Cher- nomyrdin, and his chief of staff, Anatoly Chubais, to mind the Kremlin. For the next few months, Russians would tune in the morning news to learn if the presi- dent was still alive. Evenings they would tune in Chubais and Chernomyrdin to hear about a national emergency—no one was paying their taxes. Summer turned to autumn, but as Yeltsin’s by-pass operation approached, strange things began to happen. Chubais and Chernomyrdin suddenly announced the creation of a new body, the Cheka, to help the government collect taxes. In Lenin’s day, the Cheka was the secret police force—the forerunner of the KGB— that, among other things, forcibly wrested food and money from the peasantry and drove some of them into collective farms or concentration camps. Chubais made no apologies, saying that he had chosen such a historically weighted name to communicate the seriousness of the tax emergency.1 Western governments nod- ded their collective heads in solemn agreement. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank both confirmed that Russia was experiencing a tax collec- tion emergency and insisted that serious steps be taken.2 Never mind that the Russian government had been granting enormous tax breaks to the politically connected, including billions to Chernomyrdin’s favorite, Gazprom, the natural gas monopoly,3 and around $1 billion to Chubais’s favorite, Uneximbank,4 never mind the horrendous corruption that had been bleeding the treasury dry for years, or the nihilistic and pointless (and expensive) destruction of Chechnya.
    [Show full text]
  • Observation of the Presidential Election in the Russian Federation (4 March 2012)
    Parliamentary Assembly Assemblée parlementaire http://assembly.coe.int Doc. 12903 23 April 2012 Observation of the presidential election in the Russian Federation (4 March 2012) Election observation report Ad hoc Committee of the Bureau Rapporteur: Mr Tiny KOX, Netherlands, Group of the Unified European Left Contents Page 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 2. Political and legal context ....................................................................................................................... 2 3. Election administration and voter and candidate registration .................................................................3 4. The campaign period and the media environment.................................................................................. 4 5. Complaints and appeals ......................................................................................................................... 5 6. Election day ............................................................................................................................................ 5 7. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................ 6 Appendix 1 – Composition of the ad hoc committee.................................................................................... 8 Appendix 2 – Programme of the pre-electoral mission (Moscow,
    [Show full text]
  • OON31.P65 19.01.04, 14:04 1 Cyan
    OON31.p65 1 19.01.04, 14:04 Cyan Visit of the UNESCO Director-General, Ko¿tiro Matsuura, to Russia The UNESCO Director- Art in the presence of minis- General visited the Russian ters, including ;irst Deputy ;ederation for the second Prime-Minister of R;, Ms. time 2526 November 2003 Karelova, Minister of ;oreign on the invitation of the Pres- Affairs, Mr. Ivanov, Minister ident of the Russian ;eder- of Culture, Mr. Shvydkoy, as ation, Mr. Vladimir Putin. well as Chairperson of the The programme of the visit Commission of the Russian included a meeting of Mr. ;ederation for UNESCO, Matsuura with Mr. Putin, Mr. ;ortov, Permanent Del- the participation of the egate of the Russian ;edera- UNESCO Director-General tion to UNESCO, Mr. Kala- in the meeting of the Presi- manov, Assistant to the dential Council for Culture UNESCO Director-General and Art, a meeting with the for Culture, Mr. Bouchenaki, ;irst Deputy Prime-Minister Director of the UNESCO of the Russian ;ederation, Mr. Vladimir Putin greets Mr. Ko¿tiro Matsuura Moscow Office, Mr. Quéau, Ms. Galina Karelova, and in the Kremlin and other representatives of participation at the ceremo- the UNESCO Headquarters. ny of awarding Mr. Matsuura with After the meeting with Mr. Putin in the Opening the meeting, President the title of Honorary Professor of Kremlin Ko¿tiro Matsuura made a Moscow State University. speech at the Council for Culture and (To be continued on p. 8) Contents: UNESCO UNA Visit of the UNESCO Director-General, Students and Journalists Discuss the Present Ko¿tiro Matsuura, to Russia .....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Respondent Motion to Dismiss Petition to Confirm Award
    Case 1:14-cv-01996-ABJ Document 24 Filed 10/20/15 Page 1 of 55 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) HULLEY ENTERPRISES LTD., ) YUKOS UNIVERSAL LTD., and ) VETERAN PETROLEUM LTD., ) ) Petitioners, ) ) Case No. 1:14-cv-01996-ABJ v. ) ) THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ) ) Respondent. ) ) RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARDS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s Minute Orders of August 4, 2015 and October 19, 2015, Respondent, the Russian Federation, respectfully submits this motion to dismiss the Petitioners’ Petition to Confirm Arbitration Awards, in its entirety, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Pursuant to Rule 7(a) of the Civil Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Respondent submits herewith a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of its Motion to Dismiss. Respondent also submits the following documents, with exhibits, in further support of its Motion to Dismiss: 1. The Declaration of Gitas Povilo Anilionis, dated October 16, 2015, describing the control structure of SP Russian Trust and Trade (“RTT”) and its role in the acquisition and subsequent transfers of the Yukos shares; Case 1:14-cv-01996-ABJ Document 24 Filed 10/20/15 Page 2 of 55 2. The Declaration of Arkady Vitalyevich Zakharov, dated October 14, 2015, describing the control structure of Menatep Group and IF Menatep and its role, along with RTT, in the acquisition and subsequent transfers of the Yukos shares; 3. The Declaration of Colonel of Justice Sergey A.
    [Show full text]
  • VI Europe–Russia Economic Forum
    VI Europe–Russia Economic Forum Sejm of the Republic of Poland Warsaw, Poland ST OF MAY – ST OF JUNE Under the High Patronage of Grzegorz Schetyna, Marshal of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland Organizer Publisher Foundation Institute for Eastern Studies ul. Solec 85 00–382 Warsaw Tel.: + 48 22 583 11 00 Fax: + 48 22 583 11 50 e–mail: [email protected] www.forum–ekonomiczne.pl Layout BikerStudio www.biker.wns.pl Print Flexergis Sp. z o.o. (Drukarnia BAAD) Warsaw 2011 Contents Programme . 5 Speakers. 19 List of Participants . 55 Programme Programme 6 Programme Programme 7 May 31, 2011 Registration of participants 11:30–12:15 Presentation of the Economic Forum “Russia 2010. Report on Transformation”. Political and Economic 12:15–13:30 Situation in Russia in 2010 Break 13:30–13:45 Partnership for Modernization 13:45–15:15 Lunch 15:15–16:15 Russia in 21st Century. Expectations and Projects 16:15–17:45 Coffee break 17:45–18:00 European Union and Russia: Common Values 18:00–19:30 Reception 20:00 www.economic–forum.pl www.economic–forum.pl 6 Programme Programme 7 June 1, 2011 Energy Industry. Russian Resources and European Security 09:00–10:30 NATO–EU–Russia Relations after the Lisbon Summit 09:00–10:30 Coffee break 10:30–10:45 Europe and Russia in the Global Economy: Opportunities and Threats 10:45–12:15 EU and Russia – Foreign Policy Directions 10:45–12:15 Coffee break 12:15–12:30 EU–Russia. New Perspectives for Partnership and Cooperation 12:30–14:00 Regional Cooperation.
    [Show full text]
  • "Avoid Countries Where Bribery Is Institutionalized"
    "Avoid countries where bribery is institutionalized" “If the world turned upside down, I’d still have real estate” Israel and the UK ally against tax evasion 19/03/2015, 11:31 Gur Megiddo US white collar criminal defense expert Adv. John Pappalardo talks about stronger enforcement on international corruption. Adv. John Pappalardo, an expert in criminal law and white collar criminal defense, has represented many multinational companies, a retired state president and even the Russian oligarch and opposition figure, Mikhail Khodorkovsky. In the 40 years of his legal career, Pappalardo has seen anti-corruption legislation take shape internationally and in the US, and has represented clients in international corruption cases involving many countries from Russia and China and through to Mexico and Gabon. Although the development of anti-corruption legislation internationally hugely influences the operations of multinational companies in developing countries, he says: “There is no law in the universe that will change human nature; there are countries where corruption is institutionalized as a tradition of centuries, where the demand for a bribe is so blatant and clear, you cannot conduct business there in a legal manner. In such cases I advise my clients to keep their distance.” Pappalardo heads the white-collar criminal defense department at law firm Greenberg Traurig, one of the most prominent firms in the US, and one of global renown, employing about 1,800 attorneys in 37 offices worldwide, including an office in Tel Aviv. Pappalardo began his career as a federal prosecutor in the field of white collar crime and advanced to the role of US Attorney for the District of Massachusetts.
    [Show full text]
  • Berezovsky-Judgment.Pdf
    Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWHC 2463 (Comm) Royal Courts of Justice Rolls Building, 7 Rolls Buildings, London EC4A 1NL Date: 31st August 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Case No: 2007 Folio 942 QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION COMMERCIAL COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim Nos: HC08C03549; HC09C00494; CHANCERY DIVISION HC09C00711 Before: MRS JUSTICE GLOSTER, DBE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: Boris Abramovich Berezovsky Claimant - and - Roman Arkadievich Abramovich Defendant Boris Abramovich Berezovsky Claimant - and - Hine & Others Defendants - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Laurence Rabinowitz Esq, QC, Richard Gillis Esq, QC, Roger Masefield Esq, Simon Colton Esq, Henry Forbes-Smith Esq, Sebastian Isaac Esq, Alexander Milner Esq, and Ms. Nehali Shah (instructed by Addleshaw Goddard LLP) for the Claimant Jonathan Sumption Esq, QC, Miss Helen Davies QC, Daniel Jowell Esq, QC, Andrew Henshaw Esq, Richard Eschwege Esq, Edward Harrison Esq and Craig Morrison Esq (instructed by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP) for the Defendant Ali Malek Esq, QC, Ms. Sonia Tolaney QC, and Ms. Anne Jeavons (instructed by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP) appeared for the Anisimov Defendants to the Chancery Actions David Mumford Esq (instructed by Macfarlanes LLP) appeared for the Salford Defendants to the Chancery Actions Jonathan Adkin Esq and Watson Pringle Esq (instructed by Signature Litigation LLP) appeared for the Family Defendants to the Chancery Actions Hearing dates: 3rd – 7th October 2011; 10th – 13th October 2011; 17th – 19th October 2011; 24th & 28th October 2011; 31st October – 4th November 2011; 7th – 10th November 2011; 14th - 18th November 2011; 21st – 23 November 2011; 28th November – 2nd December 2011; 5th December 2011; 19th & 20th December 2011; 17th – 19th January 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding EU Member States' Motivations for Dealing with Russia
    With or Without the EU? Understanding EU Member States’ Motivations for Dealing with Russia at the European or the National Level. Anke Uta Schmidt-Felzmann submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Ph.D 2011 Politics School of Social and Political Sciences College of Social Sciences University of Glasgow ABSTRACT This thesis seeks to explain why European Union (EU) member states choose to pursue their objectives regarding Russia at the EU level or bilaterally. With a systematic analysis of national governments’ choices across different policy issues it helps clarify the motivations underpinning the decision to pursue national objectives at the European or the national level. It thereby contributes to filling a lacuna in the existing literature on EU-Russia relations and the extant research on member states’ foreign policies in the EU context. The contribution to existing scholarship that the thesis makes are: first, it demonstrates that the decision to cooperate, or act at the bilateral level, is not as clear cut as it is often depicted. I show that in most cases it is not a question of either-or. Member states frequently pursue cooperation at the EU level to achieve objectives that they also pursue at the bilateral level. Second, I show that member states’ choices are predominantly influenced by their assessment of the utility of the European and the national route. There is considerably less evidence to suggest that the European level is being privileged as a result of socialisation in the EU, so the length of membership, and thus the duration of their exposure to EU policy-making does not determine a member government’s choice.
    [Show full text]
  • PCA Case No. AA 228 in the MATTER of an ARBITRATION BEFORE a TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED in ACCORDANCE with ARTICLE 26 of the ENERGY CH
    PCA Case No. AA 228 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BEFORE A TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 26 OF THE ENERGY CHARTER TREATY AND THE 1976 UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES - between - VETERAN PETROLEUM LIMITED (CYPRUS) - and - THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION FINAL AWARD 18 July 2014 Tribunal The Hon. L. Yves Fortier PC CC OQ QC, Chairman Dr. Charles Poncet Judge Stephen M. Schwebel Mr. Martin J. Valasek, Assistant to the Tribunal Mr. Brooks W. Daly, Secretary to the Tribunal Ms. Judith Levine, Assistant Secretary to the Tribunal Registry Permanent Court of Arbitration Representing Claimant: Representing Respondent: Professor Emmanuel Gaillard Dr. Claudia Annacker Dr. Yas Banifatemi Mr. Lawrence B. Friedman Ms. Jennifer Younan Mr. David G. Sabel SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP Mr. Matthew D. Slater Mr. William B. McGurn Mr. J. Cameron Murphy CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP Mr. Michael S. Goldberg Mr. Jay L. Alexander Dr. Johannes Koepp Mr. Alejandro A. Escobar BAKER BOTTS LLP TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF DEFINED TERMS ..................................................................................................................... xiii INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ................................................................................................................ 2 A. COMMENCEMENT OF THE ARBITRATION ................................................................................... 2
    [Show full text]
  • Bilateral Disputes Between EU Member States and Russia
    Bilateral Disputes between EU Member States and Russia CEPS Working Document No. 319/August 2009 Mathias Roth Abstract Over the past years, a series of bilateral disputes between EU member states and Moscow have significantly affected EU–Russian relations and exposed sharp internal divisions over the EU’s approach towards Russia. Despite their potential for having a highly disruptive impact on EU foreign policy, the EU still lacks a consensus on how to handle bilateral disputes. This paper employs a case-study approach to provide an in-depth analysis of selected disputes and reviews several questions of importance for the coherence of EU policy towards Russia: What kinds of issues are at the centre of bilateral disputes? What strategies do member states adopt to resolve them? Under what circumstances are disputes raised to the EU level? The paper concludes that the scope of ‘EU solidarity’ in bilateral disputes remains deeply contested and draws on insights from the case studies to propose a set of guidelines for the EU’s approach to bilateral disputes. CEPS Working Documents are intended to give an indication of work being conducted within CEPS research programmes and to stimulate reactions from other experts in the field. Unless otherwise indicated, the views expressed are attributable only to the author in a personal capacity and not to any institution with which he is associated. ISBN 978-92-9079-916-0 Available for free downloading from the CEPS website (http://www.ceps.eu) © Centre for European Policy Studies, 2009 Contents 1. Introduction............................................................................................................................. 1 2. Community competence and EU solidarity in bilateral disputes...........................................
    [Show full text]