A European Taxonomy of International Arbitration: Doctrinal and Critical Reflections

KONSTANTINIDIS, Markos

Request a copy

Article (Scientific journals)

A European Taxonomy of International Arbitration: Doctrinal and Critical Reflections

KONSTANTINIDIS, Markos

2026 • In Arbitration, 92 (1), p. 49-70

Peer reviewed

Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10993/67865

Files (1)Send to Details Statistics Bibliography Similar publications

Files

Full Text

Konstantinidis - European Taxonomy of International Arbitration - 2026.pdf

Author postprint (157.24 kB)

Request a copy

All documents in ORBilu are protected by a user license.

Send to

RIS BibTex APA Chicago Permalink X Linkedin

Details

Abstract :

[en] The article critically discusses the stance of the European Union (EU) legal order towards international arbitration. By examining the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU), the article presents a European taxonomy of international arbitration, consisting of (1) commercial-contractual; (2) investment treaty-based; and (3) sports arbitration. It further analyses the taxonomy’s normative underpinnings, which are constitutional in nature and concern the autonomy of the EU legal order, the mutual trust between EU Member States, and the compliance of arbitral awards with EU public policy. In this light, the article argues that the EU-law position appears contextual and insufficiently doctrinally coherent: this points to the need for the CJEU to engage with the importance and function of international arbitration as a system of dispute settlement. In this sense, and within the existing EU constitutional framework, sanctioning a virtually unrestricted judicial review of awards ought to be avoided in favour of preserving the effectiveness of arbitration in Europe.

Disciplines :

European & international law

Author, co-author :

KONSTANTINIDIS, Markos ; University of Luxembourg > Luxembourg Centre for European Law (LCEL) > LCEL Research

External co-authors :

Language :

English

Title :

A European Taxonomy of International Arbitration: Doctrinal and Critical Reflections

Publication date :

February 2026

Journal title :

Arbitration

ISSN :

0003-7877

Publisher :

Wolters Kluwer

Volume :

Issue :

Pages :

49-70

Peer reviewed :

Peer reviewed

Additional URL :

https://kluwerlawonline.com/journalarticle/Arbitration:+The+International+Journal+of+Arbitration,+Mediation+and+Dispute+Management/92.1/AMDM2026016

Available on ORBilu :

since 24 February 2026

Statistics

Number of views

41 (4 by Unilu)

Number of downloads

0 (0 by Unilu)

More statistics

Scopus citations^®

Scopus citations^®
without self-citations

Bibliography

Literature on this is vast. Indicatively, see Michael Mustill, The New Lex Mercatoria: The First Twenty-Five Years, 4 Arb. Int’l 86 (1988), doi: 10.1093/arbitration/4.2.86; Julian Lew, Achieving the Dream: Autonomous Arbitration, 22 Arb. Int’l 279 (2006), doi: 10.1093/arbitration/22.2.179; Jan Paulsson, The Idea ofArbitration (oxford University Press 2013); and Mikaël schinazi, The Three Ages ofInternational Commercial Arbitration (Cambridge University Press 2021).
Prominently, see the role ofstates in drafting the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (adopted 10Jun. 1958, entered into force 7 Jun. 1959) 330 UNTS 3 (New York Convention); and the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (adopted 18 Mar. 1965, entered into force 14 Oct. 1966) 575 UNTS 159 (ICSID Convention). For historical accounts, see for instance, Pieter Sanders, A Twenty Years’ Review of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 13 Int’l Law. 269 (1979); and Taylor St John, The Rise of Investor-State Arbitration: Politics, Law and Unintended Consequences (Oxford University Press 2018).
Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2012] OJ C326/47.
Compare, infra s. 2.2 as regards investment treaty arbitration.
Case C-190/89, Marc Rich & Co AG v. Società Italiana Impianti PA [1991] ECR I-3855.
See Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1968) OJ L 299/32. It has since been, in large part, superseded by Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 of 22 Dec. 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters [2001] OJ L12/1 (Brussels I Regulation); and, as currently in force, Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 Dec. 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement ofjudgments in civil and commercial matters [2012] OJ L351/1 (Brussels I Regulation Recast).
See in particular, Marc Rich, supra n. 5, paras 17—18, with particular reference to the New York Convention, supra n. 2.
Marc Rich, supra n. 5, para. 19.
Ibid., para. 26.
Case C-190/89 Marc Rich & Co AGv. Società Italiana Impianti, Opinion of AG Darmon [1991] ECR I-3855, paras 100—101.
Case C-185/07 Allianz SpA and Generali Assicurazioni Generali SpA v. West Tankers Inc [2009] ECR I-663.
Ibid., paras 22—23. Brussels I Regulation, supra n. 6 effectively replaced the provisions of the Brussels Convention. For more, see supra n. 6.
West Tankers, supra n. 11, para. 24.
Case C-126/97, Eco Swiss China Time Ltd v. Benetton International NV [1999] ECR I-3055.
Ibid., paras 31—41. The case concerned, more specifically, Art. 101 TFEU, which prohibits agreements and concerted practices between undertakings in the EU internal market. For more, see Assimakis Komninos, Arbitration and EU Competition Law, in International Antitrust Litigation: Conflict of Laws and Coordination (Jürgen Basedow, Stéphanie Francq & Laurence Idot eds, Hart Publishing 2011); and Assimakis Komninos & Maria Kamvysi, Arbitration and EU Competition Law: Latest Developments, in Laurence Idot Liber Amicorum: Concurrence et Europe — Volume I (Christophe Lemaire & Francesco Martucci eds, Concurrences 2022).
Eco Swiss, supra n. 17, para. 36.
See ibid., paras 38—39.
Case C-168/05, Elisa María Mostaza Claro v. Centro Móvil Milenium SL [2006] ECR I-10421.
Case C-40/08. Asturcom Telecomunicaciones SL v. Cristina Rodríguez Nogueira [2009] ECR I-9579.
As the article will explain below, this does not apply to sports arbitration, even though it is also formally contractual.
In addition to Eco Swiss, supra n. 17, para. 35 and Mostaza Claro, supra n. 22, para. 34, also see Case C-124/21 P, International Skating Union v. European Commission (ISU), EU:C:2023:1012, para. 193; and Case C-600/23, Royal Football Club Seraing v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and others, EU:C:2025:617, para. 84.
Compare, Case C-284/16, Slovak Republic v. Achmea BV, EU:C:2018:158, para. 55; ISU, supra n. 25, para. 193; and Seraing, supra n. 25, paras 80—81. These cases will be further discussed in the following sections.
Achmea, supra n. 26.
Energy Charter Treaty (adopted 17 Dec. 1994, entered into force 16 Apr. 1998) 2080 UNTS 100; and Case C-741/19, Republic of Moldova v. Komstroy LLC, EU:C:2021:655, para. 66. This finding has been described as merely obiter, as it was arguably not strictly necessary in order to answer the referred question; see Alan Dashwood, Republic of Moldova v. Komstroy LLC: Arbitration under Article 26 ECT Outlawed in Intra-EU Disputes by Obiter Dictum, 47 Eur. L. Rev. 127 (2022). The present article nevertheless accepts it as expressing the Court’s view on the matter.
Achmea, supra n. 26, para. 55; Komstroy, supra n. 29, para. 59.
The section draws from Mark Konstantinidis, Intra-EU Investment Contract Arbitration After Achmea, 74 Int’l & Comp. L. Q. 225, doi: 10.1017/S002058932500003X.
Achmea, supra n. 26, para. 55; Komstroy, supra n. 29, para. 59; Case C-638/19 P, European Commission v. European Food SA, EU:C:2022:50, para. 144.
Achmea, supra n. 26, para. 55; Komstroy, supra n. 29, para. 59; see also to this effect, Case C-109/20, Poland v. PL Holdings Sàrl, EU: C:2021:875, para. 45; European Food, supra n. 32, para. 144.
Case C-741/19, Republic of Moldova v. Komstroy, EU:C:2021:164, Opinion of AG Szpunar, paras 60—61.
ISU, supra n. 25, para. 193.
Seraing, supra n. 25, paras 80—81. See Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland, App Nos 40575/10 and 67474/10 (ECtHR 2 Oct. 2018), para. 96.
PL Holdings, supra n. 33, paras 46—47 and 54.
For more, see Konstantinidis, supra n. 31, at 238—240.
The Court’s reliance on Mostaza Claro, a case on consumer arbitration, to recall the stance of the EU legal order towards commercial arbitration, further reveals that ‘commercial arbitration’ is often considered to be synonymous with all forms of contract-based arbitration.
Achmea, supra n. 26, para. 54, referring to Eco Swiss, supra n. 17, paras 35—36 and 40; Mostaza Claro, supra n. 22, paras 34—39. Also see Komstroy, supra n. 29, para. 58.
Achmea, supra n. 26, para. 55; Komstroy, supra n. 29, para. 59.
See Art. V(1)—(2) New York Convention, supra n. 2.
See ICSID Convention, supra n. 2.
See Art. 52(1) ICSID Convention.
As of 30 Jun. 2025, there were 165 Signatory and Contracting States to the ICSID Convention. As of the same date, there have been 957 arbitration cases governed under the ICSID Convention; ICSID, The ICSID Caseload — Statistics: Issue 2025-2 (27 Aug. 2025), https://icsZd.worldbank.org/resources/publications/icsid-caseload-statistics (accessed 15 Dec. 2025).
Seraing, supra n. 25; and ISU, supra n. 25.
Seraing, supra n. 25, para. 93.
See ibid., paras 92 and 96; and ISU, supra n. 25, paras 193, 195 and 225.
Seraing, supra n. 25, para. 93.
See Case AT.40208 International Skating Union’s Eligibility Rules, Commission Decision C(2017) 8240 final (8 Dec. 2017), paras 271—272; referenced by the CJEU in ISU, supra n. 25, para. 199. Also see C-600/23, Royal Football Club Seraing v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association and others, Opinion of AG Capeta, EU:C:2025:24, paras 76—79.
See Art. 47 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [2012] OJ C326/391; and Art. 19 (1) TEU.
Seraing, supra n. 25, paras 99—100.
See notably, Case 26/62, Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen [1963] ECR 1,12; Case 6/64, Flaminio Costa v. ENEL [1964] ECR 585, 594; and Case 11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbHv. Einfuhr-und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel [1970] ECR 1125, para. 3.
See Marise Cremona, Structural Principles and their Role in EU External Relations, in Structural Principles in EU External Relations Law 15—16 (Marise Cremona ed., Hart Publishing 2018); and Takis Tridimas, The General Principles of EU Law and the Europeanisation of National Laws, 13 Rev. Eur. Admin. L. 5, 9 and 11-13 (2020), doi: 10.7590/187479820X15930701852193.
This trend has been initiated in Opinion 1/91 [1991] ECR I-6079 and arguably culminated in Opinion 2/13 of 18 Dec. 2015, EU:C:2014:2454.
Achmea, supra n. 26, para. 39; Komstroy, supra n. 29, paras 48-50; PL Holdings, supra n. 33, paras 46-47, 49 and 52; European Food, supra n. 32, paras 139, 141 and 144.
Achmea, supra n. 26, para. 43; Komstroy, supra n. 29, paras 51-53; European Food, supra n. 32, para. 142. To this effect, also see PL Holdings, supra n. 33, para. 46.
Achmea, supra n. 26, para. 50; Komstroy, supra n. 29, paras 54-56; European Food, supra n. 32, para. 142.
In the extra-EU context, the Court found that the investor-state arbitration mechanism under the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement was compatible with the principle of autonomy; see Opinion 1/17 of30 Apr. 2019, EU:C:2019:341, paras 120-136 in particular.
ISU, supra n. 25, para. 188; and Seraing, supra n. 25, para. 82.
For an overview, see Thomas Wischmeyer, Generating Trust Through Law? Judicial Cooperation in the European Union and the ‘Principle of Mutual Trust’, 17 German LJ. 339 (2016), doi: 10.1017/S2071832200019805; and Cecilia Rizcallah, The Challenges to Trust-Based Governance in the European Union: Assessing the Use of Mutual Trust as a Driver of EU Integration, 15 Eur. LJ. 37 (2019), doi: 10. 1111/eulj.12303. By way of illustration, see Case 46/76, WJG Bauhuis v. Netherlands [1977] ECR 5; Joined Cases C-187/01 and C-385/01, Hüseyin Gözütok and Klaus Brügge [2003] ECR I-1345; Case C-399/11, Stefano Melloni v. Ministerio Fiscal, EU:C:2013:107, para. 63; and Joined Cases C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU, Pál Aranyosi and Robert Cäldararu, EU:C:2016:1981.
Opinion 2/13, supra n. 57, para. 192. Also see Opinion 2/13, supra n. 57, para. 191; Joined Cases C-411/10 and C-493/10, NS v. Secretary of State for the Home Department and ME and others v. Refugee Applications Commissioner [2011] ECR I-13905, paras 78—80; and Melloni, supra n. 63, paras 37 and 63.
Opinion 2/13, supra n. 57, para. 167.
See Achmea, supra n. 26, paras 33—34, referencing Opinion 2/13, supra n. 57, paras 167—168.
Achmea, supra n. 26, para. 58. Emphasis added.
PL Holdings, supra n. 33, para. 55. Also see PL Holdings, supra n. 33, para. 46, which referenced Achmea, supra n. 26, para. 58.
Seraing, supra n. 25, para. 87, referencing Achmea, supra n. 26, para. 33.
Opinion 1/17, supra n. 61, para. 129. As regards autonomy, see Opinion 1/17, supra n. 61, para. 161.
Opinion 1/17, Opinion of AG Bot, delivered on 29 Jan. 2019, EU:C:2019:72, paras 107 and 208.
ISU, supra n. 25, para. 188; and Seraing, supra n. 25, para. 82.
This has already been discussed in supra s. 2.3 with regard to sports arbitration in light of Seraing, supra n. 25, paras 99—100.
See Seraing, supra n. 25, para. 83.
See Achmea, supra n. 26, paras 50—54, culminating in para. 55 which states as follows: ‘In those circumstances, the considerations set out in the preceding paragraph relating to commercial arbitration cannot be applied to arbitration proceedings such as those’ considered by the Court in Achmea.
See supra ss 3.1 and 3.2.
Eco Swiss, supra n. 17 para. 37.
Mostaza Claro, supra n. 22, para. 35.
ISU, supra n. 25, para. 193.
ISU, supra n. 25, paras 193—194.
Case C-567/14, Genentech Inc v. Hoechst GmbH and Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Opinion of AG Wathelet, EU:C:2016:177, para. 58.
Case C-567/14, Genentech Inc v. Hoechst GmbH and Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, EU:C:2016:526.
Seraing, Opinion of AG Capeta, supra n. 52, para. 113.
Seraing, supra n. 25, paras 84—85. Also see Seraing, supra n. 25, para. 117.
Seraing, supra n. 25, paras 100 and 108.
To this effect, see Seraing, supra n. 25, paras 118—124.
Ibid., para. 82; and ISU, supra n. 25, para. 188.
Eco Swiss, supra n. 17, para. 36.
Seraing, Opinion of AG Capeta, supra n. 52, paras 109—110.
See Eco Swiss, supra n. 17, para. 36; and ISU, supra n. 25, para. 193, regarding Arts 101—102 TFEU.
Mostaza Claro, supra n. 22, paras 35—38. The Court noted that, subject to national procedural law governing applications for the annulment of an award that is incompatible with national public policy, a court ‘must also grant such an application where it is founded on failure to comply with Community rules of this type’; it then referenced, in particular, the ‘importance of consumer protection’ in laying down Art. 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 Apr. 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts [1993] OJ L 95/29. Emphasis added.
See Arts 45, 56 and 63 TFEU respectively; and Seraing, supra n. 25, para. 89.
See Case C-802/24, NV Reibel v. JSC VO Stankoimport, pending; and Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of31 Jul. 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view ofRussia’s actions destabilizing the situation in Ukraine [2014] OJ L 229/1. See in particular, Art. 11 of the regulation, which prohibits claims in connection with any contract the performance of which has been affected by covered restrictive measures.
See Art. 215 TFEU.
Agreement for the termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties between the Member States of the European Union [2020] OJ L169/1.
See Decision (EU) 2025/1904 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 Sep. 2025 on the approval by the Union of the Agreement on the interpretation and application of the Energy Charter Treaty [2025] OJ L, and Agreement annexed thereto.
See Art. 16(3) of the UEFA Authorization Rules governing International Club Competition (21 Jun. 2024), https://documents.uefa.com/v/u/8NRorgWVby0A4GBnfk3p8g. An amendment of R28 of the CAS Code would likely also be necessary to give full effect to the UEFA change in practice, https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Code_2025 EN_.pdf.
Most of the case law examined resulted from such proceedings. Compare, ISU, supra n. 25, which resulted from annulment proceedings under Art. 263 TFEU, whereby an applicant requests the CJEU to annul an EU act (in this instance, a decision of the European Commission).
Case C-244/25, Cabify España SLU v. Auro New Transport Concept SL, pending.
ISU, supra n. 25, para. 188; and Seraing, supra n. 25, para. 82. Emphasis added.