DENMARK Trends and Developments Contributed by: Johannes Grove Nielsen, Jakob Lentz, Anne Buhl Bjelke and Daniel Myhre Engell, Bech-Bruun Law Firm P/S
the possibilities within international arbitration (where possible) remain advantageous and preferable for investor–state claims. The Klesch case itself highlights the apparent need for protection similar to that under the ECT for non-EU investors that are not currently covered by a BIT with Denmark or the EU. On the other hand, the outcome of the case – especially large damage claims against the states – could also influence the political moti- vation for regulation in the face of global emergency situations. Denmark has already taken the step – along many other nations – to withdraw from the ECT, which high- lights the influence of the climate policy but leaves the future of the ECT and investor protection in the energy sector at risk.
In the future, investors might try to structure invest- ments through companies in countries that have BITs with Denmark so as to secure investment protection rights and the possibility of using international arbi- tration as the forum for dispute resolution of inves- tor–state claims.
46 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook