The current boom of investment arbitration under NAFTA as well as ICSID and other arbitral regimes has demonstrated that the enforcement of treaty obligations has become a standard feature of international law in this particular field of international economic law. The increased probability of actual enforcement of international standards of investment protection is generally welcomed in a system, such as the international legal order, which normally suffers from rather weak enforcement structures. At the same time, the proliferation of investment dispute settlement mechanisms bears its own risks. The concurrent availability of different investment dispute settlement mechanisms may lead to parallel proceedings or to the re-litigation of already decided cases. The CME/Lauder v. Czech Republic arbitrations where the same dispute was arbitrated under two different bilateral investment agreements and the CMS v. Argentina and the LG&E v. Argentina cases where similar issues were addressed demonstrate the inherent danger of a multiplication of procedures if the answers found by different tribunals are contradictory. The proliferation of investment disputes has broader structural implications which need to be addressed in order to secure the viability of this system of international arbitration.

August Reinisch is professor of public international law and European law at the University of Vienna. From 2004 to 2006 he served as Dean for International Relations of the Law School of the University of Vienna. He is also a professional lecturer at the Bologna Center/SAIS of Johns Hopkins University. He currently serves as arbitrator on the In Rem Restitution Panel according to the Austrian General Settlement Fund Law 2001 and as president of an UNCITRAL investment arbitration.

He holds Master's degrees in philosophy (1990) and in law (1988) as well as a doctorate in law (1991) from the University of Vienna and an LL.M. (1989) from NYU Law School. He is admitted to the Bar of New York and Connecticut (since 1990).

Ambassador John Beyrle presented his credentials to President Parvanov as U.S. Ambassador to Bulgaria on September 8, 2005. A career officer in the senior Foreign Service at the rank of Minister-Counselor, Ambassador Beyrle has held policy positions and foreign assignments with an emphasis on U.S. relations with Central and Eastern Europe, Russia, and the USSR since joining the State Department in 1983.

Ambassador Beyrle's overseas service has included two tours at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, most recently as Deputy Chief of Mission. He was Counselor for Political and Economic Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Prague, and a member of the U.S. Delegation to the CFE Negotiations in Vienna. He served an earlier tour at the U.S. Embassy in Bulgaria 1985-87. His Washington assignments include Acting Special Adviser to the Secretary of State for the New Independent States, and Director for Russian, Ukrainian and Eurasian Affairs at the National Security Council. He served as a staff officer to Secretaries of State George Shultz and James Baker, and as a Pearson Fellow and foreign policy adviser to the late Senator Paul Simon.

Ambassador Beyrle received a B.A. degree with honors from Grand Valley State University, and an M.S. degree as a Distinguished Graduate of the National War College.

Ambassador Elena Poptodorova has been the Ambassador of the Republic of Bulgaria since February 2002. Prior to assuming the ambassadorial post, Mrs. Poptodorova has held a number of government positions and served as a member of parliament for 11 years (1990-2001) as a representative of the Bulgarian Socialist Party. She is a signature figure of the new Bulgarian democracy, playing an active role in policy making and known as one of the liberal and maverick members of her party. In the period of June 2001 to August 2002, she led the Directorate of International Organizations and Human Rights. She served as Spokes of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs immediately before becoming Bulgarian Ambassador to the United States.

Ambassador Poptodorova received her B.A. and M.A. in English and Italian Language and Literature from Tthe Kiment Ohridski University of Sofia, Bulgaria. She has a M.A. in international relations and diplomacy from the University of National and World Economy, Sofia, Bulgaria.

This event is co-sponsored by the Forum on Contemporary Europe and the Center for Russian, East European and Eurasian Studies.

Calendar of the Ambassadors' trip in the US

Ambassador Scharioth, who joined the Foreign Service in 1976, previously served as state secretary of the Federal Foreign Office (2002-2006), political director and head of the Political Directorate-General (1999-2002), head of the International Security and North America Directorate (1998-1999), head of the Office of the Foreign Minister (1998), head of the Defense and Security Policy Division at the Federal Foreign Office (1996-1997), and chef de cabinet to the NATO secretary-general in Brussels (1993-1996). In addition, he worked in the International Law Division of the Federal Foreign Office (1990-1993), the German Permanent Mission to the United Nations in New York (1986-1990), the Policy Planning Staff of the Federal Foreign Office (1982-1986), the German Embassy in Ecuador (1979-1982), and the Asia Division, Press Division and State Secretary's Office at the Federal Foreign Office (1977-1979).

Ambassador Scharioth holds a master's of arts degree, a law degree and a doctorate from the Fletcher School of Diplomacy.

Dominique Struye de Swielande became ambassador of Belgium to the United States on December 29, 2006. Ambassador Struye previously served as Belgium's permanent representative to NATO (2002-06), ambassador to Germany (1997-2002), head of cabinet for the state secretary for international cooperation (1995-96), and director-general for administration at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1994-95). In addition, Ambassador Struye was diplomatic counselor and deputy head of cabinet for the prime minister (1992-94), head of cabinet for the minister of foreign affairs (1991-92), director of the European Section at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1990), deputy permanent representative and consul general to the United Nations in Geneva (1987-90), as well as counselor in the cabinet of the foreign affairs minister (1984-87). He has also served postings in Zaire, Zimbabwe, Nigeria and Austria.

Ambassador Struye, who joined the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1974, holds a doctorate in law from the Catholic University of Leuven, a master's of law from the University College London, and a master's of European Law from the University of Ghent.

Event Synopsis:

Ambassador Struye describes the difficulty in defining common security interests between Europe, where ideas of security tend to revolve around individual welfare provided by the state, and the United States, where international terrorism is viewed as the predominant security threat especially after 9/11.

Ambassador Struye then describes three major multilateral institutions and their role in global security: the UN, NATO, and EU. He outlines how the UN has expanded in recent years, both in terms of membership and of issue areas. Belgium has been actively involved in security discussions within the UN, and has shared the disappointment of the US about the limited capacity of the UN to contribute to peace and security in the world. He then addresses NATO's recent evolution in the direction of "out of area" policy, influenced by American pressure for NATO to become a security provider outside of Europe, including as an "instrument of democratization." Finally, Ambassador Struye describes the development of political mechanisms of the European Union which are now moving toward building common foreign and security policy, which the ambassador sees as important even without a European military force.

The ambassador details several challenges, including the difficulty  of evaluating common threats, determining how global a regional organization should be in its policy and how each organization should relate to the others, and a lack of a coherent global vision for how the world should evolve. Two policy areas where Ambassador Struye sees consensus are Afghanistan and missile defense. He concludes that although security policy is hard to define across regions, multilateral organizations are essential and the transatlantic alliance remains indispensable.

A discussion session following the talk included such issues as whether Turkey should be a member of the EU given its UN and NATO membership, how the ambassador views prospects for relations between North Africa and the multilateral institutions he describes, whether sufficient development funding should be available before military interventions in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, and whether the EU might come to serve as a world power in its own right.

U.S.-European relations hit a dramatic and highly visible low point in the weeks leading up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003. With the exception of the British government, which was, of course, supportive of the enterprise, many long-time U.S. allies – including, most prominently, France and Germany – were openly hostile to the American action. Relations have recovered, to a degree at least on an official level, but disagreements persist and resentments fester on both sides of the Atlantic four years after the onset of the war.

Is the damage that has been inflicted on the relationship irreparable in some sense? Or, as on so many other occasions since the establishment of the trans-Atlantic partnership at the mid-point of the last century, is the current unpleasantness likely to prove transitory? While the arrows point in both directions, the evidence continues to mount that the tensions so much in evidence between the two sides over the course of the last half-decade or so transcend disputes over particular issues. If this is true – which I believe it is – then our differences over Iraq are a reflection of something much deeper that is underway within the relationship, and not, in and of themselves, the cause – or even a cause – of the problem.

The real issue, it seems to me, is not whether relations between the United States and Europe can be repaired. Within limits, they can and will be. The more interesting – and important – question is whether the very nature of the relationship has changed (and is continuing to change) and if so, how, why, and with what implications for the future?