The decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Slovak Republic v Achmea dealt a major blow to the predictability of the legal regime for the protection of foreign investments, whilst failing to offer a realistic, clear and sustainable solution for the protection of investments within the European single market. Commentators have mainly considered its implications from the perspective of the European Union or International Investment Law, and the potential conflict of regimes. This article offers a different approach, arguing that a reading of Achmea based on a moderate version of legal pluralism could adequately respond to the legitimate concerns about the case from both international and European legal perspectives. It is argued that the imprecision of the decision is in fact constructive ambiguity, allowing a sufficient margin of appreciation for all stakeholders and avoiding direct confrontation between the European and international legal orders. Recent developments, such as the innovative EU agreement for the termination of intra-EU BITs, point to new opportunities for ordering pluralism in the Achmea saga.

中文翻译：

---

在 ACHMEA 之后协调国际投资法和欧盟法

欧盟法院在斯洛伐克共和国 v Achmea对保护外国投资的法律制度的可预测性造成重大打击，同时未能为保护欧洲单一市场内的投资提供现实、明确和可持续的解决方案。评论者主要从欧盟或国际投资法的角度考虑其影响，以及潜在的制度冲突。本文提供了一种不同的方法，认为阅读阿奇米亚基于温和版本的法律多元化，可以从国际和欧洲法律角度充分回应对该案的合理关注。有人认为，该决定的不精确性实际上是建设性的模棱两可，为所有利益相关者提供了充分的理解余地，并避免了欧洲和国际法律秩序之间的直接对抗。最近的事态发展，例如关于终止欧盟内部双边投资条约的创新性欧盟协议，为在欧盟中实现多元化指明了新的机会。阿奇米亚传奇。