International investment law as it is currently being transformed in the European Union (EU) proves to be an ideal test case for assessing global constitutionalism—whether it is in fact occurring and, if so, the direction of this process. While economic rights are protected by the laws of the EU, many of these rights were protected by bilateral treaties before internal mechanisms existed. The EU is now disregarding the protections that exist outside of the normative framework of the EU treaties, resulting in conflicting ‘constitutional’ rights. Following the decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Achmea, the dispute resolution provisions in intra-EU investment treaties are now considered incompatible with the laws of the EU. The decision was based on ‘mutual trust’ and ‘sincere cooperation’ between the Member States, pointing to formalized constitutional values. These ideals and their reflection in the changing internal and external positions of the EU towards investor-state disputes speak to perceptions of investors’ rights, and thus imply transforming ideas of constitutionality with respect to those rights. Investment tribunals, convened under international treaties, however, have continued to uphold a different position regarding the specific rights of investors. An inevitable conflict emerges in the protection of similar rights, namely the right to certain standards of treatment and dispute resolution for private investors, revealing an incongruence in the realization of constitutional values. The following article examines more closely the incompatibility of these positions and analyses the consequences of these actions for the progression of a globally-relevant constitutionalism.

中文翻译：

---

矛盾的立宪观念：欧盟和国际视野下的投资保护

目前正在欧盟 (EU) 进行改革的国际投资法被证明是评估全球宪政主义的理想测试案例——它是否真的发生了，如果发生了，这个过程的方向。虽然经济权利受到欧盟法律的保护，但其中许多权利在内部机制存在之前就受到双边条约的保护。欧盟现在无视存在于欧盟条约规范框架之外的保护措施，导致“宪法”权利相互冲突。根据欧盟法院在 Achmea 案的裁决，欧盟内部投资条约中的争议解决条款现在被认为不符合欧盟法律。该决定是基于成员国之间的“相互信任”和“真诚合作”，指向正式的宪法价值观。这些理想及其反映在欧盟对投资者与国家争端不断变化的内部和外部立场中，反映了对投资者权利的看法，从而意味着对这些权利的合宪性观念的转变。然而，根据国际条约召集的投资法庭在投资者的特定权利方面继续坚持不同的立场。类似权利的保护不可避免地出现冲突，即私人投资者享有一定标准待遇和争议解决的权利，揭示了宪法价值实现的不一致。