Neckarwestheim / Winnipeg / Washington / D.C. / Amsterdam / Hamburg / New York / Berlin / /
Company
E.ON / Environmental Policy Germany / MTD Chile S.A. / Vattenfall AB / Vattenfall Europe AG / Western European / MTD Equity Sdn. / Other Nuclear Companies / Moorburg In 2009 / EnBW / Tecnicas Medioambientales Tecmed S.A. / Krümmel GmbH & Co KG / Vattenfall Europe Nuclear Energy GmbH / Basic Law / RWE AG / Oxford University Press / /
Country
Hungary / Norway / Japan / Pakistan / Canada / Australia / Germany / Deutschland / Mexico / Chile / Russia / United States / Soviet Union / /
International Institute / Coal-Fired Power Plant / University Law School / International Centre / /
IndustryTerm
energy policy / nuclear energy / foreign energy / energy / investment protection law / energy sector / energy operators / constitutional law / public law / energy turnaround / energy cooperation / energy supplies / substantive law / predictable case law / secure energy supply / investment law / public law obligation / /
NaturalFeature
River Elbe / /
Organization
International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes / Hamburg Environmental Authority / International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes / Goethe University Frankfurt am Main / Federal Council / Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Technology / Contracting Party / German federal government / Greenpeace / Federal Constitutional Court / European Union / Oxford University / German Parliament / International Institute for Sustainable Development / Georgetown University Law School / World Bank / United Nations / /
The German Nuclear Phase-Out Put to the Test in International Investment Arbitration? Background to the new dispute Vattenfall v. Germany (II) Nathalie Bernasconi-Osterwalder & Rhea Tamara Hoffmann1 In May 2012 the Swed