With the foreign investment competence in the Lisbon Treaty, the EU has set an objective to develop a coherent international investment policy. This policy is now being implemented through EU (mixed) international investment agreements and the Member States’ extra-EU BITs concluded with third countries in the post-Lisbon period. Both set of agreements serve to replace or supplement the existing extensive network of pre-Lisbon extra-EU BITs of Member States. As a matter of principle, a coherent EU policy could ensure the same level of protection for all EU economic operators investing abroad, contributing to the uniformity of the Common Commercial Policy. Further, it supports the EU in the global reform of international investment governance. Ultimately, a coherent external approach of the EU and its Member States could improve consistency between the regulation of investment internally and externally, thus endorsing the EU vision of constitutionalism in international law. In this chapter we examine the extent to which the EU has achieved coherence between EU’s and Member States’ investment agreements. We analyse substantive and procedural provisions of pre- and post-Lisbon Member States’ extra-EU BITs and EU international investment agreements in light of primary EU law, the existing transitional arrangements in EU secondary law and the CJEU case-law.

Animals are highly vulnerable in war. However, they are only incidentally protected by international humanitarian law, namely as mere objects (or property), as specially protected objects, as part of the environment, as endangered species, as war weapons, or as means of medical transport, search and rescue. They are neither treated as ‘subjects of protection’ nor are they granted any rights. The research has revealed that the few international humanitarian law provisions that could potentially apply to animals have rarely been enforced or effectively implemented by international courts and tribunals. In light of these general observations, the concluding chapter summarises the key findings of the study. It highlights the main legal challenges that an agenda of protection of animals during warfare faces. It then formulates recommendations for addressing these challenges with a view to strengthening and developing the legal framework.