The Outsized Costs of Investor–State Dispute Settlement [AIB Insights Vol 16 No 1 (2016 Q1)]
نویسنده
چکیده
AIB Insights Vol. 16, No. 1 The negoTiaTion of several mega-TreaTies in 2015, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), and other regional agreements, has generated substantial public discussion about the protections and privileges afforded to multinational enterprises through the investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism in these treaties. ISDS has increasingly raised concerns among certain governments and civil society groups, particularly as a growing number of ISDS cases involve investors challenging a range of governmental measures taken in good faith and in the public interest, including measures related to environmental protection, public health and safety, and financial stability. Even representatives of international businesses – the purported beneficiaries of these texts – have voiced concerns about the costs of ISDS proceedings, uncertainty regarding outcomes of disputes, and an absence of rules to ensure the independence and impartiality of arbitrators.
منابع مشابه
Is It Chilly Out There? International Investment Agreements and Government Regulatory Autonomy [AIB Insights Vol 16 No 1 (2016 Q1)]
AIB Insights Vol. 16, No. 1 ConCerns ThaT inTernaTional invesTmenT agreements (IIAs) impact a government’s right to regulate and lead to “regulatory chill” have once again surfaced in the wake of the negotiations on the Pacific Rim’s Transpacific Partnership (TTP) and the US-EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). These concerns are not new and have persisted since NAFTA Chapt...
متن کاملCurrent Models of Investor State Dispute Settlement Are Bad for Health: The European Union Could Offer an Alternative; Comment on “The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Is It Everything We Feared for Health?”
In this commentary, we endorse concerns about the health impact of the trans-pacific partnership (TPP), paying particular attention to its mechanisms for investor state dispute settlement. We then describe the different, judgeled approach being advocated by the European Commission team negotiating the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, arguing that, while not perfect, it offers si...
متن کاملInternational Trade and Investment Agreements: Sovereignty at Bay in the 21st Century? [AIB Insights Vol 16 No 1 (2016 Q1)]
AIB Insights 3 The rules of The game for international business (IB) are increasingly set in bilateral and multilateral treaties between nation states. Throughout the second half of the 20th century, this regulatory framework has evolved to facilitate international business, and thus to enable economic globalization. Yet, many treaties have been controversial as citizens do not appreciate their...
متن کاملIs It Time to Say Farewell to the ISDS System?; Comment on “The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Is It Everything We Feared for Health?”
Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) continues to plague health-oriented government regulation. This is particularly reflected in recent challenges to tobacco control measures through bilateral investment agreements. There are numerous reform proposals circulating within the public health community. However, I suggest that perhaps it is time for the community to explore a stronger position ...
متن کاملCurrent Models of Investor State Dispute Settlement Are Bad for Health: The European Union Could Offer an Alternative
In this commentary, we endorse concerns about the health impact of the trans-pacific partnership (TPP), paying particular attention to its mechanisms for investor state dispute settlement. We then describe the different, judge-led approach being advocated by the European Commission team negotiating the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, arguing that, while not perfect, it offers s...
متن کامل