To ISDS or not to ISDS: A question of legitimacy in dispute resolution

Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) has gained prominence in recent years with an explosion in the number of investor claims against states. While the evolution of this type of arbitration was expected, its focus and context was not. Investors are currently bringing actions against developed states in unanticipated policy areas. Greece, facing actions from investors challenging its debt haircut and Spain, battling investor challenges to its revamped energy policy are examples of the use of arbitration as a political as well as a dispute resolution tool. It is for this reason why the proposal for the inclusion of ISDS in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) has caused so much heated discussion. This paper examines the recent evolution and likely trajectory of investor state dispute settlement, reflecting on consequences for perceptions of arbitration and its links with politics and economics.

Obligation des États de coopérer en droit international des cours d’eau transfrontaliers : état du droit et étude du cas Chinois

Le principe de coopération est considéré depuis longtemps comme l’une des pierres angulaires du droit international, toutefois, l’existence d’une obligation de coopérer en droit international reste encore controversée. Les ressources en eau, à cause de leur fluidité et de leurs multiples usages, démontrent toujours l’interdépendance humaine. En matière de cours d’eau transfrontaliers, la Convention de New York inclut explicitement dans son texte l’obligation générale de coopérer comme l’un de ses trois principes fondamentaux. Il nous incombe alors de voir quelle obligation de coopérer les États souverains s’imposent dans leurs pratiques ? Pour répondre à cette question, nous procédons tout d’abord à une étude positiviste du contenu normatif de l’obligation de coopérer. Nous constatons que l’incorporation de la notion de l’obligation de coopérer dans le principe de la souveraineté est une tendance manifeste du droit international qui a évolué du droit de coexistence composé principalement des règles d’abstention, au droit de coopération qui comporte essentiellement des obligations positives de facere, dont la plus représentative est l’obligation de coopérer. Néanmoins, il n’existe pas de modèle unique d’application pour tous les États, chaque bassin disposant de son propre régime coopératif. Pour mesurer l’ampleur des régimes coopératifs, nous étudions cinq paramètres : le champ d’application, les règles substantielles, les règles procédurales, les arrangements institutionnels et le règlement des différends. Quatres modèles de coopération ressortent : le mécanisme consultatif (l’Indus), le mécanisme communicateur (le Mékong), le mécanisme de coordination (le Rhin) et le mécanisme d’action conjointe (le fleuve Sénégal). Pour ce qui est de la Chine, il s’agit de l’État d’amont en voie de développement le plus important dans le monde qui a longtemps été critiqué pour son approche unilatérale dans le développement des eaux transfrontières. Nous ne pouvons pas cependant passer sous silence les pratiques de coopération qu’elle a développées avec ses voisins. Quelle est son interprétation de cette obligation générale de coopérer ? Notre étude des pratiques de la Chine nous aide, en prenant du recul, à mieux comprendre tous les aspects de cette obligation de coopérer en droit international. Afin d’expliquer les raisons qui se cachent derrière son choix de mode de coopération, nous introduisons une analyse constructiviste qui est plus explicative que descriptive. Nous soutenons que ce sont les identités de la Chine qui ont déterminé son choix de coopération en matière de cours d’eau transfrontaliers. Notre étude en vient à la conclusion que même s’il y a des règles généralement reconnues, l’obligation de coopérer reste une règle émergente en droit international coutumier. Ses modes d’application sont en réalité une construction sociale qui évolue et qui peut varier énormément selon les facteurs culturels, historiques ou économiques des États riverains, en d’autres mots, selon les identités de ces États. La Chine est un État d’amont en voie de développement qui continue à insister sur le principe de la souveraineté. Par conséquent, elle opte pour son propre mécanisme consultatif de coopération pour l’utilisation des ressources en eau transfrontalières. Néanmoins, avec l’évolution de ses identités en tant que superpuissance émergente, nous pouvons probablement espérer qu’au lieu de rechercher un pouvoir hégémonique et d’appliquer une stratégie unilatérale sur l’utilisation des ressources en eau transfrontalières, la Chine adoptera une stratégie plus coopérative et plus participative dans l’avenir.

Obligation des États de coopérer en droit international des cours d’eau transfrontaliers : état du droit et étude du cas Chinois

Le principe de coopération est considéré depuis longtemps comme l’une des pierres angulaires du droit international, toutefois, l’existence d’une obligation de coopérer en droit international reste encore controversée. Les ressources en eau, à cause de leur fluidité et de leurs multiples usages, démontrent toujours l’interdépendance humaine. En matière de cours d’eau transfrontaliers, la Convention de New York inclut explicitement dans son texte l’obligation générale de coopérer comme l’un de ses trois principes fondamentaux. Il nous incombe alors de voir quelle obligation de coopérer les États souverains s’imposent dans leurs pratiques ? Pour répondre à cette question, nous procédons tout d’abord à une étude positiviste du contenu normatif de l’obligation de coopérer. Nous constatons que l’incorporation de la notion de l’obligation de coopérer dans le principe de la souveraineté est une tendance manifeste du droit international qui a évolué du droit de coexistence composé principalement des règles d’abstention, au droit de coopération qui comporte essentiellement des obligations positives de facere, dont la plus représentative est l’obligation de coopérer. Néanmoins, il n’existe pas de modèle unique d’application pour tous les États, chaque bassin disposant de son propre régime coopératif. Pour mesurer l’ampleur des régimes coopératifs, nous étudions cinq paramètres : le champ d’application, les règles substantielles, les règles procédurales, les arrangements institutionnels et le règlement des différends. Quatres modèles de coopération ressortent : le mécanisme consultatif (l’Indus), le mécanisme communicateur (le Mékong), le mécanisme de coordination (le Rhin) et le mécanisme d’action conjointe (le fleuve Sénégal). Pour ce qui est de la Chine, il s’agit de l’État d’amont en voie de développement le plus important dans le monde qui a longtemps été critiqué pour son approche unilatérale dans le développement des eaux transfrontières. Nous ne pouvons pas cependant passer sous silence les pratiques de coopération qu’elle a développées avec ses voisins. Quelle est son interprétation de cette obligation générale de coopérer ? Notre étude des pratiques de la Chine nous aide, en prenant du recul, à mieux comprendre tous les aspects de cette obligation de coopérer en droit international. Afin d’expliquer les raisons qui se cachent derrière son choix de mode de coopération, nous introduisons une analyse constructiviste qui est plus explicative que descriptive. Nous soutenons que ce sont les identités de la Chine qui ont déterminé son choix de coopération en matière de cours d’eau transfrontaliers. Notre étude en vient à la conclusion que même s’il y a des règles généralement reconnues, l’obligation de coopérer reste une règle émergente en droit international coutumier. Ses modes d’application sont en réalité une construction sociale qui évolue et qui peut varier énormément selon les facteurs culturels, historiques ou économiques des États riverains, en d’autres mots, selon les identités de ces États. La Chine est un État d’amont en voie de développement qui continue à insister sur le principe de la souveraineté. Par conséquent, elle opte pour son propre mécanisme consultatif de coopération pour l’utilisation des ressources en eau transfrontalières. Néanmoins, avec l’évolution de ses identités en tant que superpuissance émergente, nous pouvons probablement espérer qu’au lieu de rechercher un pouvoir hégémonique et d’appliquer une stratégie unilatérale sur l’utilisation des ressources en eau transfrontalières, la Chine adoptera une stratégie plus coopérative et plus participative dans l’avenir.

Emissions Trading and WTO Law: A Global Analysis

Emissions trading schemes have been introduced throughout the world in order to achieve an environmental end. In the pursuit of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, these schemes will have a direct impact on the global economy. This book examines the details of emissions trading schemes through the lens of the World Trade Organization (WTO) law. Emissions trading schemes both implemented and proposed will be deconstructed to understand whether they will have a single uniform legal status within the WTO law, or indeed whether the legal status of the units of trade will differ on a case-by-case basis. This book examines non-discrimination provisions and exceptions within four significant WTO ‘covered agreements’. This analysis will be undertaken with a goal to understand how emissions trading scheme measures may be labelled and treated by WTO dispute settlement bodies. Moreover, the narrative of this publication demonstrates where decisions must be made by WTO Members in relation to the legal treatment of emissions trading units and liabilities. The aim of the book is to consider the issues associated with emissions trading that arise within the existing WTO law. This monograph will consider emissions trading schemes through the lens of WTO law to establish how these schemes will be defined, where they may potentially breach the non-discrimination provisions of the law and, whether the WTO law should be amended through Member agreement in order to accommodate these schemes. The book is an adaptation of a PhD thesis, which is an analysis of one emissions trading framework – the Australian Clean Energy Package – using WTO law as the theoretical framework. The aim of the proposed monograph is to increase the scope of analysis from the Clean Energy Package to emissions trading schemes more generally. It is envisaged that to do this effectively, examples of frameworks that have been proposed and implemented by various WTO members must be used as case studies for both WTO compliance and non-compliance.

Plain packaging for the Pacific Rim: The Trans-Pacific Partnership and tobacco control

Big Tobacco has been engaged in a dark, shadowy plot and conspiracy to hijack the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) and undermine tobacco control measures – such as graphic health warnings and the plain packaging of tobacco products... In the context of this heavy lobbying by Big Tobacco and its proxies, this chapter provides an analysis of the debate over trade, tobacco, and the TPP. This discussion is necessarily focused on the negotiations of the free trade agreement – the shadowy conflicts before the finalisation of the text. This chapter contends that the trade negotiations threaten hard-won gains in public health – including international developments such as the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, and domestic measures, such as graphic health warnings and the plain packaging of tobacco products. It maintains that there is a need for regional trade agreements to respect the primacy of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. There is a need both to provide for an open and transparent process regarding such trade negotiations, as well as a due and proper respect for public health in terms of substantive obligations. Part I focuses on the debate over the intellectual property chapter of the TPP, within the broader context of domestic litigation against Australia’s plain tobacco packaging regime and associated WTO disputes. Part II examines the investment chapter of the TPP, taking account of ongoing investment disputes concerning tobacco control and the declared approaches of Australia and New Zealand to investor-state dispute settlement. Part III looks at the discussion as to whether there should be specific text on tobacco control in the TPP, and, if so, what should be its nature and content. This chapter concludes that the plain packaging of tobacco products – and other best practices in tobacco control – should be adopted by members of the Pacific Rim.

Blue future: Maude Barlow, water rights, investor clauses, and trade deals

Maude Barlow is the chairperson of the Council of Canadians, and the founder of the Blue Planet Project. She is a recipient of Sweden’s Right Livelihood Award, and a Lannan Cultural Freedom Fellowship. As well as being a noted human rights and trade activist, Barlow is the author of a number of books on water rights — including Blue Gold, Blue Covenant, and Blue Future. She has been particularly vocal on the impact of trade and investment agreements upon water rights. Barlow has been critical of the push to include investor-state dispute settlement clauses in trade agreements — such as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the European Union, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (TTIP). She has also been concerned by the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) leaked by WikiLeaks.

Will the TPP destroy our healthcare system?

Could the TPP force Australia to adopt an American-style model of private health? Dr Matthew Rimmer, Professor of intellectual property and innovation law at QUT, explains. There has been much concern that Australian citizens and residents are being ripped off on the price of medicines by multinational pharmaceutical drug companies. And the problem is only likely to be exacerbated by global trade deals — like the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a regional agreement under negotiation at the moment, involving a dozen countries across the Pacific Rim, including Australia and the United States. The secret trade agreement covers a score of topics — including such matters as intellectual property, investment, transparency in health procedures, and trade in services. The Trans-Pacific Partnership will have a significant impact upon the health of everyone in the Pacific Rim — particularly their ability to buy affordable medicines.

Free trade, Gangnam Style: The Korea-Australia free trade agreement

On the 5th December 2013, Australia and Korea announced that they had finalised a new free trade agreement. Is it a fair trade fairytale? Or is it a dirty deal done dirt cheap? It is hard to tell, because the respective governments have not yet published the text of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement (KAFTA). There has been much debate in the Australian Parliament over the transparency of the trade agreement; the scope of market access provided under the deal; and the impact of the investment chapter, with an investor-state dispute settlement clause. KAFTA foreshadows the approach of the new Conservative Government in Australia to other trade deals – such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

A Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement (KAFTA)

Australia and South Korea have signed a new free trade agreement - the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement (KAFTA). Is it a fair trade fairytale? Or is it a dirty deal done dirt cheap? Or somewhere in between? It is hard to tell, given the initial secrecy of the negotiations, and the complexity of the texts of the agreement There has been much debate in Parliament over the transparency of the trade agreement; the scope of market access provided under the deal; the impact of the investment chapter, with its investor-state dispute settlement clause; the intellectual property chapter; the environment chapter; its impact upon public health; and the labor rights chapter. KAFTA provides an indication of the approach of the new Conservative Government in Australia to other trade deals – such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Copyright Law, the Creative Industries, and Internet Freedom

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a highly secretive trade agreement being negotiated between the US and eleven Pacific Rim countries, including Australia. Having obtained a fast-track authority from the United States Congress, US President Barack Obama is keen to finalise the deal. However, he was unable to achieve a resolution of the deal at recent talks in Hawaii on the TPP. A number of chapters of the TPP will affect the creative artists, cultural industries and internet freedom — including the intellectual property chapter, the investment chapter, and the electronic commerce chapter. Legacy copyright industries have pushed for longer and stronger copyright protection throughout the Pacific Rim. In the wake of the Hawaii talks, Knowledge Ecology International leaked the latest version of the intellectual property chapter of the TPP. Jamie Love of Knowledge Ecology International commented upon the leaked text about copyright law: ‘In many sections of the text, the TPP would change global norms, restrict access to knowledge, create significant financial risks for persons using and sharing information, and, in some cases, impose new costs on persons producing new knowledge goods.’ The recent leaked text reveals a philosophical debate about the nature of intellectual property law. There are mixed messages in respect of the treatment of the public domain under copyright law. In one part of the agreement on internet service providers, there is text that says that the parties recognise the need for ‘promoting innovation and creativity,’ ‘facilitating the diffusion of information, knowledge, technology, culture, and the arts’, and ‘foster competition and open and efficient markets.’ A number of countries suggested ‘acknowledging the importance of the public domain.’ The United States and Japan opposed the recognition of the public domain in this text.

Turing and the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Intellectual Property, Public Health, and Access to Essential Medicines

A recent controversy in the United States over drug pricing by Turing Pharmaceuticals AG has raised larger issues in respect of intellectual property, access to medicines, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). In August 2015, Turing Pharmaceuticals AG – a private biopharmaceutical company with offices in New York, the United States, and Zug, Switzerland - acquired the exclusive marketing rights to Daraprim in the United States from Impax Laboratories Incorporated. Martin Shkreli, Turing’s Founder and Chief Executive Officer, maintained: “The acquisition of Daraprim and our toxoplasmosis research program are significant steps along Turing’s path of bringing novel medications to patients with serious disorders, some of whom often go undiagnosed and untreated.” He emphasised: “We intend to invest in the development of new drug candidates that we hope will yield an even better clinical profile, and also plan to launch an educational effort to help raise awareness and improve diagnosis for patients with toxoplasmosis.” In September 2015, there was much public controversy over the decision of Martin Shkreli to raise the price of a 62 year old drug, Daraprim, from $US13.50 to $US750 a pill. The drug is particularly useful in respect to the treatment and prevention of malaria, and in the treatment of infections in individuals with HIV/AIDS. Daraprim is listed on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) List of Essential Medicines. In the face of much criticism, Martin Shkreli has said that he will reduce the price of Daraprim. He observed: “We've agreed to lower the price on Daraprim to a point that is more affordable and is able to allow the company to make a profit, but a very small profit.” He maintained: “We think these changes will be welcomed.” However, he has been vague and ambiguous about the nature of the commitment. Notably, the lobby group, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhARMA), disassociated itself from the claims of Turing Pharmaceuticals. The group said: “PhRMA members have a long history of drug discovery and innovation that has led to increased longevity and improved lives for millions of patients.” The group noted: “Turing Pharmaceutical is not a member of PhRMA and we do not embrace either their recent actions or the conduct of their CEO.” The biotechnology peak body Biotechnology Industry Organization also sought to distance itself from Turing Pharmaceuticals. A hot topic: United States political debate about access to affordable medicines This controversy over Daraprim is unusual – given the age of drug concerned. Daraprim is not subject to patent protection. Nonetheless, there remains a monopoly in respect of the marketplace. Drug pricing is not an isolated problem. There have been many concerns about drug pricing – particularly in respect of essential medicines for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. This recent controversy is part of a larger debate about access to affordable medicines. The dispute raises larger issues about healthcare, consumer rights, competition policy, and trade. The Daraprim controversy has provided impetus for law reform in the US. US Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton commented: “Price gouging like this in this specialty drug market is outrageous.” In response to her comments, the Nasdaq Biotechnology Index fell sharply. Hillary Clinton has announced a prescription drug reform plan to protect consumers and promote innovation – while putting an end to profiteering. On her campaign site, she has emphasised that “affordable healthcare is a basic human right.” Her rival progressive candidate, Bernie Sanders, was also concerned about the price hike. He wrote a letter to Martin Shkreli, complaining about the price increase for the drug Daraprim. Sanders said: “The enormous, overnight price increase for Daraprim is just the latest in a long list of skyrocketing price increases for certain critical medications.” He has pushed for reforms to intellectual property to make medicines affordable. The TPP and intellectual property The Daraprim controversy and political debate raises further issues about the design of the TPP. The dispute highlights the dangers of extending the rights of pharmaceutical drug companies under intellectual property, investor-state dispute settlement, and drug administration. Recently, the civil society group Knowledge Ecology International published a leaked draft of the Intellectual Property Chapter of the TPP. Knowledge Ecology International Director, James Love, was concerned the text revealed that the US “continues to be the most aggressive supporter of expanded intellectual property rights for drug companies.” He was concerned that “the proposals contained in the TPP will harm consumers and in some cases block innovation.” James Love feared: “In countless ways, the Obama Administration has sought to expand and extend drug monopolies and raise drug prices.” He maintained: “The astonishing collection of proposals pandering to big drug companies make more difficult the task of ensuring access to drugs for the treatment of cancer and other diseases and conditions.” Love called for a different approach to intellectual property and trade: “Rather than focusing on more intellectual property rights for drug companies, and a death-inducing spiral of higher prices and access barriers, the trade agreement could seek new norms to expand the funding of medical research and development (R&D) as a public good, an area where the US has an admirable track record, such as the public funding of research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other federal agencies.” In addition, there has been much concern about the Investment Chapter of the TPP. The investor-state dispute settlement regime would enable foreign investors to challenge government policy making, which affected their investments. In the context of healthcare, there is a worry that pharmaceutical drug companies will deploy their investor rights to challenge public health measures – such as, for instance, initiatives to curb drug pricing and profiteering. Such concerns are not merely theoretical. Eli Lilly has brought an investor action against the Canadian Government over the rejection of its drug patents under the investor-state dispute settlement regime of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The Health Annex to the TPP also raises worries that pharmaceutical drug companies will able to object to regulatory procedures in respect of healthcare. It is disappointing that the TPP – in the leaks that we have seen – has only limited recognition of the importance of access to essential medicines. There is a need to ensure that there are proper safeguards to provide access to essential medicines – particularly in respect of HIV/AIDs, malaria, and tuberculosis. Moreover, there must be protection against drug profiteering and price gouging in any trade agreement. There should be strong measures against the abuse of intellectual property rights. The dispute over Turing Pharmaceuticals AG and Daraprim is an important cautionary warning in respect of some of the dangers present in the secret negotiations in respect of the TPP. There is a need to preserve consumer rights, competition policy, and public health in trade negotiations over an agreement covering the Pacific Rim.

Now the real international fight begins for the Trans-Pacific Partnership

In Atlanta, the trade ministers of a dozen countries across the Pacific Rim announced that they had successfully reached a concluded agreement upon the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The debate over the TPP will now play out in legislatures across the Pacific Rim, where sentiment towards the deal is much more mixed. The ministers insisted: “After more than five years of intensive negotiations, we have come to an agreement that will support jobs, drive sustainable growth, foster inclusive development, and promote innovation across the Asia-Pacific region … The agreement achieves the goal we set forth of an ambitious, comprehensive, high standard and balanced agreement that will benefit our nation’s citizens … We expect this historic agreement to promote economic growth, support higher-paying jobs; enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raise living standards; reduce poverty in our countries; and to promote transparency, good governance, and strong labor and environmental protections.” But there has been fierce criticism of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, because of both its secrecy and its substance. Nobel Laureate Professor Joseph Stiglitz has warned that the agreement is not about free trade, but about the protection of corporate monopolies. The intellectual property chapter provides for longer and stronger protection of intellectual property rights. The investment chapter provides foreign investors with the power to challenge governments under an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) regime. The environment chapter is weak and toothless, and seems to be little more than an exercise in greenwashing. The health annex — and many other parts of the agreement — strengthen the power of pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology developers. The text on state-owned enterprises raises concerns about public ownership of postal services, broadcasters and national broadband services.

The Trans-Pacific partnership protects old companies at the expense of the new

Under this trade agreement, intellectual property will be transformed into a means of protecting the investments of multinational companies in culture, advertising, and medicine, writes Matthew Rimmer. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a blockbuster trade deal, which will transform the intellectual property of the Pacific Rim. The Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has argued the trade agreement is a "gigantic foundation stone" for the country's future prosperity. Nonetheless, though the final text remains unreleased, it's clear from what we do know that the Intellectual Property Chapter is set to protect legacy intellectual property industries - rather than support disruptive technologies and dynamic innovation.

Política e direito nas contramedidas no direito internacional geral e na Organização Mundial do Comércio

Esta dissertação concentra suas investigações nas contramedidas do direito internacional geral e da Organização Mundial do Comércio (OMC). No âmbito do direito internacional, estudou-se a essência política da sociedade internacional descentralizada, bem como a tendência do processo de fragmentação do direito internacional em direção a regimes mais regulados pelo direito. Além disso, investigou-se a tentativa de ampliação da normatização das contramedidas por meio do Projeto de Artigos sobre Responsabilidade Internacional do Estado de 2001. No âmbito do regime especial da OMC, analisou-se o maior adensamento jurídico das contramedidas como ponto culminante na fase de implementação das decisões no sistema de solução de controvérsias da OMC. Com base na avaliação sobre a necessidade de reforma do instituto das contramedidas da OMC, foram pesquisadas as principais propostas para sua modificação, buscando-se identificar a tentativa de redução do espaço político. A hipótese deste trabalho partiu da afirmação sobre a existência de uma tendência evolutiva no direito internacional geral e na OMC no que tange ao aumento da juridicidade do instituto das contramedidas. Entretanto, essa hipótese confirmou-se apenas parcialmente, pois a tentativa de aprimorar a regulamentação jurídica do instituto das contramedidas ocorre em meio à permanência de elementos políticos.

US Foreign Sales Corporations, Export Tax Credits and the WTO

Rhodes, Mark. 'US Foreign Sales Corporations, Export Tax Credits and the WTO', in: 'The WTO and the Regulation of International Trade: Recent Trade Disputes between the European Union and the United States', (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2005), pp.177-189 RAE2008