International arbitration based on investor-state dispute settlement clauses in international investment agreements: challenges for Latin America and the Caribbean

Incluye bibliografía

The TTIP, ISDS and the shift towards transparency in investor-state arbitration

The negotiations between the EU and the US over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) have generated a lot of discussion about investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). This discussion provided the inspiration for this thesis, with the TTIP in the background, setting the scene. In this thesis I study the nature of ISDS and the principle of transparency within investor-state arbitration. I aim to determine whether the use of ISDS is restricted to international arbitration and whether ISDS can be considered to constitute a system or regime. Furthermore, I consider whether the introduction of the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration (2014, the UNCITRAL Transparency Rules) changes investor-state arbitration in relation to transparency. To achieve this, I examine ISDS provisions in several different international investment agreements (IIAs) and evaluate the ways in which transparency is incorporated into investment law. Moreover, I compare the provisions on transparency and confidentiality in institutional arbitration rules with the UNCITRAL Transparency Rules. I have formed several conclusions, including that the ISDS provisions may contain methods other than international arbitration and that ISDS does not constitute a system. Furthermore, the UNCITRAL Transparency Rules do change – theoretically, at least – investor-state arbitration to become more transparent. Whether the UNCITRAL Transparency Rules will make investor-state arbitration fully transparent depends on the actions of the contracting state parties when negotiating new IIAs and whether they choose to incorporate the UNCITRAL Transparency Rules in the IIAs already concluded.

The role of the state in investor-state arbitration

The Role of the State in Investor-State Arbitration is a collection of contributions from lawyers, arbitrators and political scientists on the development of the concept of the “State” in a field that currently presents an increasing number of controversial disputes: Investor-State Arbitration. The book analyzes the limits of the host State as a regulator, studying issues such as attribution and the role of State-Owned Enterprises and sub-State entities; the changing role of the home State in Investor-State disputes, including its direct participation in Investor-State arbitration and State to State dispute settlement; and the overall role that both home and host States can play in the improvement of Investor-State Dispute Settlement.

Investor-State Dispute Resolution as an Issue in Transatlantic Trade Negotiations: Lessons from NAFTA. Jean Monnet/Robert Schuman Paper Series Vol. 15 No. 3, August 2015

A major issue in the ongoing Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations is investor-state dispute resolution as it relates to foreign investments. The United States would like to have strong investor protections similar to those of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) included in the TTIP agreement. Civil society groups on both sides of the Atlantic object to binding arbitration of investment disputes, fearing that arbitration awards could endanger environmental and other types of regulations. This paper examines the experience with investor-state dispute resolution under NAFTA to determine whether judgments rendered in these cases have had adverse effects.

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.

Issues in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: A critical discourse analysis

Negotiating trade agreements is an important part of government trade policies, economic planning and part of the globally operating trading system of today. European Union and the United States have been active in the formation of trade agreements in global comparison. Now these two economic giants are engaged in negotiations to form their own trade agreement, the so called Transnational Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The purpose of this thesis is to understand the reasons for making a trade agreement between two economic areas and understanding the issues it may include in the case of the TTIP. The TTIP has received a great deal of attention in the media. The opinions towards the partnership have been extreme, and the debate has been heated. The purpose of this study is to introduce the nature of the public discussion regarding the TTIP from Spring 2013 until 2014. The research problem is to find out what are the main issues in the agreement and what are the values influencing them. The study was conducted applying methods of critical discourse analysis to the chosen data. This includes gathering the issues from the data based on the attention each has received in the discussion. The underlying motives for raising different issues were analysed by investigating the authors’ position in the political, economic and social circuits. The perceived economic impacts of the TTIP are also under analysis with the same criteria. Some of the most respected economic newspapers globally were included in the research material as well as papers or reports published by the EU and global organisations. The analysis indicates a clear dichotomy of the attitudes towards the TTIP. Key problems include lack of transparency in the negotiations, the misunderstood investor-state dispute settlement, the constantly expanding regulatory issues and the risk of protectionism. The theory and data does suggest that the removal of tariffs is an effective tool for reaching economic gains in the TTIP and even more effective would be the reducing of non-tariff barriers, such as protectionism. Critics are worried over the rising influence of corporations over governments. The discourse analysis reveals that the supporters of the TTIP have values related to increasing welfare through economic growth. Critics do not deny the economic benefits but raise the question of inequality as a consequence. Overall they represent softer values such as sustainable development and democracy as a counter-attack to the corporate values of efficiency and the maximising of profits.

Rule-Makers or Rule-Takers? Exploring the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is an effort by the United States and the European Union to reposition themselves for a world of diffuse economic power and intensified global competition. It is a next-generation economic negotiation that breaks the mould of traditional trade agreements. At the heart of the ongoing talks is the question whether and in which areas the two major democratic actors in the global economy can address costly frictions generated by their deep commercial integration by aligning rules and other instruments. The aim is to reduce duplication in various ways in areas where levels of regulatory protection are equivalent as well as to foster wide-ranging regulatory cooperation and set a benchmark for high-quality global norms. In this volume, European and American experts explain the economic context of TTIP and its geopolitical implications, and then explore the challenges and consequences of US-EU negotiations across numerous sensitive areas, ranging from food safety and public procurement to economic and regulatory assessments of technical barriers to trade, automotive, chemicals, energy, services, investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms and regulatory cooperation. Their insights cut through the confusion and tremendous public controversies now swirling around TTIP, and help decision-makers understand how the United States and the European Union can remain rule-makers rather than rule-takers in a globalising world in which their relative influence is waning.

International trade law, plain packaging and tobacco industry political activity:the Trans-Pacific Partnership

Tobacco companies are increasingly turning to trade and investment agreements to challenge measures aimed at reducing tobacco use. This study examines their efforts to influence the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a major trade and investment agreement which may eventually cover 40% of the world's population; focusing on how these efforts might enhance the industry's power to challenge the introduction of plain packaging. Specifically, the paper discusses the implications for public health regulation of Philip Morris International's interest in using the TPP to: shape the bureaucratic structures and decision-making processes of business regulation at the national level; introduce a higher standard of protection for trademarks than is currently provided under the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights; and expand the coverage of Investor-State Dispute Settlement which empowers corporations to litigate directly against governments where they are deemed to be in breach of investment agreements. The large number of countries involved in the TPP underlines its risk to the development of tobacco regulation globally.

Dynamics of investment negotiations between China and Japan : the China-Japan-Korea trilateral investment treaty and beyond

The investment agreement relationship between China and Japan is complex. The many intersecting and overlapping agreements can rightly be described as a "noodle bowl of agreements." The 1989 bilateral investment treaty (BIT) between China and Japan still stands. Japan can also free-ride on the negotiation outcome of China's BITs and free trade agreements (FTAs) with other countries by using the most-favored-nation (MFN) provision in the 1989 China-Japan BIT, which does not contain regional economic integration organization (REIO) exception rules. However, because the China-Japan BIT does not have investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), it may face implementation problems. The China-Japan-Korea trilateral investment treaty (CJK TIT), in force since 2014, made improvements upon the 1989 BIT, but Japan is not entirely satisfied with the outcome. For Japan, pre-establishment national treatment (NT) and prohibition of various types of performance requirements are the most important negotiation items, but the CJK TIT insufficiently addressed those problems. Moreover, because the CJK TIT has MFN provisions with an REIO exception rule, better access to investment markets brought about by future FTAs such as the China-Korea FTA and the EU-China FTA cannot be imported into CJK TIT. Hence, in the long run, Japan needs to pursue an FTA investment chapter with China that covers both MFN and ISDS.

Transatlantyckie Partnerstwo w dziedzinie Handlu i Inwestycji (TTIP) w kontekście europejskiego bezpieczeństwa ekonomicznego

Celem artykułu jest dokonanie charakterystyki Transatlantyckiego Partnerstwa w dziedzinie Handlu i Inwestycji (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership; TTIP) w szerszym kontekście europejskiego bezpieczeństwa ekonomicznego. Pomysł porozumienia zrodził się w rezultacie fundamentalnych zmian zachodzących współcześnie w gospodarce światowej oraz ich postrzegania w Europie i USA. W tekście stwierdzono, że w zamyśle architektów umowy handlowej główny cel TTIP ma wymiar przede wszystkim geopolityczny, a nie tylko ekonomiczny. Przedstawiono także najważniejsze wnioski, jakie płyną z dotychczas przeprowadzonych analiz dla gospodarki europejskiej, a także zidentyfikowano czynniki, które determinować będą wpływ porozumienia na poszczególne państwa europejskie. W artykule zaprezentowano także możliwe konsekwencje wynikające z wejścia umowy w życie dla Polski. Mogą one być istotne w szczególności dla potencjału rozwojowego polskiej gospodarki oraz bezpieczeństwa ekonomicznego.

Dispute Settlement Alternatives in Future EU BITS. IES WORKING PAPER 1/2012

Following the inclusion of the Common Commercial Policy in the exclusive competences of the European Union, a handful of policy adjustments have occurred. Among these adjustments, investment protection has been a remarkable one - given its new, exclusive framework and an already established, state-level practice. As the new policy stands, Bilateral Investment Treaties, which had been negotiated and executed by the EU Member States in the pre-Lisbon period, can now only be negotiated and executed by the EU. These prospective ‘EU BITs’, inter alia, aim for an even stronger mechanism for the protection of investors both in the EU and in third states. A strong protection mechanism inevitably calls for a strong Dispute Settlement Mechanism, and the establishment of a DSM may prove to be challenging. The EU currently faces several questions on its path to a tangible and reliable ‘EU BIT’, and arguably the most outstanding one is the question of the DSMs to be incorporated in these new agreements. What are the alternatives of a DSM for these new BITs? Which alternatives are currently utilizable and which ones are not? What are the current problems that the EU face, and how can those problems be tackled? Is the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes an alternative, and if not, why? Following a thorough overview, this paper aims to analyse the DSM alternatives for the EU to be used in the new EU BITs and ultimately provide a solid DSM proposal.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

The United States of America and the European Union are currently negotiating a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). It is one of the most ambitious free trade and investment initiatives, going much further than eliminating tariffs. TTIP mainly aims at reducing “non-tariff barriers”. While tariffs on goods have been imposed with an eye to foreign competition, most of the non-tariff barriers are the laws and regulations that are the result of social struggles for the protection of consumers and workers. It is therefore certain that TTIP will impact workers. This volume provides a preliminary assessment of the likely consequences for labor by: - providing an overall introduction to the TTIP negotiations; -assessing the reliability of the studies claiming employment gains; - highlighting specific problematic proposals such as the investor-to-state dispute settlement mechanism; - presenting the position of organized labor from both sides of the Atlantic. / Among the contributors are Stefan Beck (Kassel), Lance Compa (Ithaca, New York), Pia Eberhardt (Brussels) and Werner Raza (Vienna).

The NAFTA investment dispute settlement mechanism and the admissibility of amicus curiae briefs by NGOs

--

Developments in the Doha Round and WTO dispute settlement: some implications for EU agricultural policy

Progress in the Doha Round is assessed against the changes to the common agricultural policy (CAP) brought about by the Fischler reforms of 2003-2004, and that proposed for sugar. An elimination of export subsidies could place EU exports of processed foods at a competitive disadvantage because of high sugar and milk prices. Provided the single payment scheme falls within the green box, the likely new limits on domestic support should not be problematic for the post-Fischler CAP. However, an ambitious market access package could open up EU markets and bring pressure for further reform. If there is no Doha agreement, existing provisions will continue to apply, but without the protection of the Peace Clause; and increased litigation is likely. Further CAP reform is to be expected.