A report authored by Prof. Dr. Siegfried Broß and recently published by the German Hans Böckler Stiftung concludes that the Investor-State-Dispute Settlement (ISDS) tribunals currently planned to be included in the TTIP and CETA free-trade agreements are not in accordance with Germany’s constitution.
Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment | 6-Feb-2015
Advocates of a transatlantic investment treaty should be careful not to overstate their case and play the “China-card” as a core argument for allowing US investors to side-track EU courts.
Trade negotiations between the EU and Canada concluded in October 2013, but France and Germany now want to make changes to the CETA agreement’s investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) clause.
There is a developing consensus among states that it is acceptable, and even virtuous, to challenge investor-state arbitration as an infringement on the rights of the public to pass laws through their democratically-elected representatives.
This article analyzes the restrictive approach adopted by investor-State arbitration tribunals to human rights arguments raised by host States, as exemplified in the case of the human right to water
In 2014, the US again emerged the winner in investor-state arbitration. But it did suffer losses on a number of important issues, and those losses leave it more vulnerable to future claims, litigation costs, and potential liability.
Even if CETA is rejected in Europe, claims under the ISDS chapter would still be possible up to three years afterwards for investments made during the provisional period.