scholarly journals Venus, Mars, and Brussels: Legitimacy and Dispute Settlement Culture in Investment Law and WTO Law: A Response to Joost Pauwelyn

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 109 ◽  
pp. 309-315
Author(s):  
Robert Howse
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Policy Space ◽  
Transatlantic Trade ◽  
Philip Morris ◽  
Tobacco Regulation ◽  
Investor Protections ◽  
Trade And Investment

Late last year, the European Commission unveiled an ambitious and complex proposal to replace investor-state arbitration with a transnational court, including an appellate instance, which has now been incorporated into its new bilateral agreements with Vietnam and Canada (CETA). The Commission was responding to strong public resistance to including investor protections in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the trade and investment agreement being negotiated between the European Union and the United States. This resistance reflects a remarkable shift in emphasis from the World Trade Organization (WTO) to the investment regime in what could be called loosely the antineoliberal globalization movement. The overarching concern is that international decision-makers with a neoliberal or procorporate bias will limit the policy space of sovereign states, especially in sensitive areas such as public services, the environment, health, and safety. While it is arguable that few of the actual outcomes in investor-state disputes can properly be understood in this way, the pursuit by Philip Morris of its attack on tobacco regulation through the investment regime has certainly provided a very obvious example for the activists. (The defeat of that challenge on jurisdictional grounds doesn’t really provide assurance about the substantive norms at issue and their consistency with policy space.)

The Rule of Law Without the Rule of Lawyers? Why Investment Arbitrators Are from Mars, Trade Adjudicators from Venus

2015 ◽  
Vol 109 (4) ◽  
pp. 761-805 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joost Pauwelyn
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Trade Disputes ◽  
Transatlantic Trade ◽  
The World ◽  
Twentieth Anniversary ◽  
Dispute Settlement System ◽  
Trade And Investment

At the twentieth anniversary of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the WTO’s dispute settlement system is celebrated as one of the organization’s biggest achievements. Although powerful members such as China, the European Union (EU), and the United States are regularly on the losing side of WTO trade disputes, overall support for the system remains high. If anything, it has increased over time, with early criticism by civil society waning. Compare this situation to investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), centered around the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). ISDS, which started in earnest around the same time that the WTO was created, is under fire not only in capital-importing countries ranging from Ecuador, Indonesia, and South Africa but also in capital-exporting nations such as Australia, Germany, and the United States. Indeed, in the ongoing EU-U.S. negotiations over a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), ISDS emerged as one of the biggest bones of contention.

Negotiating 21st Century Rules on Energy: What Is at Stake for the European Union, the United States and the BRICS?

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 415-443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilaria Espa ◽  
Kateryna Holzer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Renewable Energy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Energy Market ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Transatlantic Trade ◽  
Energy Trade ◽  
Trade And Investment ◽  
The Eu

Abstract In the context of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the European Union (EU) has taken the lead in promoting the inclusion of a specific chapter on energy trade and investment in order to enhance energy security and promote renewable energy. Irrespective of the success of the TTIP negotiations, the EU proposal can contribute to developing multilateral rules on energy trade and investment. This is especially important given the increased number of energy disputes filed by the EU and the United States against other leading energy market players, including the BRICS. This article provides a normative analysis of the new rules proposed by the EU and reflects on potential responses of BRICS energy regulators. It argues that, while these rules are unlikely to immediately affect BRICS energy practices, they may eventually be ‘imported’ in BRICS domestic jurisdictions in order to promote renewable energy and attract investment in energy infrastructure.

scholarly journals Implications of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) for Investment Flows Between the European Union and the USA

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 25-39
Author(s):  
Janina Witkowska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Free Trade Area ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Investment Protection ◽  
Transatlantic Trade ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Trade And Investment ◽  
The Eu

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is a controversial subject, but at the same time it is perceived to be the most comprehensive international agreement on free trade and investment protection. Among the topics that evoke criticism on the part of different social groups is the investor‑state dispute‑settlement (ISDS), as well as its legal consequences for the EU Member states. A less discussed issue is the potential implications of the agreement on the state of economic co‑operation between the European Union and the USA in the field of investment flows, with special reference to foreign direct investment (FDI). The aim of this paper is to present the discussion related to the ISDS and examine some of the economic, political and legal implications of TTIP provisions for FDI flows between the EU and the USA. The proposals of the European Commission to change the investment protection system might be treated as an attempt to make the system of arbitrage more transparent and convincing to societies, and safer for states. The effects of the TTIP agreement for FDI between both partners might be dependent on the scale of trade creation and diversion effects, and the mirror effects of investment creation and diversion under a free trade area.

28. Global trade and global finance

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Watson
Keyword(s):  
Global Economy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Global Trade ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Global Finance ◽  
Occupy Movement ◽  
Transatlantic Trade ◽  
The World ◽  
Trade And Investment ◽  
Global Economic Governance

This chapter explores important issues in the conduct of global trade and global finance. It asks why the global economy is so good at allowing some people to own untold riches while many others have too little money to meet basic subsistence needs, and whether the world would be better or worse off without the institutions of global economic governance. After discussing the globalization of trade and finance, the chapter considers the regulation of global trade and global finance. Two case studies are presented, one dealing with comparative advantage theory in historical perspective and the other with the Occupy movement. There is also an Opposing Opinions box that addresses the question of whether the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the United States and the European Union will provide enhanced opportunities for economic development around the world in a way that the World Trade Organization system now cannot.

The Effects of T-TIP Market Access Reform on EU Beef Import Demand

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda M Countryman ◽  
Andrew Muhammad
Keyword(s):  
Market Access ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Import Demand ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Transatlantic Trade ◽  
Beef Products ◽  
Production Practices ◽  
Trade And Investment ◽  
The Eu

AbstractImport policies in the European Union have greatly restricted beef imports from all sources. The presence of a binding tariff-rate quota (TRQ) on beef imports in tandem with sanitary and phytosanitary restrictions on biotechnological food products specifically inhibit beef imports from the United States and limit market access in the EU. Potential passage of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership may lead to a loosening of non-tariff measures (NTM) that serve as technical barriers to trade and give rise to the coexistence of hormone and non-hormone beef products in the EU marketplace. This research assesses the potential changes in import demand for beef under a trade agreement that allows for imports of conventional beef as well as an expansion of the existing TRQ in the EU beef import market. Results confirm that EU imports of beef will increase from all sources with an expansion of the TRQ and that elimination of the NTM related to beef production practices leads to an increase in competiveness of U.S. and Australian beef in the EU import market.

scholarly journals The Effects of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership on the European Union and Turkey

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pınar Bal
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Customs Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Trade Relations ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Transatlantic Trade ◽  
Policy Alternatives ◽  
Trade And Investment

The goal of this paper is to analyze the possible effects of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) Agreement aimed to be signed between the European Union and the United States by the end of 2015. The TTIP is expected to have important social, economic and political benefits for the European Union and the United States. In this respect, following a short description of the TTIP, the possible effects of this agreement on the European Union, the United States as well as on world trade will be described. The effects of such an agreement on Turkey will also be examined both with respect to Turkey’s already existing relations with the European Union and the United States. In parallel with these, the advantages and disadvantages of the existing Customs Union Agreement between Turkey and the European Union will be evaluated with respect to the TTIP. Based on this analysis, some policy alternatives for Turkey will be proposed that might help Turkey to overcome the current disadvantages that will result from the TTIP and that might strengthen its trade relations with both the European Union and the United States by transforming those disadvantages into advantages.

scholarly journals Missing in Action? France and the Politicization of Trade and Investment Agreements

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 312-324 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Meunier ◽  
Christilla Roederer-Rynning
Keyword(s):  
Historical Analysis ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Transatlantic Trade ◽  
The Us ◽  
Missing In Action ◽  
Changing Attitudes ◽  
Investment Agreements ◽  
Trade And Investment

Negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) and for the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between the EU and Canada have provoked massive mobilization throughout Europe, both on the streets and online. Yet France, long at the epicenter of anti-globalization and anti-Americanism, has played a surprisingly modest role in the mobilization campaign against these agreements. This article asks why France did not contribute to anti-TTIP mobilization and, more broadly, how patterns of French mobilization over trade have changed over the past two decades. Using comparative-historical analysis, we explore to what extent this puzzling French reaction can be traced to changing attitudes towards the US, agenda-shaping by the French government, and transformations in the venues and techniques of social mobilization. We thus contribute to the growing literature on the politicization of trade agreements and offer insights into the links between domestic and international politics.

Regulatory coherence in the transatlantic trade and investment partnership agreement: the case of chemicals

elni Review ◽  
2014 ◽  
pp. 39-43
Author(s):  
Vito A. Bounsante
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Transatlantic Trade ◽  
Regulatory Cooperation ◽  
Chemicals Regulation ◽  
Partnership Agreement ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right ◽  
High Level ◽  
Trade And Investment

The beginning of the negotiations for a trade and investment partnership agreement between the European Union and the United States of America was announced in February 2014 by the US president Barack Obama. Unlike traditional trade agreements the TTIP aims to include a “regulatory cluster” in the form of a regulatory coherence annex that should include procedures to minimize differences in regulation. However, the regulatory coherence chapter, according to the negotiators on both sides, will not impair each parties’ right to regulate. Therefore, diverging regulations will be allowed in order to protect health, safety, consumer, workers and the environment. Finally, the negotiators also state that no changes will be made to existing regulations. It seems apparent that these two objectives – coherence and the right to regulate, – are in stark contrast with each other. On the one hand, there is the goal to avoid and eliminate trade barriers; on the other hand, the high level of protection of EU citizens should not be undermined; in addition, no change in basic regulations is foreseen. This article outlines some difficulties in seeking regulatory coherence chapter whilst at the same time maintaining the right to choose different levels of protections. After discussing the problem of lack of transparency in the negotiations, the article focuses on the implications of regulatory cooperation for health and environmental legislation. In particular this article focuses on the case of the chemicals regulation for which discussions have advanced more in the negotiations thus far and for which there are wide differences in terms of regulations.

How Can China Influence the Transatlantic Governance of Cultural Products in the Digital Age?

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 444-474
Author(s):  
Beatriz Barreiro Carril
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Digital Age ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cultural Products ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Transatlantic Trade ◽  
Problematic Issue ◽  
Trade And Investment

Abstract Cultural products were a problematic issue in the negotiations of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The maintenance of the cultural exception – the exclusion of audiovisual products from some trade rules – was at stake at the beginning of the negotiations. The Europeans argued for the exception, while the United States were more interested in the liberalization of web-based cultural products than in the liberalization of traditional ones. Since the TTIP aimed to remove obstacles not only between European and American markets but also to set out global regulatory rules, China took a keen interest in the negotiations. This article shows how China is acting in the international legal sphere in order to improve its power in the field of cultural products and the effects of this on transatlantic negotiations. It also suggests some actions the European Union can take in order to defend its position in future negotiations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document