• Home
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
  • Advertise
    • Advertise On IP Watch
    • Editorial Calendar
  • Videos
  • Links
  • Help

Intellectual Property Watch

Original news and analysis on international IP policy

  • Copyright
  • Patents
  • Trademarks
  • Opinions
  • People News
  • Venues
    • Bilateral/Regional Negotiations
    • ITU/ICANN
    • United Nations – other
    • WHO
    • WIPO
    • WTO/TRIPS
    • Africa
    • Asia/Pacific
    • Europe
    • Latin America/Caribbean
    • North America
  • Themes
    • Access to Knowledge/ Open Innovation & Science
    • Food Security/ Agriculture/ Genetic Resources
    • Finance
    • Health & IP
    • Human Rights
    • Internet Governance/ Digital Economy/ Cyberspace
    • Lobbying
    • Technical Cooperation/ Technology Transfer
  • Health Policy Watch

US Defends Investor-State Provisions; EU Promotes TTIP Consultation

27/03/2014 by William New, Intellectual Property Watch 2 Comments

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Investor-state provisions in trade and investment agreements, which allow private companies to sue governments for policies taken that undermine the companies’ investment expectations, have come under recent scrutiny for their potential to undermine the public interest. Today, the United States Trade Representative published a blog post defending these provisions, while the European Union opened a public consultation on the provisions in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the US.

US

“There are a lot of myths out there suggesting that ISDS [investor-state dispute settlement] somehow limits our ability – or our partners’ ability – to regulate in the interest of financial stability, environmental protection, or public health. Some have even suggested that a company could sue a government just on the grounds that the company isn’t earning as much profit as it wants,” USTR said in its blog post. “These assertions are false.”

“The United States promotes provisions in our trade agreements that protect our right to regulate in the public interest while promoting higher standards in many partner countries in areas ranging from labor and environment to transparency to anti-corruption,” it said.

Over the last 50 years, nearly 3,200 trade and investment agreements among 180 countries have included investment provisions, and the vast majority of these agreements have included some form of ISDS, USTR said, adding that the US is party to 50 agreements with ISDS.

The blog post lists points in support of ISDS, including that they: give legal protection for US investors abroad; protect the right of governments to “regulate in the public interest”; do not interfere with the ability of federal, state or local governments to take actions; do not allow companies to sue based on lost profits; include safeguards against frivolous suits; ensure “fair, unbiased and transparent” legal processes; and ensure independent and impartial arbitration.

EU

The European Commission, meanwhile, has announced a public consultation on ISDS, giving the opportunity to comment on these provisions in the TTIP. It said that only nine EU members currently have bilateral investment agreements with the US, though investment is critical to the EU economy. EU members in general have struck over 1,400 bilateral investment treaties, and EU investors are the largest users of ISDS in the world.

A key element of the provisions is the prevention of expropriation by other governments, the Commission noted.

The Commission is proposing a new approach on investment protection and ISDS for the TTIP, it said, and it addresses concerns that have been raised through two actions.

First, it clarifies investment protection so the “right to regulate” is not undermined, allowing government actions in the public interest, and not protecting “shell companies” in the parties’ territories.

Second, it improves the system by allowing for early dismissal of unfounded claims and preventing investors from bringing multiple claims in various jurisdictions, plus instituting a loser pays system. It also builds in transparency, such as making ISDS claims publicly available, contains a code of conduct for abitrators to eliminate conflicts of interest or bias, uses an appellate body to review awards, allow the governments to agree on how they interpret certain provisions so arbitral panels must follow it, and ensuring that ISDS only applies to investment and not the rest of the TTIP.

The consultation document includes examples of provisions in EU bilateral investment treaties and the EU-Canada bilateral treaty.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Related

William New may be reached at wnew@ip-watch.ch.

Creative Commons License"US Defends Investor-State Provisions; EU Promotes TTIP Consultation" by Intellectual Property Watch is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Filed Under: IP Policies, Themes, Venues, Bilateral/Regional Negotiations, Copyright Policy, Enforcement, English, North America, Patents/Designs/Trade Secrets, Regional Policy, Trademarks/Geographical Indications/Domains

Comments

  1. Anne palmer says

    10/04/2014 at 8:40 pm

    If this goes ahead, as the EU will “speak” for all its Member States, will there be any need for National Governments?

    Reply
  2. Andre says

    20/04/2014 at 10:09 pm

    The EU or the US are not the banana states for which ISDS was imaged up for. You put ISDS in an uneven treaty with a banana state, that is the whole point. But who is the banana state here? US? EU? ISDS is completely superflous and dangerous.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Vimeo
My Tweets

IPW News Briefs

Saudis Seek Alternative Energy Partners Through WIPO Green Program

Chinese IP Officials Complete Study Of UK, European IP Law

Perspectives on the US

In US, No Remedies For Growing IP Infringements

US IP Law – Big Developments On The Horizon In 2019

More perspectives on the US...

Supported Series: Civil Society And TRIPS Flexibilities

Civil Society And TRIPS Flexibilities Series – Translations Now Available

The Myth Of IP Incentives For All Nations – Q&A With Carlos Correa

Read the TRIPS flexibilities series...

Paid Content

Interview With Peter Vanderheyden, CEO Of Article One Partners

More paid content...

IP Delegates in Geneva

  • IP Delegates in Geneva
  • Guide to Geneva-based Public Health and IP Organisations

All Story Categories

Other Languages

  • Français
  • Español
  • 中文
  • اللغة العربية

Archives

  • Archives
  • Monthly Reporter

Staff Access

  • Writers

Sign up for free news alerts

This site uses cookies to help give you the best experience on our website. Cookies enable us to collect information that helps us personalise your experience and improve the functionality and performance of our site. By continuing to read our website, we assume you agree to this, otherwise you can adjust your browser settings. Please read our cookie and Privacy Policy. Our Cookies and Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2021 · Global Policy Reporting

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.