For India, the U.S.-driven Trans Pacific Partnership will skew investment and intellectual property rights, and especially the debate over the Investor State Dispute System which allows companies to challenge soverign rights and public policy.
The final text of the TPP’s Investment Chapter remains broadly consistent with other U.S. investment agreements and includes some important new language that is consistent with the U.S. Model BIT issued by the U.S. State Department
There are many lessons from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that are relevant to the current debate over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
A private trade tribunal ruled that Canada violated rules in NAFTA because of an environmental impact assessment that led Canada to reject a company’s controversial mining project from moving forward in an important cultural and ecological area in Nova Scotia.
EU trade deals with Canada and the US could endanger citizens’ rights to basic services like water and health, as negotiators are doing the work of some of the EU’s most powerful corporate lobby groups in pushing an aggressive market opening agenda in the public sector.
Up until now, Australia has never agreed to provide American investors with access to Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), whereas Canada has. In total Canada has faced 35 challenges. Australia has been subjected to only one case.
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) countries have agreed on language that will allow members to exclude tobacco control measures from the scope of investor-state dispute settlement.
A U.S. Federal Court has upheld U.S. enforcement of an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration agreeing that U.S. oil giant ConocoPhillips has the right to take Venezuela state oil company PDVSA’s 50% stake.