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.
En France, UMP et extrême-gauche expriment les mêmes réserves sur les procédures d’arbitrage qu’ils appellent à modifier dans une résolution adoptée à l’unanimité.
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.
La France et l’Allemagne veulent modifier la clause de règlement des différends entre investisseurs et Etats de l’accord commercial UE-Canada, dont les négociations sont pourtant terminées depuis octobre 2013.
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