Advanced

Investor-State Dispute Settlement - Tvistlösningsmekanismens funktion i ljuset av TTIP

Kielos, Elise LU (2015) LAGF03 20151
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
Negotiations about creating the worlds’ largest free trade area are currently being held between the EU and the U.S. The intended free trade agreement, TTIP, is debated extensively and the dispute settlement mechanism, ISDS, is in the very center of the debate. ISDS is a kind of dispute settlement mechanism that is frequently used in bilateral investment treaties. The purpose of this paper is to, based on the ongoing debate about TTIP, examine which function ISDS has.

Since the middle of the 20th century, states have signed numerous bilateral investment treaties, which protect foreign investors from offences, such as excessive expropriation or discrimination. An ISDS clause is usually added. It authorizes investors to concentrate direct... (More)
Negotiations about creating the worlds’ largest free trade area are currently being held between the EU and the U.S. The intended free trade agreement, TTIP, is debated extensively and the dispute settlement mechanism, ISDS, is in the very center of the debate. ISDS is a kind of dispute settlement mechanism that is frequently used in bilateral investment treaties. The purpose of this paper is to, based on the ongoing debate about TTIP, examine which function ISDS has.

Since the middle of the 20th century, states have signed numerous bilateral investment treaties, which protect foreign investors from offences, such as excessive expropriation or discrimination. An ISDS clause is usually added. It authorizes investors to concentrate direct damage claims against a state, if that state is considered to break the obligations of the agreement. Consequently the dispute is determined by arbitration.

There are numerous and strong opinions about whether ISDS is a good or a bad system. Critics argue, amongst other things, that the mechanism restricts the sovereignty of states, while proponents claim that the system prevents unfair court proceedings.

ISDS fulfills the function of a neutral dispute settlement forum disconnected from national judicial systems. The mechanism also serves as an instance of expertise since the rules, as well as the judges, are specifically selected and adapted for disputes between states and foreign investors.

One might argue that the ISDS-system contains some undemocratic features, which preferably should be reviewed. Whether the ISDS- mechanism will be included in a possible future TTIP remains to be seen. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Förhandlingarna om att skapa världens största regionala frihandelsområde pågår just nu mellan EU och USA. Det påtänkta frihandelsavtalet, TTIP, diskuteras flitigt och i centrum för diskussionerna har tvistlösningssystemet ISDS hamnat. ISDS står för Investor-State Dispute Settlement och är en tvistlösningsmekanism som brukar skrivas in bilaterala investeringsskyddsavtal. Syftet med uppsatsen är att, utifrån den pågående debatten om TTIP, undersöka vilken funktion ISDS fyller samt vilka påståenden som finns om dess för- och nackdelar.

Sedan mitten av 1900-talet har stater slutit ett stort antal bilaterala investeringsavtal. Avtalen skyddar utländska investerare från bland annat oskälig expropriation och diskriminering. För att sätta kraft... (More)
Förhandlingarna om att skapa världens största regionala frihandelsområde pågår just nu mellan EU och USA. Det påtänkta frihandelsavtalet, TTIP, diskuteras flitigt och i centrum för diskussionerna har tvistlösningssystemet ISDS hamnat. ISDS står för Investor-State Dispute Settlement och är en tvistlösningsmekanism som brukar skrivas in bilaterala investeringsskyddsavtal. Syftet med uppsatsen är att, utifrån den pågående debatten om TTIP, undersöka vilken funktion ISDS fyller samt vilka påståenden som finns om dess för- och nackdelar.

Sedan mitten av 1900-talet har stater slutit ett stort antal bilaterala investeringsavtal. Avtalen skyddar utländska investerare från bland annat oskälig expropriation och diskriminering. För att sätta kraft bakom orden brukar även en ISDS-klausul skrivas in. Klausulen möjliggör för investerare att rikta direkta skadeståndskrav mot en stat som den anser har brutit mot förpliktelser i avtalet. Tvisten avgörs sedan genom skiljeförfarande.

Frågan om ISDS vara eller inte vara har visat sig vara en riktig vattendelare. Kritiker menar bland annat att mekanismen begränsar staters suveränitet, medan förespråkare i stället menar att systemet motverkar orättvis domstolsbehandling.

ISDS fyller funktionen av ett neutralt tvistlösningsforum frånkopplat från de nationella domstolsväsendena. Mekanismen fungerar dessutom som en expertinstans. Såväl reglerna som domarna är särskilt utvalda och anpassade för tvister mellan stater och utländska investerare.

ISDS-systemet innehåller en del odemokratiska inslag som borde ses över. Huruvida ISDS-mekanismen kommer finnas med i ett eventuellt framtida TTIP återstår att se. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Kielos, Elise LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20151
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
folkrätt
language
Swedish
id
5431341
date added to LUP
2015-07-06 09:06:19
date last changed
2015-07-06 09:06:19
@misc{5431341,
  abstract     = {Negotiations about creating the worlds’ largest free trade area are currently being held between the EU and the U.S. The intended free trade agreement, TTIP, is debated extensively and the dispute settlement mechanism, ISDS, is in the very center of the debate. ISDS is a kind of dispute settlement mechanism that is frequently used in bilateral investment treaties. The purpose of this paper is to, based on the ongoing debate about TTIP, examine which function ISDS has.

Since the middle of the 20th century, states have signed numerous bilateral investment treaties, which protect foreign investors from offences, such as excessive expropriation or discrimination. An ISDS clause is usually added. It authorizes investors to concentrate direct damage claims against a state, if that state is considered to break the obligations of the agreement. Consequently the dispute is determined by arbitration.

There are numerous and strong opinions about whether ISDS is a good or a bad system. Critics argue, amongst other things, that the mechanism restricts the sovereignty of states, while proponents claim that the system prevents unfair court proceedings.

ISDS fulfills the function of a neutral dispute settlement forum disconnected from national judicial systems. The mechanism also serves as an instance of expertise since the rules, as well as the judges, are specifically selected and adapted for disputes between states and foreign investors.

One might argue that the ISDS-system contains some undemocratic features, which preferably should be reviewed. Whether the ISDS- mechanism will be included in a possible future TTIP remains to be seen.},
  author       = {Kielos, Elise},
  keyword      = {folkrätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Investor-State Dispute Settlement - Tvistlösningsmekanismens funktion i ljuset av TTIP},
  year         = {2015},
}