Advanced

Investor-state dispute settlement i TTIP - Hotas avtalsparternas fria lagstiftningskompetens av frihandelsavtalet med USA?

Micevic, Egon LU (2015) LAGF03 20152
Faculty of Law
Department of Law
Abstract
This essay sets out to investigate whether the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP for short) might cause what its critics call a ”regulatory chill”. The TTIP is a free trade agreement currently being negotiated between the EU and the US.

The TTIP will almost certainly, like most FTAs, contain provisions on investment protection and dispute settlement. The instrument most commonly employed in the field of international investment disputes is ISDS – investor-state dispute settlement. This form of dispute settlement allows investors to bypass national courts and sue sovereign nations in arbitral tribunals should they breach an obligation undertaken in an investment treaty.

Critics fear that states bound by investment... (More)
This essay sets out to investigate whether the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP for short) might cause what its critics call a ”regulatory chill”. The TTIP is a free trade agreement currently being negotiated between the EU and the US.

The TTIP will almost certainly, like most FTAs, contain provisions on investment protection and dispute settlement. The instrument most commonly employed in the field of international investment disputes is ISDS – investor-state dispute settlement. This form of dispute settlement allows investors to bypass national courts and sue sovereign nations in arbitral tribunals should they breach an obligation undertaken in an investment treaty.

Critics fear that states bound by investment protection provisions, particularly ISDS, may cease to enact laws benefitting its citizens when a powerful foreign investor’s interests might be endangered. Australia was recently sued by a tobacco company over its enactment of a plain packaging law. The case exemplifies the critics’ fears.

The paper concludes that the TTIP almost certainly will cause a regulatory chill. It is impossible to say to which degree as that will depend on a multitude of factors, least of which being the agreement’s formulation of the investment protection chapter. As it is still being negotiated, very little information is available. However, due to recent developments in the field of ISDS steering towards increased transparency I do not believe that the regulatory chill will be particularly severe. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Syftet med den här uppsatsen är att undersöka om frihandelsavtalet Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (förkortat TTIP) kommer orsaka det dess kritiker kallar ”regulatory chill”. Förhandlingar om avtalet pågår för närvarande mellan EU och USA.

TTIP kommer nästan säkert innehålla regler om investeringsskydd och en klausul om tvistlösning i investeringstvister, vilket är sedvanligt i frihandelsavtal. Den mest vanliga formen av tvistlösning i investeringstvister är investor-state dispute settlement (förkortat ISDS). ISDS tillåter investerare förbigå domstolssystemet i det land där de investerat för att i stället stämma den suveräna staten direkt i en internationell skiljenämnd, förutsatt att staten brutit mot dess åtaganden... (More)
Syftet med den här uppsatsen är att undersöka om frihandelsavtalet Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (förkortat TTIP) kommer orsaka det dess kritiker kallar ”regulatory chill”. Förhandlingar om avtalet pågår för närvarande mellan EU och USA.

TTIP kommer nästan säkert innehålla regler om investeringsskydd och en klausul om tvistlösning i investeringstvister, vilket är sedvanligt i frihandelsavtal. Den mest vanliga formen av tvistlösning i investeringstvister är investor-state dispute settlement (förkortat ISDS). ISDS tillåter investerare förbigå domstolssystemet i det land där de investerat för att i stället stämma den suveräna staten direkt i en internationell skiljenämnd, förutsatt att staten brutit mot dess åtaganden enligt ett investeringsavtal.

Kritikerna menar att stater som åtagit sig skyldigheter enligt ett investeringsavtal - i synnerhet samtycke till ISDS-prövningar - kommer underlåta att stifta lagar till förmån för sina invånare om en utländsk investerares intressen kan hotas. Australien stämdes nyligen av en tobakstillverkare efter att ha infört en lag som förbjuder logotyper på tobaksprodukter. Kritikerna menar att hotet om skiljeförfarande kan ha en avskräckande effekt på staternas utveckling av lagen.

Uppsatsen når slutsatsen att TTIP nästan säkert kommer orsaka s.k. ”regulatory chill”. Det är omöjligt att på förhand säga hur stor inverkan avtalet kommer ha på lagstiftarna, då det kommer bero på hur investeringsskyddet är utformat. Då avtalet fortfarande är i förhandlingsfasen är lite information tillgänglig om dess exakta innehåll. Förmodligen kommer TTIP inte ha allt för stor negativ inverkan på staters vilja att stifta skyddslagar, då ISDS-förfarandet de senaste åren har blivit allt mer transparent och öppet. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Micevic, Egon LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20152
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
ISDS, investor-state dispute settlement, investor-state arbitration, investment arbitration, TTIP
language
Swedish
id
8511670
date added to LUP
2016-02-23 17:14:47
date last changed
2016-02-23 17:19:41
@misc{8511670,
  abstract     = {This essay sets out to investigate whether the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP for short) might cause what its critics call a ”regulatory chill”. The TTIP is a free trade agreement currently being negotiated between the EU and the US.

The TTIP will almost certainly, like most FTAs, contain provisions on investment protection and dispute settlement. The instrument most commonly employed in the field of international investment disputes is ISDS – investor-state dispute settlement. This form of dispute settlement allows investors to bypass national courts and sue sovereign nations in arbitral tribunals should they breach an obligation undertaken in an investment treaty.

Critics fear that states bound by investment protection provisions, particularly ISDS, may cease to enact laws benefitting its citizens when a powerful foreign investor’s interests might be endangered. Australia was recently sued by a tobacco company over its enactment of a plain packaging law. The case exemplifies the critics’ fears. 

The paper concludes that the TTIP almost certainly will cause a regulatory chill. It is impossible to say to which degree as that will depend on a multitude of factors, least of which being the agreement’s formulation of the investment protection chapter. As it is still being negotiated, very little information is available. However, due to recent developments in the field of ISDS steering towards increased transparency I do not believe that the regulatory chill will be particularly severe.},
  author       = {Micevic, Egon},
  keyword      = {ISDS,investor-state dispute settlement,investor-state arbitration,investment arbitration,TTIP},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Investor-state dispute settlement i TTIP - Hotas avtalsparternas fria lagstiftningskompetens av frihandelsavtalet med USA?},
  year         = {2015},
}