EU:s och USA:s förslag till tvistlösning i TTIP - en regeljämförelse
(2016) JURM02 20161Department of Law
- Abstract
- The purpose of this thesis was to make a comparison between the two proposals for investment dispute resolution under TTIP, currently being negotiated between the European Union and the United States. The study was made to answer the following question:
- What level of protection does the US and the EU proposals, respectively, grant an investor wanting to safeguard an investment?
The question was answered using a dogmatic approach, with the help of a comparative method for some of the analysis.
The two proposals have much in common as regards to claims, defense, amicable resolutions and negotiations, choice of law and rules of interpretation. The prerequisites for taking a case to court following a breach of the agreement are clear... (More) - The purpose of this thesis was to make a comparison between the two proposals for investment dispute resolution under TTIP, currently being negotiated between the European Union and the United States. The study was made to answer the following question:
- What level of protection does the US and the EU proposals, respectively, grant an investor wanting to safeguard an investment?
The question was answered using a dogmatic approach, with the help of a comparative method for some of the analysis.
The two proposals have much in common as regards to claims, defense, amicable resolutions and negotiations, choice of law and rules of interpretation. The prerequisites for taking a case to court following a breach of the agreement are clear and fully regulated through both proposals.
The most notable differences come from the choice of forum. The US uses a traditional arbitration procedure while the EU proposes a permanent court not unlike national and international courts, including a court of appeals. The findings are that the US proposal will lead to shorter wait, more flexibility, a slightly higher level of transparency and less conflict of interest amongst the judges. The EU proposal might very well lead to a richer set of case law, although at the expense of lengthier and more expensive proceedings. A number of possible conflicts of interest with the established EU legal order are identified, which might possibly lead to a distortion of competition and uncertainty. The thesis ends with the conclusion, however, that both of the proposed dispute settlement mechanisms offer reasonable possibilities to safeguard an investment under any of the proposals. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Syftet med uppsatsen var att göra en regeljämförelse av USA:s och EU:s förslag till tvistlösning i handels- och investeringsavtalet TTIP, som förhandlades fram då uppsatsen skrevs. Studien gjordes med följande frågeställning som grund:
- Vilka möjligheter ger USA:s respektive EU:s nuvarande förslag till tvistlösningsmekanism i TTIP en investerare att bevaka sin investering?
Frågan besvarades genom en rättsdogmatisk metod med inslag av en komparativ jämförelse i analysen.
Förslagen har mycket gemensamt vad gäller käromål, svaromål, inledande förhandlingar, lagval och tolkningsregler. Förutsättningarna för att driva en tvist om avtalsbrott mot TTIP är i båda förslagen mycket tydliga och regleras helt genom avtalen.
De stora... (More) - Syftet med uppsatsen var att göra en regeljämförelse av USA:s och EU:s förslag till tvistlösning i handels- och investeringsavtalet TTIP, som förhandlades fram då uppsatsen skrevs. Studien gjordes med följande frågeställning som grund:
- Vilka möjligheter ger USA:s respektive EU:s nuvarande förslag till tvistlösningsmekanism i TTIP en investerare att bevaka sin investering?
Frågan besvarades genom en rättsdogmatisk metod med inslag av en komparativ jämförelse i analysen.
Förslagen har mycket gemensamt vad gäller käromål, svaromål, inledande förhandlingar, lagval och tolkningsregler. Förutsättningarna för att driva en tvist om avtalsbrott mot TTIP är i båda förslagen mycket tydliga och regleras helt genom avtalen.
De stora skillnaderna märks i valet av forum. USA:s skiljenämndsförfarande ställs mot EU:s förslag på en permanent domstol med tillhörande överklagandeinstans. USA:s förslag leder enligt analysen till kortare väntetider, större flexibilitet, en något större transparens och mindre risk för jäv mindre genom att parterna tillsammans väljer sina domare till skillnad mot EU:s förslag där de permanenta domarna väljs uteslutande genom EU:s och USA:s försorg. EU:s föreslagna system med två instanser kan mycket väl leda till en rikare praxis än i fallet med USA:s enda instans, men i investerarens fall på bekostnad av en längre och dyrare process.
Ett par tänkbara konflikter med EU:s befintliga rättssystem har identifierats, vilket kan leda till en snedvriden konkurrens och osäkerhet. Den sammanlagda bedömningen blir ändå att en investerare har goda möjligheter att bevaka sin investering genom båda de föreslagna tvistlösnings-mekanismerna. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8873822
- author
- Sällberg, Daniel LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- JURM02 20161
- year
- 2016
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- allmän rättslära
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8873822
- date added to LUP
- 2016-06-07 11:54:55
- date last changed
- 2016-06-07 11:54:55
@misc{8873822,
abstract = {{The purpose of this thesis was to make a comparison between the two proposals for investment dispute resolution under TTIP, currently being negotiated between the European Union and the United States. The study was made to answer the following question:
- What level of protection does the US and the EU proposals, respectively, grant an investor wanting to safeguard an investment?
The question was answered using a dogmatic approach, with the help of a comparative method for some of the analysis.
The two proposals have much in common as regards to claims, defense, amicable resolutions and negotiations, choice of law and rules of interpretation. The prerequisites for taking a case to court following a breach of the agreement are clear and fully regulated through both proposals.
The most notable differences come from the choice of forum. The US uses a traditional arbitration procedure while the EU proposes a permanent court not unlike national and international courts, including a court of appeals. The findings are that the US proposal will lead to shorter wait, more flexibility, a slightly higher level of transparency and less conflict of interest amongst the judges. The EU proposal might very well lead to a richer set of case law, although at the expense of lengthier and more expensive proceedings. A number of possible conflicts of interest with the established EU legal order are identified, which might possibly lead to a distortion of competition and uncertainty. The thesis ends with the conclusion, however, that both of the proposed dispute settlement mechanisms offer reasonable possibilities to safeguard an investment under any of the proposals.}},
author = {{Sällberg, Daniel}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{EU:s och USA:s förslag till tvistlösning i TTIP - en regeljämförelse}},
year = {{2016}},
}