Advanced

ISDS – Nödvändigt investeringsskydd eller företagens våta dröm?

Almqvist, Tobias LU (2016) LAGF03 20162
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Syftet med den här uppsatsen är att reda ut huruvida kritiken mot ISDS är befogad, hur kritiken har bemötts från politiker, och hur framtiden ser ut för detta kontroversiella tvistlösningssystem. ISDS har inkluderats, under nytt namn och med vissa påstådda förbättringar, i frihandelsavtalet CETA som EU förhandlat fram med Kanada och förväntas inkluderas även i ett eventuellt frihandelsavtal med USA.

Antalet ISDS-tvister har ökat lavinartat sedan 1990-talet och systemet har fått massiv kritik eftersom man menar att det hindrar, eller i alla fall avskräcker, stater från att lagstifta på socialt viktiga frågor som t.ex. miljö- och hälsoskydd. Detta eftersom sådan lagstiftning skulle kunna leda till ersättningskrav från en investerare vars... (More)
Syftet med den här uppsatsen är att reda ut huruvida kritiken mot ISDS är befogad, hur kritiken har bemötts från politiker, och hur framtiden ser ut för detta kontroversiella tvistlösningssystem. ISDS har inkluderats, under nytt namn och med vissa påstådda förbättringar, i frihandelsavtalet CETA som EU förhandlat fram med Kanada och förväntas inkluderas även i ett eventuellt frihandelsavtal med USA.

Antalet ISDS-tvister har ökat lavinartat sedan 1990-talet och systemet har fått massiv kritik eftersom man menar att det hindrar, eller i alla fall avskräcker, stater från att lagstifta på socialt viktiga frågor som t.ex. miljö- och hälsoskydd. Detta eftersom sådan lagstiftning skulle kunna leda till ersättningskrav från en investerare vars investering minskat i värde p.g.a. lagen. T.ex. befinner sig svenska Vattenfall i en sådan investeringstvist med Tyskland som grundar sig på beslutet Tyskland tog, i kölvattnet av Fukushimakatastrofen, att aveckla kärnkraften.

Uppsatsen kommer fram till slutsatsen att kritiken mot systemet är helt befogad, reformerna nödvändiga och förbättrande, men antagligen otillräckliga. (Less)
Abstract
The purpose of this essay is to find out whether the criticism of the ISDS is justified, how the criticism has been met by politicians and what the future holds for this controversial dispute settlement system. ISDS has been included, under the new name and with some alleged improvements, in the Free Trade Agreement CETA wich EU has negotiated with Canada and is expected to also be included in a possible free trade agreement with the United States.

The number of ISDS disputes has increased dramatically since the 1990s, and the system has received massive criticism because it is believed that it prevents, or at least discourages, states from legislating on socially important issues such as environmental- and health protection. This... (More)
The purpose of this essay is to find out whether the criticism of the ISDS is justified, how the criticism has been met by politicians and what the future holds for this controversial dispute settlement system. ISDS has been included, under the new name and with some alleged improvements, in the Free Trade Agreement CETA wich EU has negotiated with Canada and is expected to also be included in a possible free trade agreement with the United States.

The number of ISDS disputes has increased dramatically since the 1990s, and the system has received massive criticism because it is believed that it prevents, or at least discourages, states from legislating on socially important issues such as environmental- and health protection. This because such legislation could lead to compensation claims from an investor whose investment declined in value because of it. Swedish energy company Vattenfall is for example in such an investment dispute with Germany on the basis of Germany deciding, in the wake of the Fukushima disaster, to phase out nuclear power.

The paper concludes that the criticism of the system is completely justified, reforms were necessary and an improvement, but probably insufficient. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Almqvist, Tobias LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20162
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Folkrätt (en. public international law)
language
Swedish
id
8897487
date added to LUP
2017-02-02 14:02:19
date last changed
2017-02-02 14:02:19
@misc{8897487,
  abstract     = {The purpose of this essay is to find out whether the criticism of the ISDS is justified, how the criticism has been met by politicians and what the future holds for this controversial dispute settlement system. ISDS has been included, under the new name and with some alleged improvements, in the Free Trade Agreement CETA wich EU has negotiated with Canada and is expected to also be included in a possible free trade agreement with the United States.

The number of ISDS disputes has increased dramatically since the 1990s, and the system has received massive criticism because it is believed that it prevents, or at least discourages, states from legislating on socially important issues such as environmental- and health protection. This because such legislation could lead to compensation claims from an investor whose investment declined in value because of it. Swedish energy company Vattenfall is for example in such an investment dispute with Germany on the basis of Germany deciding, in the wake of the Fukushima disaster, to phase out nuclear power.

The paper concludes that the criticism of the system is completely justified, reforms were necessary and an improvement, but probably insufficient.},
  author       = {Almqvist, Tobias},
  keyword      = {Folkrätt (en. public international law)},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {ISDS – Nödvändigt investeringsskydd eller företagens våta dröm?},
  year         = {2016},
}