Blog van Vrijschrift / ScriptumLibre

During the Corona virus pandemic the ratification process of the EU-Canada trade agreement CETA is ongoing. This blog discusses CETA in the light of the pandemic and concludes that we need a fundamentally more resilient society, with more agency – and that we may have a one time chance now. We have to rethink international rules that limit policy space, and not ratify trade agreements, like CETA, that do. At the very least, investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) has to be removed.

The proposed EU-Vietnam trade agreement contains weak safeguards for data protection. Basically, they are just as weak as the safeguards in the EU-Japan trade agreement. This is all the more frustrating as the EU commission knows how to do better. In January 2018 it adopted a proposal for a stronger safeguard, which consumer and digital rights organisations supported. ¹ However, after two years, the commission still hasn’t used the better safeguard in trade agreements. It is unknown whether the new commission will adopt it.

The European Parliament plenary vote on the EU-Vietnam agreement is expected February 10-13 2020. If we want to take fundamental rights seriously, the Parliament should reject the agreement. That opens the possibility to use the better safeguard in a new version of the agreement.

The London School of Economics and Political Science’s draft human rights impact assessment on the EU-Mercosur trade agreement totally skips the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, and protection of personal data.

At a seminar Koen Lenaerts, President of the Court of Justice of the European Union, spoke about the Court’s landmark Opinion on investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) in the EU-Canada trade agreement CETA.

Most interesting I find what he didn’t speak about. After the Opinion, law professors had pointed out the Court suggests that the EU and EU countries can refuse to pay ISDS damages awards. But Lenaerts did not speak about that.

De Tweede Kamer zal binnenkort een beslissing nemen over ratificatie van het EU handelsverdrag met Canada, CETA.

CETA ondermijnt de bescherming van persoonsgegevens, versterkt de positie van bedrijven die misbruik van het octrooisysteem willen maken en belemmert hervorming van auteurs- en octrooirecht (zie eerdere brief Vrijschrift aan Tweede Kamer). ¹

Wat supranationale investeringsbescherming (ISDS / ICS) ² betreft is de situatie na een uitspraak van het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie veranderd. In dit blog licht ik toe waarom CETA na deze uitspraak vitale belangen, de internationale rechtsorde, en rechtszekerheid voor investeerders ondermijnt.

De Afdeling advisering van de Raad van State heeft haar advies gepubliceerd over het EU handelsverdrag met Canada, CETA. Ik beperk me tot het deel over investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS / ICS).

ISDS geeft bedrijven het recht om buiten de lokale rechter om staten aan te klagen. Supranationale tribunalen nemen de beslissing.

The EU Court of Justice finds the investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism in the EU - Canada trade agreement CETA compatible with the EU treaties. With its ruling the Court creates a form of oversight over ISDS. It hopes to exert power over the enforcement of ISDS awards, and so to curtail the system. The Court does not trust ISDS, as reformed by the EU; the Court trusts its own oversight.

However, as explained below, the Court’s interesting approach has serious drawbacks. That leaves one option on the table: get rid of the toxic ISDS system. The first step to take now is to reject ISDS in CETA.

Jan Kuitenbrouwer schreef een rant: Lang leve het uploadfilter! Mijns inziens gaat hij nogal overboord, en is dat met enkele geannoteerde citaten aan te tonen. Dit leidt dan tot een tegenovergestelde conclusie.

Update

Kritiek op het voornemen voor artikel 13 (nu 17) “upload filters” te stemmen leidde tot een compromis. De Jong en Mineur stemden voor toelaten van amendementen – dit waardeer ik. Zij stemden neutraal over de richtlijn, inclusief article 13.

Anne-Marie Mineur en Dennis de Jong van de SP beloofden tegen artikel 13 (internet upload filters) van het auteursrechtenvoorstel te gaan stemmen. Zo’n 24 uur van te voren besloten ze hun belofte te verbreken.

Ik ben hier ronduit door geschokt.

Update: Onderhand hebben 14  Nederlandse Europarlementariërs beloofd tegen artikel 13 auteursrechtenvoorstel (internet upload filters) te stemmen.

Alleen CDA nog onzeker. Woordvoeder:  Esther de Lange. Twitter: @Esther_de_Lange

----------------------------------

Volgens Pledge2019 hebben 11 van de 26 Nederlandse Europarlementariërs beloofd tegen artikel 13 auteursrechtenvoorstel (internet upload filters) te stemmen:

Tomorrow the Dutch parliament will discuss the new Dutch model text for bilateral investment treaties. These treaties are controversial as they contain investor-to-state dispute settlement, or ISDS.

In a letter to the chairman of the trade committee (BuHaOS), Vrijschrift writes that the model text consolidates fundamental defects and gives the United States a major influence on the dispute settlement mechanism. Vrijschrift also notes that under the text investment arbitrators can assess compliance with the WTO TRIPS treaty, and thus interpret this treaty, while the WTO has its own dispute resolution mechanism. In addition, the government has not made use of a safeguard for personal data in investment treaties established by the European Commission.