European Parliament committees are working on a resolution on TTIP, the trade agreement with the US, in negotiation.
The letter regards the compatibility of investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) with the EU treaties. See also: Is ISDS compatible with the EU Treaties?
Vrijschrift letter, below and pdf.
Today, Tuesday 27 January 2015, from 15:00 - 18:00, the European Parliament Legal Affairs and International Trade committees will hold a joint public hearing on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP): regulatory aspects and investor to state dispute settlement (ISDS) and arbitration. (Programme, video)
One of the speakers will be Dr. Freya Baetens, announced as "Associate Professor of Law, Leiden University".
The programme does not mention she is also a lawyer and a corporate lobbyist.
These are serious issues. The commission now has to withdraw the investment chapters of the draft agreements with Singapore and Canada. These agreements would lock-in failed reforms; multinationals world-wide would be able to use the ISDS mechanisms in these agreements to attack the EU.
I would like to add a more fundamental observation.
Is the highly controversial investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism compatible with the treaties of the European Union? Case law suggests it is not.
European Union case law suggests that investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) is not compatible with the EU treaties. I will first shortly discuss a recent EU court Opinion.
To fill a human rights gap, the EU "shall" (article 6.2 TEU) accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). On 18 December 2014 the Court of Justice ruled that an agreement to do this is incompatible with the EU treaties (Opinion 2/13, PR). A human rights disaster, as the court did it in such a harsh way that it may now be impossible to ever accede to the ECHR.
Ga door met lezen van "Do Opinions 1/09 and 2/13 Spell the Death of..." »Update: er was verwarring over de volgorde van de moties. Verschillende partijen stemden verkeerd. Motie weer van tafel...
Nieuwe motie, wel aangenomen.
----------------------------------------------
Gisteren heeft de Tweede Kamer een inhoudelijk sterke motie aangenomen tegen ISDS:
Hieronder bespreek ik het VVD standpunt over arbitrage tussen investeerder en staat (investor-state dispute settlement, ISDS) op grond van het verslag van een algemeen overleg in de Tweede Kamer op 1 oktober 2014. ISDS geeft buitenlandse investeerders het recht landen in arbitrage te dagen voor internationale tribunalen. Vrijschrift acht dit een bedreiging voor de democratie.
Investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) gives foreign investors (multinationals) the right to challenge decisions of states before international arbitration tribunals - the investors do not have to use local courts.
On 15 September Vrijschrift informed the European Parliament international trade committee that investor-to-state arbitration (ISDS) in the draft trade agreement with Canada is rigged to the advantage of the US.
Today Vrijschrift informed the committee the same is true for the draft trade agreement with Singapore. See below or the pfd.
Two ISDS chapters in draft trade agreements are rigged to the advantage of the US. Incomprehensible in itself and a dangerous model for a trade and investment agreement with the US. Former trade commissioner De Gucht left us a mess.
Volgens Europcommissaris De Gucht worden er pure leugens verteld over het voorgenomen handelsverdrag met de Verenigde Staten (TTIP).
Mensen maken vergissingen. Maar als opzet ontbreekt is er geen sprake van een leugen. Wat dan te doen? Precies zijn, uitleggen wat er niet klopt. Neem het volgende.
Vrijschrift letter to the Members of the European Parliament International Trade committee on investor-to-state arbitration (investor-state dispute settlement, ISDS) in the EU-Canada trade agreement.
Parliament agenda (15:00 - 23:00 Debates)
-------
Dear Members of the INTA committee,
