The EU Commission’s reform of a dispute-settlement provision of a proposed trade-agreement has been described as “little more than putting lipstick on a particularly unpopular pig,” according to a story by William Louch for The Parliament Magazine.
The Commission yesterday presented its proposed reforms on the investment protection and dispute resolution provision of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).
The ‘investment court system’ (ICS) is said by its supporters to be ‘more transparent’ than the investor state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism that it is replacing. It aims to safeguard the rights of governments to regulate but, at the same time, create a system through which investor companies can challenge regulations. Disputes would be channelled through a ‘court-like’ system with an appeal mechanism based on clearly defined rules, and with qualified judges and transparent proceedings.
“Today [Thursday] marks the end of a long internal process in the EU to develop a modern approach on investment protection and dispute resolution for TTIP and beyond,” said European trade commissioner Cecilia Malmström in announcing the new dispute process.
The Commission’s announcement has come in for criticism from some MEPs and anti-TTIP campaigners. They say that the reforms are superficial, with the ICS retaining many of the features of the old ISDS system.
“We must of course wait to see full details of the proposals, but if the ICS is merely ISDS-lite, it is clearly not something we will be happy with,” said
Jude Kirton-Darling, Labour’s European Parliament spokesperson on the TTIP and CETA (Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement).
Ska Keller, of the Greens/EFA grouping, argued that changes to the mechanism were superficial. She told Parliament Magazine that “a new name does not change anything,” adding, “as long as there is a system in place for investors to litigate against states, as the compromise calls for, it is ISDS.”
Global Justice Now, a vocal critic of TTIP, said the Commission was clearly feeling the intense pressure of public feeling against the TTIP and ISDS. But its proposal amounted to little more than putting lipstick on a particularly unpopular pig, it added.
Campaigners have waged war against the ISDS provisions because they are seen as allowing multinational firms, including tobacco companies, to sue European governments in secretive tribunals ruled upon by corporate lawyers.
The full story is at: https://goo.gl/hAHqGu.