Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T14:34:30.947Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Balancing Rights and Obligations of States and Investors: Is Reform Real or Imagined?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2018

Donald McRae
Donald McRae*
Affiliation:
Ottowa University.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the last several years there has been a trajectory of negotiating more and more comprehensive trade and investment agreements—the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and perhaps the most comprehensive, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). But that trend may have come to a halt with the difficulties over CETA ratification, the apparent end of the TTIP, and the uncertain future of the TPP.

Type
Balancing Rights and Obligations of States and Investors
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 111 , 2017 , pp. 44 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © by The American Society of International Law 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 European Parliament, Committee on International Trade, Report on the Future European International Investment Policy (2011).

2 European Commission, Concept Paper: Investment in TTIP and Beyond—The Path for Reform (2015).

3 The European Commission submitted its first proposal for a standing panel body in 1998 and further reform proposals were submitted in 2002. European Commission, Discussion Paper: Review of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (1998); WTO, Contribution of the European Communities and Its Member States to the Improvement of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding, WTO Doc TN/DS/W/1 (2002). For a discussion on the response to these proposals, see Cottier, Thomas, Proposals for Moving from Ad hoc Panels to Permanent WTO Panelists, in The WTO Dispute Settlement System 31, 32–33 (Ortino, Federico & Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich ed., 2004)Google Scholar.

4 Waste Management Inc. v. United Mexican States (II), ICSID Case. No. ARB(AF)/00/3, Award (Apr. 30, 2004).

5 Pauwelyn, Joost, The Rule of Law Without the Rule of Lawyers? Why Investment Arbitrators Are from Mars, Trade Adjudicators from Venus, 109 AJIL 761, 764, 778 (2015)Google Scholar.

6 Bernhard von Pezold and Others v. Republic of Zimbabwe, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/15, Procedural Order No. 2 (June 26, 2012).

7 Appellate Body Report, United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WTO Doc. WT/DS58/AB/R (adopted Oct. 12, 1998); Panel Report, European Communities—Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, WTO Doc. WT/DS135/R (Apr. 11, 2001), and Add.1, as modified by Appellate Body Report, Brazil—Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres, WTO Doc. WT/DS135/AB/R (June 12, 2007) and Panel Report, WTO Doc. WT/DS332/R, as modified by Appellate Body Report, WTO Doc. WT/DS332/AB/R.