header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
12 December 2014 / Devika Khanna
Issue: 7634 / Categories: Arbitration , Features , Arbitration
printer mail-detail

Trading places

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Is the EU-Canada free trade agreement setting a new standard in investor-state arbitration or eroding investor rights, asks Devika Khanna

The free trade agreement between the EU and Canada signed in Ottawa on 26 September 2014—the so-called “comprehensive economic trade agreement” (CETA)—represents a turning point in the history of Europe’s approach to investment policy, and arguably sets the standard for other investment agreements currently being (re)negotiated. The European Commission also holds it out as the “most progressive system to date” for investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS).

The provisions of CETA, the first agreement signed by the EU within its exclusive competence over member states’ investment policy following the Lisbon Treaty, may shed light on the likely tone of future agreements, including the anticipated trade and investment partnership (TTIP) and trans-Pacific partnership agreement (TPP) that are set to reshape global trade and investment. Similar changes are also found in the Investment Protection Chapter of the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (EUSFTA) initialled in September 2013 and which is set to replace 12 bilateral investment agreements (BITs) in place

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: No such thing as a ‘Welsh seat’
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
NLJ this week: Jury reform risks justice for efficiency’s sake
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
NLJ this week: Crypto fightback offers ‘new frontier for law’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
NLJ this week: Time to revive the duty to report crime?
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
NLJ this week: When are experts truly ‘necessary’?
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll