header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Trading places

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
12 December 2014 / Devika Khanna
Issue: 7634 / Categories: Arbitration , Features , Arbitration
printer mail-detail

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
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
Read All
Public Accounts Committee warn of ‘extinction’ risk for legal aid
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
NLJ this week: The insider returns
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
NLJ this week: Drawing the line on contempt
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
NLJ this week: Stop and search by the numbers
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
NLJ this week: Looking back on the prorogation that never was
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll