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
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll