header-logo header-logo

12 December 2014 / Devika Khanna
Issue: 7634 / Categories: Arbitration , Features , Arbitration
printer mail-detail

Trading places

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll