Transparency and participatory aspects of investor-state dispute settlement in the EU ‘new wave’ trade agreements

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 781-800 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Lam ◽  
Güneş Ünüvar
Keyword(s):  
Free Trade ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Free Trade Agreements ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
Forum Shopping ◽  
New Wave ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis article scrutinizes the investment chapters in the new EU Free Trade Agreements from a transparency perspective. The article examines the claims that the dispute settlement mechanisms in the new treaties are sufficiently participatory and more transparent than their predecessors. Procedural standards related to confidentiality of proceedings shall be analysed in the context of existing transparency safeguards in investment arbitration. In addition to procedural guarantees of transparency, the article examines relevant substantive rules affecting participatory aspects of dispute settlement. Furthermore, the article discusses forum-shopping strategies of the parties in the field of investment-related disputes, including internal forum-shopping and parallel proceedings using different procedural mechanisms. In this context, lessons from other fields such as international commercial arbitration related to transparency (in cases in which public interest is present) are highlighted. The proposal for the establishment of an integrated, multilateral court for investment cases is also invoked.

Parallel Proceedings under Chinese BITs: The Case of Hela Schwarz GmbH v PR China

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 335-363
Author(s):  
Shen Wei
Keyword(s):  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreements ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
Careful Analysis ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Bilateral Investment Treaties ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Pr China

Abstract Classic issues in international commercial arbitration such as parallel proceedings also emerge in international investment arbitration. The parallel existence of international investment arbitration and domestic litigation deserves careful analysis for the sake of international legal certainty and security. Given a small number of international investment arbitration cases involving China and its bilateral investment treaties (BITs), the issue of parallel proceedings in Chinese BIT law and practice is underinvestigated. This article tries to look into this issue by reference to the case of Hela Schwarz GmbH v PR China, an ongoing BIT arbitration case registered with the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Some improvements have been made to relevant jurisdictional clauses in China’s more recent free trade agreements filling the gap in this grey area.

scholarly journals What Do Trade Agreements Really Do?

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 73-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dani Rodrik
Keyword(s):  
Free Trade ◽  
Multinational Firms ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Market Access ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Free Trade Agreements ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
Pharmaceutical Companies ◽  
Nontariff Barriers ◽  
International Banks

Economists have a tendency to associate “free trade agreements” all too closely with “free trade.” They may be unaware of some of the new (and often problematic) beyond-the-boarder features of current trade agreements. As trade agreements have evolved and gone beyond import tariffs and quotas into regulatory rules and harmonization— intellectual property, health and safety rules, labor standards, investment measures, investor–state dispute settlement procedures, and others—they have become harder to fit into received economic theory. It is possible that rather than neutralizing the protectionists, trade agreements may empower a different set of rent-seeking interests and politically well-connected firms—international banks, pharmaceutical companies, and multinational firms. Trade agreements could still result in freer, mutually beneficial trade, through exchange of market access. They could result in the global upgrading of regulations and standards, for labor, say, or the environment. But they could also produce purely redistributive outcomes under the guise of “freer trade.” As trade agreements become less about tariffs and nontariff barriers at the border and more about domestic rules and regulations, economists might do well to worry more about the latter possibility.

Brexit will be damaging for UK-EU services trade

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Free Trade ◽  
Free Trade Agreements ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
Services Trade ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Trade Deals ◽  
The Eu

Significance Even if it succeeds, this will have a greater disruptive impact on the trade in services than goods, because the EU’s single market enables greater cross-border services trade than is typical of other free trade agreements (FTAs). This is likely to cut the volume of EU-UK services trade, in which the United Kingdom currently enjoys a substantial surplus. Impacts The United Kingdom’s departure from the EU will diminish its appeal for multinationals over the next few years, at least. The new UK immigration system could result in staff shortages in low-skilled services sectors. The imperative of tackling COVID-19 will likely delay the conclusion of new trade deals with non-EU countries.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document