scholarly journals The Common Commercial Policy after Opinion 2/15: No Simple Way to Make Life Easier for Free Trade Agreements in the EU

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ondrej Svoboda
2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 781-800 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Lam ◽  
Güneş Ünüvar

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.


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.


2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-71
Author(s):  
James Day

This paper turns to the popular field of international investment law, but rather than assessing the consequences of the various bilateral and free trade agreements that dominate this area, it looks at how these agreements are made. Particularly, in an area that is perceived as wanting in legitimacy, it analyses the structures that are involved in making these agreements and assesses them against principles of participatory democracy. Using three participatory sub-principles of openness, inclusiveness and responsiveness as benchmarks, it comments on just how involved the people of the EU and Australia are in making their respective international investment law policies. It uses the recent and ongoing TTIP and TTP negotiations as principal case studies. Ultimately, it concludes that, while both subjects inherit strong foundations for the participation of its people and their processes are not as dismissive as is perhaps publicly perceived, both have a way to go in being truly participatory.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sören Gerhard Räthling

The competition law provisions in the free trade agreements of the EU are compared, analyzed and evaluated in the context of the internationalization of competition law and the approaches of the states to deal with this. A proposal for optimization and an epilogue on "Brexit" complete the analysis. The analysis focuses on the so-called "new generation" free trade agreements with Ecuador/Columbia/Peru, Japan, Canada, Singapore, South Korea, Vietnam and Central America, comparing them with the agreements with (potential) EU accessi-on candidates, states of the southern Mediterranean and former Soviet republics as well as the "first generation" free trade agreements of the EU.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document