News
BackDue to broad resistance, in particular by labour representatives, civil society and NGOs, the European Commission has initiated a public consultation on the international investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). The objective of the consultation is to provide all (EU citizens and organisations) with the opportunity to let the European Commission know their opinion on ISDS.
For quite some time, both Chamber and Labour and the Austrian Trade Union Federation ÖGB have been pointing out the numerous risks of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and vehemently demanded that they must be no ISDS. A position, which is shared by many NGOs and large parts of the population. Due to public pressure, the European Commission is now carrying out a public consultation on ISDS. Everybody, who is worried about ISDS, now has the chance to voice these concerns until 6 July 2014. It is therefore very disconcerting that this questionnaire is difficult to understand for anybody who is not a foreign trade expert. Hence, a large part of EU citizens is hardly in a position to provide answers, even more so as the simple question “ISDS - yes or no?“ has not been included. Only after a number of highly complicated mandatory questions, the opportunity is provided to voice ones fundamental rejection. This raises the question how great the interest of the Commission in a widespread participation actually is.
Against this background, the fact that during a demonstration on 15.05.2014 in Brussels about 250 people were arrested who peacefully protested against the “European Business Summit” and against TTIP, gives particular cause for concern.
Commission justifies itself
In order to answer to questions and criticism by trade unions, NGOs and business associations, the European Commission organised a stakeholder meeting, whereby the Commission provided a creative answer to the criticism concerning the lack of opportunity to reject ISDS in general. According to the Commission, this general question was not covered by its negotiation mandate. The mandate awarded by the Member States would provide for TTIP with ISDS. This position is even more peculiar if one takes into account that a number of governments, such as the German and the Austrian, have voiced fundamental concerns against ISDS.
The Commission also explained within the scope of this conference that it was particularly concerned with improving ISDS proceedings by providing possibilities to appeal, more transparency in respect of the proceedings and more precise definitions of actionable facts of a case in future.
No ISDS in free trade agreements
However, one thing is clear. This is not about an improved ISDS, but about the demand that in general ISDS should not be part of any free trade agreement. This applies by the way also to the Agreement between the EU and Canada (CETA), which is also currently negotiated and which also provides for ISDS.
Further information:
AK Position Paper
Impact assessments of the Trade and Investment Agreement between the USA and the EU
Video recording: AK criticizes trade policy of the EU commission before the European Parliament
PPP Sabine Stephan, IMK (DE)
Against this background, the fact that during a demonstration on 15.05.2014 in Brussels about 250 people were arrested who peacefully protested against the “European Business Summit” and against TTIP, gives particular cause for concern.
Commission justifies itself
In order to answer to questions and criticism by trade unions, NGOs and business associations, the European Commission organised a stakeholder meeting, whereby the Commission provided a creative answer to the criticism concerning the lack of opportunity to reject ISDS in general. According to the Commission, this general question was not covered by its negotiation mandate. The mandate awarded by the Member States would provide for TTIP with ISDS. This position is even more peculiar if one takes into account that a number of governments, such as the German and the Austrian, have voiced fundamental concerns against ISDS.
The Commission also explained within the scope of this conference that it was particularly concerned with improving ISDS proceedings by providing possibilities to appeal, more transparency in respect of the proceedings and more precise definitions of actionable facts of a case in future.
No ISDS in free trade agreements
However, one thing is clear. This is not about an improved ISDS, but about the demand that in general ISDS should not be part of any free trade agreement. This applies by the way also to the Agreement between the EU and Canada (CETA), which is also currently negotiated and which also provides for ISDS.
Further information:
AK Position Paper
Impact assessments of the Trade and Investment Agreement between the USA and the EU
Video recording: AK criticizes trade policy of the EU commission before the European Parliament
PPP Sabine Stephan, IMK (DE)