Right from the start, the AK has been strongly criticising unilateral special rights for foreign investors and it is among other thanks to the successful AK/FoEE/ÖGB campaign no2isds that the Commission revised its original proposal on the Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) and presented a new model. A new study now examines to what extent the new model (ICS) does indeed represent an improvement.

Within the scope of a joint event hosted by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung and the Brussels offices of AK, ÖGB und DGB, the study by Markus Krajewski and Rhea Tamara Hoffmann “The European Commission's Proposal for Investment Protection in TTIP” , which was commissioned by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, was intensively discussed.

The key question was to what extent the new proposal of the European Commission does represent an improvement or whether the main issue is still concerned with special rights for investors. In this context, critics also refer to „Zombie ISDS“.

The author of the study, Markus Krajewski ascertained that the new model did indeed contain some improvements compared to the predecessor model; having said that, it still offered rights for foreign corporations to sue governments. Apart from that, many things were still formulated rather ambiguous and nebulous. It was also clear that as long as there were models to sue, corporations would sue; no improvements would change that.

Rupert Schlegelmilch, European Commission, Directorate General for Trade regards the criticism aimed at ICS as unjustified as there were no empirical values available. These were only based on the old model (Energy Charter) and this had been revised now. Apart from that, the question was not what rights foreign investors would have in the EU but rather what rights European investors would have in the USA, Canada etc.

Bernd Lange, MEP and Chair of the Committee on International Trade (INTA) emphasised that the European Parliament would scrutinise the treaty texts of CETA and TTIP and would, based on the guidelines, which were established in the resolution by European Parliament, examine these. It was also important to ensure that foreign investors would not be granted more rights than domestic investors.

Daniele Basso of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) focussed on the possible effect of ICS on labour rights such as collective agreements, minimum wages etc. This would be completely ignored in the discussion.

Overall, the AK feels that its position is vindicated by the new study. Any investment protection regulations in TTIP have to be fundamentally rejected; both the EU and the USA have highly developed legal systems, which ensure fundamental rights such as the right to property, equal treatment and fair conduct as well as compensation payments in cases of expropriation. For this reason, there is no necessity for courts outside the judicial system. Apart from that, a an equal treatment of European corporations with US-American investors in Europe has to be ensured – as it is guaranteed by national courts in any case.